looking for honest evaluation of my pictures

jsrockit said:
I don't see what is so wrong with that...
Click to expand...

Well, the OP was asking if we could discern a personal style.
The answer to that is no, given the selection of images in various forms and types presented.
I'm thinking that that was what Chris101 was referring to.
 
As you will have no doubt seen, opinions are much easier to produce than images.
I'd advise you to look at the work of those who are comfortable to post links in their signatures, see who's images you prefer/or which represent what you'd like to produce yourself and pay particular attention to their advice. You could always ask them more specific questions privately. A few nuggets of gold can go a long way and people on this forum are generally a pretty generous bunch.
 
redisburning said:
here are some things I would like to know
quality: good, bad, stunningly mediocre?
unified personal vision: do you see one? could you say what it was if you do?
influences: am I derivative or unique? could you guess any photographers that I like just by looking at my photos?
where to go next: book recommendations, things I should try, etc.
Click to expand...

Well it is a gutsy thing to do to ask responders to beg off the politeness required by convention, so my hat's off to you on that score. Please take my comments in the courageous spirit in which you framed your original post.

In terms of quality, I assume you mean technical quality of the images, not quality of your "vision" or something less coherent. In the pictures you have shown I think that the technical quality is spotty and could use some hard-nosed attention. For instance in the first picture, the night street scene: on my monitor there is no black in that scene. The shadows are a dark gray. This distracts me and suggests that not enough time was spent processing in post to place the black and white points where they will make the strongest impression. It is like poor grammar in a sentence: it doesn't mean that the reader won't understand what you are saying, but they will have to fight through some knee-jerk annoyance to get there. Also, you will have started to lose your audience before they take the time to really look at your picture because they are likely to infer that you don't understand the grammar of this craft. I would note that this is, generically, a huge problem posting to the web where there are millions of monitors out there, each out of calibration in their own unique way. Hey, for all I know the problem is on my end.

Similarly, the picture of the dog is massively grey on my monitor. Looks like the dog should be white, at least. The image is covered in dust spots (or some other white detritus from scanning). I read above that the dog is significant to you emotionally (or to a friend) -- that significance, and the importance you accord this particular animal, CAN'T come through with these technical defects. The viewer will ask: "If this subject is so important, why didn't the photographer take the time to look at the image critically, assess its defects and fix it?" So: dog=white, tonal range = rescued from gray, dust spots=gone... now your viewer might have some emotional response to the image. Until then, all the importance you place on the subject matter is not even part of the discussion; we are too busy with the distractions.

[EDIT: I see in a response above that you make a distinction between the technical aspects of your pictures and something you call "aesthetics." Let me cautiously suggest that the two are really the same (or so intertwined that they can't be separated). You can't in seriousness ask someone for an aesthetic appraisal of a picture with technical defects. Or said another way, "Moonrise over Hernandez" with white dust spots is just a bad print. Photography is a technical art -- you don't get to evaluate aesthetics until you have mastered technique. There is just no point. The dog picture IS the sum of its technical achievements: I just see a grey snapshot of a dog in the middle of the frame with white dust spots all over -- it has no aesthetic quality at all, which is the ability to generate an emotional response from your viewer based on its beauty/ugliness.]

A note on content, which is also part of "quality." A plurality of the pictures (and a majority of the pictures with human subjects) don't show faces. When evaluating my own pictures with the same problem, this usually suggests a lack of courage to confront or acknowledge my subject. Personally, I don't find this mysterious, I just find it boring. Those pictures, thematically, read as instant failures. Or said another way: If I am going to spend a lot of time looking at the backs or sides of peoples' heads, I have to be convinced that there is something bold being attempted, rather than just a snapshot of a stranger retreating from my vantage point.

Unified personal vision: short answer: no. This is a tough one, because just as you have been pointed to some RFF photographers who have forged one, the vast majority have none. I have none. But the question is a little confusing in your case, because of the variety of image you have selected. I would turn this question back to you for refinement: why do you think someone viewing the 10 image you posted would come to the conclusion that you have a unified personal vision? If you had one, how would you characterize it?

Derivative? Red Herring. Who cares? It is so challenging to take a good photograph, what does it matter if it is in the style of Nan Goldin? And it is a Catch-22, because as you take more pictures and become a more sophisticated viewer, your answer to this question will change. Ignore it. Take lots of pictures. Take 25,000 pictures in the next three years. Edit ruthlessly. Throw out 3/4 of what is left. Then ask the question about the remainder. And look. See as many images as you can.

Hope this was not too painful. Now go click that shutter button.
 
Well I think you underdeveloped (or didn't agitate properly) some of your black and white

Original - looks very flat:
7117788433_b3128a70eb_z.jpg



It could be helped with some mid tone contrast:
 

Attachments

  • version 2.jpg
    version 2.jpg
    129.2 KB · Views: 0
Basically, what you are saying is that they are snapshots which have some personal associations for you, such as the dog.

Secondly, you don't care about the technical quality of the photos since in your opinion, that has no relevance to your style of expression.

Grouping them in a different way wouldn't make any difference to my perception of your pictures.

What I would say if I was pressed to give my opinion is that you have a bunch of mediocre snapshots in which you purport in some way capture some personal meaning for you.

Since by your own admission your pictures resonate mainly with yourself, you can't expect the public at large to be mind-readers and see all these things that appeal to you only.

You have very few hits on your photos. This is probably because only you, and possibly the other people in the photos find them of any interest whatsoever.

