ed_farmer Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 In my view, a critique isn't an argument or even, really, a discussion. It's an expression of the viewer's feelings about an image which are steeped in their own thoughts, dislikes, context and biases. They are neither right nor wrong. They simply are. This image was posted without context. To stand alone. Unlike if it were part of an exhibition or other group of images with a defined "reason". It's only when viewed in context that the blown highlights and lack of separation from the background shrink away to almost nothing. I have found, in many situations, that "grabbing the shot" is important. But, after that shot, I often try to correct the shortcomings of the situation. So, I may have moved the man for another shot, another background, maybe including an activity. The second shot may be better but it may not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_johnson10 Posted July 10, 2020 Author Share Posted July 10, 2020 Ed, I agree with most of that. However. I believe that a critique should be a two way street. If the photographer disagrees with the critic, shouldn't equal time be given to the author? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 If the photographer disagrees with the critic, shouldn't equal time be given to the author? Yes. Absolutely, yes. I think a critique forum is a great place for a dialogue. To clarify, however, you didn't just disagree with the critiques. You were suggesting that, because of the way this photo came about, and because you hold what you think are mere technical matters in low regard, the critiques were invalid or inappropriate. Disagreeing is one thing. Invalidating is quite another. "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_johnson10 Posted July 10, 2020 Author Share Posted July 10, 2020 Sam, I can flap my arms as hard as I can, but I can't fly. In the case of this photo, you ask for an 8 stop span...at 100 iso, and accurate exposure outside would have been between 1/2000, and 1/4000th of a second...I shot at 1/20 to get any detail in his face...and it was under exposed. In PP, I did what I could to make his face normal...you say I could have "softened" the approach. Softened it how? I shot jpg...yes, jpg. I've spent 50 years of my life as a photographer...making my living as a photographer. I don't invalidate what you say, I just question your judgement. Having enlightened you regarding the exposure, you insist that PP could bring out detail where none exist....that if you had that image, you could bring out detail that your minds eye see's, but where none exist. You may be very knowledgeable in this field. so show it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 you insist that PP could bring out detail where none exist I said nothing about bringing out detail. Reread all my posts and quote the part you think says something about bringing out detail. You won't find it. My observation is that the photo is too sharp for his gentle expression and pose. His hairs, particularly the stray ones on his face and the white ones in his eyebrows, feel like strands of steel wool to me. A gentler approach would mean a less metallic look to the highlight on the right of his face in front of his ear. It would also mean that the lower edge of his left hand wouldn't look like a razor blade had separated it from his shirt. It would have the softness of skin instead of the hard edge it appears to have. "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_johnson10 Posted July 10, 2020 Author Share Posted July 10, 2020 Sam, you said soften...not sharpen. THAT is what I call a critique! Is this what you mean? I'm sorry, but that isn't his skin tone, skin texture, and I don't think it carry's the emotion of the original. Back to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 Is this what you mean? No. "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 You caught a sympathetic person . But an oversharpened portrait of an old guy with lots of facial cracks and lines has become a cliche. Everyone's doing it. Try softening it and then comparing both to see which is better for you. Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 I'm sorry, but that isn't his skin tone, skin texture, and I don't think it carry's the emotion of the original. Back to you. You're right. And that's because you did a lousy reworking of it. When one doesn't have their heart behind a reworking and may be doing it just to prove the suggestion being accommodated can't work, the result will often be failure. Having shot jpg, you'll of course be limited to the sharpening (or sharpening effects) that the jpg defaulted or was programmed to. That's hard to undo. Softening, by the way, is different from lightening, or in this case washing out to the point of distraction. Of course it doesn't carry emotion done this way. But, of course, it's not what I was suggesting, and what I suggested (a photo whose look was more in harmony with the emotion expressed) can't necessarily be accomplished with the sharpness of the jpg you already shot, though I suspect with finesse and nuance (and not the broad, global brush you used in your redo) you might find something. But, please don't make another attempt on my account. You either do it because you want to and think there are genuine possibilities in it ... or you don't! "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_johnson10 Posted July 10, 2020 Author Share Posted July 10, 2020 You caught a sympathetic person . But an oversharpened portrait of an old guy with lots of facial cracks and lines has become a cliche. Everyone's doing it. Try softening it and then comparing both to see which is better for you. Alan, everyone is doing everything...everything has cliche elements because "nothing is new under the sun"...not flowers, buildings, fields, or turkeys. Before you cast that stone, look to your own work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_johnson10 Posted July 10, 2020 Author Share Posted July 10, 2020 But, please don't make another attempt on my account. You either do it because you want to and think there are genuine possibilities in it ... or you don't! I won't Sam. You have proven my theory beyond expectation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 You have proven my theory beyond expectation. LOL. I’d say it was you who set out to and then proceeded, ineptly, to prove whatever theory it is you’re hawking. I’m outta here. "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 It's a really good image in my opinion. Interesting subject, nice composition and all the other items that combine to make a photo worth taking. I am not crazy about the contrast and dark tones but that can be changed when the photographer feels like changing it if he feels the need. Besides liking the photo, I really like how he was able to find the subject in the first place and get a little back story. He also was able to have the man allow him to take the photo and then portray the subject in a respectful way. There were many things that have had to have taken place in order to get a photo like this and it's a real joy when that happens. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_johnson10 Posted July 11, 2020 Author Share Posted July 11, 2020 It's a really good image in my opinion. Interesting subject, nice composition and all the other items that combine to make a photo worth taking. I am not crazy about the contrast and dark tones but that can be changed when the photographer feels like changing it if he feels the need. Besides liking the photo, I really like how he was able to find the subject in the first place and get a little back story. He also was able to have the man allow him to take the photo and then portray the subject in a respectful way. There were many things that have had to have taken place in order to get a photo like this and it's a real joy when that happens. Thanks tholte...I think you see the photo the way I intended...well, except for the contrast and dark tones! lol Success in photography, for me, comes from the emotional reaction one has to a photo. You immediately either like it or not...that is pure reaction. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 CLARIFICATION: The whole idea of a critique IMHO, is whether the image moves you. Just on this point only - that's not exactly how this critique forum performs. If someone desires a narrow or specific line of response then that is to be requested. (As mentioned in the sticky-post atop this forum) In all other cases, for example the opening post in this conversation is simply an image posted, then the responses as "critiques" are open to follow literally critique: i.e. "a detailed analysis and assessment of something" and subsequent commentaires as wide, as that brief (pun intended). William 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick D. Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 Another aspect, are we all see the same image? I mean monitor calibration and etc. It could heve big impact . I like the picture overall, a bit too much of the contrast may be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed_farmer Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 I believe that a critique should be a two way street. If the photographer disagrees with the critic, shouldn't equal time be given to the author? In a word . . . No . . . In more words . . . There are two types of critiques . . . If you are looking to learn, from one or many other photographers, yes a conversation is worth while but you should be looking for ways to improve image not defending what you have done. These mostly deal with technical details as have been discussed here. You have insisted that these improvements were impossible at the time but lessons like this are often more about making the NEXT image better. The other type of critique talks about a work of art or a work as art. In this case, the "work" should stand alone. It it's a documentary work, there may be one or many images and there should be something included to put it in context. This may be as simple as a title, for example "A Day in the War in Syria" or it may be an entire book as, perhaps a collection or Robert Capa's war photographs. in this type of critique the entire project from title to text to images is critiqued together and in context. To go back to your example of Capa's image, context is very important. As a spur of the moment shot in a war zone, the image is incredible but if it was a still from a movie set, yes Capa could be told that the focus should be sharper and the image may be declared a failure. The dictionary definition, by the way, included assessment but not conversation or defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddler4 Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 I believe that a critique should be a two way street. If the photographer disagrees with the critic, shouldn't equal time be given to the author? Why? Are you really looking for a critique, or do you want a debate? The point of a critique, IMHO, is to hear how others see the image and to hear what suggestions they have. If you don't agree with the critics--I often don't--just don't follow their suggestions. Sometimes it's worth explaining why, but usually because there is something to be learned from it or some more general applicability. Camera's sensors haven't reached the point where they can span 8 stops This hasn't been true for at least a decade. The Canon 5D Mark III, which was introduced 8 years ago and was considered a bit of a laggard in terms of dynamic range, has a dynamic range of almost 9 stops at base ISO: Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_johnson10 Posted July 11, 2020 Author Share Posted July 11, 2020 If by some miracle I could make all the corrections to this photo suggested by "the critics", how exactly would that change the message of the photo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 There have been many different views on various aspects of Doug's image and different definitions of what a critique is but all in all, I think this post has been doing what it is supposed to do and that is to get us thinking about all of the elements of a photo, of which there are many. I am not a believer in rules and definitions when it comes to taking photos so I liked Doug's somewhat stubborn attitude about his photo. If you don't believe in what you are doing, no one else will. I hope Doug pops up another photo we can check out when we get the chance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 I am not a believer in rules and definitions Sorry but this is a straw man. Point me to who stated a rule here. Nonsense. stubborn attitude Stubbornness can be ok. Defensiveness rarely is. "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_johnson10 Posted July 11, 2020 Author Share Posted July 11, 2020 CRITIC: a person who expresses an unfavorable opinion of something. Similar: detractor censurer attacker fault-finder carper backbiter caviller reviler vilifier traducer disparager denigrator deprecator belittler knocker nitpicker asperser a person who judges the merits of literary, artistic, or musical works, especially one who does so professionally. Similar: commentator observer monitor pundit expert authority 2. CRITIQUE noun a detailed analysis and assessment of something, especially a literary, philosophical, or political theory. Similar: analysis evaluation assessment appraisal appreciation review write-up criticism critical essay textual examination commentary study treatise discourse exposition disquisition account exegesis verb evaluate (a theory or practice) in a detailed and analytical way. "the authors critique the methods and practices used in the research" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_johnson10 Posted July 11, 2020 Author Share Posted July 11, 2020 Sorry but this is a straw man. Point me to who stated a rule here. Nonsense. Stubbornness can be ok. Defensiveness rarely is. Sam, methinks you are being defensive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 I am picturing you sticking your tongue out at me, looking around age 14. Amiright? "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 However, I am guilty of not abiding by my "I'm outta here" and for that I apologize. I promise this is good-bye. "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts