NikonGear'23
Images => Critique => Topic started by: zutty on March 12, 2017, 09:59:12
-
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/725/33236208322_8320afd45d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/SCYfNw)OOB 3 & Scar 1_115b (https://flic.kr/p/SCYfNw) by J T (https://www.flickr.com/photos/drummist53/), on Flickr
-
This picture is put up for critique -- firstly, exposure is not well controlled, light is flat and sky is almost blown out. Secondly, composition is vague and apparently has not been critically evaluated as this surely looks like a straight-on snapshot. No consideration has been given to what the important details of the subject might be, so the viewer has to guess why the picture was taken in the first place. Focus is off for the foreground, perhaps caused by a central AF point?
You can do so much better than this. Try to discuss with yourself the 'why', 'where' and 'when' of the image-taking process, than finally address the 'how'.
-
I appreciate your input Bjorn, if a bit harsh. May I please see some of your photos so that I can see some of your work?
-
I appreciate your input Bjorn, if a bit harsh. May I please see some of your photos so that I can see some of your work?
Zutty,
Click on his name to open his profile, then click "show posts" then "attachments". You can browse through the images he has shared here.
My critique on your photo is that you are too far away. I'm sure you saw something in that scene. I'm quite guilty of trying to capture a place by backing up enough to get it all in. In the process I lose it all. There are a few places nearby which I keep trying to capture, but keep failing at, and I think the reason is that the subject is on the other side of a rather boring body of water. This puts it out of visual reach and leaves just some bluish stuff in the middle of the frame. I see a similar thing happening here.
This photo is too far away to show anything about that place which makes it feel like a swamp. Or maybe as Bjorn says, you aren't really sure what it is meant to show. Try moving into the scene. Being on your hands and knees in the muck will give you better opportunities to really show something about what the place is like.
-
It looks like a high cloud layer caused the sky to mostly "white-out".
I would have tried a Polarizing filter to bring out more color in the sky;
or a deep red filter for a monochrome shot.
-
Just to be clear, the first summing up on the picture was *not harsh* at all. You understand this easily if you read through the post. A few basic points were addressed and dealt with.
If my own images are of interest, which really haven't the slightest bearing on the present critique, they can be seen here on NG or for example on https://www.flickr.com/photos/132961550@N03/
-
This thread, what is "harsh criticism" vs "Not harsh at all"- is most probably due to the forum being in English and most members having English as a second language. As a native English speaker, Bjorn's post comes across as being "harsh". As far as the image is concerned, it is often difficult to understand how the photographer saw the original scene and wanted to convey it.
Personally- this sort of issue is why I never put images up for critique. I might put a shot up taken with a hacked lens, to see what people think of the random combination of optical elements- but that is about it.
-
If honest observations are "harsh", meaningful critique is dead from the get-go. Any critique has to provide suggestions or draw attention to problems, not just provide pats on the back. The latter is not helpful for anyone.
-
Just to be clear, the first summing up on the picture was *not harsh* at all. You understand this easily if you read through the post. A few basic points were addressed and dealt with.
If my own images are of interest, which really haven't the slightest bearing on the present critique, they can be seen here on NG or for example on https://www.flickr.com/photos/132961550@N03/
Bjorn, In order for me to respect your opinion of my work, I simply need to see your work so that I may view where you are coming from. All criticism of any art form is simply an opinion and only that. I do not take any offense at constructive criticism as long as I respect the giver of it.
-
If honest observations are "harsh", meaningful critique is dead from the get-go. Any critique has to provide suggestions or draw attention to problems, not just provide pats on the back. The latter is not helpful for anyone.
As an Architect who has endured many critiques of my work, I completely agree with your statement. The very point of critique is to improve, so if there is no direction forward from the critique why bother?
But not all critique need be negative. Pointing out what was done well is also useful to the receiver and can help them build on it.
Honesty - as you say - is the important part. Your critique of the swamp was rather mild in my opinion and offered a very helpful suggestion.
-
You can do so much better than this. Try to discuss with yourself the 'why', 'where' and 'when' of the image-taking process, than finally address the 'how'.
