Looking at and critiqueing photos

[Sparrow]

Your turn Remy!! (and anyone else who wishes to do so)

The viewer’s interest is focused on the rectangular shape of the beast and the two men by the repeating texture in the ground a classic effect of Area and Symmetry to highlight the subject from its ground. The repetition of the outer rectangular shape in the subject helps hold the viewers attention on the inner rectangle leaving a well proportioned dead area in the lower third of the frame. The low angle light, the expressions of the men and the solid composition all convey a warm and happy feel to the image.
I like it by the way!

 

[oftheherd]

oftheherd: I typed that post before you had psoted your critique. It certainly wasn't aimed at you! Sorry for the unfortunate juxtaposition of posts.

Oh, no problem. I actually didn't take it that way. I just wanted to indulge in a little self deprecation. And you were correct in you post.

 

[wtl]

now i feel obligated to contribute to this thread after I have bitched with all the other gear talks. 🙂 I am however a lousy one with words though.

RML - i read through what others said and have little idea what they mean (don't mean to say they are not valid though). for me, the flash works in this shot and exposure is not a problem. the head level that divides the frame into the upper and lower parts, however, makes the picture lack of dynamic. understand you had little control on where everyone stood but if you could move yourself a bit and makes the frame more three-dimentional, it will help.

oftheherd - the print quality might be the biggest drawback for your shot. it lacks tones and blacks. the yellow (sepia) tone does not work. and my eye is dying to see a holizontal frame. however, the two farmers are very photogenic, if that's what you worry about. the subject matter is of great interest. and knowing you have niticed this small moment shows that you have a very well trained eye.

 

[RML]

OK. I have absolutely nothing useful to say about your photo, oftheherd! 🙁

I stink at these things. However, I do like the shot. The subject is about something I find interesting: (traditional) life in a different place of this planet. The men are at ease and don't mind being shot with the tool of their trade (the bullock). There's a certain noncalance as well as down-to-earthness in their pose and attitude. They don't feel patronised, awkward or intimidated. For me that shows there was some rapport between the photog and the men. Interesting detail is the cyclist in the background, which adds some authenticity to the shot.

I do find the trees at the horizon distractive. They tend to draw my eye away from the men and the bullock.

Seeing the bullocks rump leaves me wondering what the head looks like, which adds some mystery.

 

[jan normandale]

I think we all know what a good photo is. It really is that simple. Often we look at a photograph and can say why we like it. It is no surprise that the famous portrait of the Afghan Girl by Steve McCurry in National Geographic has such a high interest level. It is good. Colour, light, composition and subject all came together.

It’s harder to say what a bad photo is you just know it is. I have lots of them. My test for a good photo is put it on a wall for a month. If I still like it it’s good, if it comes down it was “so so” or maybe even terrible. I shoot a lot of film and my hit ratio is about 3 or 4 from a roll that are even ‘eligible’ for keeper status.

Keep your comments simple and don’t bother to tell someone how they ‘should have shot’ the photo because maybe they already knew that and decided to come at the photograph from a different perspective. Look at the image and if it hits you and you are in no way connected to the image because it’s your family or house or anything like that, then you should be able to comment on what it is in the shot that makes it appealing. Finally remember it’s all subjective however sometimes a photograph is simply great because it hits a common thread in almost every viewer, just like the Afghan Girl.

 

[XAos]

Keep your comments simple and don’t bother to tell someone how they ‘should have shot’ the photo because maybe they already knew that and decided to come at the photograph from a different perspective

I for one, like to hear constructive comments about things I could've done different to make the shot better. A lot of us are just hacks, stumbling on an interesting shot once in a while. Some of us wouldn't know a good shot if it bit us in the butt. I have one that's been here before (the sprinkler shot) which I was dissapointed in because its so fuzzy. The 'normal' people I know all ask 'what is it? is that a frog?' and the photographers go 'wow nice'. Which makes me wonder just who I should be asking for input in the first place, Mom or some art weenie who's mad at the world. (FWIW I like the shot, know what it is, and it means something to me. I've never seen the frog or anything else besides a firefighter trying to turn a sprinkler head off in it.,)

 

[RML]

Bump, to keep the interest going....

