If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!
"Bowser" wrote in message ... The Dusk or Dawn gallery is posted, and it's a very healthy gallery, too. Some nice shots in there. Take a look, and offer a friendly critique, if you dare. http://www.pbase.com/shootin/duskdawn [ ... ] Very healthy, indeed, in the More-fine-work-than-not sense. Can we talk about "critique"? As a photographer, what do you want from a critical viewer? As a critic, what do you expect the photographer to glean from your comments? As a non-critical viewer do you care if the photographer has any interest in your impressions? As a photographer, do you care what a non-critical viewer has to say about your work? As a photographer, what do you intend any viewer should take away from exposure to your work? Are there other, perhaps more-relevant, questions about the photographer-viewer relationship that should be asked and answered? This kind of thinking is hard work for me, so I'll say just a couple of things I think: From the photographer's viewpoint, it's kind of unimportant to me what a critical viewer thinks about the technical aspects of my work; if I could have improved it, I probably would have and if not, would not have shown it (no guarantees, there). From the photographer's viewpoint, what I want from non-critical viewers is some assurance that they had a glimpse, impression, whiff of what and how I was looking at whatever subject prompted my shutter-release. From the viewer's perspective, I think it's worthwhile making a distinction between "feel" and "think"; I feel as if there is too much emphasis on technical aspects of images, but I think it's a good thing to suggest and apply some "science" in some instances. From the viewer's perspective, I try to see in an image what it is the photographer was hoping to express at the moment of shutter release. If it is merely a record of some visual aspect of the presented world, OK; did they get that part right? If a more impressionistic gathering of elements seems to have been the intent, I try to crawl into the photographer's head a bit, feel what I think they were feeling, understand why they thought it was important to capture. Sometimes it's not easy to get to that inner position, and I might try to think a little more about what the image says to me, apart from what the photographer planned or caught, or failed to catch. From my reading of this forum I believe I've been able to learn enough about the participating photographers to make some kinds of observations about how their personalities and character are reflected in the images they submit to the Shoot-In. I don't really want to talk about that, but there it is. What do y'all think? Very resp'y, -- Frank ess |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!
On 2011-09-17 16:58:15 +0100, Robert Coe said:
[...] PeterA 1 The more I look at this, the less I dislike it, but my eyes still keep trying to get the water in focus. I guess it doesn't quite work for me, although it incorporates some intriguing colors. (How much of the color is genuine?) Thanks for you comments, Bob. I agree about the water. The simple techniques I tried didn't work so I'll dream up something more complex to throw at it. Not even one colour is genuine, including black, grey and white. PeterA 2 The subject matter I can take or leave, but the photographer's meticulous attention to the composition makes this picture work. Every element is exactly where it ought to be. That is very useful feedback. It's technically correct too, under difficult conditions. The sky brightness and hue were changing quickly. I took a shot every minute until I got this one. PeterA 3 I don't like this one as well. The foreground boats are hard to pick up, and there's too much glare in the sky. More broadly, it's hard to tell what the actual subject is. Fair comments. The 1 metre wide canvas print I had made looks a lot better. The glare in the sky is caused by a combination of river mist and diesel exhaust fumes. I like the eerie feel it gives. In case anyone is interested, I took a series of exposures to find the contrast range of this scene. Brightest light to darkest shadow is about 30000 to 1 (15 f-stops). I spent ages removing lens ghosts. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!
