picturesque Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 <p>This week's image was taken by Jen Seay.<br /><br />In your critiques - Include what you would do to improve the shot or why the shot is perfect as it is and why. Remember that this is not a contest. Sometimes an image will be a winning image and sometimes an image that needs some help. Try not to just say "great shot" but explain why it works. Or - "Doesn't do it for me" without explaining why.<br /><br />The photographer up for critique for this week should remember that the comments expressed each week are simply "opinions" and the effort and focus of these threads are to learn and to take images to another level. There will be times where the critique is simply members pointing out why the shot works which is also a way for others to learn about what aspects contribute to a good wedding photo. In reading all critiques -- You may agree or disagree with some points of view - but remember that there are varying approaches and often no right or wrong answer.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wedding-photography-denver Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 <p>Haha. I love the engergy and you can just tell the girls are all thinking about the dorky guys as they workout and try to get attention.</p> <p>Great Exposure if a tad bit under. Nice execution/timing of this idea overall. My eye wants the top cropped off a little more, making more of a pano.</p> <p>Good work.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed_lemko Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 <p>this is really funny, well done. lots of jumping pics nowadays, interesting trend. i wonder what people will be doing 10 yrs from now... maybe to make it perfect, you could have ripped up that black fence... Maybe put the taller girls in the back -- that one's face is hidden. But that's small potatoes. Agree with David, maybe crop the top bit of the background structure- not contributing to the main focus. Neat!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tina___cliff_t Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 <p>I really like this, my attention still seems to go right for the bride even with everything else going on in the pictures. And when is that ever really a bad thing. lol<br> I agree with everyone else's points about not being able to see one of the bridesmaids, and cropping off some of the top. Otherwise this is an awesome picture!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theresa_skutt Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 <p>Incredibly creative, and fun. I agree with the others...nitpicky stuff like the girl in the back. The girls could have been doing something, too maybe but I think the b & g will be thrilled.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_schilling___chicago_ Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 <p>It's a fun shot and it's cute with good energy. However, I'm bothered by how small the faces are and there are several people that are blocked from view. It's difficult to pull this off when you have a wedding party this large. Nothing really new or trendy about the "jump" shot, we used to call it the "Toyota jump" shot during the mid-90s.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noel_kelley1 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 <p>This is so fun and I think it is unique. I have seen the "jump" photo shot before, but not like this. It is so difficult to create a unique look with so many in the bridal party. I don't think it matters how small the faces look on this site as this shot should be printed on at least 11x14 paper. I would like to know if the groom's face is in focus- if it is then BRAVO!<br> Do you mind sharing the lens info and settings?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenseay Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 <p>Hey Everybody... Wow! Thank you so much! I just figured out that my photo was the photo of the week, and I'm so excited!<br> A little bit about my thinking with this shot... the bridal party requested a 'jump' shot, but with so many people and a not-so-big space, I didn't want to have everyone in line, jumping. I can't even remember for sure, but someone might have suggested that only the guys jump. Plus, I had my 50 mm 1.2 lens on the camera, and didn't bring anything else outside with me, so I had to do something that would "fit" into 50 mm!<br> The shot was taken in all natural light (the building was behind me, and part of it is light-colored, thus providing a bit of reflection for the subjects). In fact, I didn't even carry a flash outside for the formals! It was taken at ISO 100, 1/1250 at f/1.6, +1 exposure, on a Canon 5D Mark II with a 50 mm f/1.2 lens.<br> About the tall girl in front, and not being able to see the other girls, it's funny - that's something I never even paid attention to until that night when I started sorting through the photos. My concentration was solely on getting a shot where all of the guys' feet were off the ground, and it took two jumps (and about 10 shots) to get one or two of those shots. And yes, I also love that even though there's so much action in the shot, MY eyes are also drawn straight to the bride (on whom the camera is focused at f/1.6, so it's no wonder! LOL).<br> Thanks again, everyone, and I'm posting the original straight-out-of-camera shot here too, for you to see:<br> <img src="http://jenseay.smugmug.com/photos/659067735_qGyUd-M.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenseay Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 <p>Oh, and the groom is one of the guys in the front, so his face is visible, but definitely not in focus.<br> p.s. To get a group of people like this to all jump at the same time, I always give all the control to one person in the bridal party. In this case, I told the groom that he was to do the count, and was to arrange with all of the guys whether they did "one two three" and jump on three, or "one two three" then jump. LOL Then, I just hold down the shutter button for the whole jump!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_deerfield Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 <p>I like the shot. I agree that it is a tad underexposed (although on my un-calibrated LCD it looks fine!). And I would like to see the one bridesmaid's face and possibly a tad warmer WB. But those are all minor annoyances (except maybe the bridesmaid's face). However, I can't agree with shooting this @ f/1.6 and I don't know why anyone would want too. In terms of using the only lens you had with you, I would question why that was the only lens you have with you with a group of up to 20 people? I am not trying to take away from the shot (which I like) but if a newcomer were to read this I would say the f/1.6 is far from ideal and you generally want something wider than 50mm when there are 20 people in the wedding party. So it's a great shot but also a lesson in what not to do!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 <p>I liked the image when I first saw it in the upload thread. I liked it because it was a "gimmick - fun shot" with a fresh face, and the shutter release well executed. I think that re-invention is to be congratulated.</p> <p>As I am a technical type - I then looked closer (as I do with just about any Photo I see), and I thought:</p> <p><em><strong>"Crikey! that's either very brave or very silly - that's been done at F/2 maybe wider" . . .</strong></em></p> <p>F/1.6 - that's very thin, and IMO really well thought out if I read your thoughts correctly . . . it was <strong><em>planned to be shot at F1.6?</em></strong>: Then Brava - you pulled it!</p> <p>***</p> <p>I offer these points for improvement:</p> <p>Obviously this is a Stage Managed shot and good management requires good rapport: it is obvious you had that . . .</p> <p>1. you've noted the woman you cannot see - that's an oversight during the pressure of time. I often ask for everyone to be able to see down the camera lens <strong><em>with both eyes because I want to capture each beautiful face</em></strong> - that usually works to gets them sorted.</p> <p>2. I bet you were hand held?<br />A monopod could have helped, IMO for these two reasons:</p> <p>a) you chose a very slim DoF and especially if you Centre AF to Focus on the Bride & then Recompose - you'll loose about a 12 inches, maybe more, on the Recompose - you would have had about 24 inches in front of her to play with when you focussed - that's a slippery slop.</p> <p>A monopod sticks you at your point. Under the pressure of time it is easy to move 12inch back or forward without noticing.</p> <p>I think you are very close to the front edge of DoF at the (front) of the base of the Bride’s Gown – that is why I am guessing you F&R on the bride using centre point AF - or after finding and locking focus you moved slightly forward. In either case that is a scary place to be, at F/1.6 IMO - especially considering you were concentrating on shutter and jumping - all the more reason the get Focus and DoF sewn up tight.</p> <p>b) Verticals - you were obviously concerned, because you corrected them - but as you mentioned space was tight - and you only had a 50mm and the little twist you put in that crop from the original might not have been possible if (as two examples) the end man went off sideways or the lady with read hair fully extended her arm with that bouquet.</p> <p>If the Photographer has the camera planted with a monopod the Photographer's brain senses any vertical variance - because to do so requires a very large horizontal swaying movement.</p> <p>I have often commented that I use a monopod at Weddings.</p> <p>The reason for a 'pods use, is not just restricted to slower Tv inside dark Churches, which is often the assumption made - "Verticals" (and "horizontals") is one, of the other reasons why, my monopod is my friend.