Large Format Landscapes

[krishmandal]

Arkasha_from_Russia,
What is there to understand? I will forgive the language issue, I know English is not your first language, but "I would not waste film" is going to generally be taken to mean that you think this is "wasting film," or rather that you do not feel the artist has enough merit to even show this.
Perhaps that is not your meaning, maybe. Perhaps you meant to say something more sophisticated, but language did not come out right.
And, yes, I might agree that I do not "feel" something from these images, like I have felt from many of my own images, or some others who post here, but these images have merit, and they are not a waste of film. They are the vision that one photographer -- whether you agree with his art or not -- is trying to show us. This is not a photography or composition class. There was no "assignment" here, the photographer chose to simply shoot something that made him stop and look, and that should be more than acceptable for us. That said, we can certainly question his motives, his composition, his choices, but more professionally and humanely.

If I were to give criticism -- constructive criticism -- I would say this:
The first image has wonderful contrast. However it is not as successful as I think it can be, because of the composition, which seems to be a result of poor positioning, or a selection of framing that I think could have been better. I like the busy-ness of the background, and the tonality in the whole image, but there are bits and pieces of foliage in the foreground of the frame that feel distracting, and I might have chosen to reposition the camera or use some tilt-shit to selectively focus on what would be more important to the composition.

The second image is more successful, and reminds me of things that I shoot. There is decent tonality in it, but I think some post- work would make it spectacular. It has the makings of a high-contrast image, and you can selectively dodge/burn, or use other techniques to bring out the contours and texture of the rock. I might have tried to reposition the camera again here, to remove the small crack at the very bottom edge of the bottom-right of the frame.

That is my critique. I hope this was constructive and useful.

[Jim Noel]

Corran
I do not understand what you photographed. I would not waste film

One person's "waste of film", is another's masterpiece.

[h2oman]

The sky was much more interesting up until about 5 minutes before I took the picture.

I say embrace the blank sky! Sometimes with a stark subject like this butte it is more effective than clouds.

[mmerig]

I say embrace the blank sky! Sometimes with a stark subject like this butte it is more effective than clouds.

Thanks -- That is good advice.

[J Maxwell]

Arkasha_from_Russia,
What is there to understand? I will forgive the language issue, I know English is not your first language, but "I would not waste film" is going to generally be taken to mean that you think this is "wasting film," or rather that you do not feel the artist has enough merit to even show this.
Perhaps that is not your meaning, maybe. Perhaps you meant to say something more sophisticated, but language did not come out right.
And, yes, I might agree that I do not "feel" something from these images, like I have felt from many of my own images, or some others who post here, but these images have merit, and they are not a waste of film. They are the vision that one photographer -- whether you agree with his art or not -- is trying to show us. This is not a photography or composition class. There was no "assignment" here, the photographer chose to simply shoot something that made him stop and look, and that should be more than acceptable for us. That said, we can certainly question his motives, his composition, his choices, but more professionally and humanely.

If I were to give criticism -- constructive criticism -- I would say this:
The first image has wonderful contrast. However it is not as successful as I think it can be, because of the composition, which seems to be a result of poor positioning, or a selection of framing that I think could have been better. I like the busy-ness of the background, and the tonality in the whole image, but there are bits and pieces of foliage in the foreground of the frame that feel distracting, and I might have chosen to reposition the camera or use some tilt-shit to selectively focus on what would be more important to the composition.

The second image is more successful, and reminds me of things that I shoot. There is decent tonality in it, but I think some post- work would make it spectacular. It has the makings of a high-contrast image, and you can selectively dodge/burn, or use other techniques to bring out the contours and texture of the rock. I might have tried to reposition the camera again here, to remove the small crack at the very bottom edge of the bottom-right of the frame.

That is my critique. I hope this was constructive and useful.

"What is there to understand? I will forgive the language issue, I know English is not your first language, but "I would not waste film" is going to generally be taken to mean that you think this is "wasting film," or rather that you do not feel the artist has enough merit to even show this.
Perhaps that is not your meaning, maybe."

