Critique?

[Chato]

Originally Posted by JohnG

Dave.

You have some very good shots and some very poor shots. But the Marsh Hawk is a great example of a very poor shot. It's noisy, no detail, poorly exposed, etc. It's a poor photo. For the same reason the photo in this critique section is a poor photo.

In the case of the hawk it may very well have been a shot worth capturing - but you didn't capture it well. The execution simply wasn't there.
I'd like to address some of your other statements if I may:[/QUOTE]

I don't recall stating that I "captured it well." Indeed I said I kept it because it shows the facial disk on a Marsh Hawk, better than any other shot I've seen. By your comments above, I assume that I should have deleted it?

Originally Posted by JohnG

It's tough to comment without specific photos but my guess after viewing some of these types of shots you've posted here is that they may speak to YOU because you took them. But they're still poor quality shots (for reference I'm referring to shots of geese I believe which you took from too far away and overcropped). I see shots from people like Wacky Roger and his are an example of capturing wonderful, fleeting images that are sharp, detailed and well exposed. This is the difference between photography and taking snapshots.

No offense, but whoop di do. I post in the wildlife forum, "interesting shots." The Goose shots you mention, are not a salable item, but they are interesting.

Originally Posted by JohnG

I'm really not sure why you keep making the argument that taking poor shots is really just a higher form of art.

There are shots here that I post, which are interesting, but I agree, they are also poor shots. Some of the Wildlife shots are not meant for sale, or a demonstration of my skills. Some are. I post what I find interesting.

As far as my street shots go, as I've said, this is a new field for me. This particular shot, is probably simply not worth keeping.

Originally Posted by JohnG

Such a broad statement simply isn't justifiable without context. A lot depends on the purpose of the photo. Millions of people around the world are very happy their wedding photographer uses flash. It makes for a better photo. I'd hate to see available light shots of a wedding party inside a church. Ditto for portrait photography. There are endless examples of where adding light results in a better photograph. Now, there is certainly an argument that in certain instances using only available light is beneficial. No argument. But, there are also instances where using only available light results in poor photos. Good photography is often about using the right tools for the job. As I said in your other thread a person could WANT to take BIF shots from 200 yards away with a 50mm lens all they want. But calling that 'ART' is a poor excuse for using the wrong tools.

What the above amounts to is saying that in certain branches of commercial photography, the photographer should please the people who are paying them. No argument here.

Originally Posted by JohnG

It's another subject entirely whether a shot is aesthetically pleasing to begin with - even if executed properly. This bird is a great example - if it were properly executed it would be a good shot. It wasn't and it does belong in the trash can IMO.

So your point is that an unusual bird, captured in an unusual manner, belongs in the garbage? Heck, if I didn't tell you, you would think it was a shot of an Owl.

I might as well toss out the shots I took of a Gull using a paper cup to lift clams. Lousy photograph, superb example of what wildlife does.

Never mind, just delete it.

Dave

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by Chato

So your point is that an unusual bird, captured in an unusual manner, belongs in the garbage? Heck, if I didn't tell you, you would think it was a shot of an Owl.

I might as well toss out the shots I took of a Gull using a paper cup to lift clams. Lousy photograph, superb example of what wildlife does.

Never mind, just delete it.

Dave

Dave - I wouldn't know what it was - the photo is of such poor quality I wouldn't even have guessed an owl. Part of improving as a photographer is pushing personal standards. The more you accept poor quality and justify it the harder it is to become a better photographer. The more you challenge yourself the better you're able to actually capture a usable photo when those once in a lifetime opportunities arrive. That way you can do the subject justice. Again, no argument about natural behavior of wildlife being an interesting subject. But there's a big difference between a poor snapshot of that behavior (which is of interest usually only to the photographer) and a photo of the behavior which speaks to people who might not even care about that particular creature or behavior.

[Chato]

Originally Posted by JohnG

Dave - I wouldn't know what it was - the photo is of such poor quality I wouldn't even have guessed an owl. Part of improving as a photographer is pushing personal standards. The more you accept poor quality and justify it the harder it is to become a better photographer. The more you challenge yourself the better you're able to actually capture a usable photo when those once in a lifetime opportunities arrive. That way you can do the subject justice. Again, no argument about natural behavior of wildlife being an interesting subject. But there's a big difference between a poor snapshot of that behavior (which is of interest usually only to the photographer) and a photo of the behavior which speaks to people who might not even care about that particular creature or behavior.

John, I cast no stones at the posting habits of others. If the shot is good, I will praise it, if it has some merit, I will gently critique it - If I think it's absolute junk, I say nothing.

As for me, as I told you the last time you criticised my shooting, I replied, that I post what I find interesting, and have so much confidence in my ability that I'm not worried about whether the shot is "good," or "bad," as long as it's interesting. The hawk shot is more than interesting, it's an example of an unusual phenomonon, rarely captured. I agree, a lousy photograph, but a wonderful nature shot.
Indeed, I posted part of a series of mediocre shots of a Little Blue Heron using bait to fish with, because it's a fascinating series.