</p> <p>3. On a very minor point I would crop the top edge tighter - removing all the column tops, thus:<br /><br />WW</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenseay Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 <p>1. I intentionally didn't arrange anyone, though I could have moved the girls around a bit. I'm not always great at catching things like that - it's something I'm working on. My only concern was that the bride was completely visible. Which leads me to 2...<br> 2. I wanted to exaggerate the shallow depth of field, and I really only wanted the bride completely in focus (which she is, in the original image). This is my style, and people who hire me know this.<br> 3. I've always shot this venue (and this particular patio) with my 24-70, but was trying something new that day (please, nobody go on a tirade about not taking a risk at a wedding). In my first 100 weddings, I'd have carried my whole bag outside, but now I have a better idea of what I like and need. :-)<br> 4. Color is subjective. On my calibrated monitor, the color and exposure both look great to my eyes. I prefer my images cooler, and people who hire me know that as well.<br> Bottom line, the whole bridal party loved this shot! Thanks to 3 or 4 of you for the tip about cropping tighter at the top - another detail I missed!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam_ellis Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 <p>Love it Jen! Not everything is intended to be a textbook shot, it's good to flex the creativity a bit. I realize this is a learning forum, but not every tidbit is meant for a noob to go out and try to replicate. Sometimes you just have to throw something out there and do it for yourself. The fact that they like it can sometimes be secondary.<br> I love the twist on the jump shot. I've got a great idea for a shot on Saturday now (not this, just to have the wedding party do something behind the bride and groom's back).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_deerfield Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 <p>I stand by my critique. I too like the shot. That was the first thing I said. But shooting a wedding and this size group on the fly, I wouldn't want to shoot it @ f/1.6. Too much risk involved for too little return, IMHO. What if you focused and re-composed (common technique) and then missed focus on the bride? What if while shooting the series you simply nudge yourself one way or the other? In terms of lens selection, if I had a group of 20, I would want at least one wider lens. You don't need the whole bag (Lord knows I bring way too much to a wedding!). But if you know you have 20 people, then 2nd lens seems prudent. William, you surprised me a bit but not bringing up lens choice. Generally you are an advocate for thinking ahead in these situations. Knowing you had 20-people in a group are you saying the only lens you would choose is the 50mm? What if a wider lens had been chosen, bring the bride a bit closer to the lens, taller girl in back. Now the wider lens puts emphasis on the bride and de-emphasized the tall girl. Heck, after writing that, that seems like something William might bring up! And that is all about just thinking ahead a bit. I know in the turmoil of actually shooting things are a bit more hectic. But that goes right back to f/1.6 as the aperture of choice?! Finally, I only bring these things up as a chance to learn. I think the shot stands on it's own as a good shot. If one of our photographers had captured this I would have been very happy. But I would have also said that f/1.6 was to wide for this type of shot, and the 50mm may not have been best lens choice.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 <p>After reading all of this -- it seems f/3.5 to f/5.6 would've been perfect -- esp. for a large print. What a FUN capture regardless! You could still get 1/1000 at ISO 400.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
francie_baltazar Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 <p>I think it's a great shot for what it's meant to be - the only thing I would change is to move the tall girl on the left to the back - my eyes went to her first - then the bride - she seems out of place - all the others look great - Thinking outloud - I think another cool shot would be to have the bridal party to one side all jumping with the B&G standing together - or kissing... or have them jumping and everyone else standing - just got me thinking if you get the jump request to change it up a bit... very creative on that front...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 <p>Here's another suggestion for people who want to do jumping shot variations. I've done this one before and it works for just about any young, fun loving group. At this wedding, the groom was a martial arts instructor and several of his guys were also into martial arts. I set the bride up dead center and told her to either do an 'attitude' pose or pretend to cower in fear. Then I sent the guys back about 10-15 feet and told them to come running toward the bride and camera. When they were parallel with the bride, they were to launch into the air, striking a martial arts pose.