gannet___

I like this quite a bit. Would have been a 6 if the contrast was brought up a bit. Right now it's too flat.

The sky is quietly interesting. Most of the water isn't. I'd crop the bottom quarter. Overall, I like it.

I think this might work better in B&W. You might try desaturating it.

First rate!

I think this is definitely the most interesting of the series. Like the others, though, it definitely needs better scanning or something. Contrast is very low.

I quite like it. Of course, I like this sort of thing. Gave it a 4/5, would have been 5/5 if you hadn't gone so far with the saturation or whatever it was that made the sky go crazy. Still, it has a certain surreal quality even as-is. You could argue it either way.

Marc,

To respond to specific points:

1) Yes, I understood that and tried to make it clear. I may not have succeeded. :)

2 and 3) Yes, I agree, a postcard is one of two possibilities, although I don't see "postcard scenes" the same way most do, from an artistic value point of view. This photo was, in fact, a "postcard", just not a very good one. So, I agree with your critical assessment. :)

4) Well, sorry, didn't mean to waste your time. :)) If people choose to look at them, I feel honored, and if they go to the trouble of writing about them, as you did, I'm far more honored still. What I was trying to convey is that public consumption is not my motivation when I make the images. I fully accept that my sense of both artistic value and the true nature of reality is far enough from the norm that what speaks to me will be dismissed by most folks. If I was shooting for others, I'd probably attempt to make different sorts of photos from these.

It's ironic that you make the point "..we produce images to communicate..", because I have often said that the very definition of art is: a means of communicating emotion. :) To give fair credit, I think I got that from someone else many years ago, perhaps Heinlein.

"Emotion" is, perhaps, too limited a word for what art can communicate. In this case, I intend "emotion" to mean an opposite to facts or thoughts. A sort of left-brain vs. right-brain thing. But there's more to the human experience than just emotions and thoughts. Other things much more mysterious and hard to pin down. Art can often communicate or evoke these things, but just what is being communicated?

Anyway, where I think where our approaches may differ in "... we produce images to communicate - i.e to others..." is the "to others" part. Much art is a dialog between the artist and himself. I see mine that way. When I show it in public it's almost like I'm showing a page from a diary. I don't rate its success or failure on what other folks think about it, but what I think about it. And no, I'm not very satisfied with my work, at least as presented online.

Which brings us to my last point, which is to answer your request for a "... link to a picture somewhere that achieves exactly what you mean to achieve...". Grrr. Now see what you did? You made me even more unsatisfied. I'm a tortured artist! Waaah! :))

The closest I can come at the moment is this:

Dark sunset

It's really unsatisfying to have to point to this as the best thing online at present. This photo has several problems, but from my point of view (in terms of what I was trying to do), they're all technical. The color banding around the sun is problematic. Some areas need to be "burned-in". The slide looks just like I wanted it to. But I have continuing problems getting the info from the slide into the scan.

In addition, I have a lot of trouble getting the quality of light I find evocative onto film. Most of the stuff I find most compelling is shot into the light, and both exposure and contrast range is problematic.

I have hopes that getting an autobracketing back for my camera (for combined-scan techniques), a better scanner (higher Dmax), and learning more about using Photoshop, will help get more of the light I see into the final image. It's coming along, but I can't point to anything and say "I'm satisfied with that" I said I wasn't very good. :)

Thanks very much for the exchange. It forced me to consciously examine some things that I hadn't really thought through before.

In general, I agree with what you had to say. :) The Copper Mine photo is somewhat weak, and many of the others, especially in that folder, are as well. I'm not a very good photographer, and even the stuff I like best many people would find boring.

 

I never used to post photos in public at all. I don't do this for public consumption. But, I was critiquing on photo.net (constructively, or at least attempting) and kept reading the accusations against those who critique but don't post photos. Personally, I never agreed with that notion, but I thought, wok the heck, I'll do it. So when I first got a scanner I grabbed a few things and uploaded them. Copper Mine was one of them. I need to go back through my folders and delete many of the images and replace them with better ones. But even my best isn't all that much better. :)

 

My personal relationship with photography revolves around a few main themes. One thing that fascinates me is photography-as-time-machine. The fact that a photo freezes and preserves a micro-instant of time, already gone by the time the shutter closes, fascinates me no end. Whether it's my own work, or that of others, this notion of "time machine" is always strong for me. So in many cases, even a work that is, at best, banal to other folks will interest me quite a bit. Another is that I like beauty, and formalized, conventional beauty at that.

