Photo Critique - river pool on Canadian Shield

Nikon F2, Nikkor AI 50mm f1.4, film NPH, exposure not recorded, image

scanned from print and adjusted using Adobe Photoshop Elements 1.0

Some of the foreground was blown out slightly, so I burned the

lighter coloured part of the rocks, cloned out a few dust specks, and

using fine setting on variations I added:

a bit more red to the image.

***I have red green colour blindness like many males and I am curious

about this particualar adjustment to the colour.***

On this day I shot most of several rolls in three different cameras

(Bessa T, Leica IIIf) finding that getting a good exposure was

difficult between the shadows of the pools and highlights on the

rocks and the transitions from shade to bright sunlight.

Should have used a tripod but I was lazy that day.

Right near the lock at Port Severn, Ontario, the beginning of the

Muskoka area.

sheesh

<br><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1176067"> river pool on Canadian Shield at Port Severn, Ontario</a>

<br<br>

Thanks for any comments

Nikon forum has a category for photo critiques and the moderator I believe thinks it is an okay question to post in here.

If you don't want to look, then pass by.

mr. gibson---

don't let these folks discourage you from showing your photos. i

would really like more photos in this forum among all these gear

talks. i like your photo and the photo could have been much better if

the lighting condition was better.

mr. hopper: what kind of constructive feedback is "poor subject

selection"? who are you to say what's a good subject selection?

people shoot what they like and i find your comment offensive and

totally unconstructive.

Dear Mr. Lee,

If Mr. Gibson didn't really want critical comments, then he should not have posted the image.

FYI, many (most?) serious photographers consider subject selection, lighting, and composition all to be fundamental to the making of a good picture. I consider "poor subject selection" to be a highly valid critical assessment of this photograph.

That was, in fact, the most constructive comment I could make. It was difficult, if not impossible, to find any redeeming value to this photograph. Usually, even with bad photographs, it's possible to see what it was that attracted the attention of the photographer, even if the execution was poor. In this case, there's nothing there and not even a hint of anything interesting.

Now, that's my honest, critical opinion. You are certainly entitled to a different opinion. However, the whole rationale for posting photographs is to invite a full range of opinions. While one may not feel flattered by some highly critical opinions, they can learn from critical opinions honestly stated.

"Poor subject selection, poor composition, poor light - otherwise, an admirable effort."

Let me explain something.

The first statement by you concludes - "otherwise, an admirable effort." That is simply a sarcastic slap in the face.

"Poor subject selection, poor composition, poor light."

I'll take that opinion, but not the rest which is a slap in the face.

This thread certainly got ugly fast. Mr. Gibson, it seems someone has pulled your photo from public viewing. I had viewed and critiqued and rated it there but that's all gone...curious why.

You posted a sub par photo for critique. One person had the guts to speak up and give a very accurate and honest critique of that photo but tried to soften the blow of that harsh critique a bit and you interpret that as a "slap in the face". That is exceptionally rude of you. I question your motives for ever posting that image, then retracting it and then insulting a person offering a critique. I saw no "slap in the face" or insult, I always try to offer some solace or point out something positive when I offer a harsh critique and I have no doubt the poster was doing the same. I believe it is he who deserves the apology.

--evan

I understand that you think your opinion is more valid than mine. I understand that what Hopper wrote was an insult. If you cant understand that, that is your problem not mine.

There is a difference between a honest critical opinion and sarcasm.

I dont believe that the tail end of that remark was an effort to soften at all.

Dont tell me I am rude.

You offer your opinion and I offer mine. We disagree.

Leave it at that.

mr. hopper---

i agree with your sentimental about the rationale and honesty in a

critique though not convinced about the subject selection. subject

selections is as open as camera gears. futhermore, in a honest harsh

criticism, it would be better to be a little more constructive than

say bad lighting, poor composition etc...perhaps say a little about

how the photo could have been better.

we want good dialogues among forumers right? atleast i do.

mr. gibson: as an observer, i didn't take hopper's comment as sarcasm

or personal attack. some people are just blunt. i hope you still

post photos in the future

W. Gibson,<P>

I've greatly admired other photos by you in the past - and on seeing, this morning, the photo currently under discussion, I wanted to take some time before rushing to critique it; I could see that, as usual for you, you had taken a subtlely non-traditional approach to otherwise "common" subject matter - I think your willingness to take risks in your photos speaks volumes.<P>

When finally I'm ready to give a constructive critique, I log on only to find the photo gone. Don't let the asinine philistine comments (in no wise could you call them substantive, or even "critique") bug you: one can seldom escape those. Meanwhile, though, there are plenty of us here who admire your work and appreciate your posting. However, if you want me to delete this thread, I will. Whatever you decide, I do hope you'll continue posting your photos here.

going back to the original scan and using no adjustments just resizing.<br><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1178413">river pool without adjustments</a><br><br><br>Please kindly note in my original statement that I have red green colour blindness and that may be creating more trouble with my colour photography than I realize. <br><br>Also, my original reworked image was done on an iBook and I have noticed sometimes that what I see on that screen does not always look the same on a pc monitor or even the iBook screen when the image is posted to photo.net. <br><br> I, like a lot people I suspect, wish I was better with a scanner.

I compared the two versions side-by-side; must be my monitor, but in any case I can't really see a difference between them. Anyway, lately I've been looking at the work of Eliot Porter (particularly <U>The Color of Nature</U>, I believe it's called - the newest edition of him, brought out by Aperture, the lithography and color reproduction of which finally does him justice; and makes you realize what a superlative photographer he was) - his work in many ways is stronger than that of his near contemporary Adams, to whose work he otherwise had at least some similarity (if only in that they both made nature their primary subject, shot in large format, and treated the negative as the "score" of the work). It wasn't until I saw Eliot's stuff that I began to appreciate "nature" as a really legitimate subject, one with broad, deep possibilities.<P>

I mention this because, of course, that's what your shot brought to mind. I like the mirroring of form created by the shadows and the rocks; and the contrast set up between the dark ephemeral shadows and the light-colored, substantial rocks. I also like the jagged mirror of water between them, which creates a kind of interesting, irregular border.<P>

What I'm not sure about, though, is the way the rocks and shadows run off the page. It's as though all your focus is on the interior of the frame, without any regard for the edges. Of course, it's a steadfast rule that everything be neatly tied together - a dynamic interior, surrounded by some sort of natural edge or boundry - preferably with a little red ribbon around it all. Breaking a rule like that can be effective in the extreme, when it works. In fact (and as you likely know) most (though not all) of the really striking images made today feature some sort of radical disregard for visual convention (see for example the Magnum Photos website). But I think that, here, in this photo, the bleed off the frame edge is too uniform - nothing brings the eye back into the photo, and to make matters more dire still, perhaps, the edges, where the bleeding goes on, are too bland for my taste. Perhaps something as simple as a thick black frame could make the elements appear more cohesive, and thereby solve the problem for me. But a better solution might involve going back to the drawing board on this one. My two cents. Thanks for posting it again.

Doug - thanks for the feedback.

I made a mistake in my posting of the photo in its "original" form. I had forgotten that I had saved the scanned file with adjustments.

I rescanned and put the new really "original" version in place with a black border.

I make an effort to run my eye around the edge of my viewfinder frame when I shoot. Perhaps the edge is not true to the rules.

So I guess when the snow melts, I will have to go back to this spot, about a 25 minute drive from my front door, and take some more photos.

so images and links

<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1178413">nonadjusted scan with black border</a>

<br><br><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1178834">black and white version with grey border</a>

my last kick at the cat

<br><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1178847">pool cropped to improve edge lead out and back into the photo</a>

<br><br>

I am not sure I understand about the comment about the edge. This reworked version is my attempt to change the edge of the photo and allow the eye to escape out with the line on the top left, the water near the top left, also at the bottom right corner to allow the rock edge to fall out the bottom corner and the water at that corner to allow re-entry.

<br><br>

If I have missed the concept about the edge, please let me know. Thanks.

Anyone can find fault in even the best of photos. Heck, when I'm in a bad mood I can walk right into the Met and criticize everything in sight.

It takes talent to recognize and talk about what makes a photo good, even if it's a great photo. That's what I'm hoping to accomplish.

With that in mind, go rate my portfolio.

Cheers!

<I>I am not sure I understand about the comment about the edge. </I><P>

First, I think the border is an improvement. As far as what I mean about the edge goes: As the eye moves around the frame edge, it seeks something, some shape or space or lines, that will tie the elements of the image together and lead the eye back into the picture. That, and balanced forms, is integral to our expectations and seeing needs. Doesn't mean you have to always cater to it; but when you don't, you run the risk of the image being less than inspiring. Or being seen that way, which is really the same thing, come to that.<P>

In this particular image, the frame is an arbitrary interruption in the mass of forms and shapes. In other words, it's as though you took a rectangle and arbitrarily placed it over the scene; I see lines and shapes that lead my eye to the frame edge, and beyond; I see nothing that leads it back.<P>

Ultimately, these "rocks" and "shadows" and "water", are just design elements. It helps, usually, to see them that way. And in truth they are not of course anything else. Certainly they are not "rocks" and so on. One thing that might prove helpful is to take the frame and look at it from all sides - especially upside-down. If everything looks balanced and pleasing from all sides, then you know you're onto something: a growing awareness of the elements in your work in their essential role as abstract forms.