</p> <p>I shot it at f8, too, but I was using my Hasselblad then (medium format has 'less' DOF than 35mm), but I was also dragging the shutter to some extent (multiple flash). Hasselblads/leaf shutters can sync at 1/500th. f8 would have been equivalent to f5.6 or so (on 35mm), and I didn't need extreme DOF since everyone was to be more or less parallel, but I guess I have the opposite problem--I wanted a margin of error. You also can't be real close to the action because when the guys come down from their jump, they need deceleration room.</p> <p>Another one is to have the girls jumping out of their shoes. Since shoe removal can't always be guaranteed by simply kicking, I cheat and have the girls out of their shoes before the jump.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 <p ><strong><em>"you surprised me a bit but not bringing up lens choice. Generally you are an advocate for thinking ahead in these situations. Knowing you had 20-people in a group are you saying the only lens you would choose is the 50mm?"</em></strong></p> <p > </p> <p >Hah! I take that (and the other comment too) as a compliment. Thank you, John.</p> <p > </p> <p >Also, I interpret your comments in general about thinking ahead; not having another lens (or camera) and a newbie reading and interpreting endorsement to shot everything at F/1.6 as a good technique the thread as credible – and I do agree with them.</p> <p > </p> <p >BUT: you asked me why I have not mentioned these issues, on this thread - the answer is simple: Protocol.</p> <p > </p> <p >Firstly: The protocol of Critique – I don’t read what others have written – I did read the Photographer’s précis. I sought her confirmation that the F/1.6 was a deliberate choice. </p> <p > </p> <p >Secondly: The critique itself – I can see no manner to improve <strong><em>this image</em></strong> with <strong><em>the tools used</em></strong> other than the suggestions I made – in summary:</p> <p > </p> <p >A) More Management of Subjects.</p> <p >B) Front Limit of DoF is at Bride’s feet – very dangerous. . . because:</p> <p >C)i) DoF possibly moved with Focus & Recompose or . . .</p> <p >C)ii) Photographer moved - Monopod better than Hand Held </p> <p >D) Control of Verticals – Monopod useful</p> <p >E) Crop tighter top – better.</p> <p > </p> <p >*** </p> <p > </p> <p >I think you will find that in a previous critique of the POW I made mention of <strong><em>preparedness</em></strong> and that included being ready to lower the camera viewpoint, frame differently and etc – BUT – that critique was also <strong><em>particular to the tools being used to capture that particular image</em></strong>. (A 5D and a 24 to 70L if I recall correctly) </p> <p > </p> <p ><em>My critique here is no different, in style or approach.</em> </p> <p > </p> <p >The only point I needed to confirm was that the Photographer intended to use F/1.6 and that that intention was:</p> <p >a) Purposeful</p> <p >b) With full knowledge of the consequences.</p> <p > </p> <p >It is my opinion that the Photographer’s intention to use F/1.6 was both Purposeful and with full knowledge of the consequences.</p> <p > </p> <p >In response to those facts, I have given only points <strong><em>to benefit and better enhance the successful outcome of that particular shot, should it be taken again in the same manner. </em></strong></p> <p ><strong><em> </em></strong></p> <p >Such is one of the protocols of “critique” – not including the if's but's and maybe's - fortunately - or unfortunately I am as technical (usually) in my script, as in my approach to Photography.</p> <p > </p> <p >Accordingly, I stand by my words, above, with neither addition nor alteration: </p> <p > </p> <p >“F/1.6 - that's very thin, and IMO really well thought out if I read your thoughts correctly </p> <p >. . . it was planned to be shot at F1.6?: Then Brava - you pulled it!” </p> <p > </p> <p >***</p> <p > </p> <p >On other matters away from critique:</p> <p > </p> <p >If The Photographer asked me: “do you think I was remiss only taking my 5D and 50mm outside to shoot these – I would answer “yes”.</p> <p > </p> <p >If the Photographer asked me: “would you, as a result of what you see here, encourage a novice to attempt to take all group shots at F/1.6 - I would answer: “no”</p> <p > </p> <p >The Photographer particularly requested not to receive <em>“</em><em>a tirade about not taking a risk at a wedding”. </em></p> <p > </p> <p >I am cool with that, and in respect of that comment I trust she will not feel our discussion, here, is any such tirade – but rather a polite discourse between Professionals. </p> <p > </p> <p >We all choose how far we want to risk it - I take two cameras everywhere, usually three. If I were on that Patio (as an observer) I would ask: “So what if the 5D carked it? Kinda lost the bang factor whilst we run inside and get another camera, hey?”