January 2007 Photo Critique
Scroll to the Top of the Site to Access Index Links Located on the Right Side of Page
As an experiment, two photographs have been posted with a critique. Following the critique is a an area in which you may post your comments. It is my intention to give the photographic community a chance to refine the subjective definition of what makes a good photograph a good photograph.
Your comments regarding the photographs and the critique are invited and encouraged.
Photograph A ©M.Elisabeth 2006
Photograph B ©M.Elisabeth 2006
Critique:
These images represent an excellent example of photographs that present different views of a shared topic. Both photographs are enjoyable to view from the perspective of decorative art.
The B&W conversion enhances the quality of photo “A.” Composition and the out of focus background (bokeh) also contribute to the image’s overall strength.
Just as the B&W conversion strengthens photo “A,” the muted colors of photo “B” lend to its overall impact. The twisted dark branches lead to the encapsulated head giving the photograph an unnerving aura. The fact that the photo is troubling does not flaw it. Any photograph that is capable of eliciting emotion from the viewer is a success.
Photo “B” is the manifestation of a bad dream staged within a harsh environment. Photo “A” promises better days to come.
Guy Danella • January 2007
January 4th, 2007 at 8:37 am
The B&W is nice, to me the slightly out-of-focus flower to the lower left is a distraction, I find my eye keeps getting pulled there. Unfortunately this is common in close-up photography due to the tiny depth of field, and is generally unavoidable. Were it mine, I might take a crack at blurring that flower further or perhaps burning it a bit to blend it more into the background. Hard to tell for certain on this monitor (LCDs suck for photo work) but I might also try to brighten up the highlights a touch.
I like the color photo a lot. The only question that arises is whether the impact would be greater were the flower head in a slightly different spot in the composition. I’m not a big fan of the “rule of thirds” but there are some subjects/compositions that can be enhanced through its use, and this may be one. A quick test crop of it would tell. Overall I like it plenty, and agree with Guy’s assessment of it.
For the Nikon calendar, I’m mostly in agreement with Annie except:
1) The pic from the northwest rain forest is pedestrian. Nice photo, but it’s like the mist on the Adirondack lake (usually with canoe). Everybody with a camera has one, every Sierra Club magazine has several, and most of them are better.
2) I wouldn’t call the sunset a great picture (Taliban) but I like it ok.
3) I thought the communion pic was interesting, powerful, tense. One of those photos that the “rule of thirds” would have destroyed. Perhaps not my taste, but overall I’d pick it as the best because it evokes the most feeling in me.
4) She’s much too forgiving about the Central Park photo. It really is horrendous in my opinion. It might be somewhat decent without all the graininess but it’s impossible to tell. If it were clear it would also be somewhat pedestrian and perhaps this is why the grainy rendition was chosen.
5) Pictures of beach chairs and swimming pools do nothing for me.
January 7th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Interesting pictures. I didn’t care for Photo B at first, but the longer I study it, the more I like it. I agree with Guy, a photo that elicits a response is a success.
M. Elisabeth did an excellent job in both photos.
January 18th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
I enjoyed both photos and Guy’s critique. I also agree that any photo that elicits a response is successful, and those are the ones I’ll choose as liking whether or not I like the subject matter. He did lose me on the last paragraph with the photographic hogwash jargon about “bad dreams” and “better days” though. To me, the color photo is warmer in tone and therefore in feeling. Still, to be interesting and controversial reading I guess we have to “go there”. Besides, who am I and what do I know? Only what I like and don’t. The first I’m more apt to wonder about, the second I’m quick to pass on by and dismiss.
Speaking of passing on, I usually do with the Nikon calendar. There were four photos I thought worth looking at, and that isn’t enough for me to hang the thing up. I liked the owl (I agree with that bird!), the zebra (fascinating patterns), the northwest rain forest, and the umbrellas. Though I agree that a few are done over and over I don’t care because I like that kind of scene (see above critique by Mr. Bronson, #3). As for Mr. Bronson’s #5, any photo of warmth and tropical delight gives me the warm fuzzies!
Respectfully submitted,
Tammy
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:14 am
I enjoyed the two different treatments of the same subject. I know how hard it is to compose macros in the field. Sometimes you just can’t position yourself because of a cliff or a tree in the way or you’re dripping wet, freezing, or being bombarded by blackflies–although Guy never lets me use that as an excuse.
It seems that as soon as I get home and put them on the screen I notice all sorts of things I should have done in the field. So here’s what I probably would have thought about after the fact if these had been my images:
Photograph A–Black and White
I like the framing on the left with the leaves and vine and the diagonal flow of the vine in the right background. The bright seedhead in the lower left, though, really draws my eye down. It looks like the edges were burned on this image but the highlights at the bottom still draw my eye—perhaps a touch more burning on just the highlights might help with this.
I’d like to see the foreground image isolated a bit more. It’s hard to say from what I’m seeing on the screen, but I keep wishing I could see the detail on the right edge of the foreground seedhead. It seems to converge with the background. I think I would have backed off just slightly so as not to crop the lower left seedhead bottom. Then, if possible, I would have moved my tripod more to the right and come in at a slightly different angle higher or lower to attempt to bring the corner image farther into the composition. I would have also tried to isolate the foreground image and set up the background figures in a pleasing design element that didn’t converge with the foreground image. The bright branch intersecting with the foreground figure bothers me—it’s a little like a telephone pole growing out of someone’s head in a snapshot. Since the background images are there and are bright, they are a major part of the design. I’m really a fan of negative space but I get the feeling of the image being “crowded” to the left—perhaps just a tiny bit more of the uncluttered background on that side.
Photograph B—Color
I really like the way the flow of the vines draws the eye around the image. The quality of the light coming through the ice is lovely—I wish I could see more detail on my screen. Color is definitely a design element in this shot. In black and white the seedhead wouldn’t have the same inpact, I think. The color helps it to pop.
I probably would have left a little more space on the left, bringing that interesting “drip” in the upper left corner into the composition more and cutting out the branch on the upper right which isn’t half as interesting. But . . . picky, picky, picky. I still like this one.