Untitled

John, the question is whether any of those written critiques were in fact critiques or just praise, there is a real difference. I have also found that most comments are part of the social scene with rarely objective discussion of an image, especially if one wants good responses on their own images. I was once asked to post something so someone could "revenge critique" me, even if it was just a white box.

Richard, I don't think learning to put numbers on things is very productive. Part of a good critique is learning a way to confront an image one doesn't necessarily understand. If you don't understand an image or what someone is doing, you are giving a very subjective number with that type of rating. If you use good verbal critique tools, you learn to discuss how the image has been constructed and then how you react to those decisions--as in an image feels claustrophobic because of the lack of a true horizon. This process can often help one actually make sense of an image, a sense that comes from this verbalization and wouldn't have come from just a gut reaction and it also gives objective feedback to the person who made the image. The comment about the claustrophobic sense might be exactly what the person who made the image was after--or not but it is information they can use without prejudice.

These discussions might proceed more rationally if the POW was introduced as being of a certain category (street, candid, nature, etc.), with perhaps a short interview with the photographer in order to answer some basic questions.

Might also might make sense if the "elf" who selected the photograph had an actual name, so, over time, we could gradually get a sense of that person's photographic leanings, which also might help the discussions proceed more rationally.

Was looking through Floriana's portfolio, and for what's it worth, here's a personal favorite (Summer Composition with Cat): http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7427793.

Back to this particular photograph. Been looking for things to nitpick (what can be more fun?), and I've noticed that the foot print at the bottom of the frame looks bigger than would be made by the young girl in the picture. Why so?

Martin, I like your sugestion of POW by category.
Would eliminate many misunderstandings.
In this work is my son Stefan wen he was long hair.
The footprint at the bottom of the frame looking biger because I used my 17-40 mm lens at 17mm very close to the footprint.

Luucaaaa , come to the dark side of photograpfy !
I think you're right about vanity, I admit.
Hope you like my joke :D

When all is said and done, we have the remains of the day. No one was right, no one was wrong but ends didn't meet. I remember the sun flowers of the famous painter van Gogh. No one liked them, it was all wrong and certainly no art. It had been hanging in some bar in the loo for years. Try to buy it know. My feelings over this picture of Florian were ambiguous, but it is the "Zeitgeist"that dictates the values and the way we look at pictures. Time will speek its final verdict!
I wish you all a very happy christmas and an inspiring 2012. Kind regards
Herman

Being able to achieve the vision you have in your mind and heart is a really good start. But the vision itself, IMO, is as important as achieving it.

Not referring specifically to the photo above here, I'm pretty sure that plenty of bad photos are just the way the photographer wants them. The point may be to want more or even something else. I'm sure the creators of Elvis on black velvet get their products just the way they want them. Still trash, even though the want has been realized.

In terms of the photographer's own satisfaction, sure, achieving what you want is of utmost importance. In terms of putting photos into the world, IMO, the photo is more important than the photographer's satisfaction.

At first sight, a well composed photo with strong lines and highly emotional components. I can imagine that it sells well.
After a second, it is quite obviously a composite with badly merged sky and land, patched in an unnatural perspective.
It is horrible kitsch for me, sorry to be negative.

To me, the image does have a lot of immediate appeal - it draws attention to itself really well (in my view, the footsteps do that, plus the high contrast of the girl). It has a certain 'wow'-factor. For ratings, that will always go down very well, as high-rated images on this site all use some effect to grab immediate attention.

In that very first moment, it's a really good image to me. It's when I take time to look at it, its flaws become much more apparent. Hence my earlier critique in this thread (which probably did not sound all too positive). If I'd play the rating-game, it would probably be a 6, though. But I would not have taken the same amount of time to reach that conclusion.

The dark side of photography.

It's not so dark. Actually, it's pretty transparent.

I am always hypercritical in respect to my own stuff, so, for now, I'm not in danger of vanity, at least what photos are concerned.

That said, I must admit that there are some PoWs I would be ashamed of if I were the author.

(not this one).

Wouter,

In the end you are really on the same page as John A (and me), when you mention the reaction after the first impact. I think that's it. This is also the reason for a quite general appreciation of this image.

What would be your reaction if you bought a 120 x 120cm enlargement of it and saw it on a wall every single day?

Fred

It seems to me that we are pretty on the same page here, and knowing my opinions, you are probably already aware of it.

In Floriana's case she seems to know what she wants, the outcome is not banal, and she definitely has the skills to produce it.

It's also true that there is a lot of c@@@p supported by unmotivated self-assurance.

Sigh!

Luca, interesting question. It's exactly that point. It very much depends on which wall it is....at home, where I see it in peace and quiet, it would start to annoy me (for being too large, and ultimately too "empty"). At a place where I just pass the photo frequently without taking time to really look at it (at work, in a hallway) - it would stay OK and frequently impress.
This photo would work well in a print that large. It would amplify that 'first encounter wow-effect' really well.

This is not a photograph. This is a composite/collage pretending to be a photograph. Two photos were used to create this image it is

not a photo anymore and should not be presented nor viewed as such. It is pretending to be a photograph to heighten the drama. It is

made in a crude and pretentious way.

And THIS IS NOT A PIPE.

Ahh, the treachery of images!

I looked at the image and my 3 second response was, "I really like it". I then paused and I wondered... hmmm... "how was it done"? Still liking it I started to look for problems.... none popped up. So for me it is simple. Maybe I'm simple... well... I am for the most part.
Then I read through the comments knowing they would all be positive until the POW insert... and I knew that most of the first would all be positive... which they were.
Somewhere I've gone wrong thinking that if I read enough serious critiques from serious artists I'll start to learn something. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places.
This has been interesting but most of what is being said is not worthy of discussion....
To the photographer: keep up the good work... I like it.
Richard

Richard, it may not be that you're looking in the wrong places. You may simply not be listening. Or maybe you're really only hearing those you agree with. You wouldn't be the first. There's been plenty said you could have learned from. You chose not to. That's fine. But don't blame the room.

