Ok here's the part where we report back, this is the Dave-Jerome exchange
Dave's image
J: First thing I noticed was good lighting, it's interesting that it's from the side because the plastic edges diffuse and highlight the objects. The photograph is technically well made since it was able to retain and show a good range of lights to shadow, which I assume was Dave's objective here (as opposed to a more impressionistic view with more contrast/less nuance perhaps).
It's a good study of texture, just by looking I can almost tell what the objects feel like, the table, the plastic, the edges vs the handle.
I took a look at your website and that photograph fits in well with its set, I imagined it would be part of a series, and in that context it's coherent. It's coherent with the theme, the setup (lighting, arrangement, objects), and the format (rectangular, white frame). Although I can't seem to recognize any "traditional" format (at least sides ratio) like 3:2 or 6:7, it doesn't matter in this case since like I said the set is consistent in that.
There's good use of space, around and between the objects and spacing from the edges, and from a composition perspective it looks thought out (as opposed to photographing something that happened to be already there, that's my impression at least). Although there aren't many items, it makes it clear what the subject is.
I'm not sure how to approach this last point. I guess all the images here will be on their own, even if they originally belonged to a set, so perhaps it's not "fair" to mention this in isolation. But in any case, I find that aside from the little fork shadow and despite the clear lighting it's very much two dimensional and doesn't convey any impression of depth or volume. By contrast, there are other images in that set that do that, so I think it's possible that it was done on purpose for this particular image. I don't have much knowledge about still life but it seems to me a bit more volume would make it more interesting, since we're looking top down with a flattening perspective.
That said, looking closely (perhaps because of my monitor crushing the shadows on the right) the fork does look just a little above the surface while the spoon and knife seem almost flattened in the shadow, which makes an interesting, although very slight, contrast between the left and right side.
I think that's the only image in that set which repeats something of the item that came before it and I find it curious that you chose that one to represent here, because it seemed it followed on something, or even more that the others, was part of something.
I don't really have anything to say on where to take it from here. Technically it seems you've got it under control, so no comments there; as for the subject and the set I honestly don't know what to say since still life is something I'm so unfamiliar with.
Jerome's (mine) image
D :
Hi Jerome,
Well here are my comments on your photo. Per the instructions now, let's talk this through via PM then report back to the thread (I think ?).
I am an emotional viewer, not a technical one, and my comments here reflect that. I don't ask pictures to fit inside my technical "box" (bokeh, sharpness, etc etc etc), I try to reach into the scene and go wherever it takes me, and I assume that the artist likes the picture just the way it's shown (he doesn't need me to tell him "this is out of focus" - he knows that already!!)
Like much of your B&W work, dark shadows, lots of drama. In fact, in most cases (as in this scene) your treament of shadow areas "makes" the scene we are looking at (though helped quite a bit by your generally excellent compositions).
In this scene, the drama makes me thnk these two guys are waiting anxiously, or chilling out from some stress. Maybe that's a hospital. (Maybe it isn't, but that's the fantasy that makes me like this image the most).
The griity texture of the shirt, the skin and the concrete work well together.
The columns of course add strength to the composition (geometrically) and separate the personal stories of these two guys (emotionally). If I had to experiment with the composition, I'd crop in horizontally, esp on the rght side, and see where that takes me. That is the only technical change I would consider.
Hi Dave
hahaha this exercise is such a mess, I love it, it's fun !
😀
thanks for the critique ! I'm also more emotional than rational but checking the "art appreciation" links in the thread I thought I was supposed to be objective and factual, oh well
🙄
It's funny you should find it tense or anxious, I won't say where it was taken just yet, can you elaborate more ? I mean did anything in particular give you that impression or was it just that, an impression ?
Now that you mention it, I think it could need a crop on the right side, that column is a bit too much. The image you see is already cropped though, I feel like I'm losing a lot already, I don't know, I'm not used to cropping.
Anyway, thanks again for your time. Now what do we do ?
😀
cheers
J
Hi Jerome,
This is an excellent exercise for artist-viewer exchange. Always amazes me how people "feel" about a picture of mine. Our interpretations are rooted in our personal histories (which may be very different). Love to see a thread where 6 people secretly comment on one image (no exchange of impressions) and read those results.
Anyway, back to my "critique".... In general dark shadows impress me as drama or tension (unless the scene is a sunny day at Disneyworld ) or sometimes mystery, usually exotic mystery. In interior images, a chiaroscuro treatment makes the image very personal and dramatic (for me, as a viewer). So, in general, unless the composition leads me elsewhere, I interpret pictures as I just explained.
The fact that the two men are facing away from me, added to my sense of tension and drama. Clearly, you did not want the viewer to recognize these guys - it's not a picture of them, it's a picture of something else and that something is not visible inside your frame.
If I saw this picture hanging in a gallery or wherever, that would be my interpretation.
My comments no doubt reflect more about me than they do about your picture. This is always the case with me, when I am shown a picture out of any context. There is a portrait of a lady in the Boston MFA, and I swear swear swear that the lady is secretly in love with the painter, because of the way she glances sideways away from the viewer (and painter).
A seriously over-active (over-romantic?) imagination !
I agree . . . this was fun !!
I think the next step is to cut and paste these PM's into the thread, I think I think.
