Rain

Unfortunately the rater did not comment, so I don't know why it is so

bad.

 

I thought it was an interesting combination of lines and textures,

with the rain adding a twist to the driftwood. Perhaps being a

Geologist has left me biased to shooting rocks. :)

 

Please rate and comment on this so I can do better next time.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Phil

Two things strike me as difficult. It is hard for me a non geologist to judge the scale of the objects. The opalescent white rock and the other are soaked with rain, but the rain effect is lost in the upload. Possibly flash would have shown some specular reflections and added to the rain effect, what do you think. I would not call it a bad still life, but certainly improvable. If you arranged the wood and the rocks, think of what you could have done to arrange them in a more engaging way.(Less is always more the poets say) If you didn't arrange them, why not. At least this is comment, and I hope it is better than stingy 1/1 without explanation, not helpful in wildest imagination.( There has been heat lately about such dismissive ratings.) Thanks for the opportunity to critique your still lfe. Aloja,GS

Well a 1/1 rating is definitely too harsh. But there do seem to be people who think that a photograph "submitted for world-wide rating" (as one person put it to me) should be an exceptional photo. For them, 1/1 means "not exceptional". If you get more than 1/1 from these people, you are doing well: it means you are minimally meeting their high/idiosyncratic standards.

 

Now regarding your photo: the problem with it is that the subject is two rocks and some driftwood -- not inherently interesting subjects. There is not enough detail in either the rocks or driftwood so that they can be appreciated for their abstract textures, etc. (This may be due to the scan.) To make it worse, the light is flat: no interest there. The objects are almost colorless: no interest there, either. And the arrangement of the rocks and driftwood is haphazard, so that the composition lacks a center of interest or any lines or structure that lead the eye through the photo.

 

In short, while technically competent (that is, properly focused and exposed) the photo is kind of boring.

certainly the rater was stingy. do yourself a favor and check out the photos of the low raters. i haven't seen any that were moderately interesting. well- that's me on them.

 

regarding your picture, i rather like the colors, subject, and composition of your picture- but i agree with the above rater who suggested it is flat. other lighting would have brought out the depth of the subject.

Yep, technically competent, but a little haphazard a composition for my taste, and I do like textures and still life thingys.

 

I don't know if you arranged the items, or found them naturally like that, but were it me I would try arranging the branch with cracks with the cream-colored rock, in a tighter composition - then experiment with different lighting angles for interest.

The thing that I never thought sideways about was to rearrange the elements in the picture to make them more pleasing.

 

It always seemed to me that Landscape Photography was purely observational and that one was not supposed to 'mess with mother nature'. I have only ever photographed things as I found them. Rearranging elements for a more pleasing composition was like destroying how nature had put things. So I always simply tried to put my interpretation into what was already there.

 

Also, really thinking about it, I now realise my understanding has read too much into the photo:

 

On the right is a rock that originated in a magma which may have sat under explosive continental volcanos. The deep red of potassium feldspar gives the rock away. On the left is a rock which was likely deposited into layers of sediment, then buried miles deep, squeezing like toothpaste under the pressure. Once exposed by water and wind, all of the rocks in this scene were then rounded off into boulders by flowing water in some riverine environment.

 

Water that made those ancient sediments in the rock on the left also gave the boulders their shape. It nourished the driftwood before its death and likely killed the wood when the dam was built. This same water now nourishes the grass which grows between the cracks and sprinkles the rocks and driftwood. Grass which now grows in sediments made by water and wind.

 

In short, I see the rise and fall of mountains, magmas and volcanic eruptions, quiet shores and mighty rivers. I see the endless circle of life and the role of water in it; the co-dependent dichotomy of creation and destruction.

 

But looking at it objectively, it still comes down to 2 rocks and 3 sticks in boring light, doesn't it? :)

 

Thank you all for your comments. I have learned a good lesson today.

 

Phil

And so have I, Phil. Now if you could just show all of that in a photo to someone without your knowledge.

I don't think you have to move subjects around. It's nice to have found still lifes. What you can do though is frame the subject to get an interesting composition and take the shot with more interesting lighting.

 

I don't think a 1/1 rating is too off base. I think the 7/6 one is more unbelievable to be honest. I don't mean to be harsh but the only merits of this photo is that it is in focus and properly exposed but it doesn't look like there was much thought put into the subject matter.

there wasn't too much thought??? the man just told you that the rocks and sticks represent life and death to him! are you out of your mind? the fact that phil sees more in his pic than you (or i) is indicative of his expertise- and that does not diminish his pov or the photo. the old adage that eskimos have 30 words for snow is illustrative of this concept. to the beginner- all nudes are just smut. it takes some expertise to understand and appreciate all art pieces.

 

also- just want to add that it is perfectly respectable and responsible to work with "found art". i think that is much more challenging, difficult, demanding than simply pushing things around in a studio until you have a "textbook" photo. keep going phil and push the envelope where your expertise leads you.

 

 

I must agree with the other commentators that this is most definitly not a 1/1 photo. It has room for improvement however. The lighting is very flat due to he over cast day. Adding to this there are only earth browns and grays domintating the frame. Couple ways to improve this shot - chage the angle, wait for sunshine to increase the contrast and add some shadows. Another possiblity is to make this shot B&W - I have attached an example of what this shot looks like in B&W and had the contrast kicked up in photoshop.

Your B&W variant appeals to me more than my original. To me it accentuates the textures and lines in the photo. I will follow your suggestions and repost the image.

 

Phil

I didn't say there was no thought put into it. I just said it looks like there was no thought put into this. Maybe a bunch of geologists see life and death in this. I still see a bunch of wet rocks and driftwood in an uninteresting composition and flat lighting.

 

We're not rating Phil's experience in other qualities. Just this picture. Just because he see's more in this than the rest of it doesn't make it a good picture to those of us that can't see it. It's just how a joke isn't funny if it needs to be explained. If he loves this photo then that's great. We all have different tastes.

 

I appreciate and work with different forms of photography both in the studio and out. I don't understand are you trying to be insulting with your last paragraph to me? Well it didn't work.

 

Are people so sensitive around here that you can't say if you don't like something and why you don't like it?