Critique Please

Photo was taken at Cape Flattery, Washing State. The background is a cliff has a lot of what I believe are moss and other plants giving the cliff an interesting array of color IMHO. The seagull flying by added interest for me.

I appreciate your critical comments both good and bad.

Mick

I really like the overall photo, Mick. The mixed textures of the green and brown vegetation interspersed with bare rock is visually interesting. I especially like the gradual transition (almost like a gradient) from green through grey down to black at the bottom. This is visually interesting too.The diagonal lines in the rock and running along the bottom of the vegetation add interest and a sense of 'movement' too. Ignoring the seagull for a moment, the photo would be - for me a great almost 'abstract' composition with a lot going for it. So my main feedback is 1) well-spotted! and 2)great composition!

Back to the seagull. The effect that it has in this central position is to keep my eyes refocusing between the "abstract composition" as a whole and the seagull (as a "point"). This technique can be deliberate in creating "tension" in a photo that keeps the viewer active. Personally, I think it's less effective here because the seagull itself doesn't hold my attention long. For me, it gradually becomes more of a distracting 'white blob' that gets in the way of me appreciating the whole 'canvas'. In contrast, the two lighter areas bottom right (rocks?) don't fit the general pattern but add an interesting small detail.

So I would prefer to seagull 'moved' (in PP) to an area where it visually does less harm. For example, to that area of that doesn't distract from the "main canvas". Or see how it looks with the seagull removed entirely.

My compliments!

I really like the overall photo, Mick. The mixed textures of the green and brown vegetation interspersed with bare rock is visually interesting. I especially like the gradual transition (almost like a gradient) from green through grey down to black at the bottom. This is visually interesting too.The diagonal lines in the rock and running along the bottom of the vegetation add interest and a sense of 'movement' too. Ignoring the seagull for a moment, the photo would be - for me a great almost 'abstract' composition with a lot going for it. So my main feedback is 1) well-spotted! and 2)great composition!

 

Back to the seagull. The effect that it has in this central position is to keep my eyes refocusing between the "abstract composition" as a whole and the seagull (as a "point"). This technique can be deliberate in creating "tension" in a photo that keeps the viewer active. Personally, I think it's less effective here because the seagull itself doesn't hold my attention long. For me, it gradually becomes more of a distracting 'white blob' that gets in the way of me appreciating the whole 'canvas'. In contrast, the two lighter areas bottom right (rocks?) don't fit the general pattern but add an interesting small detail.

 

So I would prefer to seagull 'moved' (in PP) to an area where it visually does less harm. For example, to that area of that doesn't distract from the "main canvas". Or see how it looks with the seagull removed entirely.

 

My compliments!

Thank you Mike! You see what I did at the moment I snapped the shutter. I do agree that the seagull was distracting as well as blown out and out of focus. He's gone now.

You thoughtful comments are appreciated.

Mick

Thanks for the opportunity, Mick,

I don't just spin a 'critique' like off the top my head. A photo like this challenges me to really look at it (as a whole and in detail) and gradually discover what there is to see. In terms of compositional elements like lines, textures, colors, contrasts, transitions, etc. For this photo it really was a process of discovery. I didn't/don't see everything there is to see at once. But I love (and value) photos like this that gradually 'reveal' themselves to me. The longer I look at them, the more qualities I notice that I hadn't noticed before. So it holds my interest. Every 'discovery' motivates me to look again, perhaps from a different perspective, to see if there are even more qualities to be discovered. Maybe it's just me but, but I've encountered few photos that have had this effect on me,

In critiquing photos I often find that I learn just as much - if not more - than the person who requested the critique. So again, thanks for this 'learning opportunity', Mick.

Mike

Thank you Mike! You see what I did at the moment I snapped the shutter. I do agree that the seagull was distracting as well as blown out and out of focus. He's gone now.

 

You thoughtful comments are appreciated.

 

Mick

Thanks for the opportunity, Mick,

 

I don't just spin a 'critique' like off the top my head. A photo like this challenges me to really look at it (as a whole and in detail) and gradually discover what there is to see. In terms of compositional elements like lines, textures, colors, contrasts, transitions, etc. For this photo it really was a process of discovery. I didn't/don't see everything there is to see at once. But I love (and value) photos like this that gradually 'reveal' themselves to me. The longer I look at them, the more qualities I notice that I hadn't noticed before. So it holds my interest. Every 'discovery' motivates me to look again, perhaps from a different perspective, to see if there are even more qualities to be discovered. Maybe it's just me but, but I've encountered few photos that have had this effect on me,

 

In critiquing photos I often find that I learn just as much - if not more - than the person who requested the critique. So again, thanks for this 'learning opportunity', Mick.

