39 replies to this topic

[Alex Duskman]

Quite a long time rented a series of "subreality."
1.



2.



3.

[Fons Baerken]

like them!

[RalphJ]

like !!

[Colin-M]

Nice one Alex.
Looks like you really had to get down amongst your subjects!

[nfoto]

Heavy HDR-like processing can be tricky to keep under sufficient control. After all, the result must improve upon the outcome not destroy it. I think #1 suffers such damage as the presented image lacks visual impact despite the strong graphical rendition. Firstly, sky should never be darker than the ground unless the photographer presents a reasonable clue as to why the tonality is reversed, and in that picture I cannot see this occurs. In particular the left-hand side of the frame is flawed in my opinion and fails to catch the viewer's interest as shadows are blocked and sky is night black, making the pebbled rocks of the dried-out river bank look rather out of place for no apparent reason. The right side is better, though, although far from convincing. On a tangential note, it appears #1 and #2 originate from the banks of a river with widely fluctuating water levels - a hydropower development scheme perhaps?

That brings me to #2 for which the HDR (or whatever approach has been pursued) works much better, as tonalities are nicely presented although with (probably intentional, given the title of the topic) a slightly eerie unreal feeling to them (in particular the sky). Framing is very good so this constitutes in my opinion a pleasant and successful picture.

No. 3 in the series in rather banal and cliché-like compared to #1-2. The composition is cut down too far in terms of interesting elements thus does not convey any puzzlement so to speak, which usually is a detriment for a picture being remarkable over time. Also, image contrast leaves the overall impression a bit on the dull side.

[Alex Duskman]

In this case I intends changed reality of the picture. But the sky can be more dark than the earth (water) it the such is absolutely exact also I more than once observed personally. On it argument concerning processing I do not accept.




These pictures have no task to show reality, the reality here is rather boring and banal. On it I decided it to change to create mood, instead of to convince the viewer of the fact of existence of such place!

[Alex Duskman]

Here one more distortion of a view of reality for the sake of emotions and search new.
1.

2.



3.

[nfoto]

If you don't care about critique of your pictures then just say so. Saves people the time taken to evaluate your pictures and write down the impressions.

Only in very special cases, and then on a very local and short-term scale, is it possible for the sky to be darker than the ground. Give the ramifications of the opposite a little thought to see why. Hint: Earth's albedo is < 1. You cannot dismiss physical facts by simply saying they are not acceptable.

[Alex Duskman]

You now want to prove their knowledge in this matter? I do not need proof, I believe . Yes, and to argue about it there is no desire. Just as sometimes there is no desire to pass the real world realistically. Impressionism no topic here, sorry (maybe just have not found).

[Alex Duskman]

Here, he found, incidentally, is an example where the sky is darker than the ground. Well, this is not to be unfounded. And about the fact that the earth is just reflects the light of the sun and sky and the sky, in turn, only refracts the sunlight - I know. Just onogda is non-uniform sky and the earth beneath colorful

[nfoto]

Sorry. I don't understand what you are trying to say here. If you are implying we have to interpret the world within the framework of our mindsets and visions in our photography, I heartily agree. However one can, or should, always be able to question or debate how the photographer approaches his subject(s). Otherwise critique loses all meaning and can only sink down to empty applause (the "attaboy" attitude which does nobody any good in the longer run).

The above is not to say one needs to reach agreement in general. Disagreement is entirely OK, but should occur in a setting where people communicate in either direction.

[Alex Duskman]

Here, even I will not argue with you. May simply not have understood correctly. In general, the first image, which has caused criticism, assessed me as a pastime, was estimated at the level of like / dislike. Of course it is far from ideal. But the phenomenon is natural, when the sky is darker than the surface of the earth - a rather rare. That is why it surprises us. For this reason, not just me, but mnggie others seek to make dramatic changes in the frame of the balance (between heaven and earth). So in terms of overall picture taking criticism

[nfoto]

A basic point of critique is that one has to go far beyond the binary state of "like"/"dislike", a ranking which really isn't informative or helpful in any way. Neither for author nor viewer I'd like to add. We are none the wiser knowing a person "liked" (pressed +1, thumbs up, or whatever). So what? Photography is not a popularity contest. It is about establishing a two-way communication in which each party has to make efforts. The efforts going into making the picture, and any underlying ideas one can derive from it, have to be debatable. Otherwise why ask for comments and critique in the first place? I have a feeling, which may be wrong of course, that you don't like straight-forward critique of your work. You are in that case not alone, since the attitude is wide spread amongst participants on internet forums. In my opinion this constitutes a real hindrance for one's progress as a photographer. If I'm mistaken my apologies. Sometimes details are lost in translation.

With regard to the physical irregularities, yes, given a sufficiently narrow angle of view, sky can be *perceived* as darker than the ground. Note 'perceived' as this is the instrumental phrase. Having a wider angle will sooner or later show the expected behaviour of brightness since Earth is directly lit only by the Sun (excluding local phenomena such as volcano, fires etc.). Thus, light comes from above. Also, there is a spectral aspect that cannot be ignored. Shoot on the fringes of the visible spectrum and the "truth" we perceive with our eyes no longer exist.

[Lars Hansen]

Bjørn, I know these comments are not addressed directly to me - but implicitly they are, and they do provoke me to leave a comment. Please ignore me if you find I'm trespassing..

