Image critique

[mcguireek]

I love reading the critiques on this site of different images, so I though I would ask for one of my own. I took this shot with my Crown Graphic with a 135mm lens. I can't tell if I like it because I took it with my large format camera (I taken a total of 20 pictures with it and had it for 3 months, so I still get excited when the picture turns out), or if it is actually visually stimulating. I would love some comments and critiques from you all to see where I can improve or what is working well.
Thanks all.

[Andrew O'Neill]

It's really dark on my screen. What film are you using and what EI are you exposing it at?

[Vaughn]

I find it a little unbalanced, but not unbalanced enough to cause a good amount of tension -- something many images can benefit from. Use a couple pieces of paper to crop the sides of the image to create a square image, with the "V"of the sky centered.

It seems that this is what you might have really been after, compositionally. Now it seems that the viewer is transported up the creek and into the image.

I saw this knowing that seeing the actual print rather than the image on a screen might radically change how the image affects me.

The image on the screen also seems be lacking a feeling of light on the landscape -- it is a little dull. This is not a matter of just contrast, but the actual quality of light present and how it is rendered. If this place is close by, it might pay to revisit it a few times under different types of light.

I think you have a good grasp of what is possible, it will just be a matter of thinking in terms of light and its compositional uses.

Vaughn

[paulr]

I find it almost impossible to critique single images in a meaningful way. All I can do is bring to bear established "standards" of image making, which are basically a conservative set of ideas about how a photo should look. I might be more interested in bad pictures than in ones that are nothing but good in these ways.

If you show a group of pictures, you give your viewers an idea of what you're trying to do. What seems like a mistake in an isolated image might turn out to be the whole point. The other images provide context, repetition, variation ... they give your viewers a sense of the vision behind the image. We need that in order to know if the image works.

[Mark Sawyer]

I find it an odd dichotomy. A path in a photograph, painting, drawing, or whatever, invites you to wander down it. Yours is an obstical course of broken rocks...

From the comments, you can see that critics always bring their own baggage...

The light does look a bit dull. Yes, overcast days are like that. They flatten out the light, make it easier to average out the exposure, get the detail at both ends. But it ends up looking at bit ... flat. Maybe kick the development in the rear? Depends on what you're going for...

The critical thing is, go for something...

[Jim Graves]

Ah ... to each his own ... but you did ask ...

I like the subject matter ... the rocky path/streambed is a good choice.

I'd crop on the right and top trying to end up with the end of the path about 1/3 of the way from the right and top.

As others have noted (and the others who've already responded are pretty notable) the shot lacks contrast ... I'd either re-shoot it on a sunnier day or reshoot it cloudy and increase development time ... and you can always add contrast by increasing the magenta filter in the darkroom on variable contrast paper.

And, if you want to go super contrasty and focus on the angles and light/shadows in the rocks, you could do all three ... shoot sunny, increase development time, and add filters in printing ... and you'd probably have a pretty good negative for carbon printing ... but you'd have to ask Vaughn about that.

I think it's a very nice start in large format ... and I'm also a big fan of Crown Graphics and their original lenses ... you're off to a good start.

[eddie]

keep at it....being fun is all that really matters to me (an odd great shot is awesome though...) )

sometimes i print with a #3 dark room filter. this will help the contrast.

i like the idea of cropping the V in the sky top be square...maybe a good idea. for me most of the time i try and crop out the sky as it is hard to get the cloud details and the shadow details....possible but more challenging. so i "cheat" and either get lots of sky or none. as your learning curve improves you can obviously change this idea. sometimes it is tough to get the photo to match up with what i see in real life.

eddie

[Patrick Dixon]

sometimes it is tough to get the photo to match up with what i see in real life.

Amen to that!

[nray]

I would suggest you go through this site, look at the images and pick some out that you like. Then look more closely and analyze what it is about them that makes you favor them. Then got out and try and do the same. I think this will help you in making better images and it also is what I practice. Buy some photo books if you don't have some and study.

I like the composition of your photo but the tones seem very flat. All the same. Try it again in different light...morning, evening etc.

[Dirk Rösler]

Nothing obviously "wrong" here. Keep working at technique and seeing, and you will be fine. Try not to get too drawn into the large format aesthetic. Don't pay attention to too light/too dark, not sharp etc. -- if that's what you want your photo to look like, then so be it. You're in charge, not the audience.