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

Whilst i admire the idea of this thread set up whilst in discussion with George's thread about imbalance - i can't help feeling that sometimes when asked to repsond to a particular image - it can produce comments just for the sake of it. I think Jan hits the nail on the head when he cites Steve McCurry's famous image in that it has a universal appeal. (That said there are many of McCurry's shots that carry this same power and beauty). Some photographs seem to have a magic quality that is eay to respond to but very hard to actually put into words.
To try to extend your idea of disussing images perhaps we could start a WnW thread of images pulled from the gallery that we think are successful (not from our own galleries) - often in the WnW threads comments seem to come naturally, sometimes instead of actual images being posted, and in this way a more natural dialogue is built up as more images are displayed. I think this is on ereason why the random images shown on the home page draw comments and views.

I hope i'm in no way hijacking this thread Remy, i'm just tying to bump it along more...... 🙂

 

[RML]

Simon, I understand what you're driving at. But my idea was similar to what you propose: take a photo from anywhere and see if we all can learn from it: the good and the bad. Yes, some photos have "universal" appeal, but why is that? Is McCurry's photo so attractive because of the girl or because of the contrast between the red and the green in the shot? Or the gazing green eyes of the girl? Do women feel different about this photo, or Africans, or ...? And why are photos I find crap loved by others, not because of the subject but the way the subject was shot? And how do we put in words these likes and dislikes?

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

Good point Remy. For McCurry's work i think it's his exceptional use of colour that makes it so successful that and good marketing - getting such an image out to the public domain. Selecting this image for the front cover of National Geographic made this mag leap from the news stands. So combine a strong image with good public visibility and you have a winner. Conversely i've seen what i thought were weak images get huge amounts of public attention and again that's down to marketing.

btw McCurry's book on Cambodia is stunning especially the shots of the monks at the Bayon - (a temple i've visited and photgraphed many times in B/W) - his long distance shot in colour has captured and expressed a moment and feeling i've never seen in any other picture of this temple. I carry the image of this shot in my head whenever i go back to Angkor.

 

[lubitel]

Dang! Now I'm in the pit I dug. 😛

I got a short lesson not so long ago in what could be considered a publishable photo from an art director. He was happy with photos that I would IMMEDIATELY dunk in the bin! The photos he chose were boring to my eyes, held few merits, didn't have much of a story going on, and were IMO not very good at all. I must talk to this man more if I get the chance, just to get an incling of what I'm not seeing that he is.

I think talking to an art director (if he/she is in advertising) about what photo is good is the wrong direction to go, unless you want to sell photos to photo-stock agencies. Art directors usually worry about things like, can I use this photo for a particular advertising piece, is there a whole subject in a photo or is it cut off, are the hair blond or black, is the expression on the face usable, and 1000 other things. Then the customer calls and says: please make the shirt blue and not red, the arm is too high - make it lower and blah blah. At the end - there is nothing left of the original photo. :bang:

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

I think talking to an art director (if he/she is in advertising) about what photo is good is the wrong direction to go, unless you want to sell photos to photo-stock agencies. Art directors usually worry about things like, can I use this photo for a particular advertising piece, is there a whole subject in a photo or is it cut off, are the hair blond or black, is the expression on the face usable, and 1000 other things. Then the customer calls and says: please make the shirt blue and not red, the arm is too high - make it lower and blah blah. At the end - there is nothing left of the original photo. :bang:

From my experience i would say that there are some very good art directors out there and i've been fortunate enough over the years to work with a few. Some clients are tricky that's for sure but i think its wrong to make the assumption that because someone is an art director that's a wrong route to take in terms of getting good advice. There is a world of difference between those photgraphers who make a living out of what they do and still make good work and those that take photographs for only for themsleves and never have to make a compromise based on commercial-client-directed conventional-decisions.

 

[lubitel]

I am just talking from my own experience, didnt mean to say that are no good art directors, and I also limited it to advertising work. But this is off topic anyway, I didnt want to change this thread in a whole new direction.

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

no worries Lubitel !🙂

 

[oftheherd]

OK. I have absolutely nothing useful to say about your photo, oftheherd! 🙁

I stink at these things. However, I do like the shot. The subject is about something I find interesting: (traditional) life in a different place of this planet. The men are at ease and don't mind being shot with the tool of their trade (the bullock). There's a certain noncalance as well as down-to-earthness in their pose and attitude. They don't feel patronised, awkward or intimidated. For me that shows there was some rapport between the photog and the men. Interesting detail is the cyclist in the background, which adds some authenticity to the shot.

