I am a DJ.

I'm addicted to Polaroid.

:)

Since you asked on this discussion in the CC forum, I'll assume that was a sincere invitation to offer honest feedback: http://photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00Tlvl

 

The A=3/O=5 rating already given is interesting, because it's the type of rating I often gave when I did rating photos (I stopped due to the whining). I would have rated this slightly higher, but I can understand why someone might have rated it as they did.

 

In terms of originality, it's a clever concept. Not just cute, but clever. It implies that any monkey could do what most DJ's do these days, which is true. But not outlandishly, jaw dropping clever, so a 5 seems reasonable.

 

In terms of aesthetics, I can just imagine some viewers seeing this, smacking their foreheads (commonly known as the facepalm), and wondering "What's up with that frame?" Frankly, it's a distraction. When you're not 100% certain that an out of the ordinary frame is perfect for a particular image, don't use it. It looks like that faux-adobe or faux-antique stuff that came in spray cans and was so popular during the 1990s for giving new life to old lamps and end tables. Worst of all, part of the photo is visible through the frame, especially at right, making it look like an afterthought.

 

Also, while the lighting, color and props are fine, the arrangement doesn't blow my socks off. I get the feeling something more could be done. It's like you recognized the monkey and turntables would be too centered, so you just tossed in the record albums on one side instead of exploring a more imaginative arrangement.

 

I'm not saying that I personally think it's a 3 for aesthetics. I'm just saying I can understand why another viewer would find the concept clever but still do a massive facepalm.

 

Me, I'd have given it O=5, A=4. Good concept, execution didn't quite pull it through. And I don't fudge ratings. A 4 is competent, no significant flaws, which should be considered average by photo.net's high standards (formerly high standards, but sinking under the weight of marshmallow fluff due to Flickr's influence). A 3 is not a "bad" rating, just a little below average if one's expectations are high. A 1 or 2 are bad. But you'll never see a 1 or 2.

 

And now you know why there aren't many frank critiques on photo.net. It's much easier and safer to offer gratuitous praise, a generic "Nice capture!" or just a non-committal emoticon. (Sorry, Bob Kurt, nothing personal, but icwutudidthar.)

 

If you'd rather have that, just Google "7/7 anon" or "6/6 anon" or "6/6 a", using the "site:photo.net" parameter to narrow the search. Jot down the names you'll see by those phrases. You'll find a dozen or so names that pop up routinely. Join their club. As long as you remember to praise everyone else equally, you'll get reciprocal treatment. You'll get all the marshmallowy, pillowy soft praise and 6/6 or 7/7 ratings anyone can swallow without needing an insulin injection. But don't expect any actual critiques.

 

BTW, if you think I'm harsh, visit 4chan /p/. Just lurk there awhile. Read some of the critiques people write when they don't fear retaliation and whining to admin about low ratings and harsh critiques. It's an eye-opener. I'm not saying 4chan /p/ is better. It's not. Many of the critiques are gratuitously harsh and insulting because they can get away with it, just as many on photo.net and Flickr are gratuitously soft and sweet because people have low expectations. Neither is good for anyone who wants to improve.

My critique is not based on the long one above -- I barely even scanned it before writing this.

 

Normally I don't critique these kinds of photos because they are not my bag. I don;t appreciate the awkward borders and the orange color. I don't like stuffed animal photos nor the strong flash-caused shadow behind the toy. Was the album bleed-off into the right side of the frame deliberate?

 

Sort of a confusing arrangement. The fan blocks the toy and something white in its hand.

 

Still, you went for the Old Timey look, so good for you! Gabba gabba Hey! Don't go down to the basement.

Thanks for critiques of the arrangement Ken.

 

To answer both you and Lex, the bleed off of the album cover is an artifact of not peeling the mask off of the instant film. It's probably a distraction for unmanipulated Polaroids.

 

Re: the shadow, I purposely went with one light to simulate a divey club with only one spotlight.

 

I'm not into stuffed animals or cutesy still lifes but I hadn't shot a photo in several days because of work and threw this all together because I was jonesing to shoot something.

 

Oh, and I didn't mean to mislead people regarding the back album, my gf thought it was the Ramones, but it's actually Tom Jones Live in Las Vegas!

 

Hahaha. Thanks again Lex and Ken.

Holy crap, I'm such an idiot. I didn't even recognize those borders were artifacts from Polaroid peel-offs. In that case, IT'S ART, BAY-BEE!

Seriously, this could be an interesting theme to explore for a series. Maybe a copy of Beck's Odelay in the background? Even tho' this particular arrangement and composition aren't great, for some reason the concept still appeals to me. But I have a weak spot for jokey photos and have shooped up a few awful ones myself.

You crack me up Lex. But, yeah, the whole two turntables and a microphone thing are where I started from a few months before I set this one up.

 

 

Listening to the Some Velvet Morning off of that Nancy Sinatra album as I type this!