good photographer or good subject?

thomasw_ said:
Sterile is how I would describe it. The focal length used needs to be cropped for one. This would at least give the viewer more of an intimacy; too much useless space leaves the subject lost surrounded by the backdrop. Second, the background/backdrop is like a stock 70s blotchy background to take shots of kids at schools...even worse; it adds to the Blah-ness. Third, the photographer captured no expression from the model; no hint of a smile, no pensiveness, no joy, no sadness; very bland. Lastly the septia tone adds to the emotional blahs, making the scene look more and more contrived the more I look at it; I mean doesn't the background give off that "studio" look enough?!

my 2 cents.

But she looks rather well endowed.
Click to expand...

Yes but which did you spot first? The endowments or the poor photography?
:)
 
honestly?

the endowments....just zooming on out to say, "Hello there, Tom!"




uhmmm, err, my dear lovely wife walks by....yes, those endowments, I noticed them after thinking about the photographic composition, of course:)
 
Windwalker57 said:
Sparrow - Er, did you ever notice that sometimes your best shots always seem to come at the end of the roll?

Actually, I was pointing out that in the image linked to by Frank that the model and photographer don't appear to be working together. I think that this photog was seeing the model's assets, not actually saying anything with this image. This image does not "involve" me in it.

Sorry, I am a poor typist, I don't express myself well at the keyboard.
Click to expand...

I wasn’t criticising, I watched a documentary about the photo and it was almost accidental how it came about, like my stuff……….accidental that is
:)
 
thomasw_ said:
honestly?

the endowments....just zooming on out to say, "Hello there, Tom!"




uhmmm, err, my dear lovely wife walks by....yes, those endowments, I noticed them after thinking about the photographic composition, of course:)
Click to expand...

ditto

:)
 
I don't wish to hijack FrankS's thread, but....

Rather than my continuing to bash this image, I want to learn how to make it better. I did put the image into photoshop, where I removed the sepia tone. Then I tried to crop out the dead space. This is where I found that a square crop was the only way to keep the image in balance. Actually, a 2 to 3 vertical crop makes the image dynamic and draws your eyes to the disembodied leg. If I crop out the leg, her right hand gets cropped off awkwardly. Just a crop of the torso is too bland (flat and lifeless).

To make a better image, I would bring the model out farther from the background, turn her a bit to the right, and get her to either turn her face and eyes away or look into the camera with some feeling.

The background and sepia toning would have to be scrapped.

Lighting looks too flat to me.
 
Thanks for your positive outlook Windwalker. (what is your name?) I was thinking the same things (for improving the image).
 
Last edited:
( I wasn’t criticising, I watched a documentary about the photo and it was almost accidental how it came about, like my stuff……….accidental that is ) Sparrow

Saw this photo for the first time today. Happy accident, then!

( uhmmm, err, my dear lovely wife walks by....yes, those endowments, I noticed them after thinking about the photographic composition, of course ) Thomasw-

Good test for the quality of the image, did you notice the the composition or just the model's assets. I will remember this as a guideline.

Now, if I could only master quoting ...
 
FrankS - My name is Dave. You're welcome! Sometimes I find that thinking inside the box is too confining. So, I look at things in a different perspective for relief.

I came to this forum to share some of my photo knowledge, but I turned out to be the student.
 
There are no absolutes in photography. This is a subjective problem and so "better" is just imposing your taste on this. Franks does not like the photograph which means Frank does not like the photograph. That is all. The critiques here are simply trying to justify a personal point of view that is not any "better" than the one presented in the image.

What other photographers do has no relation to myself. I do not justify my photography, by critisizing someone elses. I judge my work by what I do, not by the standards or skills of others. Nor do I need to tear someone else's work apart - I can appreciate it for what it is. If you can't judge your own images (which I find a strange idea), then post it and ask for feedback. I don't think "gossiping" about someones else's work is productive.
 
Sparrow said:
I wasn’t criticising, I watched a documentary about the photo and it was almost accidental how it came about, like my stuff……….accidental that is
:)
Click to expand...

As Ansel Adams said, I just seem to always be somewhere when God wants a picture taken.

/T
 
I took a look at HATAIIIA HATA!!!A gallery, and I found that the photog had created some better looking images. Now, I am wondering just what was it that he had to say with that first image? I missed something? Was the lighting and composition on purpose?
 
Finder said:
There are no absolutes in photography. This is a subjective problem and so "better" is just imposing your taste on this. Franks does not like the photograph which means Frank does not like the photograph. That is all. The critiques here are simply trying to justify a personal point of view that is not any "better" than the one presented in the image.

What other photographers do has no relation to myself. I do not justify my photography, by criticizing someone else's. I judge my work by what I do, not by the standards or skills of others. Nor do I need to tear someone else's work apart - I can appreciate it for what it is. If you can't judge your own images (which I find a strange idea), then post it and ask for feedback. I don't think "gossiping" about someones else's work is productive.
Click to expand...

Finder, I can understand the direction you're coming from, but can't we learn by discussing a photograph? And my original point was the relative importance of photographer's skill versus the inherent interest of the subject. Reading the comments that this photo got, (everyone loves it) I had to ask myself why, because it left me cold. I wondered if this was just me. I do not wish to criticise the photographer, but the photograph. I am not doing this to justify my own work, but rather to improve it. Would you rather we just talk some more about gear and camera bags?
 
With that in mind, look at this photograph (nudity warning) and tell me what you think:
I

Isn't it amazing that we are the only species on earth that have to be warned before viewing another of our own species nude; I guess that's what sets us apart from the "lower" animals.

I like the picture; it has a very peaceful quality.

John
 
FrankS said:
Finder, I can understand the direction you're coming from, but can't we learn by discussing a photograph? And my original point was the relative importance of photographer's skill versus the inherent interest of the subject. Reading the comments that this photo got, (everyone loves it) I had to ask myself why, because it left me cold. I wondered if this was just me. I do not wish to criticise the photographer, but the photograph. I am not doing this to justify my own work, but rather to improve it. Would you rather we just talk some more about gear and camera bags?
Click to expand...

But I do not find that that is the direction the conversation is going. As far as I see it, I have been the only one to address the subject/photographer question. Most have simply been critisizing the photograph as bad for one reason or another. But no one has even brought up if the photograph does reflect the photographer's intent nor what that intent may have been. Perhaps he/she was looking at the objectification of the body or women? Trying to give an artificial appearance to the form. Perhaps he/she was trying to make a retro 60s look of a clean tech type fashion/nude shot. But I see no attempt to try to understand this image, just to simply say it does not fit into the aesthetic sense of the critic.
 
Finder said:
There are no absolutes in photography.
Click to expand...
I reject theories which are self-contradictory, as I will show this one to be. If there are "no absolutes in photography," then there is one statement which is absolute about photography; namely, that "there are no absolutes in photography." This is self contradictory, and a reasoning being must reject the theory at least as presented in the statement. Note that I am not presenting a positive theory about aesthetic absolutes in its place, for I am unclear about what would be. That said, I am unsatisified with merely saying personal 'liking' is the determiner to what makes an art object 'good'; a case in point being Picasso's painting "Guernica", which gives me no pleasure and I do not 'like' it, but I find it more beautiful and sublime than I could write in words. I agree that aesthetic responses are personal in part, but I think there is something more going on as well; as such I find the subjective aesthetic theories rather shallow and incomplete.

respectfully, thomas
 
Time Freeze - Thanks for reminding me of my poor net etiquette.

Are you linking to another image or refering to the the first?

I am too slow on this keybord
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom