Critique Please, what do you see?

[rover]

Penguins, how many do you see?

I have always liked this photo but never got any feedback about it. I appreciate your thoughts. Thank you.

 

[dim]

My humble opinion.

It's a good photo, not a great one. Has enough "form" that can hold the eye for a period of time. Where it fails is the photographer's "point of view".

By saying "point of view" i mean the stand of the photographer against its subject matter. My English are not good enough, let me give you an example.

Garry Winogrand's "Animals", you know the book? There you can see how he stands against the subjects been photographed. Some times sarcastically, others humorously. His photographs are not only good formated but also express a point of view.

Your point of view here is that of "father takes picture his son" (i don't know if that's truth). I do almost the same thing when i do photograph. I also luck a "point of view".

These are my thoughts on you photograph.

🙂

 

[rover]

Your point of view here is that of "father takes picture his son" (i don't know if that's truth). I do almost the same thing when i do photograph. I also luck a "point of view".

That is true.

I am not familiar with Winogrand's book, I will have to look it up.

I personally don't like the black to the left, but given the exposure in the tank I think that is an acceptable "mistake." I also like the "looking over the shoulder" and the light that defines my son's features, and the appearance that the penguin is looking at the camera. Had I been just a little lower at eye level with the bird I think that would be better.

 

[Nando]

It works for me. I really like the contrast between the dark interior and the bright aquarium. You see more than one Penguin?

 

[rover]

Image of my son, his arms and hands out like flippers....

I like that part too, I think it ads balance.

 

[Ducky]

It's funny what the eye sees. My first impression was that the kid was tossing a penguin out the window : ala KRP's thanksgiving turkey giveaway, tossing turkeys from a helicopter..
Sorry, no, it does not appeal at all. no proper reference to focus on.

 

[crawdiddy]

I like it. It does look like the kid has tossed a projectile out a window. Then the bubbles identify it as an aquatic space.

The dark area on the left doesn't really bother me, but it might be more interesting lighter. Can it be manipulated in the darkroom (wet or dry)? Is there any detail in the shadow?

Even if you only dodge your son's profile and shirt a bit, it might add some detail, and brighten it up a little.

 

[rover]

Thanks all for your constructive comments.

 

[rover]

"Critique Please, what do you see? Penguins, how many do you see?"


Is that it? How many penguins are there then?

Oh, just the one, no trick question. I sort of answered that in post 5 just before/at the same time as your post #6. You may not have seen it.

 

[jmilkins]

I like it. Photography can be personal - it doesn't always have to be for an audience. In fact I think the "best" photographs are often intensely personal.

In this case Ralph your personal image reminds me of the joy of discovery my 2 year old son and I share when we visit a similar seal tank at our local zoo. I'd be happy to have taken that image, and the gradation of darkness to light makes me think of the growing awareness and delight of a child about the wide world around them.

I agree that getting down lower at"child level" would add to the story of the image. Thanks for posting it.

 

[ErnestoJL]

I agree with the criteria that a good shot or a good picture has/carries allways something personal from the photographer. And also that the picture was taken for his own pleasure, not to please any audience, other than him/herself.

In your picture, the only that would be desirable is to get more light on the left, where your kid is. Just a little bit to show a shadow of his face and arms, nothing else.
But anyway it´s a very good shot, it also works for me.
Thanks for posting it!

Cheers

Ernesto

 

[rover]

I agree with the criteria that a good shot or a good picture has/carries allways something personal from the photographer. And also that the picture was taken for his own pleasure, not to please any audience, other than him/herself.

Very true and why it is so hard some times to critique one's own shots. I like this photograph, which is very much good enough for me, but the comments of others hopefully will help me to make an even better one next time around.

 

[emraphoto]

i think it's great. i like the deep black to the left and wouldn't for a minute think it a shortcoming... it really demonstrates the "painting with light" approach for me. it also has a degree of quirk i like... i really seems like your boy's arms are hanging right into the tank... like the penguin is floating on air. the shapes of the tank vs the black foreground seem well placed and work well together. your son's arms add a degree of tension. it all works very well and quite frankly i like the point of view you chose. there seems to be relationship between the penguin and your boy. man, i'd be proud of it indeed.
one man's opinion

 

[emraphoto]

i just noticed the bubbles. perfect timing.

 

[jbf]

I love this shot (commented on it on flickr too).

The grain is very lovely as is the lighting. The lighting alone makes it really gorgeous, though i think it is the interaction between the young boy and the penguinw hich makes this photo such a strong image. The penguin eyes the boy and vice versa... The bubbles trickling up from the penguin's mouth...

All in all its a very wonderful capture. Very cinematic i think.

 

[Sisyphus]

I like this photo a lot, and well executed. There are several things happening in this image that make it exceptional. First it is a subtle, quiet moment, unlike many photographers, who seem to have the need to use gimmicks such as tilted horizons. There are no gimmicks used in this photograph. Second the gesture of the child--his curious look, and the position of his arms and hands--juxtaposed to the penguin swimming by him, and the look in his eye. A secondary motion are the bubbles. Third, I like the contrast of the darkness to the light. I do not think the black is too much--it is perfect, and just enough light to illuminate the boy's face. Finally, the formal elements that help frame this image the organic, circular motion of the boy's arms, which is repeated in the shape of the penguin and the rock; once again juxtaposed to the inorganic feeling of the rectangle framed by the window and the black edge to the left.

It is beautiful!

 

[rover]

Sisyphus, thank you. That is probably the closest summation of exactly what I see in it too. I have spent a lot of time looking at this image, I keep coming back to it, one of my favorites of 2007.

It is interesting hearing what others see in it, how different it may be, like it or not.

Interesting side bit. When I first scanned the negative I couldn't figure out what the heck I was taking a picture of. It took me a while to actually see that that was a penguin. And I couldn't figure out if I just messed up the exposure. Too much lag between shooting, developing and scanning.

 

[Sisyphus]

You're welcome--it is a wonderful moment captured on film or chip.

 

[ruben]

In my opinion there is absolutely nothing wrong in showing pictures of our families, relatives, friends, etc - as pictures standing by themselves.

What makes a personal picture to stand by itself ?: The quality.

Thus we have very recently seen outstanding photos by BudGreen, and some year ago there was a whole series of outstanding pictures of one of our members about his girlfriend, about which I opened a thread.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24624

And there are other examples at other sites.

Now does Rover photo owns enough quality to be such a stand alone photo?
I think so. It shows a very nice dialogue between the penguin and the kid, it is well composed, it manages to show a bit of the kid's face, which was not easy angle to find - therefore it is a very nice one.

What is a "father's pic" in the negative sense?: a badly composed image, which the father is showing and not reckognizing the bad composition out of his love for his kid.

In general, as photographers, emotional involvement with the subject is one of the most powerfull sources of creativity, and our most closest beings are no exception.

On the contrary, love for our relatives is one of the most deep dramatic issues we can possibly have.

Cheers,
Ruben