Richard Hatch, you summed up my experiences too, thanks for saving me the time.

One person said it does not matter if the person knows how to make photos, they are still allowed their opinions. I completely agree, and also completely agree that for the most part you don't have to pay much attention to their critiques. Like John Sexton once told me "when I'm out shooting some guys come up and start telling me how to make the photo; I ask for them to show me some of their photos first".

Floriana Barbu is a master, I'm blessed to have viewed her portfolio.

Merry Christmas.
MS

in German you'd say "jenseits" which means something that on the other side of time and space ...

That was me. Michael, we don't have to pay attention to anything we don't want to pay attention to. The flip side of that is that we can learn in the most unexpected of places and situations. It's been my experience that some very insightful comments and opinions have come from non-photographers and people who are new to photography. I care about and learn a lot from people's honest emotional reactions to my photos, and they don't need to be experts in order to give me that. Your experience may differ.

The point, however, was a concrete one, not an abstract or academic one about who are the best critics. The not-so-veiled suggestion that we should question the portfolios of people who don't agree that this is a wonderful photo started with Floriana herself, unfortunately. So let's take a minute and look, why don't we? Check out the portfolios of several of the people here who have found this photo wanting. You should see a lot of fine work. How is that possible? You tell me. When you are getting advice in the field, would it only be from photographers whose work you "like," or might it be from photographers whose work may not be to your taste but is every bit as good or as accomplished as your own?

Anyway, just as I think one doesn't have to be an accomplished photographer to be able to offer me insights into my own work, I think some of the best and certainly the most popular photographers make lousy critics, don't have great taste, and don't write terribly well either. That's just the way it works, IMO.

Michael, Richard, discarding a critique because you don't agree with it, or because you feel the critiquer does not have the right credentials, is asking for hollow praise only, and dismissing exactly the things that could bring you something (new insights, a different angle of view, a different technique - anything). Feel free to ignore it, but do realise that the persons with those more eloborate critiques are giving you something more valuable than praise. I know I am not the most accomplished photographer, and that's fine. But when I critique, at least I try to explain what I see in an image, and what I do not see. I try to explain why an image works for me, or why it doesn't. Feel free to disagree with anything I say, I might very well be wrong. But at least it brings something to the table to discuss.
Nobody ever got any wiser from "great work, love it!".

A very merry christmas to all!

I find myself agreeing with Richard and Michael on their posts..

We each choose who will be our influences, and who we gain knowledge from. Washington Allston (painter) wrote, "Never judge a work of art by it's defects". Ansel Adams wrote, "No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit". I find it hard to build my confidence or creative spirit by listening to the critiques of people who's work doesn't equal or surpass the tone of their critiques. A person who I sense works as hard as I do to create an image, a piece of art, a mudpie, will gain my respect and attention, over those just giving their viewpoint....Everyone has an opinion. Should I listen to them all?
As I stated earlier in this forum, there are too many difinitive statements made as facts and conclusions, when in fact, they are subjective evaluations..."Nobody ever got wiser from "great work, I love it". I'm really amazed any photographer ever became great without being a member of photo.net. I learn many things from some of the other forums, where questions are asked and answered, but not very much in this "room". This has more to do with my discipline as a photographer than the value of what's being said. It doesn't help me if the photo "screams" to someone else, and there's nothing for me to discuss based on that comment. Negative critiques ( feedback) are not always given with growth in mind. What we think, say, and do, are not always consistent.

Merry Christmas to all

Phil, I think you're pulling my reply out of context there. The point I made was that the substance of a "critique" consisting only of "great work, love it" is zero. What do you learn from it, apart that that person liked it? As a critique, what does it really say?
Nor was I saying negative critiques are good for being negative... just spilling a lot of negativism (as happened earlier in this thread) without showing any respect or constructive feedback, is also worth little. But critiques that discuss how an image does not work, how a composition maybe doesn't work - there is a lot to be gained from that. And that was my point.
You do not need to listen to them all, nor do you have to disagree with them all. But to dismiss the critiques on grounds other than the actual critique itself, might be selling yourself short.

Wouter

"But a critique that discuss how an image does not work, how a composition maybe doesn't work, there is a lot to be gained from that". I don't think for one minute that you or anyone else knows what a person will gain from at any given moment of their lives. When I first became a photographer struggling to find a career, I won an International competition that gave me the encouragement to continue my career, and I heard, "great photo" from many of the people present. That was what I needed at that time to continue and improve. When you defend your position, more often than not, it becomes a debate, or as you stated earlier, a pissing contest...not a discussion. I, like Richard, didn't get much from this discussion. It doesn't mean I didn't get something from other POW discussions, or won't in the future.......... I do respect your point of view, but please don't tell me I might be selling myself short.. it's condescending

My first reaction to viewing this image is Wow. I think it is a simple delightful image; and if it was made for commercial purposes, I would smile turning to this image before I had the chance to think about it. Perhaps I am biased as a father of a now grown up daughter and this image evokes something of early happy times with her. I like the composition as well. I think it has what in economic terms may be called, "irrational exuberance"--the converging compositional lines are extravagent and fun, in my opinion.

The latter part of this discussion is pathetic. Phil, Michael, and Richard haven't said one substantive word about the photograph and seem to need to put down the critics who don't like this photo or find fault with the forum in general. Those not liking the photo seem to have addressed the photo rather than addressing or taking to task those who do like it. You three are defensively protesting just a little too much, especially without having offered one substantial photographic word.