View Full Version : Critique #17 No Theme-5 Participants
Welcome to this critique thread. Please read the purpose statement and the guidelines/ground rules regarding participation.
Purpose
The primary purpose of this thread is to provide a forum where photographers can give and receive constructive criticism on one another's photographs. By setting up some basic guidelines we hope that this thread will provide a forum where the give and take of honest constructive criticism can help us become better photographers.
Guidelines/Ground Rules
The thread has very specific rules regarding participation. The one basic rule is that you cannot provide criticism on an image or comment in a critique thread unless you also have an image posted. To post an image to this thread you must be a participant. Participation in this thread is limited. Here are the guidelines and ground rules for participation:
• Participation in this thread is limited to 5 photographers
• Participants join the thread by posting their intention. You can simply reply with your intent to join by posting something like: "I'm joining," "I'm in," or just state your name
• Joining is on a "first come, first served" basis. The first 5 to reply become the participants
• Once the thread has 5 participants, no other photographers can join or participate in the thread
• Once the thread is full of participants all photographers will upload their image(s)
• Please abide by any thematic requirement (e.g., landscape, portrait, etc.)
•The number of photos for each participant is limited to one
• Photographers attach photos as thumbnails (no inline images or links)
• Photographers post their images supplying titles (if any) and other pertinent information (the amount of information should be minimal)
• Photographers can only comment on their own images and reply to comments only when everyone else in the thread has posted their comments on the image
• Every participant must comment on every photo (except their own—initially)
• Every participant must make at least two comments, one positive comment, and one constructive criticism (which is actually two positive comments)
• Once every photographer has commented then a free flowing discussion begins. It is at this point that every photographer can comment on their own work and reply to comments, ask questions, etc.
• The participants decide when the thread closes.
If you'd like to participate in a critique thread and need some ideas about how to proceed with viewing images critically, you may find this thread helpful:
How do you look at photos (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26459)
You can also provide feedback on critique threads here:
Critique Feedback Thread (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26611)
Remember: Please do not provide criticism on an image or comment in a critique thread unless you also have an image posted.
This thread is now active, please follow the guidelines if you'd like to participate! Have Fun!
.
i'm in.
forum sw sucks...
Gabriel M.A.
08-10-2006, 15:58
I'm in, too.
random bs:
Tonight for dinner I made Portobello Burgers With Red Pepper Mayonnaise. Instead of grilling the onions, I roasted them in the oven. Instead of spinach leaves, I used a mix of greens. Mrs. R helpfully made the mayo part of the meal. We used black olive ciabatta for the bread. Pretty dang good, and really simple. After dinner I went to WOW Hall and saw the last 3 songs of Deke Falcon's set ("last show ever" but I hear they might do a REAL last show at Luckey's, or at least that's a rumor I want to believe). Deke Falcon sounded so good. The crowd at WOW Hall was way too reverential and motionless, and mostly there to hear Magnolia Electric Company... who rocked me some. They had some songs that were so sad that they made me happy, if you know what I mean. Let's say, I thought a lot of the set "rocked," in a lyrical musical sense, but not necessarily a bodily sense--ALTHOUGH they did one very funky song, I must admit. I saw Jimbo groovin' to it. They looked like really really nice guys. It was not really a rockin' crowd, in my definition of the word. They were there to watch a band they loved, but dancing was definitely not part of this experience for 99% of the peeps. I did dance to several of their songs. All in all,
i'm in. -- random bs for the forum sw:
disconnected from all judgements about the music and the crowd, etc., I had a great time, and it was good to get out and hear some good music and talk to people. There was a nice older community crowd, because of Deke Falcon probably, to complement the younger hipster crowd attracted to the other bands (this is all my own opinion, of course). And I got to chat with some folks I don't run into very often. It was a great evening because I've been in such a negative emotional state lately. So, yay, that was nice.