What do you want me to do? Line up a thousand shots that meet your criteria and post them? I started a thread in which I actually did line up a few hundred wildlife shots, to prove that your critique was totally off base. But I don't need to prove anything to anyone; once was for your benefit - I don't need to do it again.

Once was enough...

Dave

[Chato]

Let me add an image to make you understand what I'm talking about.

This is a lousy photograph, and by using your logic, I should immediately trash it. Of course, I've never heard of a Gull using a cup to lift larger clams than a Gull can normally lift. Never mind, it's garbage - Junk it!



Just what the heck is photography all about? The rule of thirds? The Golden ratio? Focus? Contrast? Sure, these are all important aspects of the craft, and should be used when they CAN be used ;THIS shot is worth more than rules. If you don't understand that, you will never understand photography.

Dave

[kazuya]

Chato
you name the post "critique", you post it in the "Critiques and Techniques" section, and yet you dont seem to take criticism very well, when someone posts a critique you argue that they are wrong, if you cant accept criticism id suggest you stop asking for it.
Dave

[Chato]

Originally Posted by kazuya

Chato
you name the post "critique", you post it in the "Critiques and Techniques" section, and yet you dont seem to take criticism very well, when someone posts a critique you argue that they are wrong, if you cant accept criticism id suggest you stop asking for it.
Dave

You mean other than acknowledging that the shot I posted should be deleted?

Yes, other than that, you're right on the money...

What I didn't "take well," is Bynx telling me that the entire style of photography has no merit. You betcha, I'm annoyed by those kind of remarks...

Dave

[VTphotog]

OK, I don't usually do critiques any more. I really don't think the ladies look like hookers, unless hookers have changed the way the dress drastically since the last time I looked.
If the shot means something to you and you feel like you would want to keep it, you may want to try a little more PP. Blur out the b/g, clone out the b/g people, and crop a little closer. May get you a bit more of the mood you are going for.
Try to keep in mind that asking for opinions is opening yourself up to things you may not want to hear. And that criticism says as much about the critic as it does about the thing criticized. (maybe that's why I don't do critiques?)
brian

[Chato]

Originally Posted by VTphotog

Try to keep in mind that asking for opinions is opening yourself up to things you may not want to hear. And that criticism says as much about the critic as it does about the thing criticized. (maybe that's why I don't do critiques?)
brian

I don't mind critiques of my images, I DO mind critiques of an entire genre of photography. In other words, starting with Ordo, this image was panned. I accept that kind of criticism. What I find troubling is someone saying, (pardon the quotation marks) "Well man, if it ain't sharp and in focus, it's garbage." Or someone else saying, "If it doesn't meet arbitrary criteria that I believe in, it ain't a photograph."

Indeed, I got the distinct impression that someone was about to exlain to me what an f stop is.

Well, I posted this for a critique more in the hope that someone would say, "you know, this ain't bad, I can "feel" the mood of the night." I simply didn't want to admit that I blew the shot... I wanted this shot, had one opportunity to take it, and blew it...

My bad...

Dave

[Bynx]

Originally Posted by Chato

What I didn't "take well," is Bynx telling me that the entire style of photography has no merit. You betcha, I'm annoyed by those kind of remarks...

Dave

If you took a shot and did the best you could and posted it and asked for a critique you would get one. You didnt like the suggestions put to you, like you are using the wrong equipment. Arguing it was your plan to create an ungood image to capture a feeling (Your feeling) I do think has no merit. There are a lot of people trying their best to create a good image and seeking help on what went wrong and how they can fix it. Im not annoyed in what you are presenting but what you are trying to pass it off as is what I resent. In your case you dont want it fixed but still want a critique. Coming up with a genre of ungood photography has no merit as far as Im concerned. Doing the best you can with what you have is another matter entirely. As for what youre doing, perhaps we can start a new topic thread....UNGOOD PHOTOS.

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by Chato

What I find troubling is someone saying, (pardon the quotation marks) "Well man, if it ain't sharp and in focus, it's garbage." Or someone else saying, "If it doesn't meet arbitrary criteria that I believe in, it ain't a photograph."

Dave

Dave - the part I think you might be missing is it's the DEGREE of blur or out-of-focus in a number of your shots. Take the image you posted here for critique. There is nothingn about the subject itself that compensates for the degredation of image quality in the photo or the extreme blur. It's going to be a rare photo where the subject IS powerful enough to overcome that. Same was true when you posted shots labeled portraits where people actually stood and posed for you to take photos and the photos were blurred. Unfortunately I really think you'll have a difficult time finding photographers who believe a posed shot that's blurred is a good photograph. For certain some motion blur can be advantageous - but not in posed shots and not to the degree many of your night shots have. It's too much. What makes it worse is when people suggest theses things, instead of accepting the criticism you argue that it is a 'style' or 'genre' of photography to show too much blur.

It seems to me that the disconnect is you appear to believe: if the subject is of interest than any picture YOU take of that subject must by definition be interesting. Their are two assumptions here which are open for critique. First, other people can and do differ in their opinions of whether a subject is interesting to begin with. But, even if they believe the subject is interesting it is entirely possible and valid for them to believe you didn't do an good job of producing an interesting PHOTO. Again, subject might be interesting but the photo might not be.