MickH
Well-known
A great way to sign off your letters. Much better than 'yours sincerely...'
Brutally honest critique thread
- Thread starter FrankS
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 509
- Views 39K
A great way to sign off your letters. Much better than 'yours sincerely...'
Sparrow
Veteran
... I feel at this stage we can all take some comfort at that Michael, and some solace that it would seem Ned has little stomach of the fun side of creativity :nods-head:
Sparrow
Veteran
Brutally FrankS: ... or nothing
Hsg
who dares wins
Be brutal please (I know about the grain)
The grain is uniform and makes the image feel flat because that grain uniformity kills the sense of depth.
Depth is important in this image because the seagulls are framed from foreground to background in a diagonal line.
Ranchu
Veteran
Looking at the bottles clustered together, we wonder when the wind will return, even a little. How much water is left?
harpofreely
Well-known
I like this image overall, though I don't know that it will ever be more than decorative. The grain is nice but as Hsg points out, its also flattening. If this was mine, I'd tighten the crop a bit on all 4 sides & align the diagonal of the bottom of the piers with the diagonal of the frame corners, and I'd do a gradient burn to darken the bottom of the frame - I think that would restore some depth.
Sparrow
Veteran
Really? ... do we? em, we could as easily wonder what an aged aunt was trying to take a photo of ... or why we gave the camera to a child in the first place ... it is totaly dependant on his name, its context and its later monetary value.
My grandma took many similar photos and a few looking the wrong way down the viewfinder which I think say more about the life and times of those years than this
Ranchu
Veteran
I don't know, I have never thought about Eggleston's monetary value, I can't afford to be buying photos. This photo evokes these kind of impressions in my conciousness very clearly. I don't know what else I would ask from a photo. After that it's like/dislike over the impressions you get, which is secondary/tertiary. I think you have to first accept the terms of the photo as a given, then you can work out if it's good in those terms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypkv0HeUvTc
thompsonks
Well-known
Seeing the same thing but commenting differently:
Huubl deliberately juxtaposes the depth of the picture space to the flatness of the salt-and-pepper grain surface. This is like painters who deliberately make the paint on the surface of the canvas an important element in the image.
There's no way to judge whether this is better or worse than smooth grain without seeing two versions side by side?
Kirk
Muggins
Junk magnet
I'm sort of with Kirk on this one (no, thompsonks, not because the gulls are sat on the Captain's Logs!), though as I'm not Huub I don't know whether it's deliberate or not.
The flattening effect of the grain and the diagonal fade oppose each other - it's a very odd effect, more like a charcoal sketch than a photograph. Personally I like it (I am allowed to brutally frankly like stuff, right?).
Adrian
The flattening effect of the grain and the diagonal fade oppose each other - it's a very odd effect, more like a charcoal sketch than a photograph. Personally I like it (I am allowed to brutally frankly like stuff, right?).
Adrian
RichC
Well-known
This is exactly what happens when I look at this ... I see a photograph. A photograph is not a substitute for other kinds of picture like paintings but has a visceral and unique connection with reality.
HuubL
hunter-gatherer
Thank you Hsg, Harpofreely, Adrian and Kirk (and Fred) for commenting on my seagulls shot. About the grain, I agree it flattens the image somewhat, but at the other end I think there's a lot of depth already. And no, it's not intentional. This was shot on film, long overdue film and the shot was badly underexposed. Had to crank up levels considerably. I don't like using PS to add some kind of artist's creativity to photographs, like adding a gradient here what Harpo suggested. Mostly only use levels, leveling, cropping and cloning dust away.
Apart from the fact that I like the image because of its simple composition, for me it's a metaphor of how we stand in the world: we're all not that different, despite sitting on our own pole. And we're all in the mist. 🙂
(Came up with the metaphor thing just now. It seems nowadays we need to add "depth" as an excuse to share a picture we like for no particular reason.)
Apart from the fact that I like the image because of its simple composition, for me it's a metaphor of how we stand in the world: we're all not that different, despite sitting on our own pole. And we're all in the mist. 🙂
(Came up with the metaphor thing just now. It seems nowadays we need to add "depth" as an excuse to share a picture we like for no particular reason.)
Sparrow
Veteran
... so, you are saying that the photos intrinsic 'ordinariness' that makes it special for you? the artifact itself being indistinguishable from others beyond your opinion of it, or connection to it? ...
That's the point I usually start passing the king an existential towel you see ... Rich; I know you thought me odd in valuing the negative as having an intrinsic value beyond the image it held, this seems to be just that in large part
Not knowing his work that well I couldn't have said if this or that seaside shot were his, they could both be his for all I know, I just don't see anything beyond the name that is special
Ranchu
Veteran
Let's not get all Sontag, man.
Sparrow
Veteran
... yes, sorry it was a bit but you see what I mean, its that sontag idea of dilution of value by volume sort of thing.
If I don't value the aesthetic and graphic superiority of a particular image what have I left to judge it by?
If I don't value the aesthetic and graphic superiority of a particular image what have I left to judge it by?
RichC
Well-known
Stewart, the explanation for why I react to photographs in the way I do is actually far simpler - no need to invoke Sontag! It's also a large part of the reason I photograph instead of paint.
It's because of a photograph's connection with reality. A photograph is created by the subject itself - by the actual light that illuminated it. Shortly after it's invention, the photograph was described as "a mirror with a memory", which pithily encapsulates what I believe.
Yes, I know all the caveats about photographs being untrustworthy and selective, especially since digital cameras became commonplace, yet we still believe in the truth of a photograph - for at least the instant we first encounter it, for now anyway.
You react differently if you are shown a snapshot of someone's lover, say, or a sketch (however lifelike). The first you believe ("This is what she looks like"), the second is an interpretation ("This is what she looks like?"). That belief may disappear an instant later, but this is how most of us react to photographs.
Candid photographs evoke reality very strongly. This event happened. Looking at Eggleston's photograph, you can easily imagine yourself in the scene, with all of it's sounds and smells. This rarely happens with other kinds of picture such as paintings.
It's because of a photograph's connection with reality. A photograph is created by the subject itself - by the actual light that illuminated it. Shortly after it's invention, the photograph was described as "a mirror with a memory", which pithily encapsulates what I believe.
Yes, I know all the caveats about photographs being untrustworthy and selective, especially since digital cameras became commonplace, yet we still believe in the truth of a photograph - for at least the instant we first encounter it, for now anyway.
You react differently if you are shown a snapshot of someone's lover, say, or a sketch (however lifelike). The first you believe ("This is what she looks like"), the second is an interpretation ("This is what she looks like?"). That belief may disappear an instant later, but this is how most of us react to photographs.
Candid photographs evoke reality very strongly. This event happened. Looking at Eggleston's photograph, you can easily imagine yourself in the scene, with all of it's sounds and smells. This rarely happens with other kinds of picture such as paintings.
nongfuspring
Well-known
Its content?
RichC
Well-known
So, in short, it's a gut instinct kind of thing to do with what a photograph is rather than what it shows me. Obviously content is important. But I go "Oh, a photograph, I'm looking at something that existed, some place, some time."
Sparrow
Veteran
... OK then but that makes it documentation not art
A lifetime as a designer does not equip me well for this, making beautiful things for so long most have a lot to do with my inability to understand some things like this I expect
... for example the photo Ned put up earlier had me thinking about the typeface he'd used in the watermark almost as much as the photo itself
A lifetime as a designer does not equip me well for this, making beautiful things for so long most have a lot to do with my inability to understand some things like this I expect
... for example the photo Ned put up earlier had me thinking about the typeface he'd used in the watermark almost as much as the photo itself
steve kessel
steve kessel
the ironic juxtaposition of the containers and the clouds is worth stating
