william-hirshman

I had a thought. Although Hugo didn't say anything about this in his earlier response to the critiquers, is it at all possible he took a shot of the couple standing in front of a large mural? While I know that could be stretching it, were it the case that might explain a lot. And to those of you who want to have a cat fight back and forth, perhaps it would be better to exchange email addresses and continue your barbs in that more private forum than in this one.

Tried to send a comment before. Somehow got lost. So here it is again: I am a firm believer in not cluttering up the viewer's mind with similar images, unless they are part of a distinct series. This one - Colorless002 (or is it Texture?) - is much stronger than Colorless. With this one, I struggled to figure out what at first appeared to random shapes. That struggle - and my eventual success in figuring it out it was a flower - makes it special for me - and the viewer. It makes him or her work to unravel the reason this photographer (that is, you) took this shot. The viewer has the satisfaction of discovering why the photographer framed the image just so. So this photo of the colorless flower in my mind is the keeper for your portfolio, not the other version. I guess other than that I don't have any other suggestions. You might want to fool around with lightening or darkening the overall image to see if you can make it slightly more of a "struggle" (but not too much) for the viewer to untangle. Just some thoughts. Anyway, well done.

Sorry. Meant to include my name, which I though I did by unclicking the "Submit Critique Anonymously" box. If I have done it wrong again, my name is William Hirshman.

I agree completely with Doug. Take out the over-saturated red and green (on the door jamb as well). Obviously when adjusting colors, you missed this. If I were you, I would think about lowering the saturation overall a tad. Charles may have a thought with darkening the door, although you could consider going in the opposite direction, that is lightening it, just to see how that looks. This would leave the tobacco leaves as the real brown in the shot. You might want to try and bring out a bit more detail in the dark back of the shed, but just a little. My main suggestion would be to crop out the wooden wall at the top down to the opening of the shed and the door, the grass at the bottom up to and including a bit of the barn door and then - if you want to keep the same length/width ratio as in the original - crop a bit from the right and left sides. I think this would leave you with an emphasis on the triangular and rectangular shapes that I think beg to have more prominence. I am by no means an expert, but this is what I would try if this were my shot.

Please critique - negative critiques welcomed.

Fred, thank you for giving me some insight into why a photo might be selected for photo-of-the-week. I find it refreshing that an image - be it lacking or impacting, depending on the viewer's reaction - would be put up for review, almost as a teaching point. I think too many of us live within our lonely image worlds, maybe knowing what we like when framing what we see in the two-dimensional, relatively sure (or at least hopeful) that others will agree with what we find visually alluring, but not knowing how to find that confirmation. Or even the opposite. I know I would be thrilled for someone to tell me - constructively - why he or she thinks my image falls short of what it could be. A kind of external honesty is what I need as a photographer. If my image is considered trite or amateurish, I think I am strong enough to take the criticism. Perhaps I won't agree. As Hugo (and others) might not with me about "Untouchable tenderness", in which I think the red is overpowering, not needed (even the umbrella itself may not be needed). He might think, perhaps correctly, that I am just not sophisticated enough in how I see things, a point of view that could be backed up by other more positive responses to his image. All I want to say is that I am pleased that this is a place where the negative is - within reason - allowed, perhaps in a way even nurtured. Without it, how would we ever know when to believe and trust someone who says they like our "eye" on the world around us?

I am new to photo.net and am happy to find a forum that accentuates critique over one-word indiscriminate praises found on so many other sites. But while I believe very much in being constructive when I review a photo, I am at a loss as to why the photo.net editors - or whoever selects the photo-of-the-week - chose this one. My apologies, Hugo. You are probably feeling blindsided by all of these reactions. But I cannot understand why those who administer this site and who certainly believe in the power of photography chose a photo that has a handleless umbrella (be it phat, hat or whatever), artificially drenched in red, as the focal point of this unsharp image, while washing out the other colors. There is a place for using Lightroom or the like. But the decision to use it here in this way (is the umbrella photoshopped in?) leaves me cold. There must be many other photos that would have deserved the honor of being the weekly choice. That's what I was looking for when I clicked on this link. I wanted a photo that moves me, that makes me think in a way I didn't before, that makes me laugh, feel sad, smile, get angry, that makes me say, "I never saw it that way before." So, Hugo, excuse me for being so critical and unconstructive, but I expect more from a photo-of-the-week than what I got from "Untouchable tenderness".

This is the kind of shot that makes me consider dropping photography as a hobby. It is so beautiful, I don't feel that I could ever match its power. This is a portrait in profile, this is equine introspection, this is strength. I tried covering the spot of white in the eye. The photo would be so much less without it. Along with the flying mane, the rippling muscles, the folds of skin, it is so important. And the ear. I never noticed horses have ears like that, seemingly in two parts. I don't think I will ever see a horse the way I used to again.

When I critique a photo, I like to give some specific feedback, to say something detailed in praising the photographer and that might mean something to others looking at the image. I don't like to see a simple "Wow", "Great capture", "Beautiful" as a comment on a photo. But in this case, I find I can only say: "Wow", "Great capture" and "Beautiful".