Stuffed Crust wrote:
and my favorite was technically awful. Didn't stop me ;-) |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 11:29:04 -0700, "Frank S"
wrote: "Bowser" wrote in message m... The Dusk or Dawn gallery is posted, and it's a very healthy gallery, too. Some nice shots in there. Take a look, and offer a friendly critique, if you dare. http://www.pbase.com/shootin/duskdawn [ ... ] Very healthy, indeed, in the More-fine-work-than-not sense. Can we talk about "critique"? As a photographer, what do you want from a critical viewer? An impression of the photograph as it is seen by someone for the first time. In what I submit, I've seen it as one of many downloaded and before any adjustments or cropping. I've seen it "grow" to its present state. Sometimes I've worked on the pieces and don't see the whole, and sometimes I've seen the whole but missed the pieces. I miss things about it because I'm so familiar with it. Critiques show me what I've missed. As a critic, what do you expect the photographer to glean from your comments? Completely up to them. I don't even expect them to agree with me. I'm just doing to them what I want done to me. As a non-critical viewer do you care if the photographer has any interest in your impressions? I don't really understand the question. As a photographer, do you care what a non-critical viewer has to say about your work? The photograph is mostly for me. I have hundreds of photographs on my drive that no one except me has seen or ever will see. They aren't unseen because I don't think they're worthy, but because it doesn't matter whether they're seen by others or not. I've often compared photography to hunting (which I don't do). It is the hunt, the discovery, and the kill. You don't have to mount the heads, though. As a photographer, what do you intend any viewer should take away from exposure to your work? I like it when people enjoy or are somehow stirred by a photograph I've taken, but what they get out of it is not at all important compared to what I get out of it. Are there other, perhaps more-relevant, questions about the photographer-viewer relationship that should be asked and answered? From the photographer's viewpoint, it's kind of unimportant to me what a critical viewer thinks about the technical aspects of my work; if I could have improved it, I probably would have and if not, would not have shown it (no guarantees, there). For that work, yes. But for future processing? I take critiques to heart and incorporate suggestions into future processing. Not single critiques, and not all critiques, but I'll take into account a consensus of opinion. From the photographer's viewpoint, what I want from non-critical viewers is some assurance that they had a glimpse, impression, whiff of what and how I was looking at whatever subject prompted my shutter-release. From the viewer's perspective, I think it's worthwhile making a distinction between "feel" and "think"; I feel as if there is too much emphasis on technical aspects of images, but I think it's a good thing to suggest and apply some "science" in some instances. I don't think there's too much emphasis on the technical. You can't make a bad photograph better by processing it the right way and following the guidelines of good composition, but you can make a good photograph bad by not doing so. Technique is noticed more by its absence than its presence. If good technique is employed, you don't notice that it is part of what made the image good. From the viewer's perspective, I try to see in an image what it is the photographer was hoping to express at the moment of shutter release. If it is merely a record of some visual aspect of the presented world, OK; did they get that part right? If a more impressionistic gathering of elements seems to have been the intent, I try to crawl into the photographer's head a bit, feel what I think they were feeling, understand why they thought it was important to capture. Sometimes it's not easy to get to that inner position, and I might try to think a little more about what the image says to me, apart from what the photographer planned or caught, or failed to catch. Frankly, I think the above is nonsense. You open an image, or turn the page in a magazine, and the mind forms an opinion about the photograph in milliseconds. Before you consciously form an opinion, the subconscious is telling you what that opinion is based on the first view. By the time you get around to thinking about what the photographer was trying to accomplish or feeling, you are chewing old food. Conscious thought plods where the subconscious races to a conclusion. All the analyzation accomplishes is the justification of what the subconscious told you, and gives you a fictitious story to go with it. From my reading of this forum I believe I've been able to learn enough about the participating photographers to make some kinds of observations about how their personalities and character are reflected in the images they submit to the Shoot-In. I don't think that's a mirror I want to look into. I don't really want to talk about that, but there it is. What do y'all think? Very resp'y, -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!
On 2011-09-17 19:29:04 +0100, Frank S said:
Can we talk about "critique"? As a photographer, what do you want from a critical viewer? [...] I struggled with those questions for quite a while. Now, I just do my own thing. From my reading of this forum I believe I've been able to learn enough about the participating photographers to make some kinds of observations about how their personalities and character are reflected in the images they submit to the Shoot-In. I don't really want to talk about that, but there it is. I apply that in reverse: I write my comments and let others interpret my personality/character so that they can ignore my comments or make use of them as they see fit. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 11:03:33 +0100, Bruce
wrote: tony cooper wrote: I think it's a little different when you have member-to-member critiques on a face-to-face basis. Members tend to be more complimentary and more gentle in critiquing in that situation. Obviously the members don't want to upset fellow members and risk receiving adverse comments about their own work. It is mutual admiration only, perhaps with a slight hint of 'damning with faint praise'. It is just like actors' praise of each other, which quickly achieves ridiculous heights, all because of the fear of what might be said in return, perhaps at a later date. Of course this can never be called 'critique'. It is about as far from honest and objective critique as it could get. And this is precisely where the SI finds itself. Our critiques are by judges only, and the judges don't know whose photo it is. If the judges are truly independent, that's the best (or least worst) way, but are the judges also members of the club? If so, their comments will be bound by the same constraints as I described above, and the whole exercise becomes pointless. Three judges each competition night x 10 competition nights per year = finding 30 judges. One of the three is always an outsider, and they the club tries to get two outsiders if they can. The remaining judges are members who are either professional photographers or very experienced amateurs. The grading is done prior to the meeting without knowing the name of the person submitting the image. The name of the submitter, and the points scored for the image, is given at the time the image is projected on the large screen. The critique is given at that time. A member judge might soften his critique once he knows the name of the member, but point count cannot be changed. The usual critique starts out "We liked this image (or some other pat on the back for the photographer) but we took points off for ...". -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!
