Color Blast

Walking around a distant city as a tourist, yet trying not to come home with too many obviously "tourist-y" photos... some scenes simply cannot be resisted... admittedly, it's not my only photo of an Amsterdam bicycle! EDIT: the fact that the bike os parked below what seems to be a "no bicycles" sign is just icing on the party cake.

 

I shot this many ways- with film and digitally. This digital rendering is my favorite of the lot. Light, color, levels and curves auto-adjusted on the iMac desktop, with some cropping to a ratio of 3:2

 

To me, it's a straightforward document of a colorful scene ... with bike. I generally am drawn toward photographs that do more than find something pretty or colorful and show a head-on view of it. I like to see a photographer give some sort of perspective on such a scene, capture some sort of expressive lighting, angle, or moment. I happen to love still lifes, which this could be an example of, but most still lifes also capture something atmospheric or intangible about the subject. This photo is very tangible.

I think that this photograph captures the spirit of the original art that is the subject. I wonder if that's the artist's face looking out a window in the middle of the middle building. The colors on the bike magically match the color in the image, as if it's meant to be part of the artwork.

 

I see nothing wrong with documenting an art piece, anchored in strong colors. I do wonder what the pink writing says. It seems to be part of the artwork, particularly since the "No Bikes" sign covers some of it. I don't think that we should shy away from being "accurate". If a "moment" had happened while you were there, that would have been nice, but I think the bike may be that moment and the paradox between it matching the art, yet being under a "No Bikes" sign. You might not be able to sell this image, due to copyright of the original artist, but, if it didn't infringe, I think that an editor might use it in a piece about Amsterdam.

I see nothing wrong with documenting an art piece either. Please don't take my photographic criticism as anything more than just that. It's a critique of the photograph, not the fact that the photographer photographed an art piece. As to the "no bikes" sign, I think taking pics of a bike under a "no bikes" sign is taking the easy way out, a rather shallow visual pun, like a guy smoking a cigarette under a "no smoking" sign or a car parked under a "no parking" sign. It's cute and not much more. Nothing "wrong" with doing it. Just doesn't make for an interesting photograph TO ME. Doesn't move any needles. I don't think we should shy away from being accurate either. But accuracy can be visually interesting to me or not. This accurate shot is not interesting to me.

 

By the way, I’m not trying to change your opinion of the photo. I just don’t want my criticism mischaracterized. It will be up to Ricochet to decide if what I say rings any bells for him. I feel I owe anyone who asks for critique my honest opinion.

Edited May 28, 2019 by samstevens

Thanks to both you guys for your opinions. I'm completely open to them of course, otherwise I wouldn't have posted this (or any other) shot here, asking for critique.

 

I get that this is more or less a pretty flat representation of this scene. Nothing really going on except the colors of the wall matching the colors of the bike. No great "art", on my part- but it is indeed colorful, and fun.

 

While the fact is that a bike under a no bikes sign is actually a pretty obvious cliche, well- there it was just the same.

I was in Amsterdam for only a few days and this little "scene" remained untouched the entire time- so maybe it had all been staged and I'm just one more sucker with a camera. ;-)

 

Thanks again for taking the time to give your opinions and critique of my shot. I appreciate it.

...

By the way, I’m not trying to change your opinion of the photo. I just don’t want my criticism mischaracterized. It will be up to Ricochet to decide if what I say rings any bells for him. I feel I owe anyone who asks for critique my honest opinion.

 

Understood. I'm not trying to do the inverse either.

 

I hope that we don't discourage people from taking "shallow" or "cute" images and sharing them. They have a place and many art directors/editors will use them as part of another storyline. I can imagine walking by this art and thinking, "Wow! Those colors are powerful , right here on the street and the artist seems to be having fun." Next, camera in hand, I think, "How can I make something more out of this?" and then next, maybe, "I give up, I'll just take advantage of the bike and sign there and document it. I don't see another way to build on it." The fact that I didn't think of a way to build on it, doesn't negate that I transmitted the paint artist's impression on to others. Every image can't be a triumph. Still, we should always be thinking of a way to maximize each image that we take, but sometimes it comes down to, how do we document something competently.

 

I think that there are many art critics that wouldn't like the original art that's the subject of this image, yet, there may be many people that actually enjoy it immensely. Critique is an exercise of voicing opinion, not validating worth. It might be constructive at times, but it is often merely opinion. I'm glad that we have a culture of open discourse in this Forum and I hope that we'll have many contribute images in the future and that the critique will continue in such and open and fluid way.

I hope that we don't discourage people from taking "shallow" or "cute" images and sharing them.

I hope so, too, if that's what they want to do. I also hope we don't discourage people from honest critique, even if the critique is negative. If a critic has a negative reaction to "cute and shallow", the photographer on the receiving end will hopefully feel free to:

 

a) disagree with and accept graciously the criticism (and Ricochet's been extremely gracious);

 

b) disagree and come off as defensive about the disagreement, or simply absorb the critique and decide to completely reject it;

 

c) agree with the criticism upon reflection and see the photo in a way it hadn't really struck them before and decide they are dissatisfied with being cute and shallow;

 

d) agree with the criticism but not feel it as a criticism at all if they were perfectly happy with going for what might be considered cute and shallow by others;

 

e) not care about what someone else says.

 

I've had negative critiques of my work that got through to me and helped me move to a new place. They were partly opinion and partly informed and experienced commentary that made sense to me. I learned. I've also had criticisms that people meant as criticisms but showed me my work got through just as I wanted, so I was actually happy with the negative critique. I don't want everyone to like all my work!

It might be constructive at times, but it is often merely opinion.

It is also often more than just voicing opinion. Very fine art and photography critics have a broad knowledge of the genre and photographic history. They can speak to trends, they can speak to a work's references to or building on history, they can speak to their own tastes, of course, and they can often be a lot more objective than others in assessing a work as well, as they've learned to stand back and put things into context. Critics can teach us an awful lot if we're open to learning. It's up to us, just like with most things we read, to be a discerning reader and seek a few sources to gain a variety of viewpoints. But I would no longer chalk the work of historians or psychologists up to mere opinion than I would a good critic. Critics may very well traffic in worth, because they can, often with a lot of expertise, exposure, and experience at their backs, assess the relative merits of a photo or painting or sculpture. A good critic will explain his criticism and hopefully give some insights into that criticism. Most lay viewers who just come at a photo are merely offering a subjective opinion with no need to "back it up." That's not a critique. It's an immediate response. I suspect most of the critiques given here will be somewhere between the two.

 

In short, I believe opinions, for the most part, are personal and should be taken as such. And I think critique and criticism is more than opinion and one can learn a lot by not limiting oneself to a subjective cocoon, even though the ultimate decision and responsibility is each photographer's.

Sam, well said, my friend.

This is a really great discussion, guys!

 

I am trying to learn about photography, and the "art" of taking (great? well hopefully, maybe at some point?) photographs. Honestly, I know very little about the mechanics of analog camera operations and have zero formal training in this- as I have said a few times around this forum already. I'm not versed in composition, and uncomfortable shooting people (as in "street" photography) without permission. Be it seasoned critique or simply opinion, I'm posting things here in the hopes of learning a thing or two from you guys (and others) who, I'm sure, know far more about all this than I. Some friends have told me that I have something of an "eye", but I admit I can often spend more time thinking through things before I shoot. Using the Hasselblad has slowed me down to some degree though and I'm enjoying the experience with it...

 

I have so far, and will post images I like (for whatever reason) and welcome any and all discussion, critique, etc. I would honestly hope that nobody would post an image in here for critique, then become hurt by what they read from folks! Although knowing "people", I can imagine it happening. The whole point tho, IS to step outside the comfort zone and open oneself to being critiqued. I have so far resisted speaking up for the most part here in the critique forum, simply because I'm not as knowledgeable as many here- and can only really submit an opinion... Which I guess is OK but could easily cross a line if the delivery comes off as harsh or unnecessarily critical without also being constructive.

 

Anyway, my thanks to you both, for taking time to discuss this image and offer your views etc on it- and the process & value of critique, opinion, and everything else that's crossed the threshold here.

 

Tom

Sure, Tom. One thing I'd like to mention is that when I was a beginner, I was encouraged not just to ask for but to give critiques as well. You can always start by saying you're a beginner but just wanted to talk about the photo you see. It's good to force yourself to articulate things about images you like and don't like. I learned quite a bit by criticizing stuff I didn't like and then getting interesting responses that helped expand my taste. Just like showing photos is a bit of a risk, so is critiquing, but usually worth the risk, if you're dealing with decent people, which I sense we are here. A critique on photo.net can easily take the form of a question as well! How did you do this? Why did you do this instead of that? Were you trying to express a particular emotion? Here's what I feel. As photographer, I've learned as much from beginners or lay people (friends of mine) who simply talk about the story they see in a photo of mine or tell me how it makes them feel. It's that kind of sharing that can be infectious and get us moving around to different places.

 

While we use terms like "great" to describe pics, and we kind of know what that means, trying to make "good" or "great" pics can sometimes get in the way. Usually "good" and "great" mean a pic looks like what the generic idea of "good" and "great" pics are. I like to start by thinking of the pic I want to make, something that is individual and important to me. Not think about its greatness but think about its significance to me. Then, with practice, feedback, and time you make those kinds of pictures effectively and ... bam ... you've got greatness. Greatness isn't really a thing, to me. It stands for personal and effective.

 

In terms of your particular bike picture above and the discussion around it so far, you never know where a discussion like this will take you and how it might affect you in the future. Next time you see such a scene, you may well stop to remember Sam's criticism. You could look for a different way to shoot a similar scene if that's something that rang a bell for you. Or, you might say, no, I want even more now to shoot it MY way, the way I did last time, and you might even become more adamant about shooting it NOT Sam's way. What I'd appreciate in either of those choices would be your openness to change or your willingness to be even more committed to a point of view you feel good about. Malleability, on one hand, and commitment and decidedness on the other, in the right combination, can really make things happen.

Tom, just no that no one means to "hurt" here. I know that can happen all too often on the internet, but, so far, in this particular forum, I've seen nothing that doesn't look like heart-felt critique. Keep coming back and, like Sam says, critique others also. It's great exercise.

Thanks, and no worries. I think it's great that people open themselves up, and why not invite others' views on one's work? Photography is about, among other things, expanding horizons, and broadening perspectives. Both are often best achieved through criticism.

I take it as a fun ‘good catch’ kind of image and somewhat agree with dcstep on the commercial utility of such images. On the other hand, I am curious about the spray painted letters and what they mean. This in turn makes me curious about perspective and context of the wall and it’s imagery. I for instance want to see the neighborhood in which this is placed. When I see something worth photographing, I step back and try to shoot it at different angles with different perspectives in mind. I think you probably do the same. In such an exercise, every shot gives me more insights into the subject.

 

Considering the commercial potential of the image, I notice several areas of blown highlights that distract me, e.g, red and yellow tulips and the white bike frame. Since colors play an important role in this image, I think it’s important to take care of the blown parts in a way that doesn’t diminish the overall vibrancy and contrast. I think, in the RAW image editor, a careful adjustment of curves with multiple control points should be able to fix this.

@Ricochetrider: as a 'Dutch resident' for over 40 years, I really like this photo! I personally don't see the billboard as any great artwork, but IMHO your photo sums up some (contradictory) Dutch 'ícons' really well:

- the billboard (or whatever it is) shows 'tulips' ( a traditional Dutch icon) against a background of typical houses (another traditional ïcon) along many of Amsterdam's canals

- the colorful graffiti suggests (to me) the modern, urban and creative, Dutch culture, disrespectful of these staid, traditional 'ícons' with an urge to create something new

- the bike (especially with the saddlebags!) is another 'icon' of Dutch culture but this one is a pretty 'hi-tech/design' model, far removed from most bikes that the average Dutch citizen uses; in style, it matches the modernizing 'graffiti'

- as you say, the contradiction between the bike and the 'no bikes' sign on the billboard is a bonus but to me this is not the most interesting thing in the photo.

 

I can well imagine the Dutch tourist board using a photo like this one in advertising to illustrate that "Amsterdam is changing, creative, modern and vibrant". I'm not sure whether this is what you intended but - from a Dutch perspective - it's a great photo that has many 'levels' (apart from being a colorful photo!).

 

I'm not sure whether you would be interested (and I have no idea what the response might be) but you might want to consider 'floating' the photo to Amsterdam tourist/bike hire organisations that might be interested. I'd at least offer it to a couple of stock photo sites.

 

All in all, my congrats from The Netherlands!

 

Mike

 

PS. At a recent photo festival I visited, one of the (curated and accepted) exhibitions showed ''normal' photos across which the 'artist'' had scrawled (in post-processing) graffitti. Your photo reminded me of the tension between ''tradition''and the urge to destroy 'tradition' and replace it with something more vibrant (graffiti).

Edited May 30, 2019 by mikemorrell

I just can't get past my feeling that there is simply too much distracting, chaotic color in the photo. To me, the bicycle is hardly noticeable, although it seems it is the reason for the photo. Just my opinion.

Mike, can you translate the partial graffiti word, or make a guess at it? As has been suggested, since the "no bikes" sign is posted atop the graffiti, perhaps the graffiti is part of the art work? Anyway, this was in a small lane right by the famous floating flower market in Amsterdam. Not a lot of room to step back away from the wall, as it's pretty narrow- also not a lot of room to get varying perspectives. I thought it had more or less everything all in one shot between the typical iconic imagery and the bicycle- and you're correct also, in that the bike varies quite a bit from the typical "Dutch" bicycle in its modern and forward frame design!

 

Thanks once again to everyone for posting opinions and critique!

Here is the unprocessed RAW image if anyone would like to work it up?, Or @mikemorrell if this could help in translating the graffiti?

 

Here is my version. I like the original version, just ran it through the camera RAW filter in Photoshop. reduced the highlights slightly, increased clarity, dehaze slightly, raised saturation by 10%, followed by slight boost in contrast using "Curves".

 

Thanks, and bravo. The bicycle seems to stand out more- the photo doesn't look or feel nearly as "flat" or unidimensional , and with all original aspects restored, I think there's more of a story as well.

Sorry, @Ricochet, there isn't much to translate and I believe the graffiti is not 'part of the original' but just 'tags' sprayed on afterwards by individuals. There's a lot of graffiti around the flower market!

 

My best guess is that it's a poster drawing attention to one of the annual "Tulips Amsterdam" festivals. Here are a couple of links to the same poster in different place (with different graffiti) :

poster 1

poster 2

 

Mike

Hey no worries, Mike! I know there's not a lot to go on, basically nothing, really. Heck that might not even be in Dutch!

 

I would like to fly the image past Netherlands and/or Amsterdam tourism people, should I simply find them on the internet and send them a copy asking if they'd like to use it?

 

There's metadata on the file with my name attached, but I guess I'm worried they'll keep a copy, say, "no thanks" then use it anyway! Ha ha call me paranoid. I can always watermark the day lights out of it too, I suppose.

 

Maybe this isn't the place for this discussion - if anyone would like to PM me that'd be lovely. Thanks very much, Mike, and thanks again to everyone for the valuable insights and great conversation.

 

Tom