LATER...(1:11am)
I just got an e-mail from The Kitchen Syncopators, and I thought this was funny:
"We guarantee a good time, a reasonable cover charge, and lots of sexy people like yourself drinking and dancing!! If drinking and dancing's not your thing, there will also be people sitting around sober and watching!!! Something for everybody!!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, 2:40 a.m. (August 2, 2006) Comment
Miss Amelia has posted some polaroids of The Ovulators playing at CD World last Saturday.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, 8:40 p.m. (July 31, 2006) Comment
Ah, there's something so comforting and grounding about meat. I made seared rib eye steak with a roasted red pepper and artichoke heart relish & greens for dinner. Thank you, Cow. Here's the recipe I used.
Dawn Baby is covering my radio show time slot (4-6pm) tomorrow on KWVA. I'm taking a break this week.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, 8:17 p.m. (July 30, 2006) Comments (5)
Nutmeg died last night. Mrs. Random wrote a nice blog entry about her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, 5:39 a.m. (July 28, 2006) Comment
LAUNCHPAD PLAYS TONIGHT (Friday) 5:30-8:30pm at the Maury Jacobs art gallery (basement of Hult Center). Free & All Ages. No-host bar if you wanna buy a drink. And remember down the street at Feinstein's Museum of Unfine Art at 6:41pm, it's The Ovulators' CD listening party! Two science fiction experiences in one night within one block of each other!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, 5:54 p.m. (July 26, 2006) Comments (3)
"I don't wanna be called yo Random"
It's personal irritation, and I apologize for letting this build up. I just realized today that it's making me crankier and crankier and that I should start speaking up, even if it seems like a weird thing to get irritated about. I don't like to be called "Random"... so if you like me and want to call me something that I like, call me "Mr. Random" ... thanks. If you don't want to call me that, just call me Ken.
Ultimately maybe it doesn't matter what I'm called, what you're called. But I figure if it's been bugging me for this long, I should really tell people, and then at least it's out there. I've know several people who've changed their name, their "real" mundane name, and had to re-learn how to address them, what to call them. Nicknames are interesting, because you don't have much choice. People just give them to you and you respond or get upset or whatever, depending on your sense of humor about it and your current comfort level with life in general. So maybe I'm just touchy or something, but still it does seem that how one addresses another person is important. If you know me, you know I get worked up about seemingly random things for time to time. Well, here's today's version of that! Don't call me Random! I just felt like I had to say it if that's how I feel.
I got in a pretty bad mood at work earlier today about something completely unrelated and different. Well, I didn't want to be at work in the first place. You know how it goes. Taking myself a little seriously. Okay I'm gonna relax now... thanks for listening.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, 9:06 a.m. (July 26, 2006) Comment
Tonight: 7pm FREE & ALL AGES... Scobert Park (just west of Blair on 4th)... THE DEAD AMERICANS. Rock 'n' Roll in the 'hood! Bring a picnic dinner!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, 7:02 p.m. (July 24, 2006) Comment
Ladies & gentlemen, "Vampire" by The Ovulators (6-ish megabytes MP3). Recorded by yours truly at Sam Bond's Garage, July 14, 2006 (second set).
forum sw sucks...
The last one was a new one so here is an older one. Leica M2, 50mm, Tri-X
Gabriel M.A.
08-10-2006, 19:17
OK, here's a "minimalist" one, doesn't quite "fit" a category, so I'm curious to see how this one's seen:
(oh, Contax IIIa + CZJ Sonnar 135mm f/4, Fuji Superia 400)
Okay, I'll try mine. Hope it will show as a thumbnail...
I call it Inside The Crypt
I took it in the crypt beneath the Almudena cathedral in Madrid in April.
:D :D
********* ignore below
There's perhaps no better proof that an idea has gained the attention of the mainstream than a mention on National Public Radio.
For blogging, that happened Wednesday -- and NPR's three-minute piece on how weblogging is transforming journalism was just one more sign that blogging has outgrown its underground trendiness.
Time magazine, The Times of London and several other newspapers have recently reported on blogging, with many of the outlets proclaiming blogs the thing of the future.
The practice of blogging is hardly new. Well before the dot-com swoon, blogging began to boom. Hundreds and then thousands of people set up their own weblogs, with some of the sites garnering traffic numbers that beat those dot-coms.
