Negative critique

[Jockos]

No. With abstract work, I enjoy interesting areas, shadings, blends, colors, opaque and transparent patches, textures.
Responding to your quote there: I see most of your pictures in that album to be too simple and have few, in fact zero, points of interest. *I do not mean that harshly* - I am responding to your wording.

EDIT: I am making a blanket statement about the set of pictures. That's not always reasonable. But I just could not comment on each one.

I see, may I ask then at what size you were viewing the images?

Again, thank you for taking the time to point this out!

 

[Jockos]

I like what you are on to, but these image need more acuity. Blowing them up just makes them mushy. No sharpness, definition, contrast, etc..

Forget Pollack (his work is not random scribbled lines) or Miro.

Take a look at Aaron Siskind, Robert Motherwell, Carl Chiarenza, Minor White, and Robert Rauschenberg. There is beauty in abstraction. There is beauty in garbage.

For a final print, all would be re-digitized, most were scanned at 2400 dpi with the Canon 9000 for proofing.

 

[Jockos]

I can't improve on this critique. I'm generally not all that keen on abstract images, but to me Chiarenza's work in particular is often quite interesting. No harm in being inspired by the work of others as long as it's a starting point for your own vision.

Another area to investigate is the work of the Surrealists. Man Ray always amuses me to no end. Not so much for abstraction but more for his subversive treatment of what (was) the ordinary.

Not all of the pictures are abstract though, say 252636 for example?

 

[Jockos]

Since you asked for it: The pictures with grass and ice flowers are simply confusing. Nothing to guide your eye or grab your attention, just a lot of details; about as interesting as a close up of cold porridge . The rest of the images I find quite interesting either as abstracts or because you can find a small story in them .

If I find some cold porridge on the ground, I'll make sure to include that in the series as well! Thanks for your opinion 🙂

 

[daveleo]

I see, may I ask then at what size you were viewing the images? ....................

I clicked the thumbnail, then I clicked the "magnify" sign.

 

[MIkhail]

I have no negative input here, I think you are on a right track.
Just continue pushing your thing as you are doing, that's the way.
Tonal range, etc.... is secondary, does not matter much. If you don't like it yourself then you can change it.
Good luck!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Interesting images. Most of them. Texturish.
They just feels soapy. Not soft, not sharp, but soapy.

 

[Jockos]

Interesting images. Most of them. Texturish.
They just feels soapy. Not soft, not sharp, but soapy.

The A7 will help with that, I've got a nice slide duplication rig, with an e.l. nikkor!
The negs are mostly with the 50 lux ashp, so they should hold some detail 🙂

 

[Jockos]

I have no negative input here, I think you are on a right track.
Just continue pushing your thing as you are doing, that's the way.
Tonal range, etc.... is secondary, does not matter much. If you don't like it yourself then you can change it.
Good luck!

Allright, it's interesting that you find the pictures interesting in conflict with the common opinion!
Thank you!

 

[paulfish4570]

they all look near random, except for the wings; it looks composed and thoughtful.

 

[Jockos]

I clicked the thumbnail, then I clicked the "magnify" sign.

On a computer or a phone? It's interesting to me because I want to know what perspektive you had 🙂

 

[robert blu]

You have a few interesting images and other that are nice but not interesting.
I like the work you are on and I think editing is the key word. Be cruel and select only the few which are strong, IMO the subjects (a part the wings) aren't really a matter of interest, so you should select the ones with a strong, impacting visual, a graphic approach.
Already mentioned but I agree working with different light conditions should give a better rythmus making the series less monotnus.
Again already said sharpness, grey tones, tonality are very important in this kind of photography, unfortunately I can only see them now on my wife's i.pad and not on my monitor.
252872, 255667 are photos I like very much, 252872 is in my opinion very good but too descriptive compared with some of the others, I can imagine a series which could start from more descriptive photos and develops into more abstracts, it could be great, hope you keep on with this effort, coraggio!
robert

 

[daveleo]

On a computer or a phone? It's interesting to me because I want to know what perspektive you had 🙂

a 23" monitor

 

[MIkhail]

Allright, it's interesting that you find the pictures interesting in conflict with the common opinion!
Thank you!

Dear Jockos,
I am not finding pictures interesting or un-interesting, and I really not worried to much about common opinion, for several reasons.
What I find encouraging is that you are pushing your own theme, and that's the right thing to do. It’s the only thing to do really.
To judge individual pictures in a series, or to judge an image on a merit of “not sharp”, “badly composed”, “Tonality is bad” or any other technical issues at this day and age only means, imo, to be not one, but two steps behind in understanding of modern art processes. The times of a picture as its own thing are long gone. It’s a different topic, really.
I don’t believe that opinions that you will collect on forums of random people, let alone the technical forum of camera enthusiasts, really have any merit TO YOU AS ARTIST.