 

Mike

Hi Mike,

Although I was a bit nervous with my first post to Seeking Critique, I valued all of the inputs that I got as they are opportunities to grow and learn even when the criticism may not be what you hoped for. In my case, I can say that I got more than I expected with constructive criticism and encouragement. I hope that I can continue to improve my work with the help of the folks on Photo.net.

Best wishes, stay healthy!

Mick

Mickey,

I think that this is an interesting collection of colors, textures and details, most natural and some man made, drawing me in, wanting to look even more closely at some of the details. The gull doesn't bother me so much, because it helps know the type of location, BUT I hate that it's almost dead center. If it were flying into the picture, on the right side, then I'd like it's addition more. Seeing it in the center, I thought to myself, "He couldn't possibly mean that gull to be the subject, could he?" I'd maybe go to a 5:4 aspect to move the bird a bit, if it were mine.

Hi Mike,

 

Although I was a bit nervous with my first post to Seeking Critique, I valued all of the inputs that I got as they are opportunities to grow and learn even when the criticism may not be what you hoped for. In my case, I can say that I got more than I expected with constructive criticism and encouragement. I hope that I can continue to improve my work with the help of the folks on Photo.net.

 

Best wishes, stay healthy!

 

Mick

The right attitude to have regarding a critique.

At first glance, I'm not wild about this photo- BUT I appreciate the gull being in there, if for no other reason than to add context in scope of size. So often, folks take similar photos of parts of things and we have no way of knowing the true context of the partial view in regards to the big picture. SO just from that limited perspective- thanks. Beyond adding scale, I'm not sure the bird has any other value in the shot.

Looking further into the photograph, I actually really like the texture, the tones and color gradations, the fact that the textures and tones shift from top to bottom. I can't decide tho, if it "gets" heavier or lighter from top to bottom! Typically, darker tones would be considered heavier, but to my eye the texture alone adds weight, so it seems to kind of go from lighter darkness below, to heavier and deeper textures and tones above. The textures build too, adding layer after layer as we gain more and more plant based life as we ascend. This creates a sort of perceptual dichotomy, which results in some kind of emotional upheaval or inner turmoil. It's certainly not overt- but it sure adds layers of subliminal interest to what was, a minute ago, a photo that had me going, "meh"!

Looking further still, this rock is very alive. The plant, moss, lichens, etc etc serve very well to remind us that Earth is a living thing and that we have innumerable "neighbors" in all other living things, be they beings, plants, organisms, microorganisms- even right on down to bacteria as a living entity.

If we want to go further still, we can imagine the untold ages it took to even form the stone, & consider all the (perhaps formerly living) things that combined under unknowable pressure, to create such a thing as this- and translate the shot and all it encompasses into a dialogue about our connectedness to the universe itself.

The cracks and imperfections in the stone serve to remind us that everything is fragile and subject to change; that nothing os perfect. Even massive rock walls can come crashing down. Yet life must and will go on. Maybe the gull is representative of the indomitable human spirit, telling us, showing us that our souls and sprits will live on beyond our physical existence.

We should also consider this rock as "home" to all these living entities, perhaps even providing some immeasurable aspect of food (if lichens and moss may be somewhat parasitic in their very being) to various life forms we see here. Meanwhile the existence of these living things clinging to the rock help it resist degradation caused by wind, water, and other forces of nature. Here is the massive stone wall, all manner of things living on and perhaps off of it. Everything exists symbiotically, each dependent upon the other. It was here before we humans got here, and it'll probably be here long after. How can we ever know how old these visible life forms are, let alone the actual stone?

You've captured all this- millions of years, eons of growth, ages of existence, more time than we can ever know, more living things than we can see or imagine, AND the tenuous, delicate nature of life & fragility of the universe- you've capture the essence spiritual longings as well- in a tiny portion of a second. And compressed the entire history of the Earth herself into a tiny file.

Pretty impressive.

For me personally, this would be best served in much larger scale. Its impact feels diminished somewhat, as presented here. I'm certain the actual scene was excitedly dramatic. Too bad the photo couldn't be seen a lot larger, not life size but much much bigger than we're seeing it now. It would no doubt be breathtaking!

For me personally, this would be best served in much larger scale. Its impact feels diminished somewhat, as presented here. I'm certain the actual scene was excitedly dramatic. Too bad the photo couldn't be seen a lot larger, not life size but much much bigger than we're seeing it now. It would no doubt be breathtaking!

Good observation. We are all well-served to consider the impact of presentation and that something large in scale can’t necessarily be viewed in a similar scale when photographed. How to translate or capture the impact of scale, age, and detail in a photo is part of the challenge and excitement of photography. The expression of size, scale, and their impact isn’t necessarily accomplished by a photo’s being bigger, though that can sometimes help. Sometimes, thinking smaller but in shades and degrees can be as effective as enlarging the size. There are many symbols and metaphors that might express bigness without anything getting literally bigger.