Personally, and this is only my very personal opinion, I don't like the out of focus, indistinct "blurry" school of photography. For me, this very rarely works and doesn't appeal to me.

If you like your photos, that's good, but don't expect praise from the masses.

redisburning said:
well, would you prefer to see a group that is more closely related? that is more "evaluate my set of images" rather than the general question I am asking but if that would be better I will be happy to oblige.

and, no you have guessed right. they aren't trying to convey anything. I don't have a story to tell, or a message to get across and (here is my moment of honesty) I think that is a worthless pursuit, personally. I am merely interested in making some nice photographs that stand by themselves. the bit about the personal vision is I want to know if they are identifiable as all being my photographs or if they are disjointed (you indicate the latter).

and the picture of my dog is certainly a snapshot. but I could not leave her out. photography is, afterall, a personal thing and she is important to someone who has so frequently left all the of the people he knows behind.

oh, and from a technical standpoint that is not what I want to know. I don't worry about that sort of thing honestly. I am looking for a purely aesthetic evaluation.

I appreciate your thoughts, thank you.
Click to expand...
 
I liked most of them. There is a great variety of shots. I don't view that as a weakness. Forgive me if I'm off the point, but it seems like these were photos in which you were developing technique, but not really pointing to a particular style. I guess 'exploring' is the plain way to put it. I think you have enough skill, but it is more about pointing yourself in a direction and following it for a while--even if you abandon that direction later. I'd gladly take a happy snap over well composed boredom.

Keep at it, I admire your ability to put yourself out there.

cheers,

db
 
redisburning said:
I am merely interested in making some nice photographs that stand by themselves. the bit about the personal vision is I want to know if they are identifiable as all being my photographs or if they are disjointed (you indicate the latter).
Click to expand...

Going by this, I think one of the shots, "sleepyheads" is going in the right direction.

The hurdle there is more about composition techniques than anything. How do you make two heads (even lovely heads with full hairs 🙂 ) look interesting in the photograph? As is, the photo has all the ingredients notably the walking lady in the background, but they are not arranged in a visually captivating way.

I think in general you just need to sharpen your eyes to spot and use the viewfinder to create a visually interesting composition.

For what it's worth:
- The grey ones would work in a set. Don't be close-minded to creating sets of photographs, it's one of the most satisfying aspect of photography when you succeeded.

- Don't worry about influences. So what if your photo looks like one of Gary Winogrand's or Ansel Adams'? A good photo is a good photo, no matter what it looks like. Nobody, not even the greats can work in vacuum, void of any influences from others.
 
"Going by this, I think one of the shots, "sleepyheads" is going in the right direction."

Definitely one of my favorites in the series for those same reasons, good range of tone with controlled highlights and shadows. Some advice form more seasoned photographers on how to replicate this consistently would be helpful.

I especially appreciate that this thread has gone in such a supportive direction. Criticism is so hard to give through a limited medium such as a forum, but I think it is going well. Kudos to all.
 
First of all I owe you all some gratitude for posting. And I see that a lot of people actually did bother to at least take a look, which is very generous.

I want to let everyone get their say in before I respond. I just wanted to chime in and let you all know that I have read every response and all of the pms.
 
IMO for any work of art to 'grab' the viewer and 'hold' them is for there to be tension and narrative, especially for human subjects. Even a snapshot can do this if it compels a question in the mind.

Aesthetic and technical matters can be elevated to create their own tension and narrative (beauty for beauty's sake).

What you are asking vis-a-vis quality or vision are secondary. Your vision is comprised of your ability to tell a story with your photo, and the quality is your technical skill at wresting the beauty out of the subject and its context.

Take the last photo, the colour one of the little girl on the beach. If it had been framed more at her head height, and with the subject in isolation made smaller against the vast sea as backdrop, then there might be a stronger narrative there. It's not intimate (cannot see her face) so we want to ask who she is and where she is going (mystery = tension). Why is she alone? She is vulnerable against the sea. Is she cold, lost, alone, afraid? And technically, her vibrant colours are an artificial imposition of man-made colours against nature's backdrop and palette (another form of tension through juxtaposition).

When I take a photo that I intend to be more than just a capture-the-moment snapshot, I ask what the story is and how to make it better through photographic techniques. Sometimes a snap can become an accidental masterpiece, and that is part of the wonder of photography, and its uniqueness as an art form.

Just ideas and suggestions as to how to achieve vision and quality, IMO. others may differ in their advice.

Good luck.
 
redisburning said:
First of all I owe you all some gratitude for posting. And I see that a lot of people actually did bother to at least take a look, which is very generous.

I want to let everyone get their say in before I respond. I just wanted to chime in and let you all know that I have read every response and all of the pms.
Click to expand...

i think it best if you don't respond...when one askes for feedback, it's best to just digest it, see how it fits for you and then carry on.
responding is a no win situation as i see it.
 
back alley said:
i think it best if you don't respond...when one askes for feedback, it's best to just digest it, see how it fits for you and then carry on.
responding is a no win situation as i see it.
Click to expand...

But some acknowledgment would be nice (like what OP just did). At least we know we are not talking to a wall.
 
back alley said:
i think it best if you don't respond...when one askes for feedback, it's best to just digest it, see how it fits for you and then carry on.
responding is a no win situation as i see it.
Click to expand...

well, I had a few followup questions but if it's going to offend people to ask them to elaborate on a few things I didn't fully understand I guess that's fine too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom