critique this image

[jetcode]

A thread for those who wish to have their images openly critiqued. I am interested in surveying the styles and communication for this process as well as learn something about art as it pertains to photography.

Here's an image to start with: architecture, night, Canham 5x7, FP4 most likely, 240mm Fuji-A; my old high school. This image was rendered on a calibrated monitor.

[Michael Graves]

Overall, I like the composition. The sweeping curve of the brickwork makes a good counterpoint to the stairs. There is just enough detail in the shadow to make to make you want to peek in to see what is there.

I do find fault with that one glare of light at the top that oversaturates the white beyond detail. If that can be printed down, it wouldn't draw the eye out of the composition as much as it does. Aside from that one nit...great job. I'd love to see an original print of it.

[Eric James]

I like it. I feel that the presence of the light at the top of the stairs makes the composition work for me - ones eyes "climb to enlightenment". I wouldn't pull back too much.

[Frank Petronio]

I like it too, there isn't anything I would change, it seems like the maximum, ultimate juice you could ever possibly get out of such an ordinary subject.

[domenico Foschi]

I like the composition a lot as well.
The lighting in general confuses me a little, it makes look the composition more caothic, both the highlights on top of the fame and the shadows in the bottom.
I would like to see some detail in the right column to balance the image in tonalities
Again, the space is beautifully used, every little "inch" of the image is used with a purpose.

[vinny]

Joe, The composition is very pleasing and I agree with Domenico regarding the detail in the top left and bottom right.
Here goes: Lake Michigan, 8x10 E100vs, 305mm G-claron, no filter. drum scan.

[Ken Lee]

I am interested in surveying the styles and communication for this process as well as learn something about art as it pertains to photography.

Let's say we were to come upon this image with no context, not knowing the photographer, that it is someone's old High School, or that it was made with a view camera.


Perhaps we see it on display in a museum or gallery, or in someone's home. There it is, presented as a work of Art. What would an Art Critic say ?


By contrast, let's say we submit this same photo to a magazine, for a story about someone's experience of going to High School. What would the Art director say ?


What if we were to present it our fellow students, who are just learning how to use a View Camera. What would the students say ?


If Edward Weston were to bring this photo to us for our opinion, we would probably respond differently than if the same photo were presented by a beginner.

So... What kind of critique would you like: artistic, journalistic, technical ? Do you want to be treated like a student, or a master ?

[Dan Schmidt]

The composition is great, but it is pretty flat. I think that is why this image does not evoke as much emotional response from me as it should

If this is a negative scan, I suspect it would be hard to make a nice print.

I know different monitors etc..., but an image with good contrast should look decent on a range of displays

[r.e.]

I think that Vittorio Storaro would do a killer job of lighting that space. It has a lot of potential, but it is not yet earning its keep. Have a look at Jeff Wall's recent image about a Vancouver nightclub.

Cheers

[Donald Miller]

I look at this image, as I do most images, not so much a depiction of a "known object" but instead as "aspects of form" and on that basis this photograph is successful. I think the intermingling of horizontal, vertical, and diagonal lines is pleasing and very nicely balanced. The image shows detail in all regions on my calibrated monitor, if that is important...for me it is not.

The curved surface provides a wonderful counterpoint and depicts an example of asymetrical balance to me.

[Donald Miller]

Vinny,

When I view your image I feel that I am straddling the line between the "known" and the abstract. For me, a successful photograph does one of two things it either tells a story very well or it poses a question to the viewer. I don't know that I feel that either one has happened here.

The image could be portrayed either way (objectively or abstractly). In my opinion, color does not lend itself to an abstract image in this case...I say this as primarily a black and white guy.

I will say that this is my honest opinion and that it should be recognized as nothing more than that. There are any number of interpertations that could me proferred here.

[Chris Strobel]

A thread for those who wish to have their images openly critiqued. I am interested in surveying the styles and communication for this process as well as learn something about art as it pertains to photography.

Here's an image to start with: architecture, night, Canham 5x7, FP4 most likely, 240mm Fuji-A; my old high school. This image was rendered on a calibrated monitor.

I like it

[Kuzano]

I like it... up the stairs to the right, left and up, then right and up... action. Into the bright light... as mentioned, ascension. However, for me, a couple of distractions at the top. OK, I'm up to the bright light... then my eye is drawn into that triangle of ceiling, and that bright flash off the vertical beam. Lose that flash and knock the lightness of that ceiling down a bit. To me, I think those changes would make the picture work a bit better.

I like it.

[janepaints]

I submit a photo that, technically, isn't LF. I also, respectfully, maintain that it is a LF photo--via spirit, intent & instinct. Some context.

In 1973 I graduated from art school, having studied painting. Tho the school had a photography course and many of my friends were photographers, photography made zero impact on me. It went in one ear and didn't even come out the other.

A degree in painting qualifies one for nothing. There are no job listings for painters in the want ads. I know--I looked and there weren't any. Good Oil person needed. Must be skilled in impasto. Salary commensurate with brushwork. Watercolor a plus. Benefits and overtime. Great Opportunity for the right dauber.

