Discuss this photo (2)

[skopar steve]

The reason for "no critique" is to assume the photographer intended the photo to look exactly as it does. Presumably he or she has tried more or less contrast, sharpness, warming or cooling tones etc.. So I look at this image as if I'm at a gallery with a friend looking at someones work and discuss the photo with them.

This image presents a mood I'm all to familiar with. It's cold and damp. Reminds me of early morning walks along the Charles river in Boston in March. The Gull ads life to an otherwise lifeless scene. Yet being a scavenger, the Gull keeps with the dark mood. I like images that make me uneasy. This is one.

 

[ptpdprinter]

The reason for "no critique" is to assume the photographer intended the photo to look exactly as it does. Presumably he or she has tried more or less contrast, sharpness, warming or cooling tones etc.. So I look at this image as if I'm at a gallery with a friend looking at someones work and discuss the photo with them.

Do you find every image in a gallery successful, and think it could not be improved or interpreted differently?

 

[35photo]

I hear "critique" and think judgment, as in an authoratative determination of quality. But maybe that's wrong.

Still, I think in forums generally it's best to behave as peers and avoid any assumption of authority. But I see no harm in expressing our opinions, if done constructively.

I have not commented on this thread's photo because I'm not sure what the OP means by no critique. The photo has a couple features that dominate my perception of it, and raising them might be considered a critique.

John

I think you or anyone probably could substitute the word critique so to speak for just talking about the image no? I don't think talking about the image is considered critique could be wrong... Is asking questions about the image considered critique? I don't know... Just throwing things out there... I think might get where I'm going..

 

[skopar steve]

Do you find every image in a gallery successful, and think it could not be improved or interpreted differently?

Of course not. But then I don't spend any time with it. I just move on to one that is interesting to me. Same as here. If I'm not interested by the image I move on. I don't fell compelled to comment on an image I don't like. Doesn't mean its not a good image, I simply don't have anything to say about it.

I'll only offer a critique if it's asked for.

 

[ForestCap]

I agree what @skopar steve said. I think it's pretty natural to just talk about a photo, i.e. what/where/who it reminds you of, or a certain feeling or emotion that triggers. If you do not feel anything, then it is fine. If you do not feel like commenting anything, then it is fine as well.

I would not like every single image a gallery shows to people, and I do not have the urge to write on the gallery's guestbook to tell them what looks wrong to me.

 

[JoeV]

Although I like the image, I am more fascinated by the idea that it’s a constructed image, made by someone. If it were a found object, such as a tree, would we be critiquing the formation of the branches and leaves?

 

[BillBingham2]

Doesn't evoke anything good or bad.

B2 (;->