 

So, in my own work, you'll see a lot of very static, formal, boring (to most) compositions. This is intentional. Not that I mean to be boring. :) It's just that, to my aesthetic, they are *not* boring. The capture-in-time holds my interest, and the static, formal composition pushes pleasure-buttons within me associated with my own perception of beauty. Also, the formality and balance in the compositions relates to inner notions about the way the universe is constructed, and paints an idealized vision of a world that, at first glance, seems not to exist, but that I believe does exist, just at a much higher level than we can normally see.

 

Another thing I take a LOT of, in fact, my most common subject matter, is cloud patterns and sunsets. It's an unusual roll of film for me that isn't at least 25% of this subject matter. Oh, yawn, how boring! :) What can there possibly be to say about a sunset? What worthwhile thing to communicate?

 

Nothing. Other than pure beauty, there is nothing there. No overt message.

 

Ah. But! :)

 

To me, there are several strong messages, even if I am the only one who hears them. One is the overwhelming beauty of the world at its best, something we are fortunate (or is it unfortunate?) enough to be blasé' about. I photograph beauty. What is more beautiful than a good sunset or cloudscape? Very few subjects I come in contact with very often.

 

Another is the incredibly transitory nature of that beauty. By freezing it in time, clutching it in my hand, I have cheated Death itself. Hah! Take that, Kali! You thought that sunset was lost and gone forever, but no, I have it locked up here, in my jewelbox.

 

Still another is the pure unhuman-ness of that beauty, and indeed of the world itself. I am here, intoxicated, transfixed by this beauty...but the world is uncaring, unconcerned, not even aware of my presence. To me, that's a powerful message about what's important and what's not.

 

You said (quoting Paul Klee): "Art, unlike postcards, "doesn't reproduce what's visible, but makes new things visible"".

 

Well....yes and no. Sometimes presenting the "commonplace" is intended to make you see the commonplace with new appreciation. Much of Warhol's work, for example, was about this. Warhol usually intended to communicate some sardonic comment about society. I try to show incredibly beautiful, and yet commonplace, banal, overworked, clichéd subject matter. Why? To shake you (and me) up, slap you aside the head, MAKE you remove the blinders of complacency and familiarity. The message is that the very notions of "commonplace", "banal", "clichéd" are straightjackets of conceit that serve nothing but the ego...and you are not your ego, the ego's shrill protestations to the contrary. The message is that the world is an incredible dance of beauty and light and change that is offered to you, freely, with open hand. The only price is that you have to leave your complacency and ennui behind.

 

Do I succeed at communicating this stuff? Probably not terribly often, if ever. I don't claim to be good at it. :)

 

Note that when I say "you" in the paragraph above, I don't mean you personally, but just "the viewer".

 

Thanks again for your comments. :)

I'd go tighter still. Just past the edge of the spikes or leaves or whatever they are.

I'd crop the bottom to the bottom of the pilings, or maybe higher. That mud and dark water in front isn't adding a thing, imo.

Great portrait, excellent technique.

I like this a lot. I'd crop the left a bit to match the white space on the right.

I'd also try this with a tight crop, leaving off the left and right sides. I'm not sure they're bringing anything to the party.

Is it's Tuesday, this must be Mars. :)

I wish this were sharper.

I'd try cropping it tighter. Just the heads.

I'd print it a bit darker. Let the shadows go black and bring some of those highlights back in, but don't lose the people. You might also try cropping the bottom somewhat. Overall though, I like this a lot.

I like the quality of the air. If it wasn't for the blurring, this would work.

I'd straighten the horizon

I'd PS that plant on the left out.

I think this would be stronger cropped to square.

This needs more DOF to work.

I'd pull up the contrast and saturation.

I'd crp this square. Having the bottom extend does nothing.

I'd like to see the brightness pulled up some.