Images FOR CRITIQUE

[brightmatter]

Any critique for these three would be much appreciated!

[StoneNYC]

Any critique for these three would be much appreciated!

My only critique is that I love how you've controlled the color tone, the middle one looks especially accurate, do you use color temp filters for long color exposures?

[brightmatter]

My only critique is that I love how you've controlled the color tone, the middle one looks especially accurate, do you use color temp filters for long color exposures?

The colouring of the initial scene as I was composing wasn't very interesting so I'm not sure accurate colour was what I was going for! In terms of filters, I do quite a lot of post-processing in Lightroom and Photoshop instead. With Portra 100T, the colours can be too green and cold for some situations so I change the tint and temperature to suit.

[brightmatter]

And thanks by the way! Anything to note about the compositions?

[Ray Heath]

All interesting images mr brightmatter.

Re: composition;
Image 1 - the rail, which is sharply focused so I assume that is the most important element, becomes lost in the very bright and messy background, and the bright, sharply focused grill/grid adds little to the image.

Image 2 - the sharply focused areas, read as above, are too insignificant against the bright elements in the image.

Image 3 - same comment as above and the image would be much stronger if the top half was cropped.

[Ray Heath]

And one of mine in fairness and acknowledgement of put up or .....

[brightmatter]

All interesting images mr brightmatter.

Re: composition;
Image 1 - the rail, which is sharply focused so I assume that is the most important element, becomes lost in the very bright and messy background, and the bright, sharply focused grill/grid adds little to the image.

Image 2 - the sharply focused areas, read as above, are too insignificant against the bright elements in the image.

Image 3 - same comment as above and the image would be much stronger if the top half was cropped.

Thanks! I wouldn't say the background was particularly messy or bright in Image 1, but I understand that I need to work on my focussing (apart from Image 3, where I was aiming for a transition from soft focus to hard.) I tried a crop of Image 3 like you suggested, but I felt that the image no longer had room to breath that way (plus I have a thing for extensive, rich blacks!)

[brightmatter]

And one of mine in fairness and acknowledgement of put up or .....

Don't worry it should be an eye for an eye. I'm not familiar was this (presumably quite old?) printing process, but I like the composition and the subtle motion blur on the horses. My main criticism would be the tones in the picture, which I find a little subdued, but this is entirely down to taste!

[jp]

And thanks by the way! Anything to note about the compositions?

Personally, I would try to make these simpler in terms of lines. A way to evaluate the composition is to apply Arthur Wesley Dow's Line/Notan/Color analysis, http://www.daylilyart.com/design.php?id=B2 or Dow's book. Your colors while seemingly realistic don't make for composition or mood. Notan is about masses of light and dark (or other tones), which I think is where you could gain in this area with simplicity. Here's a good goal if you want nighttime urban shooting. http://www.cartermuseum.org/artworks/297 ; simple, good lines, simple areas of light and dark. I'd go back out looking for more simple compositions with lines, masses of light and dark, and color that is more evocative than realisitic (or maybe both)

[wentbackward]

I'm sure I can learn from this failure. This is my best scan from an impossibly thin negative. If you hold the negative up to the light, it looks like a UFO, because of the top edge of the bowl, nothing underneath it, haha! This is a John Pawson-designed bowl filled with cotton. Did I meter wrong or did the lab screw it up? The bowl is white, and so is the cotton. For reference, here is a shot of the bowl by someone who knows what they're doing.

Attachment 92652

Larry, Frankly speaking, I MUCH prefer your version and here's why. The studio shot is close the baroque (right diagonal) and in keeping with that it is light and airy, it is intentionally designed as a product shot to sell the bowl. Your shot is an artistic vision and statement, you're using the sinistra (left diagonal) with a much more discerning eye than the product shot, the sinistra is extremely powerful; combines with the textural overlay in your shot that the product shot lacks. Therefore your representation of the bowl is more powerful, disturbingly so, because of the combined sinistra with the dark tones and use of black. The bowl has substance and weight, it's a pleasure to look at and the viewer can experience the weight and texture of the bowl as if they're holding it. The bowl shape is shrouded in darkness, so imagination rushes forth and fills in the empty space (or negative space). Your choice of angle of the bowl (towards the camera) expresses it's full dimensionality and actually most of the outside of the bowl is left to the imagination.

The two things I don't like: Clean or spot the negative to give the image a fair chance. The blotchiness has disrupted the inner curve of the bowl. I'd draw or photoshop that back in, even a pencil line across would keep the continuity which would be stronger than the edit.

This is a wonderful shot.

I'd love to comment on a few more but it takes a good 10 to 15 minutes to analyse any single image and get past what I initially see. If I can offer a word of help to some other shots of specific things (i.e. the cactus and the truck as examples) they are just straight shots, largely the photographer is using technical skills framing the subject, the joy of those shots are in nature (cactus) or industrial design (truck). Whilst nice shots they do not express the vision of the artist, same as the difference between this bowl and the product shot.

- Paul