I agree. A forum like this should be a place where you can exchange and express your meanings, thoughts, learn and grow. But the level of knowledge and engagement will vary and the attitude will differ from member to member.

You argue that a "+1" or "I like that" has no value "(the "attaboy" attitude which does nobody any good in the longer run)" - personally, I've adopted that practice (in good faith) and often leave such a comment when I don't have the time to comment, don't have any significant/clever comments to offer or the comments are already adequate. As a (slightly ignorant) amateur, I don't have the prerequisites to provide a deeper analysis (like you) and my comments are most often a few observations at best - I'm aware of my shortcomings and refrain from going into deeper waters because I'll just get in trouble...

To me photography is an enjoyable hobby and I probably often judge a photo by a sort of instinct - does it appeal to me or not. I sometimes find myself in a situation where I simply don't understand that a particular image is recieving a lot of praise - though I do try to understand. To me photography is a subjective matter and I might perceive the image as boring, a genre that doesn't appeal to me or the subject just doesn't interest me etc. In such cases I stay out of the discussion, but I do value the thorough comments provided by others and try to learn, so I agree with you - it's an important aspect of being part of this forum. But simply ignoring posts with images that instinctively appeal to me doesn't seem right - I spend a few seconds or minutes to acknowledge.

You have an uncompromising and intellectual approach to photography that dwarfs photogs like me - I will never have that kind of knowlegde to offer. Maybe my attitude might be slightly disrespectful to a photog that has put a lot of mental/intellectual effort into an image and asks for input? Should I find a beginners forum.. or just observe and stay quiet?

Maybe I just went into deep waters - and in trouble..

Edited by Lars Hansen, 15 April 2012 - 13:10 .

[nfoto]

We need to learn to "see" any picture, and can only learn by finding details, ideas, hidden messages, or concepts, ..., in them. In order to communicate these observations we have to use language to describe, then analyse or discuss, the outcome. Needless to say the initial forays are hampered by a lack of insights and verbal tools, but all of these are honed by being used over and over again.

Since there is no, or shouldn't be, given answer to most photographs they can be evaluated and debated on several tiers of competence. No one of such contributions will be less valuable as long as the parties involved try to express their own impressions, well beyond the 0/1 stage anyway. When you partake in a discussion of a picture you only risk being more aware of your own emotional responses and perhaps the underlying rationale of these. Later the added insight can be put to use in developing one's own visual ideas.

A good way to improve the understanding of visual expressions is by forcing yourself to go deeper into images that ordinary would scare you off (by being too banal, too abstract, deemed to hold no interest, being technically simple/complex/advanced/flawed .... whatever). Perceive yourself as a participant in a debate over that very image where you initiate a dialogue with another party (the photographer, another viewer, or any imaginary person hosted by your own mind) and try to learn from the two- or multi-way communication which ensues..

We aren't born into this world with a visual language, but most people can learn the basics if they put some efforts into the learning. Never ever think you don't "understand" a picture or say it is "meaningless". The problem is the language. Put yourself on a subway train in a foreign country. Listen to the voices around you. You might not undertand a single word of what's going on, but that does not make the conversations "meaningless". You simply have to learn in order to understand. Communication is the operative key word here.

[Airy]

"We aren't born into this world with a visual language"

indeed... nice food for thought.

[Alex Duskman]

A basic point of critique is that one has to go far beyond the binary state of "like"/"dislike", a ranking which really isn't informative or helpful in any way. Neither for author nor viewer I'd like to add. We are none the wiser knowing a person "liked" (pressed +1, thumbs up, or whatever). So what? Photography is not a popularity contest. It is about establishing a two-way communication in which each party has to make efforts. The efforts going into making the picture, and any underlying ideas one can derive from it, have to be debatable. Otherwise why ask for comments and critique in the first place? I have a feeling, which may be wrong of course, that you don't like straight-forward critique of your work. You are in that case not alone, since the attitude is wide spread amongst participants on internet forums. In my opinion this constitutes a real hindrance for one's progress as a photographer. If I'm mistaken my apologies. Sometimes details are lost in translation.

I salute criticism, and I wrote about it earlier. But I have my own opinion, which I am prepared to defend. As for the dark sky and bright surface of the earth will say this: not rarely seen a picture of where the front of the thunderstorm at dawn blackness fills (blue) sky and setting sun shines bright field with a yellow, dry grass. In this case, the sky really shines menbshe than reflecting grass. This is not a subjective perception, it is possible to measure the light meter. It looks fascinating!

Otherwise, I will say this - any art is perceived at the level of "like / dislike", and already rabor him on the details - the lot of the critics. The Creator did not create the image of the details, but on a wave of emotion. The criticism is devoid of emotion. And with regards to technical criticism of pictures - I darkened the sky on purpose, because it kakdr saw it that way. The deep black color is also designed specifically do not always need all the details. That's my opinion.

[Alex Duskman]

"We aren't born into this world with a visual language"

indeed... nice food for thought.

I schtitayu prihoditv that people the world had just a visual language! But then in a load of verbal concepts, the visual language into a state of silence.

[Alex Duskman]

So then I called it subreality only because sometimes I do not want to see reality for what it really is!

[Airy]

"I schtitayu prihoditv" ? nje ponjemaji po russki