This one does not work for me. It is confusing in the sense that I cannot tell what the thing is above and why it is there and what is the story you are trying to tell me.
The building bottom left and right should either be in to the extent you can tell what it is or not in.
Scott I figured as much. You managed to crack me up.
Personally I find that the rules as suggested for a critique lack on the
basic understanding of what photography is and instead aim at the
technical aspects of the image.
Here is an apt definition by Roland Barthes:
"Science interprets the gaze in three (combinable) ways; in terms of
information (the gaze informs), in terms of relation (gazes are exchanged),
in terms of possession (by the gaze, I touch, I size, I am seized)."
From an aesthetical point of view lets say that you and I my friend are
seeking different planets here.
Kaden-
I like a number of the other shots you've posted, but this one isn't doing much for me.
I have trouble attaching a mood, aesthetic or story to this shot (unlike others you've posted recently.) Is there something you're specifically reaching for here?
To me it looks like a mistake - you didn't wind the film on properly. The double exposure adds nothing meaningful to the image. and certainly detracts from it.
Interesting dialogue here. I think there are some great points about the aesthetic/creative:technical dynamic. And I like the quote.
The photo doesnt really work for me. I cant make out enough of the less dominant exposure to understand what I am seeing or what is being implied. Could you clarify your goal?
I don't have to because the photo speaks for itself. As to whether a photo
speaks or not to anyone in particular is an irrelevant point as to the worthiness
/value of the image itself.
These are two independent issues that many seem to so easily confuse. Its
a cityscape as any other and the elements that compose it are of immediate
translation. You will hardly find anyone standing in presence of a nature photo
demanding to have an explanation for it?!?
The silly factor enters when "we" the viewer make assumptions that are
just our own POV and our limited understanding of what images are/must
be. Case in point questions like - What's the story? Images aren't nevessarily
subjugated to telling stories and this speaks more of the viewer's POV than
of the picture itself.
Clearly the aesthetics in question are akin to Manga (Japanese Animae). The
lack of awareness in looking at it identifies the age of the viewer(s). Its an
age & cultural issue that is in question.
PS. Much of what happens under the guise of criticism here tends to fall
into 2 categories: 1. Folks who believe the technique is what makes the
image 2. Those who feel free to expound their likes/dislikes.
This reminds me when I was taking photography classes at Stanford U. and
the assignment was portrait. I was flabberghasted with what people shot and
genuinely shocked about the strange stuff people said as an explanation.
Literally some people showed up w/ head shots because that's what they
thought a portrait was. When questioned about it became transparent
that they had not given much thought about it, but had firm opinions...
Photography is one of those areas where no theory really exists and anyone
can feel very comfortable being themselves in whatever views they choose to
have. Most of the time people show a level of conservativism/misdigested
ideas that are rather amusing.
Similarly when a class was asked how they defined digital photography
their responses were at best insufficient and at worse seriously ignoramious.
The most entertaining aspect was when the lecturer asked if a photograph
made in a copier machine could be considered electronic photography, based
on a previous definition of what digital photography was.
Here are the basic rules of photography -> There are none. Hence, there
is no such thing as a BAD image. What there are, are images. Objectively
we can discuss technique(s) but the overall sum of techniques does not
bring an image alive.
Edited by Kaden K. on Mar 26, 2008 at 05:39 PM GMT
Kaden,
I understand your points, I think. But I am unsure what kind of feedback you are looking for on a critique forum. Have you posted this to City/Abstract to showcase your work?
Scott G
Sbeme still there is a certain value to criticism. I did ask the same question of myself
prior to posting images.
The value remains in understanding what the thought process is of the viewers and
also this is not to say that there isn't valid criticism that one can genuinely learn
from. However, I hope to interface rather than just receive it, specially when its
dished out undigested and with a world of certainties about it.
Interesting dialog. There seems to be some confusion though regarding the reason you posted and the criticism you are soliciting. Obviously, the criticism you receive will depend on the critics perception of your goals. For example, if you are thinking of selling the picture or displaying for the benefit and enjoyment of others, then the criticisms offered are valid, because they reflect your audience's point of view.
If you took the picture purely for your own enjoyment, then criticism can tell you what may be technically improved upon (contrast, framing, sharpness, color, etc), but ultimately the only opinion that matters is yours, because it is you who is the intended audience.
If you are displaying this photograph only to solicit responses and enjoy banter with those who respond, then I guess it doesn't matter what anyone says!
It would be nice if your intent were more clear though
Kaden-
I'd just mention that I was earnest in my initial question... it was meant to help move the dialog forward, not as a personal attack. In my opinion (and perhaps we differ here) a photograph needs some goal/direction in order to be effective... be that an emotion, aesthetic, storyline or whatever. To me that's what separates photography from snapshots.
It seems from your post that you were looking for a Magna aesthetic, which I'll admit a relative ignorance about. What I know of it is mostly the window dressing... bright colors and exaggerated expressions. Essentially that's what I was asking for, some clarification of direction (Magna aesthetic), because it was not immediately apparent to me.
I mention this because all the other images that I've seen from you have been very effective in communicating some mood/aesthetic/story and this didn't have the same effect on me. It would be interesting to provide this for critique to a Japanese audience and see what the response was.
Not a critique, but wanted to let you know that it made me smile. I take the AC Transit Transbay to and from work everyday, so I see this building and bridge everyday, but it's nice to see it in a photo.