But weblogs have now crossed a tipping point, leaping from a "self-contained community" to a group "large enough that at least there's many different weblogs, and a million different kinds of weblogs," according to Evan Williams, who runs Blogger, one of the most popular services for creating a blog.
In January alone, at least 41,000 people created new blogs using Blogger, and that number is always increasing, Williams said. Some have put the total number of weblogs at more than 500,000.
Alongside the boom, however, there have recently been a few faint signs of backlash. As increasing hordes take on the task of trying to keep new sites looking nice, sounding original and free from banalities, more hordes just seem to fail.
In a column that was almost universally panned in weblog circles, John Dvorak of PC Magazine said that while a few blogs were insightful, many new webloggers were getting into blogging for all the wrong reasons. They were "wannabe writers" who were looking for "ego gratification," Dvorak wrote.
A few days after Dvorak's column was released, Dave Linabury and Leia Scofield, two bloggers themselves, unveiled the second-annual Anti-Bloggies. These awards roast bloggers for being boring or lame or obsessed or weird.
The award for Worst Abuse of the Third Person, for example, went to a blog called GothicGranola -- which celebrated the victory with the words "amanda hates stupid people" repeated about a hundred times. (But since the win, Amanda has reconsidered her third-person fix.)
Linabury and Scofield make clear that they love weblogging, but the Anti-Bloggies are their way of "making fun of the whole genre of blogging," Linabury said. "One of the things I don't like is the blog where someone says something like, 'Today I had a cheese sandwich.' That's the kind of thing you see in most of these blogs. You know, fascinating. I don't give a flying ... whatever what you ate. Don't tell me you have a flat tire. And if this is how boring their writing is, I can't imagine how boring they must be to talk to in general."
Even though Dvorak's column was not well received by bloggers, several echoed Dvorak's idea that some people are creating weblogs with the idea that they'll be famous in a few weeks.
"It depends on what you get into it for," said Matt Haughey, who created MetaFilter, a discussion site frequented by bloggers. "If you get into it thinking you are going to be popular, it'll fall out of fashion for you."
Linabury is more blunt on the subject. He has created a site that keeps a log of dead weblogs -- it's called ****ed Weblog, in homage to ****ed Company -- and he thinks that people don't realize how hard it is to do good blog.
"It really can take a lot of time," he said. "I spend two hours a day on my weblog. Many people don't realize this, they think it's a quick way to get popular. And after awhile they get really discouraged and say, 'he got 2,300 hits today, I got four.' The bulk of people out there get less than two dozen hits."
"I don't want to be elitist," Linabury added, "but all these people out there with popular weblogs, they've been doing it longer and they stick to their guns."
But both Linabury and Haughey defended the genre of weblogging by invoking Sturgeon's Law, which comes from sci-fi writer Theodore Sturgeon who said, "Sure, 90 percent of science-fiction is crud. That's because 90 percent of everything is crud."
In other words, so what if most weblogs aren't interesting? The good thing, said Williams, is that everybody doesn't have to read them all. Asked if he'd like to live in a world where virtually everyone blogs, Williams chuckled and said, "Yeah, I think it would be a great thing. It's not that you want to read them. But people have the desire to express themselves, and I think it's tremendously powerful activity. If you write every day, your writing improves, your thinking improves."
Dave Winer, a computer programmer who creates tools to make weblogging easy, also disagreed vehemently with Dvorak's assessment of the state of blogging. Winer runs Scripting News, one of the most popular weblogs on the Web, and he thinks that critics like Dvorak are "professional, ink-stained journalists who are scared by what we're doing here. We cover technology better than they ever could."
He rejects the idea that many blogs are boring or that they're no longer chic. "The Web doesn't go out of fashion," he said.
Winer added that the technology behind weblogging still needs to get significantly easier for the real talent to come online. "What I'm interested in is the doctors and professors and engineers and people who have a good education and a social area of expertise. We need to really reach those people, we have to go a couple of levels in terms of ease-of-use."
Winer is also interested in getting blogging into companies. He thinks that workgroups in firms would benefit from a log instead of e-mail, because it's searchable and collaborative, allowing people to "narrate (their) work."