I do find the trees at the horizon distractive. They tend to draw my eye away from the men and the bullock.

Seeing the bullocks rump leaves me wondering what the head looks like, which adds some mystery.

I think you have given a good critique nonetheless. I also like documenting people in other lands. You are right about the two men being very at ease. That has always been one of the things that attracted me to this photo. I only have three shots in my gallery. This one, and the other two all are from the same roll of film. One of these men was the one who let me know the girl was retarded. When I offered to photograph him, he wanted his friend in the photo.

They posed themselves the way I photographed them. It was unusual, but seeing how they wanted it, and being afraid they would change their mind if I tried anything else, I grabbed this. Many Koreans would have declined to allow their photos to be taken, thinking the Americans would be making fun of them somehow. I was surprised they agreed. I was also impressed by their demeanor in allowing the photo and in the way they wanted to be posed with their bullock. Ha, now the thought crosses my mind maybe they were trying to tell me something with the bullocks posterior. 😀

Anyway, I have never been impressed with my artistic talent in this shot, but have always liked it due to the time and place it was taken, and their willingness to allow the photo. We only communicated by sign language and the camera, but they were friendly the whole time. I made sure they and the parents of the girl got large mounted copies of the photos through one of the interpreters in our office.

Thanks for your replies Sparrow and Remy. Any criticisms are right on, but as I said, it has nice memories for me. I don't think you would find it hanging on my walls though. 🙂

 

[lubitel]

This is a really good thread. Being a young "hobby photographer" I never had any of my photos critiqued or was present at other photo critiques. Does anybody want to pick one of my photos and "disect" it? either from the gallery or from my website? I would appreciate that.

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

This is a really good thread. Being a young "hobby photographer" I never had any of my photos critiqued or was present at other photo critiques. Does anybody want to pick one of my photos and "disect" it? either from the gallery or from my website? I would appreciate that.

Ok Lubitel i'll bit the bullet and take you up on it.
i still can't work out how to display the image directly in the thread but here's a thumbnail from your website . Guess it defeats the object a bit by not being able to see it full size but here are my thoughts FWIW:

I kept coming back to this image as i found it strange and full mystery. This image works well from a compostional point of view the whole building creates a good postive space working with the sky a negative space and an almost 50/50 split. The mystery is the what looks like flock of birds but it coulod be a string of flags - hard to tell because of the size of the image but i like it. Tonally i find it a bit flat on the bottom 1/3rd but again when i see the way you have presented your other b/w image this low range of tones seems to run through out your web site so may be this is your preferred style of printing in which case - as printing is a very subjective i'm happy to accpet this . The cable running out of the picture out of the left hand side helps with the composition and rather than leading the eye out of the picture draws the eye (well my eye) into the centre of the image and back to that strange "flock of birds". For me it works as an image.

One general comment on your website i found the thumbnails too small to really naviagte but maybe it's my 15" screen?

Simon

 

[Sparrow]

Simon
Your eye, and everyone else for that matter is drawn to that centre area by The Rule of Thirds 99% of viewers will see it like that

 

[lubitel]

Thank you, Simon

the "mystery" is a flock of birds 🙂 By saying flat in lower 1/3, do you mean it should have more contrast there or somewhat darker? The thumbnails are quite small, I wanted to make the page as quick-loading as possible and maybe overdid it.

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

Simon
Your eye, and everyone else for that matter is drawn to that centre area by The Rule of Thirds 99% of viewers will see it like that

Maybe Sparrow but for me i often like the edges of images - what works in Lubitel's image is the delicate sense of overall balance but maybe i didn't explain this very well. Wrting is not one of my better atributes!

Lubtiel - darker = blacker would increase the sense of contrast - for me sometimes if shadows don't hold what i consider to be visually important details i often blacken them right down and concentrate on the high values. Everyone see's differently this is just my take on it.

OT Sparrow (Stewart i see you are in Halifax right now i'm with my folks in Wetherby
just up the A1!)