Whatever the intended meaning was, the comment itself was utterly RUDE!

[Jmarmck]

Film used is not film wasted no matter the outcome. Film sitting in a fridge waiting for just the right occasion is a waste of film. JMaHO. A sheet ruined by pulling the darkslide too soon is not wasted. It should be a lesson learned. Some of us learn it more than once or at least have to be reminded occasionally. A shot filled with a massive rock is not a waste of film. There is always something to learn.

As for Bryan's shot I think the only problem with it is the lighting and time of day, something that is not always and rarely under our control. If you don't know take the shot. At least you can learn from it. I think this might work quite well with some low angle light and a dark sky and perhaps some adjustments in composition.

Bryan, I love the latest photo. It has a nice pleasant feel.
Nits: the highlights are a tad blown but that is a tough situation with the shade and direct sun. I can see what you are going after here. Just a few paces from here is an old oak with spanish moss hanging from its low limbs. I have shot countless frames at that tree trying to do exactly what you are doing here, portray the glow from the back lit plants yet capture the textures of the trees in the shade. Like I said a tough situation. Perhaps another approach would to expose for the plant glow and let the shade go dark. It might be more dramatic with a lower light and higher contrast. JMaHO. If it were me I think I would have tried to exclude the large tree as its mass is dominating the delicate nature of the ferns. At the least perhaps placement would be more to the left and up or down. But again, JMaHO.

[diversey]

Some of the Ten Peaks on Moraine Lake, Yoho, Alberta, Canada

[Peter Lewin]

First a disclaimer: I think the sub-thread on critique runs the danger of becoming personal to either Arkasha or Corran, and it should not. I think Arkasha raises some valid points which are being discounted because of the English, which in his post #12044 has some phrases garbled beyond recognition, such as "remained with sketches tracking." I thought there might be a language translation program at fault, but even if not, since I cannot write a single word in Russian (cyrillic script anyone?) I am not about to throw away the entire comment because of some language issues.

But to get to the positive, here are the thoughts Arkasha presents which I believe are valid considerations in any critique:"What did you want to show these pictures?," "it should see something interesting. Beautiful light or textured sky or something else."

In my words, but taken directly from Arkasha's comments, we make most photographs because something in the scene resonated with us, there was something we wanted to show the viewer. In the majority of images we intuit pretty immediately what that was, either something that struck us as beautiful, or a center of interest which caught our eye and imagination, or sometimes a sense of irony (Austin Granger, for example, has an eye for the slightly out-of-kilter scene). I think it is a fair question to ask if we see an image which seems to lack the above. Now one must be careful, because there is a whole body of imagery which looks very commonplace, such as Steven Shore's large format work, or perhaps Robert Adams's, which appears to violate the principle. Still, if one doesn't understand why an image was made, other than to simply document "I was there," the question is legitimate.

Then Arkasha expands on the thought, pointing out that sometimes an image is made simply because one finds the light beautiful, or the appearance of the sky. If all of these elements are deemed lacking, one can critique the image. Whether or not others agree with the critique is a separate issue, but that is exactly why we have these discussions, and speaking for myself, exactly what I am looking for when I post images. (I was at my monthly New Jersey Photographer's Forum meeting last night, and came back with a whole bunch of notes about improvements I could make to the images I showed to the group.)

And I think it is fair to apply those questions to Corran's hiking images which were posted. Personally I find some of them interesting, such as #12052, where to use our "standards" from above, the lighting makes the image work, the almost perpendicular split between the unlit side of the scene, and the lit side. Some of the others seem, to me (and I stress the "to me") to be large format snapshots. Isn't that the point of critique?

[Tin Can]

The only rule on this and other image threads is stated clearly at the beginning,

"Critiques should only be offered if requested by the original poster."

[Peter Lewin]

Good point. I've thought about adding a line in my signature saying "all comments and critique welcome" or something to that effect. When I was auditing photo classes the critique part was always my favorite class times. It's nice to know when people like, or dislike, a certain photograph, and why.

Randy: The large red bold letters don't apply in this case. Or to be more precise, Corran said he was interested in critiques.