table-top / commercial / architecture Clarinet

I do really like this image,what a beautiful intense blue,however I've been distracted by the vibrant colour and even though it is in the context of the image, the clarinet should be the focal point of my intrest!!!!!!

The background looks too flat.

I like it. I think this would be great for a brochure either in horizontal or vertical. I like the clean lines and the interaction with the negative space. I think the blue background would help to draw attention to the text if any were added, depending on what color(s) were used. I see figurative elements this way and facial features are more obvious in the vertical(ball side up), not sure which way I like it more, prolly in vertical flipped up either to the left or right. Not sure about the reflection in the "ball", maybe a little distracting for me, but it also adds a little detail, leads outside of the image.

Remarkable -

I didn't know what it was at first, which is what makes this a remarkable photo, IMHO.

Unless I am a hopeless idiot (hold your ballots) an Abstract is not the same thing as a Still Life.

Still life - n. pl. still lifes Representation of inanimate objects, such as flowers or fruit, in painting or photography. A painting, picture, or photograph of inanimate objects.

Abstract - adj 1: existing only in the mind; separated from embodiment; "abstract words like `truth' and `justice'" [ant: concrete] 2: not representing or imitating external reality or the objects of nature; "a large abstract painting"

So in simple terms, a Still Life is a representation of something we can (more or less) easily recognize from the real world that exists and that is not moving. There are a few painters such as Cézanne who can stretch the boundaries of that definition by showing us the beginnings of abstraction through multiple perspective viewpoints in the same painting but this photograph still does not (in my mind) qualify under the category of a Still Life composition. I also think of a Still Life as generally containing multiple objects appearing in relationship with each other and showing features of light and shadow which are what specifically defines their shapes.

I think the photograph is successful to its stated intent and is probably somewhat less of an abstract when used in the context it was indented for. I dont think this is an especially new idea, having seen similar illustrations used in advertisements and theatre programs. It is certainly well done from a graphic and photographic perspective. It is possible to argue that a successful graphic design is not necessarily a good photographic composition.

This leads us to another issue and that is of abstract works in general. Many people feel that abstracts are too easy, of no redeeming value and generally a waste of time and film, specifically marking the work of the worst kind of amateurs.

I like abstract photography and find it refreshing to the heart and mind which no doubt marks me as one of the aforementioned amateurs. They have been done to death and as a further measure of their adolescent quality they are usually featured on the back page of childrens magazines under the heading of What is it?

I try not to worry about the implications of being a photographer of abstracts and persist in my relentless pursuit of the obscure and discarded. When challenged, I can always twist the facts and say that Walker Evans was one of my heroes and a great inspiration. I actually never thought about it much until I read Jeff Brouws new book, READYMADES. Now when people accuse me of being simple minded I can fire back with words like, vernacular architecture and aesthetic sensibilities.

Jeff was kind enough to point out to me that even though I may be walking on well trampled ground it is still alright to do my own thing in my own way. Some will look at this weeks POW selection and plainly state the fact that it does not do much for them. Ive heard those words applied to many of my photos as well. Its abstract, outside of normal thought or context; just dont insult the simple-minded among us by telling us its supposed to be a Still Life.

That's my initial reaction to this image. Nothing really grabbed me. I think you have a good idea, but need to develop it further to make it interesting/aesthetically pleasing.

 

After looking at it some more, here are a few more observations:

 

1. It is too abstract to recognize as a clarinet. Perhaps if it were more recognizable, it would be more engaging?

2. I would change the lighting to increase the accents on the chromed parts. This could give it a little more bite. Perhaps even introducing a bit of flare?

3. As a purely abstract photo, I find it unbalanced. Removal of the bottom chromed part, or increased spacing between the chromed pieces (via change in POV upwards around the clarinet) could improve the layout. I don't feel the bottom third stands enough on it's own to be visually interesting. Perhaps if you filled it with only the two chromed pieces, closer up?

4. The clarinet is not level with the bottom of the picture. I suggest either making it level, or making it clear that it should not be level (more of a slant).

 

My .02 (.04?)

Dennis -- before this turns into a discussion of Still Life vs Abstract..... My understanding is that when the "elves" pick images within a given topic - They are encouraged to take a broad view of the subject and apply the criteria loosely. So, in view of that, I don't have a problem with this "still" slice of a claranet being chosen for the Still Life catagory.

As to abstract... I never heard that abstracts are an amatuer endevor -- Nor do I agree. My constant wonder and joy from photography is due to the endless possibilities.. The varied approaches... The marvelous way that each person "sees" and captures life, objects, people with their own artistic interpretation. I also happen to love abstract art - which was once very much scorned by artists when it first came into being.

I like the placement of the instrument in the lower quadrant...and believe it was an artistic choice that for me - gives it graphic excitment. The lighting is terrific and there is great clarity in the texture and details. As with all things art -- Some will love it and some won't. I happen to love it. Congrats, Scott

I wrote my initial impression before reading the other posts on this page. Looks like everything's been said before (great minds think alike?).

 

I also noticed I didn't address the Elves' question. Yes, I think the lower part of the frame is the best placement for the clarinet, IF the photo is going to be the background for a musical program, poster, etc. It provides enough room for text to be placed, etc. Obviously, this text will change the "look" of the image, but in that case, the photo is not the focus of the image (the text is).

 

As a photo, I don't think placement of the clarinet at the bottom of the frame is best. Why? Because I just rotated the image 90 degrees clockwise and counterclockwise! Both of these positions gave the image much more impact and interest. Perhaps the placement of the clarinet at the bottom is too "static", whereas by rotating the image, it becomes more dynamic?

 

Does rotation of a photo create a new photo?

It looked to me like water tension, or something. I like images that look like one thing and are something else, or images that make you think and stare for a little while. I usually dont go for abstract stuff, but this image could not have been executed any better. Kudos!

When I first saw this photo on the phot.net homepage my initial thought was "this is a landscape" and then as I let it sink in I saw it as a fluid on a pipe (water, mercury, something of that nature). When I opened the link and expanded the photo, being a musician, I knew right away what it was. What I find most intriguing about it is Mr. Schrader's choice of position for the instrument, placed in such a way that 95% of the viewers would never readily identify it. To me, that adds incredible depth to the shot. It would have been easy to place the clarinet with the tone holes showing, or more of the keys, but this way there is an air of mystery to it and it forces the viewer to "see" the instrument in a way not before considered. I think the photo is wonderfully done and the photographer should be proud of it.

 

That said, to answer the Elves question, I like it rotated 90 degrees for my personal satisfaction, which means nothing. In the end, it belongs in the lower part of the frame to add that touch of wonder and mystery and to motivate further investigation by the viewer.

 

As for the comments that the clarinet is angling badly to the right, I think if you'll look again, you'll see that is largely an optical illusion caused by the keys on the body of the instrument. Pull a ruler out and check it against the bottom of the frame. I found less than 1/32" deviance one side from the other. That's pretty darn close, at least for my eyes.

An interesting point of view. I don't think I would buy it if I saw it at an exibit, but that is not what it was for.

 

What it does do is provoke interest. It has great potential for use as part of something. The blank color casts a beauty and sereneness of it's own, and there is just enough of the instrument to give us a clue as to it's identity.

 

As a small stand alone piece on a computer screen, it may not have the interest that we have become used to for a POW. On the other hand properly presented I suspect it would have an entirely different reaction

I wonder how many of the critics who find this boring, could light a subject as well.

I wonder how many of the critics who find this boring, could light a subject as well.

Why does that matter? If someone finds it boring, they find it boring and how it was lit is irrelevant. This is not a class in lighting, where that might matter.

I have to admit to finding it fairly boring...

>>I wonder how many of the critics who find this boring, could light a subject as well.<<

 

mmm...I wonder how many critics could paint as well as Leonardo or play as well as John Coltrane.

 

Given the nature of this site I'd like to remind ALL that this is NOT a competition, rather it is a FORUM where we can exchange ideas, comments and opinion WITHOUT fear of being taken personally, as you seem to have done.

 

A critique is NOT a negative event. Comments such as yours (and others) insinuate something I don't even want to discuss because it doesn't belong here.

 

Critiques and discussions of a photographic nature on the other hand DO belong here.

Looks like what it is - a "commercial" photograph. Slick, well lit, smart use of color

and form. If the designer of the symphony pubs is good, the finished piece will

undoubtably be delightful. However, this image needs accompanying graphics to

make it "sing'. Without them it is pretty lifeless, cold and unengaging. Enter it in a

graphic arts/advertising competition when the finished piece is done.

What is this ??? !!!

 

I am neither an expert photographer, nor I am an art critic. If a picture does not appeal to a layman like me what good it is.

 

Frankly this picture does not make any sense to me. (This is a criticism of the photo and not the photographer).

I think that this is one of those images which fares better when viewed in the fuller context of the photographer's other abstractions. I also like the nature scenes very well in the other folders. The body of work taken as a whole is quite impressive.

Interesting/original landscape... No cloud here :-)!!!

A very clean shot, too clean perhaps, so effect is a bit cold and 'commercial' to me, profesionnal (?)... kitchenware ads-like. But dont mistake my comment, no pejorative meaning

I knew it was a clarinet..so maybe I get a prize or something? I get no feeling from this, and there's little of interest to my eye. Sometimes less is, just less. Technically very clean and neat looking.

Some of you should know better . . . . . . Let's down rate this

because it's not a landscape or even a street shot, shall we?

Come on!

 

This is an ASSIGNMENT, and I for one would like to see stuff like

this in the gallery pages on a daily basis along with any other

photograph someone might take that falls outside the very

narrow confines of what Joe consumer thinks a camera is for.

 

"I don't like the photograph" is not a critique that is of any use or

interest to anyone unless you can also make it clear that you

understand what the image is for and can suggest ways that it

could have been done better.

I have a way it could've been done better, first of all, it could've been interesting. All I see is a ball, some curvy stick on the top, some curvy stick on the bottom, and some black thing.

 

What's the point of it?

. . . all I see is a tree . . or a flower . . . or a breast . . . or a face.

Unlike 99% of the shots in this gallery, the point was clearly

described. It was for a brochure for which he was paid.

 

. . . and 'it could be more interesting' is not very specific or

helpful, is it?

You're on fire tonight! Give it a few days while the deep thinkers compose their thoughts.

You in good shape today Carl... the 'Front Page Effect' ;o)! but I agree to some extent with you (I post to many portrait myself) and we do miss some picture is this style or in minimalist on the Top Gallery to get the full spectrum of photographic abilities.

Lucky the Elves suggested the POW.

to answer Elves Q: position of Clarinet is just fine IMO.

Carl,

 

Should we change the criteria we use to judge photos because something is for an

assignment? While this probably did work quite well for the assignment, it has been

placed on photo.net. Now people are judging it by the criteria they use for all the

other photo.net pics. This is a reasonable progression.

 

True, "I don't like it" isn't very helpful in improving a photo. Neither is "Great shot!!!"

However, its important to know what people like. What good is a well planned and

executed shot that no one wants to look at?