So I found work at a firm which did typography, commercial photography and reproduction photography. There I learned a bit of this and a bit of that but mainly I spent 2 years inside of a camera with it's own built-in darkroom, about as ULF as one can get. Before modern copiers, documents were copied via repro camera copying. I operated a Statmaster camera (and other Process Cameras). Huge 4-foot-extension bellows, huge & razor-sharp lenses, huge ground glass--like 24" x 36".

The 'subject' was held in vertical copy frames. It was all manual.
The inside was a self-contained B&W darkroom. Steel sinks. Red light. Paper and film. Imagine being 2" tall and working inside the back of a Speed Graphic 40 hours a week. It was kinda like that.

I spent two years with my hands in the soup. There are still flecks of silver under the skin on my fingers.

I still thought nothing about photography as a medium. Tho sometimes when things were slow, I'd take pictures of co-workers with the big cameras. Litho film, paper negs or PMT (photo-mechanical transfer). Wish I'd saved some. Faces larger than life-size, right from the camera. Like immense mug shots, the poor subject standing bathed in glaring 1000 watt buzzing lamps from both sides.

Then I moved to NYC to play in punk-rock bands, tho 'punk' was only a tag. It was just real simple, basic rock n' roll noise. Lots of fun. Many of the band kids were 'also's.' They played guitar... but ALSO photographed/painted/made movies/wrote prose/sculpted...etc.

One day at a yard sale there was a little camera. I knew nothing about cameras except for the ones I'd operated at my job. But it was $3 so I bought it. It looked cool & ancient. Something about it fascinated me--probably the three dollar pricetag!. Argus Model A.

I shot one roll and had it drugstore-developed. Every light in my noggin went on. Photography had finally hit my brain, all-at-once & bigtime. I realized I'd already learned everything necessary to develop & print my own photos. I became instantly, totally obessed. Soon I found a 5th-hand enlarger and had turned a perfectly good closet into a pretty awful phonebooth of a darkroom.

NYC was one vast photo waiting to be made. It was like a drug, 24/7. Pretty soon I forgot about bands and just wanted to photograph the world.

The thing is, though, right from the start I thought of my Argus as--and used it as--a view camera. I didn't know any better. But soon I did 'know better' and acquired tons of gear, read every scrap of info about LF & view cameras.

Looking today at the few pix left from my Argus, I like 'em better than many taken later, after I'd come to KNOW STUFF and own the serious gear. I even like the vignetting. Dollar store Eugene Atget. If Atget owned an Argus he'd have taken 36 times more photos than he did. Just imagine!

Eventually my Argus A vanished into wherever.

But! Recently I found anther Argus A at a yard sale. Argus A's are inflation-proof!! They still cost $3!!! You can bet your last gold Three Dollar Bill that I'll use my new-ancient Argus A pretty soon. Few cameras vignette as consistently. No other view camera is as affordable or vague.

End of context.

NEW YORK WINDOW, 1980 Extra-ultra-compact-mini LF negative.

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g249/janepaints/NewYorkWindow.jpg

[David Karp]

This is always tough, and I usually stay away from these. But, here I go.

Subjects like this attract me. What do I like? I like the mood. I like the basic composition. It does give a sense of traveling through the image. I like the interplay of line and light. I like the textures.

Would I change anything if it were mine? I think so, but would have to experiment. What would I do? First, I would crop a bit. The lighter colored blocks on the left don't add anything for me, they are actually a distraction to me. The area to the right of the post similarly adds nothing. Same for the light on the top of the post base.

Anything else? If it were mine I would darken the floor a bit, dodge the landing and the stairs from the landing to the floor (and maybe up to the upper landing too), and try to tone down the light on the molding in the background that cuts through the photo. I would clean up the 5-6 spots on the stairs, even if they are spots of light. The geometric light shapes are far more interesting. Maybe I would try to tone down the bright light on the bricks at the top a bit. That would take some experimenting. The local contrast will be strong, so I am thinking there will still be a strong sensation of light. These are all nits. Nice photo.

Hope not to offend. I really do like it. Here is a potential recrop.

[jetcode]

For those who wish to post an image to be critiqued please state so in your post.

For those who wish to critique use the post # or persons name when commenting to clarify the image the commentary is directed at.

I prefer to remain silent when being critiqued, reading, assessing, and making changes to an image if necessary. At this point I am more interested in the way people view and absorb an image from the viewpoint of peer creators (at some level).

Thanks,
Joe

[jetcode]

I want to thank everyone for critiquing the stairwell image in #1. Some really good ideas and thoughts about refinement.

Vinny,
I'm still trying to figure out if there is anything of value I can contribute concerning your image.

janepaints,
That was an excellent story to share. Sounds like a lot of photographers have musical roots, at least I do.

[domenico Foschi]

WOnderful presentation.


I submit a photo that, technically, isn't LF. I also, respectfully, maintain that it is a LF photo--via spirit, intent & instinct. Some context.

