Truly awful pictures - Page 7

Disaster_Area · 08-11-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by functus

I absolutely love the staples macro -- great colour, nice focal work, very compelling. Perhaps I'm especially drawn to this one because I've tried this shot a couple of times and it hasn't worked as well as you've managed it ...

Don't feel too bad I've tried to tackle this subject MANY times with different films, cameras, lenses... I have about 4-5 shots on my flickr of telephone pole staples that I'm happy with... and that represents hundreds of failed attempts.

I know I'll never reach all those "perfects"... hell I'll probably not even achieve one of them... I'm not even sure I want to. The minute I think I've achieved a "perfect" is the minute I'll stop improving. Maybe someday I'll get to "perfect enough for now"

-doomed- · 08-11-2009

Your staples are like this tree I pass on the way to my shop , I've tried time and time again to get the shot I want and Im still searching for perfect. Perhaps I need to stop and get the shot in the morning or late afternoon as it appears I always miss the good light.

Disaster_Area · 08-11-2009

I've found the best light to take shots of this subject is when it's very cloudy and overcast... there's so much texture that even a bit of direct light makes it way to contrasty and you lose too much texture in harsh shadows.

-doomed- · 08-11-2009

Those are some of my favorite days to wander with a camera in my hand

Chris101 · 08-11-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disaster_Area

At this point in my photographic... career, journey... whatever... I think constructive criticism is much more valuable to me in regards to helping me grow as a photographer. Maybe once I'm old and grey and have finally found my perfect camera... my perfect film... my perfect developer... my perfect post processing routine... and I can easily and effortlessly capture a scene how I see it in my mind... then maybe I'll only want "I like it" or "I don't" because at that point it's purely my vision and idea that's being accepted or declined as worth while. Untill that time... that may never come... I think there's a ton I can learn from other photogs about how to effectively capture what I see in my head using what I see with my eyes... whether that's how someone else would have cropped, dodged, burned or even not taken a particular photo.

Oh don't get me wrong Jesse! I'm no photo guru - in fact I am WAY down on the learning curve - that's what the 101 part of my name means. But when I want help, I ask specific questions, looking for specific answers. The picture is mine, so I am the one to make the decisions. A lot of "helpful" folks want to be the director and relegate me to merely cameraman.

One thing I can do though is make pictures that nobody else likes and proudly display them. This is where I learned to take crits well.

maddoc · 08-11-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris101

The picture is mine, so I am the one to make the decisions. A lot of "helpful" folks want to be the director and relegate me to merely cameraman.

... to the point. Very well said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris101

One thing I can do though is make pictures that nobody else likes and proudly display them. This is where I learned to take crits well.

Requires some self-confidence but only this way one can "grow-up".

JohnTF · 08-11-2009

It is easier to critique an image that has several good strong elements, and possibly capable of slight improvement with some small adjustment.

Roger has brought out in some of his posts some of what he considers elements of a good image though examples of things he might say.

Perhaps it would be useful for people with experience to give one example of something they find in a successful image.

I know when I grade an essay, I might begin by deducting points for every error-- top down, but sometimes if an essay is truly dreadful, I have to stop and try to find something of value, (score might otherwise fall to less than zero).

I start adding from zero, top up, looking for something of value. Which ever grade is highest is awarded.

Better essays are always graded top down, and generally, there is little to deduct.

Regards, John

Turtle · 08-11-2009

critique is about numbers in a sense. One 'judge' does not help me much, but various opinions from a target audience, or those experienced in the field I am concerned with, is very helpful. I would not find it particularly useful to have my work critiqued by one generalist 'expert judge' who does not necessarily have any experience or even interest int eh area of photography I am concerned with. Photography is surely so expansive that one person cannot possibly be an expert at it all. That's just impossible as there is so much depth in individual areas and personality dependent factors.

While I agree that people telling you what they would have done completely ignores both your intent and what opportunity provided (or made possible - like you not being able to step back due to a huge ravine or able to use another FL bec you did not have one and the subject was only there for 1 second) it can still make you consider things you did not at the time because you did not think of it. Thats not relegating you to cameraman, but helping you be a more experienced director next time by expanding horizons. Its basic learning and if you hear that sort of critique as something 'maybe you could have done - worth considering' rather that 'you should have done this' then it changes perspective.

Roger Hicks · 08-11-2009

Like many others, I used to hate the "It's a pity you didn't... [step back, change lenses, wait for someone to walk into/out of shot, etc.]" but a decade or two back I came to realize that even this normally useless criticism has its value. You can look at your own pictures (or even at the subject in the viewfinder) and if the picture doesn't work because "It's a pity you can't...", don't show it to people (or even, don't press the shutter release).