Winer's firm, Userland Software, has seven employees, "but we're geographically diverse and we do all our work through these next-generation tools," he said. "I've got one guy working here I've never met but I still know him well. So there is definitely some powerful stuff coming. The weblogging we do in public, that's just the beginning."
But even before this new technology arrives, some of those who have taken a dim view of the mainstreaming of blogging say there is still a lot to be celebrated.
For instance, Dennis Mahoney, who runs a blog with a literary bent, recently posted a few suggestions for bloggers he thought were boring. (One of them was to stop posting digital photos of "everyday objects when, I'm sorry, it just looks like a bunch of **** lying around your house.")
But Mahoney said that all he meant was there's plenty of "potential to raise the bar." In an e-mail, he said that he's already seen that occurring.
Citing in particular a stunning weblog called Ftrain.com, "A number of weblogs have appeared with crafted writing at the center -- structured essays, voice experiments, richer narrative, etc. -- as opposed to centering the site on memes or quick commentary, as many weblogs have done," he wrote.
I call it Inside The Crypt
I took it in the crypt beneath the Almudena cathedral in Madrid in April.
Holy cow ampguy! You sure are prolific. Anyway, I guess I will get started.
Because it is so small, the merits of this own escaped me at first. I like how the fisherman is in a brighter spot, allowing him to stand out without being too obvious. The black shore and the white foam surrounds him making him even smaller and vulnerable. Have you tried this one in B&W, that might work as well.
The only problems I have are the vignetting in the upper left and I think the color cast is too blue. Also, I would make it larger.
I really like this one. It is very sensual and appealing. (with my luck, it is probably your wife or daughter and I am bordering on offending you.) The blue clothing and background allow the skin tones to stand out and the designs on the clothing are a nice counterpoint with the smoother skin. The color in this photo really makes it.
I really can't see anything that I would change. Well seen.
Lutz, I saw this one on your imprevues website and it is my favorite. It is so multi-dimensional and layered. You can spend alot of time exploring this one. It is almost like the sweeping girl is dreaming about the wonderful dress that will adorn the manequinn. Perhaps she is earning money to buy it. It has a dreamy appearance, while the left side anchors it in reality. Beautiful tonality and composition.
There is nothing that I would change here. Beautiful. BTW, I am the guy who asked about the jazz piece on your website over at photo.net.
I like the composition , and there is mystery here. It looks like you took time to position yourself for symmetry. I like how it goes from a dark empty place to a gradually lighter and more detailed room. It draws you in and makes me want to see more of this place.
I am struggling a bit with this one. I am having trouble discerning the subject matter here. Perhaps if it were larger and I could make out more detail. I am not sure what to do with what bothers me here. The yellowish color cast makes the shadows seem weak somehow and takes away from their power. Perhaps experimenting with the color might help. Sorry that I don't have much more to add. Perhaps the others can be more articulate.
I like this very much. It captures the emotions of each of the characters well. The three bridesmaids look like sisters or close relatives and are bickering about something, and the poor bride is just trying to get through the ordeal. The bride looks the prettiest. The framing and exposure are just right.
The last one was a new one so here is an older one. Leica M2, 50mm, Tri-X
Nice color renditions. Maybe you were envisioning her topless?
OK, here's a "minimalist" one, doesn't quite "fit" a category, so I'm curious to see how this one's seen:
(oh, Contax IIIa + CZJ Sonnar 135mm f/4, Fuji Superia 400)
This photo has too many reflections and shadows going on, it is too busy. It might be fun for those who like sudoku type puzzles to figure out what is real and what is a reflection or a reflection of a reflection.
Okay, I'll try mine. Hope it will show as a thumbnail...
With my monitor brightness and contrast all the way up, it looks like it would be a nice print. Good framing and centering of the pillars and arches. The eye moves to the middle, which is small and out of focus. I would have used more DOF, or focussed on the center portion more.
I call it Inside The Crypt
I took it in the crypt beneath the Almudena cathedral in Madrid in April.
