Dawn

All critique welcome.

 

Dawn by David Stephens, on Flickr

I would start with adjusting Levels, Color and Contrast...Slight Sharpening.

I would also move the horizon out of the center of the image. The beach looked more interesting to me so I moved the horizon to land on a third and 2/3s to the beach.

I'm in with both Ray's and Rick's comments, as they reflect my own first reactions. I'm also less than enamored with the single surfer on the far right edge. I might consider cropping or cloning him out, hence emphasizing the role of the pair as the primary focal point. The inclusion of the single surfer dilutes the feel and apparent intent and/or impact of the image. I'll have to come back later for more, as the day job is screaming for my attention.

OK, so I couldn't resist the siren's song of a photographic challenge. Here's my take on a crop and edit. I've warmed the tones a bit, increased contrast, added a touch of clarity, vibrance, and saturation, and cloned out the single surfer. I tried cropping the surfer out, but then the projected path of the two prime subjects intersected the edge of the frame before the water, so cloning out was the better option. I quite like this one, but I'm certain there are other very appropriate and desirable alternatives.

OK. Here’s one. A guy walks into a bar. He asks the bartender: What’s the difference between a critique and a post-processing challenge?

 

A post processing challenge is a specific request for how YOU would do it. A critique could maybe start with the understanding that the original photographer’s voice is of prime importance.

 

The alternatives presented all have merit and are different photos. David’s, for example, simplifies it and makes it more iconic and less narrative, certainly a valid vision. But I don’t see it as a critique of what DC has presented. What DC presented has that more complex narrative, has warmer and softer colors than what Ray presented and gives the buildings more room to breathe than what Rick presented (and the horizon in the original doesn’t seem centered).

 

To me, a critique focuses on the individual vision of the photographer who’s offering the picture and may try to help zero in on that. At the very least, it would communicate to the photographer what HIS photo is currently saying to or showing me. What I see is the unfolding story of a bit of a warm and naturally, fuzzy-eyed morning on a beach that’s starting to come alive.

I can’t see the point of incremental changes.

 

I'm leaning toward your view Ludmilla, but I'll reserve detailed comment until this thread has cured a little more.

I agree, wholeheartedly, but how many of us have vision beyond something nice or trendy. Or would have the balls to say what they are trying to achieve.

 

Patience my friend. I was hoping that my image would speak first and then I'd say something about it's story and how I view it.

I agree, wholeheartedly, but how many of us have vision beyond something nice or trendy. Or would have the balls to say what they are trying to achieve.

 

Still, Ludmilla may have a point. There IS a story that goes with my image, but my thinking is to let the image speak first and then fill in the narrative later. Do others here think that the narrative should come sooner? I adopted my current thinking after we got into a discussion of titles and how they can influence the viewer, rightly or wrongly. This image has a starker title than I used for it in the past, for a different audience. Still, my pared down title here speaks more directly to this image's story and mood than my previous, more explanatory, title did.

I wouldn’t feel the need to explain one of my pics unless I felt the need to explain it. In a critique session, I would generally start out by presenting the photo and getting reactions. I would then offer responses to those reactions. If people asked questions, I’d answer what I genuinely could and be up front about not necessarily having an answer for all questions. Sometimes, I know my intentions for a photo, other times, it’s more elusive than that. I also know that I want a photo of mine to live and am as interested in hearing what others actually see as I would be in telling viewers what I see or might hope is seen.

 

The more experienced at this I get, the more there’s a range between, “yikes, I blew it” and, “wow, how exciting that you see something so different than I do in my work.”

The original image speaks to me the best. It creates a mood with smoky, subdued, dreamy hues, kind of like my own mood in the morning, just before I had my coffee. The image has a tenderness attached to it, and the wet sand and foams feel tangible.

 

With just a hint of urban dwellings on the left, it creates a context for the beach without intruding too much into the scene. The urban dwellings also go well with the surfers and remind me so much of the SoCal beaches.

The original image speaks to me the best. It creates a mood with smoky, subdued, dreamy hues, kind of like my own mood in the morning, just before I had my coffee. The image has a tenderness attached to it, and the wet sand and foams feel tangible.