Nowadays I tend to try to answer one of two questions (which are not always asked explicitly). One is "There's something wrong with this picture and I'm not sure what it is: can you help?" and the other is "I think this is pretty good: how could it be even better?"

After that, it's pretty much down to "I like this: here's why." Someone else may like or dislike it for the same reason or other reasons. With Leighgions's pics, for example, the tree shadow doesn't work small for me -- it is probably great as a big print -- while the girl reading is one of those wonderful shots that provokes instant recognition and amusement, and I'd like to see it in a book, but I'd not hang it on the wall.

The out-of-focus face is the most successful for me, in terms of what I'd want on the wall, and I don't think it would work too big. The only problem with it is that it stands too much on its own to be part of a 'body of work': shoot too many pics like that and they'd look very tedious indeed on the wall.

As for "I'd have done it this way," in a sense, that's all you can say many times -- but what you're trying to do is to guess what the photographer was trying to convey, and try to suggest how they could convey it better (hence my comment about the staples and camera movements).

Cheers,

R.

Pherdinand · 08-12-2009

Leighgion, i totally disagree with you.
From that short but to the point critique i would uinbderstand that my pic is not interesting enough to the large audience. That it is just one snapshot of some statue in the bush.
Sorry, but as was mentioned before in the thread, if a pic is uninteresting in gfeneral, it makes not much sense to give "advice" how to postprocess it or how composition could have been im[proved or what othert equipment you should have used...because it is not interesting in its subject (to the viewer) and that's it.
So, in my oppinion it belongs to the criticism type two.
Tyoe one: when Mr Critic Dude likes the pic but there are details that could/should be improve so he goes into details pointing them out.
Type two: The pic is totally uninteresting so there's no point into going into the details, it is enough if Mr Critic Dude expresses his oppinion that there's nothing much in the shot. Definitely constructive since I will know my pic is less interesting to others than I hoped.
Type three is "your pic sucks" which, i agree, is not constructive at all BUT the comments "nice shot" also belong here. So obviously, i learn nothing from type 3 but i like people who say nicew shot and i hate people who say your pic sucks. So it's also nice since i get some emotions from it

About your three offered shots:
1. is the "what am I supposed to look at" category. Don't know how you could improve it, but (to me) it is not too interesting i must say. Maybe add some life to it i.e. a human shadow or such and then the half-ok composition will not be so important

coz there will be something to look at?
2. is very nice, except if you exclude the window it amplifies the subject even more, the person in between the bunch of books. Colors are very nice, the light is great, the angle of view is excellent.
3. seems to me like a portrait that turned out a technical mistake and that makes it a little bit interesting but with the bitter taste of a technical failure. I can't fully appreciate images that are only interesting because of a mistake, pictures that a photographer looks at and says "oh actually i thought this will be a nice slihouette but it got messed up but maybe it is better like this!" (i imagine myself doing this). So it's a dunno-how-to-improve-maybe-just-take-a-better-one type image.

Hope i wasn't too harsh - you asked for it, though

cheers

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leighgion

...Consider this comment left on my pictures:

"It looks like a bunch a bushes with a non-descript statue.. what am I supposed to look at?"

Now, I grant that the picture in question isn't fantastic, but what on earth am I suppose take away from a critique like that? It was a picture of a statue surrounded by some brush. Should I then conclude that taking pictures of statues surrounded by shrubbery is bad? Who thinks it's in any way helpful to anybody to leave a comment like that? Better to say nothing, which is the policy I follow much of the time myself. ...

All that said, it can be fun to hop onto the sacrificial altar, so here's some offerings from me.

Disaster_Area · 08-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris101

Oh don't get me wrong Jesse! I'm no photo guru - in fact I am WAY down on the learning curve - that's what the 101 part of my name means. But when I want help, I ask specific questions, looking for specific answers. T

Oh... please don't take my post as a rebuttal to yours... just my addition. I completely see your point about unwanted/uninvited criticism. There are a lot of venues were I feel the same way. This forum on the other hand I kind of treat as one big critic. Anything I post here is for the purpose of getting feedback... mostly because I see a lot of work here I like... and that usually means a lot of great photographers (they can't all be lucky shots

)

JohnTF · 08-12-2009

You might well interpret the "comments" space below any posted image in any gallery here to be an invitation to a polite compliment, or a polite constructive suggestion, ---- then there are those numbers for ratings.

Seems to be a variety of responses to this situation.

And Roger, your point about an image for a book as opposed to something for the wall is interesting, I suppose it would refer to an image you might wish to acquire and view daily.

Regards, John

thegman · 09-14-2011

I don't think I could ever say so, it's one thing to say "It's not my cup of tea", it's another to say "This is fist-bitingly awful, it makes me want to hurt myself.".

Although I guess the fact that the photo gets such a strong reaction is a validation in itself, if not the one the photographer was looking for.