I like the scene as such, it shows how small man is compared to the ocean. The moment is just right with the clouds covering the sun without which the picture would have been imposible.
I would have shot it more to the left, putting the sun more to the right and including more of the wave and the clouds on the left.
The picture realy tells a story, I want to know what the bridesmaids are quareling about.
The two bridesmaids on the left on one on the right make my eyes wander around the bride and the light with the flowers guide me up to the brides face.
I don't know what could have been better, maybe including the candles in the frame.
The composition is very close to the rules of thirds the décolleté is clearly in the center of this males vision :)
It is abstract and natural in one.
What could have been better? I don't know but I want to see the whole picture.
Three pictures in one, the almost ethereal dress form, the house in the backgound and the reflected gate over the women brooming the street.
The windowframe on the left is a bit distracting, I'd crop it at the edge.
ampguy, lone fisherman
I like the mood very much, the colors, the proportions - and I think that the composition basically works very well, too. All in all, the picture draws me in and makes me want to have been there, in the fisherman's place. A good capture.
I guess the post processing could be improved to make this one a real statement, there still is a bit of a lack of rigor to its presentation. The vignetting on the left hand isn't bothering me too much, but it lacks a counterpart to the right - and most of all top right - of the frame. The frame is to open above the sun which leads to my eyeballs oscillating vertically. Since your intention seems to have been to convey a moment of peacefulness and contemplation, this intention could benefit by a tighter crop above the horizon line, eliminating too much of that clear sky above the sun. Some additional "burning" of the top right to balance the corners could help, too, as would straightening the horizon to further add to the effect of putting the image at peace. BTW, I could envision a perfect 2:3 crop.
chuck a, the bridesmaids
This is a really humorous catch - a whole comical drama condensed in one frame. Whaddaya think we are supposed to do with the flowers, stupid?! The funniest detail being the bride's fatalistic look at the object in question. A well witnessed and perfectly caught moment in life. And a technically perfect b&w pic.
There's little that could be bettered, IMHO. Maybe some straightening of lines, rotating the frame a bit to the right and by this eliminating excess headroom above the bridesmaids to the left as well as the slightly distracting presence of just one flame in frame at the top edge - better have them both cut out. Oh, and IF there is more room around the right girl's shoulder and to the bottom of the flowers on the table, squeeze it all out of the neg... ;-)
gabrielma, minimalistic
Hmm, a sensual picture - all colors and texture, secrets and promises... ;-) I like the idea of creating a symbol by cutting out the woman's identity which remains a secretly shared intimacy between her and the photographer. She must have been well aware of his interest in her looks, and this notion is still present in the frame and strongly adds to its flavor. I like the reduction of the color scheme, the juxtaposition of flesh and hair tones against the stark and vivid fabrics of the woman's dress.
I would encourage you to go one step further, next time, and try to further abandon control over your framing...! I sense that your intention could have benefitted from a slight tilt, even blur or overexposure, to _completely_ detach the subject from its identity, its physical presence, and elevate the sensual mood it conveys even further...
Socke - The Crypt
This one here is a sleeper. Its impact develops at second glance. Then it sucks you right in. The central perspective is perfect for that. And the exposure shows a very good balance in a tricky situation.
I basically think this one deserves a severe pano-crop. Cut out the dead weight at the bottom and the far too much distracting highlights on top. Plus, carefully dodge the rims of the columns to make them become more 3D. That should add to the perspective (and mystical) pull of your shot.
Gabriel M.A.
08-11-2006, 19:50
Beautiful tones, beautiful light, great range of highlights and shadows, silky tones, the blue prevails over a scene we know will soon turn golden. And the lone person, adding a sense of scale to convey the vastness of it all. The horizon is placed so to give this all a "thirds" thumbs-up.
I don't think I can add anything here. Superb.
Gabriel M.A.
08-11-2006, 19:55
The last one was a new one so here is an older one. Leica M2, 50mm, Tri-X
Funny! I can't help but feel sorry for the bride. There is a symmetry that, while not perfect, seems to be balanced, somehow...just like the serenity of the bride and the argument behind her. Is it the flower arrangement in front of her? Is that what the theme is? Is it that important? Somehow, somebody thinks it is.
