doug_johnson10

CRITIC: a person who expresses an unfavorable opinion of something. Similar: detractor censurer attacker fault-finder carper backbiter caviller reviler vilifier traducer disparager denigrator deprecator belittler knocker nitpicker asperser a person who judges the merits of literary, artistic, or musical works, especially one who does so professionally. Similar: commentator observer monitor pundit expert authority 2. CRITIQUE noun a detailed analysis and assessment of something, especially a literary, philosophical, or political theory. Similar: analysis evaluation assessment appraisal appreciation review write-up criticism critical essay textual examination commentary study treatise discourse exposition disquisition account exegesis verb evaluate (a theory or practice) in a detailed and analytical way. "the authors critique the methods and practices used in the research"

If by some miracle I could make all the corrections to this photo suggested by "the critics", how exactly would that change the message of the photo?

Thanks tholte...I think you see the photo the way I intended...well, except for the contrast and dark tones! lol Success in photography, for me, comes from the emotional reaction one has to a photo. You immediately either like it or not...that is pure reaction. Thanks!

I won't Sam. You have proven my theory beyond expectation.

Alan, everyone is doing everything...everything has cliche elements because "nothing is new under the sun"...not flowers, buildings, fields, or turkeys. Before you cast that stone, look to your own work.

Sam, you said soften...not sharpen. THAT is what I call a critique! Is this what you mean? I'm sorry, but that isn't his skin tone, skin texture, and I don't think it carry's the emotion of the original. Back to you.

Sam, I can flap my arms as hard as I can, but I can't fly. In the case of this photo, you ask for an 8 stop span...at 100 iso, and accurate exposure outside would have been between 1/2000, and 1/4000th of a second...I shot at 1/20 to get any detail in his face...and it was under exposed. In PP, I did what I could to make his face normal...you say I could have "softened" the approach. Softened it how? I shot jpg...yes, jpg. I've spent 50 years of my life as a photographer...making my living as a photographer. I don't invalidate what you say, I just question your judgement. Having enlightened you regarding the exposure, you insist that PP could bring out detail where none exist....that if you had that image, you could bring out detail that your minds eye see's, but where none exist. You may be very knowledgeable in this field. so show it.

Ed, I agree with most of that. However. I believe that a critique should be a two way street. If the photographer disagrees with the critic, shouldn't equal time be given to the author?

Thanks for taking the time Sam...I do appreciate it.

"The Capa photo is an example of no comparison to your spontaneous portrait issues."...are the issues that you can't see his white hair against the white background, or that the image is too contrasty, or that the reflection in his eyes is distracting? Would changing any, or all of that make it better....or worse? "I do not see focus, movement as detrimental to Capa's spectacular photo"...how can you know that it wouldn't be improved by focus, by timing, or by different lighting? We get to see the photographers choices, not the critics. Art is evolving because artists confuse critics. I offer up my images to critique to expose the futility of the process, not to learn to see differently.

I value this discussion...thank you for taking the time for this!

Of course I agree....BUT! If the critique of the Robert Capa image is that it should have been in focus, then it must be Ray Charles offering the critique. In the split second of critical moment, compromises are made. I can find inadequacies in all photos...visual, or technical things that are real or imagined...the "If Only" factor. Yes, you view the whole image, and you see too much contrast or too "sharp"...another person finds it not contrasty enough, or too soft...what then? The emotion of the image seems to be ignored. A man lost his life in that Capa moment...if he had had burst mode, it would have been much better, and in focus! Or would it?

Here is where the "If Only" comes into play..."If Only" Robert Capa had gotten him in focus! Yes, critiquing is difficult because everything is after the fact. All I had to do to get his white hair to stand out against the background would have been to move him to a different lighting situation, and possibly never get that expression back as genuinely as I did. As photograhers, we work within the constraints of the medium...woulda, shoulda, coulda...all that is rendered meaningless when you lose the decisive moment. I came to this forum because I believe critique is personal opinion, not any rules written down for artists to go by.

It's cropped as tight as I was comfortable with...tighter feels constrained to me.

Camera's sensors haven't reached the point where they can span 8 stops...backlit white on white just isn't going to happen. The whole idea of a critique IMHO, is whether the image moves you. If it doesn't, that's fine...my sensibilities are my own. Thinking that a sensor can span 8 stops, and expecting that in a photo, isn't realistic. Does the fact that you can't distinguish his white hair against the white backdrop become so off-putting that his emotional gesture, his eyes, his hands go unnoticed? Forrest for the trees comes to mind.

Silhouetted with a grossly overexposed exterior, a white house in direct sun as the background, subject with white hair and dark skin in shadow...I think I did pretty well. Personally, the emotion that comes through for me in the shot far outweigh it's technical deficiencies. Thanks for looking.

It's actually a slot car that I do race! I'm a 70 y/o going through my second childhood. I enjoy photographing them almost as much as racing them! There are actually 3 more slot cars on this forum!

Cute