Roger Hicks · 09-14-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by thegman

I don't think I could ever say so, it's one thing to say "It's not my cup of tea", it's another to say "This is fist-bitingly awful, it makes me want to hurt myself.".

Although I guess the fact that the photo gets such a strong reaction is a validation in itself, if not the one the photographer was looking for.

Sure, there's a big difference.

But there's one young photographer whose work I know very well, and it was often 'fist-bitingly awful'. What makes it worse is that he was so proud of so much of it. Yes, he made some very good pictures. The tragedy was that he was so hopeless at distinguishing the good stuff from the bad. Fortunately he got a bit better later.

The only reason I do not hesitate to reveal his name is that he was me.

Cheers,

R.

swoop · 09-14-2011

I don't bother with internet criticizing. It's a waste of time and mental energy. It's especially annoying when you read things like, "You should clone out that street sign" or crap like that. Coming from a photojournalism background it's apalling that that would be a solution.

The internet seems to be flooded with "professional photographers" I've had enough debating their credentials. If they can get someone to give them a dime for an awful photo then both of them deserve what they get.

dazedgonebye · 09-14-2011

There was a time when I sought criticism. Besides being hard on my delicate ego, I found that very often I was being criticized for the very qualities I was working hard to achieve in my images. It was then that I realized that the only person in the world qualified to be my critic was me.
Without an absolute standard of "art" to be judged against all that is left is for me to decide if I accomplished what I set out to do, or at least something I was pleased with.
Unless I'm trying to sell you something, your opinion isn't particularly relevant. If you like my work and comment, then it's a happy irrelevance. If you don't like my work and comment to that effect, it's still irrelevant...just a little less happy.

Roger Hicks · 09-14-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by swoop

I don't bother with internet criticizing. It's a waste of time and mental energy. It's especially annoying when you read things like, "You should clone out that street sign" or crap like that. Coming from a photojournalism background it's apalling that that would be a solution.

The internet seems to be flooded with "professional photographers" I've had enough debating their credentials. If they can get someone to give them a dime for an awful photo then both of them deserve what they get.

Highlight: Sure, and that's not really what I was talking about. For that matter, camera club criticism is/was equally bad. It's just that there is/was less of it, and it is/was face to face: you aren't/weren't dealing with cowardly, anonymous twerps. No: they are/were real-life twerps.

As I said in the first post, I don't normally tell someone when I think their pictures are indescribably awful. But are there any times when I should? Even if they ask?

Cheers,

R.

Sparrow · 09-14-2011

There's been a general trend towards relativism in many of the arts over the last half century, sadly, and it's spawned all this "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like!" claptrap ...

Teuthida · 09-14-2011

My Theory (feel free to disagree, but remember, I said its only "my" theory):

If you're posting your photos on the net, you're probably not very good.

tunalegs · 09-14-2011

I don't believe there is any truly awful art. But I think there are a lot of truly awful artists.

Chris101 · 09-14-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

There's been a general trend towards relativism in many of the arts over the last half century, sadly, and it's spawned all this "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like!" claptrap ...

I don't understand how criticism of the arts can be anything but relative.

Sparrow · 09-14-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris101

I don't understand how criticism of the arts can be anything but relative.

Well, simply put, the fact that Joe Blogs with no artistic knowledge likes a particular work as much as Kenneth Clark likes the frescos in the Sistine Chapel does not make the two works equally valuable ... their opinions do not have the same value

johne · 09-14-2011

Roger,
I wonder at times about my perceptions. I would appreciate it if aomeone would take a look at my gallery and give an unbiased evaluation. At 83, my feelings can stand a rap for honesty.
John E.L.Robertson [johne here]

Tompas · 09-14-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

(...) As I said in the first post, I don't normally tell someone when I think their pictures are indescribably awful. But are there any times when I should? Even if they ask?

<Sermon>
Yes, in case they ask -- tell the truth: their pictures suck.

In case they don't ask but obviously think their 'work' is great -- tell the truth: their pictures suck.

In all other cases -- decide according to factors like whether you know them and would like to keep knowing them, how likely it is you get socked on the nose, how much exactly their pictures suck, how good you feel that day, how old they are, whether they are boy or girl, etc.

In the end, you are morally obliged to try to make the world a better place, aren't you?
</Sermon>

Tompas · 09-14-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Well, simply put, the fact that Joe Blogs with no artistic knowledge likes a particular work as much as Kenneth Clark likes the frescos in the Sistine Chapel does not make the two works equally valuable ... their opinions do not have the same value

Hmmm... Now, when Kenneth Clark likes the frescos while Joe Blogs does not like them, and I happen to know both their educational background regarding arts, Mr. Clark's opinion is only more valuable to me as long as I do not know the frescos myself. As soon as I've seen them I either like them, too -- or I don't...