</p> <p > </p> <p >But all these issues are not part of the question of critique of this particular image, with these particular tools and some matters were particularly asked for us not to dwell upon: </p> <p > </p> <p >So the simple answer to your question “why did I not bring all these matter to bear” – <strong><em>simply Protocol.</em></strong></p> <p > </p> <p >WW</p> <p > </p> <p >***</p> <p > </p> <p >In answer to your other question – with 20 people on that patio: </p> <p > </p> <p >I would likely have a 16-35 on my 5D; 24L on my APS-C and a 50mm in my pocket – both cameras would have a flash mounted – that doesn’t imply any obvious use of the Flash – it just means I have two at the ready.</p> <p > </p> <p >Those three lenses and dual format bodies and two flash units would give me maximum leverage for all situations with 20 people in situ - (as far as I can see of the venue from one image): and also provide me with adequate fallback, if I had a failure. </p> <p > </p> <p >I would have a monopod handy but not attached. </p> <p > </p> <p >If asked to pull that exact same shot - I would attach my pod and 50mm to my 5D and pull it as implied by the comments in my critique. </p> <p > </p> <p >I would Centre Point Focus on the Ground Line at the closest point of the Bride's Gown to the Camera: </p> <p > </p> <p >I would recompose: knowing that I would loose about 6 inches of the Front DoF when I pivoted the camera on the pod to Recompose. </p> <p > </p> <p >If possible I would have stepped back about one large step (referring to the "straight out of the camera" image) - thus giving me more fiddle room for cropping later into different sized prints - which is an habit from film daze, using 645 . . .</p> <p > </p> <p >(and cardboard enlarging crop matts - anyone else remember those cardboard matts)?.</p> <p > </p> <p >WW </p> <p > </p> <p > </p> <p > </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_schilling___chicago_ Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 <p><em>"If possible I would have stepped back about one large step (referring to the "straight out of the camera" image) - thus giving me more fiddle room for cropping later into different sized prints - which is an habit from film daze, using 645 . . .(and cardboard enlarging crop matts - anyone else remember those cardboard matts)?."</em><br> <em></em><br> Yep, I remember and still shoot on the loose side to allow for the 8x10 prints and knowing that I can always crop at the time of printing. IMO, I'd like to see more of the image top to provide closure for the rising columns. I don't see the need for a monopod or tripod though, as long as you're shooting with a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the guys jumping, camera movement shouldn't be a factor. I am somewhat baffled by people shooting large apertures as a course of "style" though. I was so pleased that the bride's dress wasn't blown that initially I wasn't going to mention the blown highlights in the background.</p> <p>BTW, if you print this image at 11x14, 16x20, or larger, the faces will be larger than in smaller prints but the size relative to the image ratio does not change. It is a fun shot with good energy though.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_deerfield Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 <blockquote> <p>Hah! I take that (and the other comment too) as a compliment. Thank you, John.</p> </blockquote> <p>Your welcome!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 <p><em><strong>"I don't see the need for a monopod or tripod though</strong></em> . . .<strong><em>fast enough shutter speed to freeze the guys jumping, camera movement shouldn't be a factor" </em></strong> <br> <br> Just clarifying my main reason for a 'pod, David: <br> <br> To pull the shot at F/1.6, the DoF is slim - as I usually use Focus and Recompose - having focused on the front of the Bride's dress, I would want to make sure I did not (accidentally) move the camera (forward), even 6 inches, prior to releasing the shutter.<br> <br> A forward camera movement combined with the Recompose action could render the forward Limit of DoF too far "backwards into the Bride".<br> <br> Yes you are spot on . . . I was thinking about having enouh fiddle room to crop the image for exactly a 10 x 8 print - old habits die hard, I guess.<br> <br> Cheers,<br> <br> WWl </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenseay Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 <p>Thank you, William. When my photo was chosen (on my first post here in over a year) I was pretty excited and honored - but then I realized that it was chosen for the purpose of critique. I posted the image to show my favorite work last week, with no idea (didn't read carefully enough, I guess) that one would be chosen to be ripped apart. But I'm enjoying the conversation, too (well, most of it). :-)<br> Anyway, my point is that I had about one minute to compose the shot without losing the attention of the 20 people in front of me and the other 20 observing behind me. Since then, I've had plenty of time to examine the result and wonder how I'd have done it differently - and so have all of you, now!