 

[Jockos]

You have a few interesting images and other that are nice but not interesting.
I like the work you are on and I think editing is the key word. Be cruel and select only the few which are strong, IMO the subjects (a part the wings) aren't really a matter of interest, so you should select the ones with a strong, impacting visual, a graphic approach.
Already mentioned but I agree working with different light conditions should give a better rythmus making the series less monotnus.
Again already said sharpness, grey tones, tonality are very important in this kind of photography, unfortunately I can only see them now on my wife's i.pad and not on my monitor.
252872, 255667 are photos I like very much, 252872 is in my opinion very good but too descriptive compared with some of the others, I can imagine a series which could start from more descriptive photos and develops into more abstracts, it could be great, hope you keep on with this effort, coraggio!
robert

I will keep working on it for sure!
I was not sure about the wings picture, it kind of doesn't fit in with the rest..
Thank you for taking the time to view and commenting!

 

[Jockos]

Dear Jockos,
I am not finding pictures interesting or un-interesting, and I really not worried to much about common opinion, for several reasons.
What I find encouraging is that you are pushing your own theme, and that's the right thing to do. It’s the only thing to do really.
To judge individual pictures in a series, or to judge an image on a merit of “not sharp”, “badly composed”, “Tonality is bad” or any other technical issues at this day and age only means, imo, to be not one, but two steps behind in understanding of modern art processes. The times of a picture as its own thing are long gone. It’s a different topic, really.
I don’t believe that opinions that you will collect on forums of random people, let alone the technical forum of camera enthusiasts, really have any merit TO YOU AS ARTIST.

Right, thank you for this comment! I will keep rolling with this project for a while. It might be one of those never ending types!

 

[retinax]

Hi,
I like many of these a lot. I would maybe edit this collection into a series by removing the images which I feel don't work strongly enough (or too strongly maybe) in a graphic way, as robert blu suggested if I got him right.
I feel that the flat lighting works very well for most of these images, I'd only try to use more "interesting" lighting if it contributes essentially to the graphic functioning of an image here (no particular one in mind, just as a response to what others have said). To me, interesting lighting would take away some of the abstraction, make a reference to the medium, emphasize the recorded-ness, so to say, of the scenes. I generally like strong lighting, but in this series-to-be, it would distract me from the direct graphic power that these images have.
On another note, I get the impression that you're hampered by your choice of a rf camera, as some of the images might be stronger if framed a little closer? But if you deliberately limited yourself to a certain distance, that is of course completely legitimate and may help to keep the series together.
I admire your dedication despite your working hours!
Regards,
J.

 

[zauhar]

I think these are wonderful. Even the ones that look less interesting in thumbnail are very compelling full size.

Good luck with this project.

Randy

 

[Jockos]

Hi,
I like many of these a lot. I would maybe edit this collection into a series by removing the images which I feel don't work strongly enough (or too strongly maybe) in a graphic way, as robert blu suggested if I got him right.
I feel that the flat lighting works very well for most of these images, I'd only try to use more "interesting" lighting if it contributes essentially to the graphic functioning of an image here (no particular one in mind, just as a response to what others have said). To me, interesting lighting would take away some of the abstraction, make a reference to the medium, emphasize the recorded-ness, so to say, of the scenes. I generally like strong lighting, but in this series-to-be, it would distract me from the direct graphic power that these images have.
On another note, I get the impression that you're hampered by your choice of a rf camera, as some of the images might be stronger if framed a little closer? But if you deliberately limited yourself to a certain distance, that is of course completely legitimate and may help to keep the series together.
I admire your dedication despite your working hours!
Regards,
J.

Thanks for your input! Some editing is definitely in order.
I do enjoy working with my M3, and personally feel that the 80 cm I get with my 50mm is usually tight enough. I am however trying to get a 90 macro elmar as well!

And my work is in IT and POS, so it's about as far from art as you can get!

 

[FrankS]

Thanks for your input! Some editing is definitely in order.
I do enjoy working with my M3, and personally feel that the 80 cm I get with my 50mm is usually tight enough. I am however trying to get a 90 macro elmar as well!
And my work is in IT and POS, so it's about as far from art as you can get!

The most important person to satisfy with personal photography is yourself.

90 macro elmar on an M3 or Leica slr?

IT i understand means information technology.
POS as I understand it is not complimentary. 😱