Posted 14 April 2012 - 16:05
Posted 14 April 2012 - 19:51
Looks like you really had to get down amongst your subjects!
Posted 14 April 2012 - 20:04
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.
Posted 15 April 2012 - 00:06
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!
Posted 15 April 2012 - 00:11
Posted 15 April 2012 - 00:12
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.
Posted 15 April 2012 - 00:35
Posted 15 April 2012 - 00:41
Posted 15 April 2012 - 00:43
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.
Posted 15 April 2012 - 07:42
Posted 15 April 2012 - 08:10
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.
Posted 15 April 2012 - 13:10
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 .
Posted 15 April 2012 - 15:19
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.
Posted 15 April 2012 - 15:42
indeed... nice food for thought.
Posted 15 April 2012 - 15:51
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.
Posted 15 April 2012 - 15:57
"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.
Posted 15 April 2012 - 15:59
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users