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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Critique - Frauds, Flim-flams, and Shams
I've written before that I judge my own success with an SI submission based on
three criteria. First, the image must meet the mandate. That doesn't mean for someone else's submission I must understand how or why, or even that I like it at all. Just that it addresses the topic in some way, directly or obliquely. This criterion is the easiest to meet, since everyone has *some* mandate-related connection when they release the shutter. Even if they are the only ones who ever "get it" without being asked. Second, it must be technically well-executed and presented. I really couldn't care less how the image was produced. Or by what technology. Only that it is the creator's best possible effort using whatever technology he has chosen. And that it follows the Rulz, both in letter and in spirit. "It's only illegal if you get caught" does not apply here. Remember, honesty is what you do when no one is looking... Third, and most difficult, the image must be able to stand on its own even if presented outside of the SI context. It must be an engaging experience for the viewer. It must grab and hold the viewer's interest. It must make the viewer think. And it must do these things without prerequisite knowledge by the viewer of the SI mandate it addressed. Douglas Macdonald http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/100025088 I'm not sure where the deceit resides within this frame. Again, this doesn't mean it doesn't. Just that I don't see it. (Note that I have intentionally not read any other posts before these observations, so it may have already been explained.) Technically, I believe the desired mood is well served by the apparent exposure. The feeling of early morning (or late evening) is well presented. The image is clean, sharp, and correctly saturated for the message it intends to convey. Framing is excellent. I like the fact the only two elements that sit directly on rule-of-thirds intersections are the two leading posts between which the boat is heading. Color contrast and elongated horizontal format combine to make for a pleasing experience for the viewer. Add to that a nicely implied vanishing point and uncluttered composition with wonderful leading lines, and this becomes a nicely successful image in its own right. Bowser http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/100025089 Meets the mandate, sort of. But only in a coerced fashion which requires a secondary explanation. It certainly does not jump out at the viewer. Well, this viewer anyway. Technically, I love it. Not the easiest of exposures, with backlighting from stadium lights. Everything is in focus. Forms are balanced. Nothing is obscured that I wish I could see. Timing for the foreground girl's wave of her flag is perfect. Balancing column of white smoke is excellent. And both frame the stage nicely. Very good anticipation. (Or luck. But that's always been a part of photography from the beginning.) I really like the line of heads - both full and partial - placed along the bottom edge. It makes the viewer feel as if they too are looking up into the sky. Does it stand on it's own? Absolutely. Without knowledge of the mandate, this is still a very engaging image. Add to the above compositional elements all of that frozen confetti, and this picture screams excitement. Makes one wish they had been there. Helen Silverburg http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/100025091 Although I believe I've seen this image before, it's still a bulls-eye hit on the mandate. Even better, it's a double bulls-eye. Being fake young ladies is about as deceitful as it comes. But appearing from a distance to be real ladies dressed like that out on the street conjures up an entirely different world of imagined potential deceit. Just an excellent interpretation. Framing couldn't be better. It's in-your-face impact is both undeniable, necessary, and successful. The stockings present a beautiful patterned-graphic element to the eye. The "look" on the face of the background "person" is, for me, the center of the composition, and completes the feeling that someone is about to be taken for all their worth. Stand alone? Well, let's see. It could be a fine advertisement for several products. (Not necessarily all legal in most jurisdictions.) It could be a fine street documentary statement. It could be a fine piece of photojournalism, either spot news (depending on what was *really* going on), or photographic essay (could have been plucked directly out of a 1950s or 60s issue of Life magazine). It could be a fine portfolio shot for a product photographer. Oh, and it also makes a pretty good SI submission. My favorite