In 1973 I graduated from art school, having studied painting. Tho the school had a photography course and many of my friends were photographers, photography made zero impact on me. It went in one ear and didn't even come out the other.

A degree in painting qualifies one for nothing. There are no job listings for painters in the want ads. I know--I looked and there weren't any. Good Oil person needed. Must be skilled in impasto. Salary commensurate with brushwork. Watercolor a plus. Benefits and overtime. Great Opportunity for the right dauber.

So I found work at a firm which did typography, commercial photography and reproduction photography. There I learned a bit of this and a bit of that but mainly I spent 2 years inside of a camera with it's own built-in darkroom, about as ULF as one can get. Before modern copiers, documents were copied via repro camera copying. I operated a Statmaster camera (and other Process Cameras). Huge 4-foot-extension bellows, huge & razor-sharp lenses, huge ground glass--like 24" x 36".

The 'subject' was held in vertical copy frames. It was all manual.
The inside was a self-contained B&W darkroom. Steel sinks. Red light. Paper and film. Imagine being 2" tall and working inside the back of a Speed Graphic 40 hours a week. It was kinda like that.

I spent two years with my hands in the soup. There are still flecks of silver under the skin on my fingers.

I still thought nothing about photography as a medium. Tho sometimes when things were slow, I'd take pictures of co-workers with the big cameras. Litho film, paper negs or PMT (photo-mechanical transfer). Wish I'd saved some. Faces larger than life-size, right from the camera. Like immense mug shots, the poor subject standing bathed in glaring 1000 watt buzzing lamps from both sides.

Then I moved to NYC to play in punk-rock bands, tho 'punk' was only a tag. It was just real simple, basic rock n' roll noise. Lots of fun. Many of the band kids were 'also's.' They played guitar... but ALSO photographed/painted/made movies/wrote prose/sculpted...etc.

One day at a yard sale there was a little camera. I knew nothing about cameras except for the ones I'd operated at my job. But it was $3 so I bought it. It looked cool & ancient. Something about it fascinated me--probably the three dollar pricetag!. Argus Model A.

I shot one roll and had it drugstore-developed. Every light in my noggin went on. Photography had finally hit my brain, all-at-once & bigtime. I realized I'd already learned everything necessary to develop & print my own photos. I became instantly, totally obessed. Soon I found a 5th-hand enlarger and had turned a perfectly good closet into a pretty awful phonebooth of a darkroom.

NYC was one vast photo waiting to be made. It was like a drug, 24/7. Pretty soon I forgot about bands and just wanted to photograph the world.

The thing is, though, right from the start I thought of my Argus as--and used it as--a view camera. I didn't know any better. But soon I did 'know better' and acquired tons of gear, read every scrap of info about LF & view cameras.

Looking today at the few pix left from my Argus, I like 'em better than many taken later, after I'd come to KNOW STUFF and own the serious gear. I even like the vignetting. Dollar store Eugene Atget. If Atget owned an Argus he'd have taken 36 times more photos than he did. Just imagine!

Eventually my Argus A vanished into wherever.

But! Recently I found anther Argus A at a yard sale. Argus A's are inflation-proof!! They still cost $3!!! You can bet your last gold Three Dollar Bill that I'll use my new-ancient Argus A pretty soon. Few cameras vignette as consistently. No other view camera is as affordable or vague.

End of context.

NEW YORK WINDOW, 1980 Extra-ultra-compact-mini LF negative.

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g249/janepaints/NewYorkWindow.jpg

[Mark Sampson]

jetcode, you have a fine image. Now I want to see the images that go next to it.

[jetcode]

jetcode, you have a fine image. Now I want to see the images that go next to it.

do you have any suggestions? - joe

[Mark Sampson]

Joe-
by which I just meant that a photograph rarely stands alone; that each one can de seen as part of a larger "sequence", "series", or in the larger sense, "body of work". No matter how you choose to phrase it, or think about it, I'm guessing that you have other photographs that relate to this one; in subject matter, approach, whatever; and that they, too, deseve to be seen.

[jetcode]

Joe-
by which I just meant that a photograph rarely stands alone; that each one can de seen as part of a larger "sequence", "series", or in the larger sense, "body of work". No matter how you choose to phrase it, or think about it, I'm guessing that you have other photographs that relate to this one; in subject matter, approach, whatever; and that they, too, deseve to be seen.

Truthfully Mark my photography is all over the map which is why I asked. It was a notion towards developing a portfolio based on a series on one subject rather then a group of disparate subjects.

[jetcode]

Here is another image to critique. I purposely lengthened the image to give the illusion of infinite space behind the model and the checkered texture a foundation in front of the model. Sort of a universe all to her own. She is the model of the last image I posted in the portrait thread.

Joe Thibodeau

[Andrew O'Neill]

Your old high school photo is busy but certain line elements help to hold it all together such as the vertical pole in foreground right, the diagonal roof which leads over to the brick column on the left, dropping our eyes down the curve and onward to the stairs. Very nice. Since it's your old high school I'll bet you have some memories about that space, eh?