Untitled

Hi,

I noticed many people had given this a poor rating (including myself) without saying anything, so I kind of felt like I should. I'm not sure what possessed you to put this up for critique? Surely you can't consider this one of your better shots... There is simply nothing here.

for those that gave low ratings this photo meets the following criteria that I have for a good photo:

1.clear and identifiable subject - check!

2. In focus - check!

3. properly exposed- ok the white shirt is over exposed- maybe should have dropped down 1/2 stop.

4. Simplified- there are no telephone poles or trees growing out of his head and while I find the background somewhat distracting - it was his choice- he gets what he wants!

Ergo - this is not a 3 this is a 4 average photo!  I think too many on here do not appreciate the average scene, just because there is nothing spectacular there does not mean there is nothing there- are you just looking or are you seeing what is there?  When you look a painting of the last supper - do you just see another boring dinners shot of a bunch of guys or do you sdee way more- I see way more!  It is not in the looking but in the seeing! 

David, I read your comment in the casual conversation forum and thought I'd take a look at the picture in question. After reading your comment under the picture, my immediate thoughts were this: a) you mentioned the criteria that you use to judge whether a photograph is "good" or not. To me, the obvious problem with this (and I say this with all respect) ...is that those viewing go by their own criteria, not yours. b) the criteria you've laid out is based solely on technical aspects of the photograph. It seems equally obvious to me that there is more to a good photograph than technical issues.

Here's my take on the photograph. I think that the person who said

Here's my take on the photograph. I think that the person who said that "there's nothing there"...may be saying...there's nothing there that is of interest to me. And i must agree.

In the forum you wrote:

I understand that it is a snapshot, not a glamour shot, and just a shot of your son in a suit...and that he was impatient to get the whole deal over with. But you can't use that to excuse a photograph that apparently...holds little appeal to anyone viewing it but yourself.  For a family snapshot...that's fine!   But you can't expect others to get excited about a rather mundane snapshot of someone's son who they don't know! 

Of course it is!  Otherwise...what would be the point of asking others to critique and comment on our photograph If the only criteria for judging the value of a photograph is our own, and we "know" it's a "good photograph"...why ask anyone? 

The photograph is a decent snapshot of a good looking young man whom I'm sure you're proud of.  But personal attachment aside...IMHO...it's a completely boring photograph.  The fact that your son wanted to get the shot taken and over with shows up clearly in his expression.  He looks more bored than I am looking at it!

And...the whole Last Supper analogy doesn't hold an ounce of water. 

Snapshots can be very appealing...for many different reasons.  For me, this one simply has no appeal on any level.

To be quite honest...your response to the criticims of others (that YOU asked for) is the very kind of thing that makes people not want to leave critiques/comments.  You don't have to agree with the criticism...but in essence, telling them why they're clueless and you're not...won't make for the likliehood of their returning for a second set of insults.  

Yes, it is.  And apparently...no one is seeing anything.

One last comment.  The last words in your bio are as follows:

If you read my comments in the forum you'll see that I believe that if you're going to rate a photograph 3/3, then it's only a matter of respect and courtesy that you state why. On this I'm certain we agree.  But...to suggest that it's abusive is a little, if not a whole lot...ridiculous.   Mean spirited?  It could be...but it may just be thoughtless.  I despise the fact that the system allows anonymous ratings...as I've clearly stated ...and I hate it even more the fact that people rate low and offer no explanation.  But in the case of this photograph...someone offers you an explanation for their low ratings...and you reject it without so much as a thank you for their effort. Sounds like you've got a chip on your shoulder. Your thoughts?

Like John Gaylon, I was drawn to this photo by the discusson on the Casual Photo Conversations forum about ratings and critiques.

In this case I'd have to agree with Nicholas Wilkesmann. It's merely a competent snapshot at best, and by the rather high standards we should expect for photo.net, it may indeed be appropriate to rate it 3/3 rather than 4/4. I wouldn't be surprised to learn other viewers had rated it even lower, but you won't see ratings lower than 3.

I'm not seeing any evidence that much thought was given to posing or composition. In fact, it could serve as a "what not to do" example in a primer on the basics of composition.

It may be difficult to objectively evaluate one's own photos, especially those of people we care for or objects we're fond of. I'm certainly guilty of that failing in my own photography.

I haven't rated this photo myself but if I did I'd rate it no higher than 3/3.

Hello again,

I have just been very surprised at the discussion my comment sparked. As well as the personal email I received from David telling me I was wrong, and that this is in fact one of his best shots. As I mentioned, I was simply trying to pay the courtesy of explaining my low rating, since no-one else had done so.

If this satisfies your own criteria for a great shot, and is a nice family snapshot, then congratulations on your brilliant work. But it was put up for rating and critique, apparently you are interested in improving your photography, so why the prickly defensiveness when it is critiqued?

I will explain my first comment; obviously there is not NOTHING here, every photo has SOMETHING in it. Clearly I meant there is absolutely nothing of interest. The picture is nothing more than a clumsy snapshot:

- The image is not sharp.

-You have realised yourself there is a large overexposed patch right in the center of it.

- The subject looks phenomenally bored and is not even looking at the camera!

- It's a distracting background. Whether it was his choice or not, you are asking for a critique on the actual image, and not the motive behind it.

- You are shooting straight on, quite simply you are providing a boring perspective on a boring subject. Please don't confuse that with a personal comment on your son, I simply mean it is a man standing straight to the camera and looking bored, and you have made no attempt to improve that with your photo.