<br> David, shooting with the aperture wide open <em>is</em> a significant part of my style. People with point-and-shoot cameras, and even with DSLR's with kit lenses, can't get the same results that I can from shooting wide open; plus, I use it to separate me from the competition around here, many of whom shoot at 5.6 to 8.0 all the time. Also, regarding the cropping, if you'll notice on the original shot, I left room on either side of the subject to allow for cropping. It turns out that it wasn't quite enough for an 8x10, but with a little bit of cloning, I can easily crop it (see below).<br> As a point of clarification, I didn't shoot the whole set of formals at f/1.6. I shot almost all of it at about 5.6, and opened up the aperture for this particular set of shots with the purpose of closing my DOF. I probably could have done it at 2 or 2.8, but it worked for this shot. I took at least 12 in the series, and that's why I shoot so many - because I know that it might only "work" for one. And that's a lesson on what TO do. :-)<br> <img src="http://jenseay.smugmug.com/photos/660739251_sGPAp-S.jpg" alt="" width="375" height="300" /><br> 8x10 crop</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share Posted September 25, 2009 <p>Jen, I'm sorry if you didn't realize that the photo chosen is for critique. However, I do believe that fact is stated in the post asking for images. In any case, don't take any of the comments personally. This exercise is for the purpose of learning and/or at least considering others' points of view. Even the most experienced and talented photographer can take something away from this kind of discussion You should not consider that the image has been 'ripped apart' but analyzed by people who are also striving toward the highest levels of wedding photography, and now you have their input. They can also learn from you. It is a two way street--we all win.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_schilling___chicago_ Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 <p>WW....now that I re-read your monopod thoughts, I understand your point. Thought I'd also add a PS version with a contrast and saturation boost just for fun.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 <p >Jen – I am very glad you enjoyed the conversation . . . I have another quite strong thought, if you will indulge me:</p> <p ><em > </em></p> <p ><em >“it was chosen for the purpose of critique. . .with no idea that one would be chosen to be ripped apart”</em></p> <p ><em > </em></p> <p >Yep - I know Nadine has said it, but critique ain’t ripping nothin’ apart. . . </p> <p > </p> <p >it is actually building something – referred to as <strong ><em >“Professional Development”</em></strong> in our now politically correct world. </p> <p > </p> <p >It bodes well for a Photographer to get to their head to that place where critique is separated from the responses to the question: “do you like these Photos?” </p> <p > </p> <p >It is even better if the Photographer can get to a space where they can ask: <strong ><em >“ wonder how I'd have done it differently [better]”</em></strong></p> <p ><strong ><em > </em></strong></p> <p >Which it seems, by accident, you did here. </p> <p > </p> <p >Though initially maybe an uncomfortable feeling – if one continues to seek critique, then self critique will become a matter of daily routine to a point that in some (rare) cases it will happen <strong ><em >before the shot is taken.</em></strong> </p> <p > </p> <p >Many of the Great Photographers articulate this in different ways - but basically it is the same thing: – firstly visualizing image and then waiting for that <strong ><em >decisive moment</em></strong> <em >(Henri).</em></p> <p ><em > </em></p> <p >Ok that might read a little esoteric – but it really isn’t – Da Vinci, Mozart, Van Gough didn’t just happen – they were critiqued often: by their peers and their teachers.</p> <p > <br> <p >Although I understand the emotion of owning something and it then being “ripped apart” by others . . . </p> <p > </p> <p >I am still totally bemused by many <em >Professional </em>Photographers’ reluctance to offer up their work for critique – usually in fear that it will be a big personal ordeal with catastrophic outcomes during which every comment is a personal attack requiring a rebuff and the whole process is an offensive / defensive combative interaction.</p> <p > </p> </p> <p > </p> <p > </p> <p >Crikey - If AA were having a coffee at my local, how much would I give to show him a couple of my Landscape attempts and ask “Please, how could I improve these?” </p> <p > <br> WW</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now