for this mandate. Jim Kramer http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/100025220 If a photograph falls down in the forest, but no one is around to see it, is it really a photograph? Tough to know without being there. This could either be a very, very oblique meeting of the mandate. Or Jim's way of telling us that he's finally throwing in the towel with the SI. (I note that no new mandate went up on Friday.) Technically, if one needed an 18% neutral gray card to convert a reflected light reading into a pseudo-incident light reading, the framing for this could only be considered prescient. Depending on the meaning Jim intends to convey, this may actually have significant, stand alone meaning beyond the mandate. But I hope not. Ken Nadvornick http://www.whineralert.org A second consecutive mandate with no submission. Unfortunately, Ken has gotten himself involved at his job with a very high priority, very tight deadline software development project. Ken is working some stupid hours right now. Ken's wife has just been forced to cancel the second - and probably final - attempt at a vacation for this summer. Ken has a freshly refurbished 8x10 camera sitting and staring him in the face and laughing at him for not having the time to use it, now that the last ten straight months of winter has finally ended in the Pacific Northwest. Ken is hoping sanity returns soon... Ken |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Critique - Frauds, Flim-flams, and Shams
"Ken Nadvornick" wrote in message
. .. Jim Kramer http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/100025220 If a photograph falls down in the forest, but no one is around to see it, is it really a photograph? Tough to know without being there. This could either be a very, very oblique meeting of the mandate. Or Jim's way of telling us that he's finally throwing in the towel with the SI. (I note that no new mandate went up on Friday.) Technically, if one needed an 18% neutral gray card to convert a reflected light reading into a pseudo-incident light reading, the framing for this could only be considered prescient. Depending on the meaning Jim intends to convey, this may actually have significant, stand alone meaning beyond the mandate. But I hope not. I think "Paint It Black" pretty much sums it up. Good luck with the new job. -Jim |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Critique - Frauds, Flim-flams, and Shams
Ken Nadvornick wrote:
Ken Nadvornick http://www.whineralert.org A second consecutive mandate with no submission. Unfortunately, Ken has gotten himself involved at his job with a very high priority, very tight deadline software development project. Ken is working some stupid hours right now. Ken's wife has just been forced to cancel the second - and probably final - attempt at a vacation for this summer. Ken has a freshly refurbished 8x10 camera sitting and staring him in the face and laughing at him for not having the time to use it, now that the last ten straight months of winter has finally ended in the Pacific Northwest. Ken is hoping sanity returns soon... Ken: pls e-meil me: Remove the free lunch. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Critique - Frauds, Flim-flams, and Shams
"Ken Nadvornick" wrote in message . .. I've written before that I judge my own success with an SI submission based on three criteria. First, the image must meet the mandate. That doesn't mean for someone else's submission I must understand how or why, or even that I like it at all. Just that it addresses the topic in some way, directly or obliquely. This criterion is the easiest to meet, since everyone has *some* mandate-related connection when they release the shutter. Even if they are the only ones who ever "get it" without being asked. Second, it must be technically well-executed and presented. I really couldn't care less how the image was produced. Or by what technology. Only that it is the creator's best possible effort using whatever technology he has chosen. And that it follows the Rulz, both in letter and in spirit. "It's only illegal if you get caught" does not apply here. Remember, honesty is what you do when no one is looking... Third, and most difficult, the image must be able to stand on its own even if presented outside of the SI context. It must be an engaging experience for the viewer. It must grab and hold the viewer's interest. It must make the viewer think. And it must do these things without prerequisite knowledge by the viewer of the SI mandate it addressed. Bowser http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/100025089 Meets the mandate, sort of. But only in a coerced fashion which requires a secondary explanation. It certainly does not jump out at the viewer. Well, this viewer anyway. Technically, I love