Brutally honest critique thread

[FrankS]

Thought more about your rather [how should I describe it?] post, and you are right, why should I intervene or question what one RFF member says about another member's work -- when I have never subjected myself to this kind of critique, even from my dealers?
It is indeed pointless - no benefit to me to debate the issue. Carry on. 🙂

And this:
"My assumption was that it is simply not polite to criticize a hobbyist -- that they are somehow off limits.
But if someone puts their work up to be picked apart publically then it should indeed be fair game. However I do make a slight distinction between amateur and hobbyist."

Thank you for your moment of enlightenment/clarity!

 

[lewis44]

Ned,
I Have not been around here for awhile.
Good to see that you are back with the same old Piss & Vinegar
Hope all has been well with you.
Randy

We may have a fundamental problem, and a scary one, if moderators compare adults in a forum to 6-10 year old kids.

I'm also glad that the OP has stepped in. After all, it's his own thread.

 

[Dan Daniel]

OK, in response to Andy's post^^^, I'll go around again. I'm working on a project on suburbs, including suburban environments and vernacular architecture there, with Sunnyvale, CA, as my principal subject. Sort of the antithesis of urban environments with their rich targets for street photographers. Here's a recent photo. What do you think?

Morning walk by bingley0522, on Flickr

All in all I would call this a first draft' image. There's a lot going on in terms of your subject- suburban architecture and environments. The street is HUGE in your shot- partly the wide angle lens and framing, but also it brings out the primacy and dominance of the automobile in the public space. Dang, you could build houses in the middle of these streets and still run cars between the houses.

Driveways and garages being the closest to the streets- telling about priorities and how we want to interact with others, how much consideration we want to show others compared to how much our private convenience is what matters.

The oak tree shadow and shadow hints at either the age of the development- planted as a stick when the houses were built- or possibly a survivor from the previous land use. It's one of the disconcerting things for me in suburban environments- the presence of 'nature' and natural elements, but always tentative, isolated like this oak.

The palm trees- Mexican fan palms, are they?- speak of another place, Los Angeles, but living in the Bay Area myself I know how common they are everywhere. I still find them confusing, and your image inclusion of them.

The people- so dwarfed by the road!

Well, I'll stop. I am not 'reading' the image, I am reading the landscape you show in your image. As an image itself, I find it underexposed in the main area, the homes. The tree shadow is compelling but not particularly strong. The flare you are playing with may be the most interesting thing for me to see you explore. The way the supposed center of such developments- the houses- is hard to see because of the dawn/evening sun dominating. I could see this image as a breathing space image in a series, but it doesn't do much for me on its own.

The subject matter, and what you are doing to it, playing with all these different elements of the environment, is interesting to me. I hope that you keep working this area.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Still wanting to keep us on Pictures, more than Criticism of Criticism. Here are two that I shot last weekend. I took them about an hour apart while trying out an elderly LTM lens.

Because these don't look like the pictures I usually make, I wonder what (if anything) folks might have to say about them.

[/URL]A sign that says CAFE by thompsonkirk, on Flickr[/IMG]

[/URL]ClaudeAlley by thompsonkirk, on Flickr[/IMG]
PS, I'll follow Raid's good advice!

The tones are nice in both. The first one looks like a commercial graphic arts piece to me, meant for an ad campaign of some sort. If I was seated at that table, I'd ask for another table- that sign is just too loud and aggressive to have in my face while trying to relax and eat and talk. So yeah, it's hard, graphic, a bit uncomfortable as an image.

The second one is about light and tone to me. Very nice to look at for that, but little else going on for me. Sure, outdoor cafes need to store chairs and cover things at night, but I think I've seen that element of the image done before and done with more feeling. And the wall mural elements again look almost as if they are laid in as background to an ad shoot. This isn't your 'fault' or limit, it's both how such murals are used in spaces and how you have rendered them.

If both of the images are graphic studies, they are very accomplished.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Ok have at it.

[color photo of child's face in middle of blue tube/ring]

It's a nice capture of the child, although I want more snap and life in the face's rendering- lighter, etc. The composition is well done; the red wedge in the background adds a nice bit of life and tension. All in all, it strikes me as one of those images a parent will always love while it doesn't resonate much with me beyond 'nice capture.' I guess I want more than a nice portrait. Personality, energy, engagement with the world would hold my attention better.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Well, after blabbing on others I should subject myself to the same, eh?

Claude the albino alligator, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco

 

[OurManInTangier]

... I'm hoping..and kind of expecting🙂eek🙂 this thread to come to life with some insightful comments, shared knowledge and open honesty. One thoughtless comment shouldn't derail us.

We've had some threads recently that started to go a little wayward yet ended up becoming extremely interesting and a little provoking perhaps partly due to that loss of direction. Hopefully that will continue here.

Shame. Looks like I was wrong.

 

[Harry S.]

So here is one of mine for who wants to give me a brutal critique:

I like it, but see no reason why the horizon line shouldn't be straight.

 

[Pherdinand]

Dan, very interesting image. I just wish to see a bit higher quality. The poor definition has nothing to do with critique.

I like Helen Hill's image as well. Very classic. Nothing to add.

So here is one of mine for who wants to give me a brutal critique:

not your best, i think. The only thing that comes to my mind (within the first 2 seconds) is, why are those women both scratching their bottoms.
Sure, colors are interesting, and it's OK composed, but what is it about?

 

[Sparrow]

not your best, i think. The only thing that comes to my mind (within the first 2 seconds) is, why are those women both scratching their bottoms.
Sure, colors are interesting, and it's OK composed, but what is it about?

... sand, I fancy

 

[Sparrow]

I think he was talking about transparency .

You make it sound as if RFF is a career recruitment agency.🙂

Us pesky amateurs just like to have a bit of fun and maybe learn something
We enter this thread with an open and generous spirit in the way it was intended

In short Ned offered his time and experience to assist folk who would appreciate some help.

... that, and responsibility that should accompany power ... old fashioned I know, but discharging duties properly and standing by ones statements sort of covers it ...

... anonymity, multipel-personalities, retrospective deleting and altering posts are aberrations in my simple world

 

[daveleo]

Not sure why you are/seem so angry! 🙂

.......

Frank, seriously I am not angry.
It is frustration that (to me) there are disconnects here between people's definitions and expectations within this thread.
We are still not connecting on what we each mean.
Technical details (to me) are a very small part what an image is all about. Seems that most posters here disagree with that. Or maybe it's just that "tech" is easier to interpret and discuss than "emotional connection" (or whatever you'd call it).

I'll stay out of it (for about the 3rd time 😉 ). Has nothing to do with being "faint hearted" though.

 

[Keith]

Ok ... I'm game, tear this one to bits! 😀

 

[alistair.o]

Ok ... I'm game, tear this one to bits! 😀

That is just plain wrong 😀

 

[Sparrow]

Dan, very interesting image. I just wish to see a bit higher quality. The poor definition has nothing to do with critique.

I like Helen Hill's image as well. Very classic. Nothing to add.

So here is one of mine for who wants to give me a brutal critique:

... right! ... we have a diamond shaped frame, a dark ground with a brighter lozenge which forms the main compositional feature ... chiaroscuro of sorts, that contains the main subject a helicopter

The dark corners on the photo proper, the complex black and white border with curved corners make a strong barrier to ones attention drifting out of the frame. The low slopping horizon is what it is but thanks to the shading it doesn't distract, if anything it leads my eye back to the subject, and on to the watermark sadly

I'm unsure what the photo is, as much as anything it seems to be a vehicle for the photo's own effects, which I'm a bit confused by ... it has a look of an old slide, but that anachronistic R66 and the modern swimsuits contradict that, I don't get the vision-thing ... it's avant guard to what purpose? is the question it leaves me with. I just hope I haven't just wandered into an instagram trap of some sort

 

[Pherdinand]

... that, and responsibility that should accompany power ... old fashioned I know, but discharging duties properly and standing by ones statements sort of covers it ...

... anonymity, multipel-personalities, retrospective deleting and altering posts are aberrations in my simple world

i disagree with that. Anonymity is what many of us choose on open internet forums because of privacy reasons. Not because there's anything to hide, but e.g. i don't want the guys who broken into our house last April to know that i have 15 cameras in the drawers they forgot to check (they took the whisky, tho).
Retrospective deleting or modifying can in certain cases be motivated by one changing his mind/altering his opinion about something. Or it can be a courtesy in case he overreacted on something, or he typed some nonsense which after a small research or other peoples' post seems to be misleading to readers. In a multi-page thread, if i write something that is incorrect, due to a mistake, or misunderstanding, it is not enough to correct that in a later post - someone will bump into the false info via google and be misled.

For multiple personalities -whatever that is in this case - i have no motivation whatsoever 😀
[off topic, sorry for that]

 

[Sparrow]

Just to be clear, my own views on having authority

 

[FrankS]

To Ned: I've noticed and been bothered by, horizon tilts in some of your latest posted pictures. What's up with that? I couldn't find a good reason for this compositionally speaking, and to me it is distracting. Is it done purposefully at the moment of exposure, and if so, why?

Hello Keith, welcome! The reaching hand out of the top of the frame is a point of interest. It causes me some discomfort, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Keith]

To Ned: I've noticed and been bothered by, horizon tilts in some of your latest posted pictures. What's up with that? I couldn't find a good reason for this compositionally speaking, and to me it is distracting. Is it done purposefully at the moment of exposure, and if so, why?

Hello Keith, welcome! The reaching hand out of the top of the frame is a point of interest. It causes me some discomfort, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Thanks Frank ... yes I wondered about that hand too. It's something I try to avoid generally!

 

[Sparrow]

... it holds my eye in that corner too long, but it is a reflection on the other side ... there is negative space behind both figures, a balance sort of