The photo is fine. The frame around it: get rid of it.
Brilliant.
Edit: yes, the hairdos are just a little bit...dated. Nothing photographically wrong with that, though. Not in this case, for me, at least.
Gabriel M.A.
08-11-2006, 19:59
Okay, I'll try mine. Hope it will show as a thumbnail...
My, my, what's going on here? A female form object on display, a woman (I think) cleaning, reflected on the window, juxtaposed with the jailing shadow of a gate. Commentary? Der dichter sprache (ok, I don't know German, but I think that's how you say it). The light, a certain glow, the shadows dark, the highlights muted. It is a poem.
Very very very well done. If anybody complains about anything on this picture, tell them to go fly a kite.
Gabriel M.A.
08-11-2006, 20:06
I call it Inside The Crypt
Is anybody in here?...in here in here in here in here
If your point was to make this cold, big and hollow, you've succeeded. Do the living go here to escape life? Do they pray what they're escaping from cease to exist? Are they safe here? Are we alive here?
It's cold. I would just cool the tone a little bit more, to balance the tungsten light...that would drive it across like Clemens pitching against the Yankees. OK, ok, yes, I know, my analogies suck. Laik I'l sock yor vlot! Bleh (ok, got the "Crypt" thing too seriously now).
[QUOTE=gabrielma]Is anybody in here?...in here in here in here in here
Uhumm, well... Thanks everybody for your feedback. BTW, "a poem" is the most wonderful critique I've ever had...! :-) Working on the left border is something I had already started with - cropping is no option for me but burning a little further might do the trick. I'll work on it. ;-)
If you care to know, here's a little story around my shot. Maybe you have one around yours to share, too.
The window shot was taken the day before a most efficient workshop started this summer in Arles, France - conducted by Paris-based Klavdij Sluban (I posted a thread in regard on photo.net). I had just arrived in this wonderful small town in the south of France and run into a most attractive young woman who was about to sweep a tiny piazza in front of the bar she was apparently working for. Just a couple of meters away I stumbled across the next beautiful sight, a very pure and undressed display dummy in a completely empty little store on the corner of the piazza. Soon I had discovered the chance of getting both elements in one frame by taking advantage of the woman's reflection in the window. But I had to spend about a quarter of an hour to get one shot just right. Too many tourists kept walking by, stopping either in front of the window (or being at least reflected), trying to understand what the heck I was about to photograph... Or, fascinated by the woman, stopped to engage her in a conversation or just to ask her for the way to their respective hotels. Seconds after I was able to snatch this shot here the woman stopped working and called it a day. :-)
Framing with the Leica M was tricky, as this shot all depended on the precise alignment of fore-, middle- and background - not easy to control with a rangefinder camera. Aperture and speed were set to maximize DOF.
Thanks for taking interest. Oh, for those who haven't visited yet, here's a link to a whole set of pictures taken later on during the workshop: http://www.konermann.net/imprevues/index.htm
Thanks for the input, too.
As you may have guessed I choose a hard one, originaly I had another picture from my week in Madrid in mind when I stumbled over this one from the crypt.
I had Elitechrome 400 in a Contax G2 and Elitechrome 100 in a G1. I figured that flash wouldn't work so I put the 35 Planar on the G2, opened it up to f2 and got light readings from the lights and the shaddows. It was more than eight stops apart and in the shaddows I got a shutterspeed of less than 1 second.
So I set my shutter to to 1/8th and hoped the best. Thinking about all the tricks for handheld shots at slow speeds I positioned myself for framing I found interesting and used the force for the shot.
The force is not strong in me :)
ISO 800 print film would have been better for the shot but I could salvage some in postprocessing and I might convert it to B/W since underexposed Elitechrome has bad green cast.
The highlights aren't blown out and there is some details in the shaddows left, with some scanning tricks it might work.
Yes, thanks all for your input. The wedding photo has always been on of my favorites. Taken during a wedding shoot for a studio I was working with.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.