On 9/18/2011 6:03 AM, Bruce wrote:
tony wrote: I think it's a little different when you have member-to-member critiques on a face-to-face basis. Members tend to be more complimentary and more gentle in critiquing in that situation. Obviously the members don't want to upset fellow members and risk receiving adverse comments about their own work. It is mutual admiration only, perhaps with a slight hint of 'damning with faint praise'. It is just like actors' praise of each other, which quickly achieves ridiculous heights, all because of the fear of what might be said in return, perhaps at a later date. Of course this can never be called 'critique'. It is about as far from honest and objective critique as it could get. And this is precisely where the SI finds itself. Our critiques are by judges only, and the judges don't know whose photo it is. If the judges are truly independent, that's the best (or least worst) way, but are the judges also members of the club? If so, their comments will be bound by the same constraints as I described above, and the whole exercise becomes pointless. Spoken by one who has no knowledge of the facts. Our club, while somewhat social, centers around photography. It is far fem a mutual admiration society. The comments can, and do trash individual images. It is not done in a mean spirited manner, or acceptance of crap. they are designed to educate and improve. .. For example: Someone submitted an uninteresting, out of focus image of a ship's bell. While a judge might say: "lousy image" and move to the next, the comment was a short mention of focus, lack of interesting subject matter and how to make sure items are in focus. IOW a bad image was used as a teaching session. Another poor image of a crowd was turned into a lesson on subject isolation and composition. Comments need not be mean spirited. But when an image is bad, the maker will be told that the image is bad. And more importantly, why. -- Peter |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!
On 9/16/2011 1:56 PM, Pete A wrote:
On 2011-09-16 18:26:51 +0100, Bowser said: [...] And once again, nobody likes that damned third shot. :-) Oh, for goodness sake! I wrote "I have a sense of unease looking at this one. The guy in the boat is pointing to it: I think it needs to show either bit more on the left or bit less." That doesn't mean I didn't like it. I took into account in my comments that you know very well I'm a great fan of your images, so, I really really like that shot, OK? If it had been framed slightly differently on the left I think it would transform it from "very good" to "superb." That's it, sugar coat it to spare my delicate feelings. Just kidding around... |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!
On 9/16/2011 2:01 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:26:51 -0400, wrote: On 9/16/2011 10:01 AM, tony cooper wrote: On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:40:58 -0400, wrote: The Dusk or Dawn gallery is posted, and it's a very healthy gallery, too. Some nice shots in there. Take a look, and offer a friendly critique, if you dare. http://www.pbase.com/shootin/duskdawn Pithy comments: Bowser1& Bowser2: Both excellent shots, but how they fit the Dusk to Dawn mandate baffles me. Bowser3 fits the mandate, but is a rather trite view of a much-photographed setting. All three shots were taken at dusk. the first one, I thought, was pretty obvious, but I'll grant you the mushrooms isn't as obvious. But it was taken at dusk and the light was really nice. And once again, nobody likes that damned third shot. Well, to me, a "dusk or dawn" photo ought to *look* like it was taken at dusk or at dawn. I did like the mushroom photo, though. True, and the mushroom light wasn't obvious. but the pano, I though, did show a setting sun off to the side and low light. Maybe I amped it up a little too much in PS. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!
On 9/17/2011 11:58 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:40:58 -0400, wrote: : The Dusk or Dawn gallery is posted, and it's a very healthy gallery, : too. Some nice shots in there. Take a look, and offer a friendly : critique, if you dare. : : http://www.pbase.com/shootin/duskdawn Well, it's been longer than I can remember since I've contributed extensive comments, so I guess it's my turn to step up to the plate. Bowser 1 This is a pretty picture, and Bowser is careful with the horizon, the importance of which in pictures involving reflections is often overlooked. I wish, though, that he had shifted his aim a bit to the left; the reflection of the sunset on the water at the left edge seems truncated. It is truncated due to a road just off camera left. I wish I had waited about an hour, though, since the light was a little "high." Bowser 2 Very nice. The composition works, and the lighting evokes sunset in an appealingly subtle way. Bowser 3 A nice homey scene to a Bay Stater like me. We've got prettier bridges and more photogenic sites, but this works as a photographic contribution to the "Ashcan School" (of which more later). The backlighting makes various elements, notably the left end of the bridge, look murky, but the Mandate is what it is. Yes! Finally! Someone likes the bridge! I can die happy. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[SI] Dusk or Dawn is due soon! | Bowser | 35mm Photo Equipment | 57 | September 10th 11 02:36 AM |
[SI] Dusk or Dawn is due soon! | PeterN | Digital Photography | 0 | September 8th 11 01:38 PM |
[SI] Dusk or Dawn is due soon! | PeterN | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | September 8th 11 01:38 PM |