Bjorn- this is the language that you use when your kid comes in with a "D" on a math test, not when giving a critique. Whether "Harsh" fits it exactly, or not- it is the problem with your tone in the critique. "
-
Is there a specific point of derailing the discussion?
Photography entails so much more than just pressing the shutter release or uploading to a web site. First and foremost, one has to clarify 'why' the image is taken, with all ramifications that follow.
The photograph can never be an expression of art unless the photographer is fully committed to the work and what it conveys to others.
If you insist on being evaluated solely by your peers, chances are you never exploit your potential to the fullest. However, you'll get a lot of 'likes'.
-
For me, there are two problems with this picture.
The first is that there are many elements that compete -- perhaps too many. The wooden structures look quite interesting, but they are not prominent enough to be the main focus. Getting to a different vantage point with a longer lens might yield interesting results. The idea of a swamp gets lost a little bit, the shape of the framed portion of the water body is not very geometrically attractive, and I'm slightly irritated by the water 'flowing' out through the lower right corner. The distant tree line is attractive, but too far away or too cluttered by the foreground elements to become the main focus. There is a railway track on the right as well, whose importance is questionable. So my eye keeps jumping back and forth between the different elements. I think there can be successful pictures with that many elements, but you want to arrange them carefully within the frame. It is only possible to do this if you are inside the swamp where you can move about, using perspective to weigh the different elements within the frame.
The second problem is tonality and color palette. I think the light was unconducive to this scene to begin with, and you may want to return on a clear day when the light is low to get more contrast. I think the shadows are lifted too much, resulting in a washed-out appearance. As Bjørn remarked earlier, the sky seems to be blown out. If you can post a flat RAW conversion, it might be easier for us to tell whether the problems are due to processing, or whether the original capture already had those problems.
-
Is there a specific point of derailing the discussion?
The discussion- at the point when I made the post before yours, had already veered into the "Harsh" and "not harsh, should have read my post".
So no derailing occurred on my part. If you had read the thread, you would have understood that.
If you do not like the tone taken in my post, don't use it in your own.
-
Sigh.
People should read http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,315.0.html
Preferably before derailing the discussion.
Brian, you haven't provided your full name in your profile. Please correct.
-
Zutty,
I generally like the photographs you post but this one is pretty much a pass for me. It's divided into four quadrens and so it's quite static. The decaying fence might have been the focus but it not prominent in the picture.
I hope this helps. I'm sorry this one didn't work for me.
Dave Hartman
-
I have to agree on this I also noticed it received 17 views on Flickr since 2014 with zero faves and no reply. On the other hand I looked over your Flickr photos and you have a few that stand out well.
There are a million +1 photographers sprouting up every year with the Digital camera and stunning software now days it's a fierce competition 24/7 to be noticed. Not like the film days when it was more than shooting off a roll of film and deciding on development times, temps, chemicals and print. Back in the day the Art went beyond just composition it also went into the dark room as well.
You need to take the heat if you want to advance your skills and your photo eye, I am always critical on myself it's never good enough what could I have done better If I moved closer or used this lens??????
I have thousands of transparencies I produced years ago and when looking them over now twenty some odd years later i say "What was I thinking"? so a few dozen are now in my Great (Could be better), Good and OK category.
I was a National graphic baby my dad was a subscriber so that was my platform for how a great photo should be as well as I need a Nikon!! :D You look over photos published in say 1980 NG and look what is being produced now is a true wake up call of how advanced photography has become. I always am saying to myself "if only my eye was attached to a camera" it's not going to happen anytime soon so you have to look, know and evaluate everything before you push that button. Remember "it's never good enough that will keep the fire burning". My opinion I would have watched the weather the light and angle, but first look closer at what you want to be your main focal point or subject and what will lead your eye down that path to the subject. The background is the distraction as well but mainly the sky flat overcast can be your friend or foe. You have a photo on Flicker of a tree with snow and sunset or sunrise, the light house and a few others that follow some of this rule. I would have put on a pair of waders and worked my way around those dock pillions or post get low to the ground and look when the light was at it's magic hour!! Look over your older photos and think about what I am saying.
And remember "It's never good enough" so learn to take the heat and learn from it to be better, criticism can be your friend.