it. Not the easiest of exposures, with backlighting from stadium lights. Everything is in focus. Forms are balanced. Nothing is obscured that I wish I could see. Timing for the foreground girl's wave of her flag is perfect. Balancing column of white smoke is excellent. And both frame the stage nicely. Very good anticipation. (Or luck. But that's always been a part of photography from the beginning.) I really like the line of heads - both full and partial - placed along the bottom edge. It makes the viewer feel as if they too are looking up into the sky. Does it stand on it's own? Absolutely. Without knowledge of the mandate, this is still a very engaging image. Add to the above compositional elements all of that frozen confetti, and this picture screams excitement. Makes one wish they had been there. Chalk one up to pure luck. I like the shot, but as far as meeting the mandate goes, well, it's thin--as you correctly noted. But the compositional elements were pure fluke; I didn't have a good vantage point, so I held the camera up over my head, guessed at direction and leveling, and got lucky. Makes great wallpaper, if nothing else. The concert, by the way, is the "almost the fourth" concert put on by the Boston Pops at the Hatch Shell on the Esplanade. It's a rehearsal concert for tghe fourth and the one CBS tapes in case it rains on the fourth. It's always a good take. Thanks for the comments! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Critique - Frauds, Flim-flams, and Shams
"Annika1980" wrote in message ... On Jul 13, 5:48 pm, Jufí wrote: So Bowser is Jufi. The plot thickens. Yes, and it's not something I've been hiding, really. You didn't know? I thought you were Dick-f'ing-Tracy? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Critique - Frauds, Flim-flams, and Shams
"Annika1980" wrote in message ... On Jul 14, 7:33 am, "Jufi" wrote: So Bowser is Jufi. The plot thickens. Yes, and it's not something I've been hiding, really. You didn't know? I thought you were Dick-f'ing-Tracy? No, you misunderstood. I'm F'ing Dick Tracy. I think either form is OK. Kind of like the pronunciation of the word "creek." Anyway, there's a real easy and non-technical way to find out who I am. I bet you can figure it out, since you're the House Dick. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Critique - Frauds, Flim-flams, and Shams
"That Rich" wrote in message ... On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:58:14 GMT, Jufì wrote: "Annika1980" wrote in message ... On Jul 14, 7:33 am, "Jufi" wrote: So Bowser is Jufi. The plot thickens. Yes, and it's not something I've been hiding, really. You didn't know? I thought you were Dick-f'ing-Tracy? No, you misunderstood. I'm F'ing Dick Tracy. I think either form is OK. Kind of like the pronunciation of the word "creek." Anyway, there's a real easy and non-technical way to find out who I am. I bet you can figure it out, since you're the House Dick. Hey Bowser, you mean you're NOT Rita!? Damn, Bragika had you nailed last week ) Sigh..... Definitely not Reata, the fat ass troll. I don't have any sock puppets; couldn't be bothered. I do change my screen name from time to time out of sheer boredom. I've been Kinon O'Cann, Bowser, and a few others. No rhyme or reason to it. Bragika? Brett? He really thought I was Reata? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Critique - Frauds, Flim-flams, and Shams
Cryptopix wrote:
On Jul 13, 5:27 pm, "Ken Nadvornick" wrote: I've written before that I judge my own success with an SI submission based on three criteria. I thank you for the critiques and posting the links. Nicely done and educational as well. Thanks for taking the time to comment Ken. I guess if you didn't call it as dawn or dusk I must have missed (or hit) the point of fraud. All the island's around here display a false sunset in the east when the cloud cover is just right. This shot was meant to tease those who know about it. It is actually a true dawn shot A HDR with super saturated colours. It certainly reminded me more of sunset than dawn, and some boats do take off at that time, maybe 4-5% of most harbor exits. So, the flim-flam suceeds for me. -- john mcwilliams |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[SI] - SHOOT-IN - Mandate - Frauds, Flim-flams, and Shams | jimkramer | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | June 7th 08 08:57 PM |
foeign girls & tamil acters blue flim | ranjani | Digital Photography | 0 | February 15th 08 01:01 PM |
flim camera FM vs FE vs F3HP | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | June 25th 07 04:56 PM |
do Nikon flim camera have much value anymore? | Don Smith | Digital Photography | 7 | June 23rd 06 02:53 AM |
Critique please | [email protected] | Photographing Nature | 9 | March 15th 04 04:30 PM |