While I was shooting sunrises at Utah Lake. I swung my camera around for this shot. I just wanted to see what others thought about it. I don't know what to think.

I don't what to think either. There's not much point to the image.

I think I would prefer a lot less of the rocks. I know you like to keep a standard aspect ratio but I think I would crop off some of the bottom of the image. It does seem like your early morning outing was worth the effort.

Hi Jim, I don't understand the type which I have seen before so I am open to all suggestions. The only reason I posted this is because it looks to me like it has leading lines. That was an accident on my part, but when I saw it, I wanted to get some insight from people who understand the type.

I got some really great color later and in another direction. So this was one more of an experiment.

There are "leading" lines but they don't lead anywhere of interest as far as I can see.

Anyway I thought this would be better with fewer rocks and sjadja wants an image with a point. That should not be difficult.

Ha ha. Good point.

Took a stab ...

Thanks Kent. And I probably owe the forum an apology. I should never post an image in which I have no personal connection. This was a fishing expedition, but I knew in advance that there was nothing here.

I am still working out the what to post and where thing. This forum has been very helpful in helping me refine what I take and in post processing. I still want to post problem images here.

It seems that a purely experimental image might be ok or one that has promise when fixed. But not one in which I really have no interest.

No apologies needed ... it's all fair game.

Sometimes a posted image gives us something to "ooh & ahh" over, other times it presents something for critical analysis, tips & techniques, or simply expand our consideration of something not previously given credence to. and yet other times it is an opportunity to make lemonade from lemons and have a little fun.

Nobody shoots 100% winners ... same goes for posts. While some flourish (posts or pics), others die on the vine ... but we still keep striving to be better sowers, that we can become better reapers. Let the sowing continue such that the harvest abound.

The consideration for the forum is noted & appreciated ... but imo, it's all fair game, no worries.

Please don't apologize for posting an image which is not great but raises issues for discussion. I have plenty of these I want to post. In fact I may not have much except for problem images.

Camperjim wrote: In fact I may not have much except for problem images.

Isn't every image a problem of one sort or another? I know mine all are.

If I want ohhs and ahs, this is the wrong forum, this is specifically a critique forum not for presentation. If I center an image on purpose, this is the wrong forum.

If I take a "me too" image just for something to do, this may be ok but it also has little value to me.

Any image can be changed and any change may have its detractors and admirers. But if you have a good capture of a good scene and have presented it the way you want, critique ends up being about post processing tricks or cropping suggestions not about the image itself.

It seems to me I ought to stay in my style niche, and present the ones I am happy with at Landscape and the worthy ones that need more help here.

But this is probably also a good place for the experimental stuff like moonlight shots where I am developing a technique.

If I am off base here, please let me know.

We don't mind a little "oooh & ahhh" eye candy along the way.

Granted your perspective @ the PC forum's technical intent is likely spot on ... but we can let our hair down a bit for some eye candy too, I think. Don't hold out on us too much.

I don't think this requires an apology at all... in fact, I believe it is great example of how we mere mortals begin developing a good thought process when choosing what to frame. No question it was a beautiful morning, so the first thing we all do is instinctively reach for the camera. Although wonderfully composed, with pretty colors, the simple question of "what's the point" instantly forces one to up their game and teaches an important lesson. Thank you for such a prime example

Ben wrote: "But if you have a good capture of a good scene and have presented it the way you want, critique ends up being about post processing tricks or cropping suggestions not about the image itself."

I am not sure I would agree. I was just trying to process some images I took at Death Valley before, during and after a violent storm. I have plenty of captures with proper exposure and proper focus so I guess they are "good". They don't come close to representing what I saw. I seem to find that sort of thing happens often. The ooc image just doesn't work and needs some processing to even come close to recreating what I saw.

Camperjim wrote:
Ben wrote: "But if you have a good capture of a good scene and have presented it the way you want, critique ends up being about post processing tricks or cropping suggestions not about the image itself."

I am not sure I would agree. I was just trying to process some images I took at Death Valley before, during and after a violent storm. I have plenty of captures with proper exposure and proper focus so I guess they are "good". They don't come close to representing what I saw. I seem to find that sort of thing happens often. The ooc image just doesn't work and needs some processing to even come close to recreating what I saw.



Well that would mean it does not meet my "presented the way I want" criteria and falls into the other category of a worthy image that needs help. That's what I think I am going to do. My "need some color help" was a good example.

The image that started this thread is just a "me too" thing. The big problem is that I think it is like other images I have seen but don't really understand at even a basic level so it is only a "me too" in my mind and others can't even see what it is attempting to copy.

I don't have much of a clue what people want to do with non-centered, or leading lines or read left to right or subject pointer etc. These are sort of like many grammar rules which I have sort of memorized (but often mess up) and consider totally worthless and illogical.

I ain't so sure I don't reckon I understan' by what you means you is messin' up grammy's rulers. D'ey seemed to work jus' fine back when she was tannin' my hide wit 'em ... I membered dem rulers real good two, but I doesn't recall ever messin' 'em up.

Rules ... we don't need no stinkin' rules.

Hey, maks sens to me

ben egbert wrote:
If I want ohhs and ahs, this is the wrong forum, this is specifically a critique forum not for presentation. If I center an image on purpose, this is the wrong forum.

If I take a "me too" image just for something to do, this may be ok but it also has little value to me.

Any image can be changed and any change may have its detractors and admirers. But if you have a good capture of a good scene and have presented it the way you want, critique ends up being about post processing tricks or cropping suggestions not about the image itself.

It seems to me I ought to stay in my style niche, and present the ones I am happy with at Landscape and the worthy ones that need more help here.

But this is probably also a good place for the experimental stuff like moonlight shots where I am developing a technique.

If I am off base here, please let me know.

Critique on this forum is quite a bit different from my experience with it in school and in art groups. While I mostly do photography now, I've taken a fair number of art classes for drawing, painting and sculpture and have participated in art groups for the same. In those, critique was a process more similar to what's described on this page: [url]http://www.wikihow.com/Critique-Artwork[/url] So discussion of the technical elements of the piece was certainly a part of the critique, but what typically took more time was discussion of the interpretation of the work - the viewer's interpretation of the artist's intent, the artist describing their intent, the feelings evoked, symbols in the work, the value of the work, etc. Critique here does often become just a series of reworks rather than a real discussion of the work itself.

A couple reasons for this come to mind. The first is that this has become the forum on the site that people bring unfinished pieces to. In my experience, one would typically bring a finished piece to a critique. The other is that a more in depth critique is hard. It takes real thought, particularly when you're not familiar with the process. It's much easier to post a rework.

I sometimes find this somewhat disappointing. Seeing the various types of processing can be interesting. But it doesn't have the same value as a deeper discussion of the piece. There's a little of this in the other forums, but stil not much.

I would just post where you want to and explain whether you're looking for help, or otherwise.

Mister Bean wrote:
what typically took more time was discussion of the interpretation of the work - the viewer's interpretation of the artist's intent, the artist describing their intent, the feelings evoked, symbols in the work, the value of the work, etc.

A couple reasons for this come to mind.