 

With just a hint of urban dwellings on the left, it creates a context for the beach without intruding too much into the scene. The urban dwellings also go well with the surfers and remind me so much of the SoCal beaches.

 

Wow! I think you get it, my friend. I feel like you're reading my mind. ;-)

Its all to your credit!

Supriyo nailed it (thanks) and spilled the beans, so I'll go ahead with my intent.

 

This is about a warm, hazy, cloudless morning in North Florida (could have been SoCal just as easily). Even though the surf is modest, a couple of boys and a man are still all going out to surf before school or work, as, I suspect, they do almost every day. The surf is ordinary, but this is their routine. (When the surf is extraordinary, they'll be late for school/work). I do know how to remove haze and sharpen my images, but I believe that the haze and softness help convey the atmosphere of this morning. The sky is cloudless and my normal tendency would have been to crop out some excess sky, but I leave it to convey the type of morning. Also, the extra sky emphasizes the haze, which is part of the reality I'm trying to convey.

 

David T. got me thinking about the "extra" surfer, but I think he belongs, to further the "young and old" storyline. Also, I love the leading line from the boys to the man and the piling-sign.

The bottom 1/4 of the image isn't very interesting IMHO. It would be if it included some reflections of clouds or the like. I am curious as to why you included it?

I wonder if sometimes photographers are trapped by the aspect ratios of their equipment.

The bottom 1/4 of the image isn't very interesting IMHO. It would be if it included some reflections of clouds or the like. I am curious as to why you included it?

I wonder if sometimes photographers are trapped by the aspect ratios of their equipment.

 

Thanks Punta.

 

Actually, I'm a quick-to-crop kind of guy. Looking at it again, I see it as very inviting. Perhaps that's because I'm a barefoot beach walker and spend lots of time toe-deep. ;-)

I forgot to add that I like the photo very much. It is warm and inviting...wish I was there.

What would have happened if you had shot this from a lower position?

I don't quite know what to make of this one.

The horizontal format, the position of the people, and other elements seem almost impervious to the cropping and other modifications suggested above.

I like it, but don't see either advantages or disadvantages to the suggested alterations. The OP is very nice just as it is.

 

I usually try to NOT have the horizon across the middle, but there are arguments for doing just that in this case.

The more I look at these, the more I like the original best. It has mood, which a lot of the "corrected" ones do not. The guy on the extreme right does pull my eye to where I don't think it should go.

What would have happened if you had shot this from a lower position?

 

It would have been less like walking on the beach at dawn, I suspect. I also think that it would have emphasized the foreground water more.

The more I look at these, the more I like the original best. It has mood, which a lot of the "corrected" ones do not. The guy on the extreme right does pull my eye to where I don't think it should go.

 

I see your point about the guy on the right, but I think he's taking the eye to where the action is going. My eyes want to move right, then circle counter clockwise. The "story", old guy=big board, young guys=short boards is also in here.

 

Of course, you can always try to cram too much story in one image. I keep looking back at it and thinking it's "right" as is. It grabs me every time I come across it in my Flickr Photostream. I see it and think, "I remember that, just like that."

David’s, for example, simplifies it and makes it more iconic and less narrative, certainly a valid vision. But I don’t see it as a critique of what DC has presented.

Sam has a good point, but also misses my point. Now, I grew up in a place where, when the surf was up first period was mostly empty, so Dave's image is personally emotive for me. Now that Dave has shared the backstory a bit, I can attest that the image succeeds in communicating that sense of daybreak on the coast that I know so well. However, and this is to Sam's comments, I also evaluate the image as an image intended to stand alone. When I do this, I ask myself "what do I like, what don't I like, what does it say to me, and what would make it stronger IN MY EYES? As a pure graphic, I found Ray's and Rick's comments mirrored my own first impression. My PP effort was and is intended to illustrate by revision the aesthetic components of Dave's image which I felt could be adjusted to make it stronger, IN MY EYES. Somehow the power to make adjustments and re-post an image feels more effective than simply trying to describe what I see. I shall consider more carefully Sam's observations when next I'm tempted to jump in with some PP adjustments. Still, a picture IS worth a thousand words, and a quick adjustment and re-post remains a valid form of dialogue, at least in this forum.

 

Dave's original image has increased in its meaning for me in measure with the information supplied. Now that I have time to thoroughly consider both picture and words together, the image takes on a new appeal. Yet, even so, the original has a feel, for me, of being more documentary than artistic, and that may very well have been Dave's original intent. As I've said many times, my own photography's largest purpose is to try and communicate my own experience in the moment the image was captured. I find that making images, particularly landscape images, emotive frequently requires a bit of over-the-top, in-your-face presentation, as opposed to the softer, more ethereal vibes of the OP. I'm thinking it was this sense of a desire to grab the viewer's attention and emphasize the strongest elements in the image that led me to the alternative presentation. As an aesthetic graphic, I believe there remains value in the proposed alterations, while simultaneously (and in dichotomy) acknowledging the full meaning and emotive power of the OP. What I've offered is no more than an alternative, but not necessarily "better" perspective on creative image-making and -seeing.

 

One of the things I really like about Dave's original image is it's documentary power. It captures a moment in time and space which is unique in itself, while being emblematic of so many similar points in the space-time-surf continuum. Viewed from that perspective there's little one might consider worthy of alteration, particularly given the degree to which Dave feels this so successfully conveys his own feelings in that moment.

You gotta like it. No amount of rationalizing or explaining will ever substitute for a photo that hits you well. In a critique session, the rationalizing or explaining is, hopefully, not to convince anyone to like the photo or like it more. It’s so the photographer can help the critic help the photographer realize his vision if it seems the photographer is not doing that or not doing that as well as he could.

 

By the way, in many ways, once the photo is presented, the photographer’s interpretation or understanding is no more valid than the viewer’s. The viewer’s objectivity could be of much more value than the photographer’s knowledge of the scene and the “reality” of the situation. Yes, I agree, it’s about the looking. It’s not about the backstory in a lot of cases, unless the backstory is going to be made part of the presentation. The backstory can help others understand why the photographer made the choices he made but that the choices fit the particular backstory doesn’t mean they’re the best choices for the visual piece. If I felt a different visual approach to this made a better photo, even if it didn’t quite convey the actual backstory, I’d say so and I’d generally go with the better visual approach than the backstory approach. I actually often find that it’s by a combination of expressing some important things I derived from the experience while also LETTING GO of and even purposely DEFYING some of what I know of the scene that I can produce some of my more creative and interesting work, work I wouldn’t label documentary, of course.

 

I like the original because I happen to like more narrative-oriented photos and I liked the softness and atmospherics of the haze and colors, not because it best represented Dave’s experience of morning on the beach.

As I've said many times, my own photography's largest purpose is to try and communicate my own experience in the moment the image was captured.

This is so important to say and for us as critics to listen to. And it helps me flesh out what I’ve been saying.

 

I like off-kilter, strange photos, ones that I sense take the reality of the experience of a scene and transform it into something perhaps related but also very different-feeling. Now, of course, I also love a lot of documentary work, so it all depends.

 

Regardless of what I like, though, I can appreciate and support what you like, without necessarily liking it as much as you do. So, while I might look at a photo of yours and see some pretty outrageous possibilities, possibilities I’d likely hint at with some of my local artist friends who have that kind of “out there” bent, I wouldn’t necessarily see much point in suggesting those to you. Even though I might like one of your photos more if done up that way, I’d sooner critique you based on your aesthetic as opposed to mine.

 

So, for instance, I might find a lot of ambiguity in the feeling of one of your landscapes and see some potential for you to be more committed to where it seems you’re taking the photo. I might also see some radical crops and processing I’d likely do myself to give it a much more staged and artificial edge and take it far away from the reality I sense you felt at the time. I’d critique you based on the former rather than the latter, even though I’d probably like the latter better. I’d much prefer your photo speak in your voice than in mine.

 

Over time, I might lightly offer some of my more radical ideas just to see your reaction and maybe even see if it’s a seed you’d consider for yourself. But, again, I’d try to make the suggestions general and vague enough to give you the opportunity to give it a different voice than your usual work, if you wanted to, but still give it your own, though somewhat different, voice.

 

Granted, the Internet may not be the best venue for this kind of nuanced interaction. So, we all just do our best ...