|
Posted by XtremeArtists: Posted by marksora: A bit washed out. Do you think it could be done without losing some of the detail in the bag itself? Aug 07 05 06:30 pm Link Posted by Brent Burzycki: Critisizm should be constructive. But when somebody says, "that picture sucks", or "don't give up your day job", or "what the f**k were you thinking", none of that is constructive. And anybody that would comment like that is just looking for a fight. We should judge the picture, not the photographer or model personally... what's wrong with this pic?... what's right with this pic? Aug 07 05 06:30 pm Link Posted by Geo Silva: That's what I recommend ignoring. It's not worth anybody's time to respond. Aug 07 05 06:32 pm Link Posted by Freelancer: Sure. You can doge and burn individual elements in a photo in the digital darkroom just like you can in a real darkroom. Aug 07 05 06:35 pm Link Posted by Brian Diaz: Posted by Geo Silva: That's what I recommend ignoring. It's not worth anybody's time to respond. I cannot tell you how well that advice works. If a person says you stink then fine. If you answer then you continue the battle. If you do not answer then all that is left is the person to say you stink again and again. Noone would tolerate that. But if you respond then you are on your own to a degree. Aug 07 05 06:37 pm Link Thou many that get that answer are the same that go into that person profile and leave nasty comments and just push the situation becasue they need to prove something.. What some need to do is learn to ignore the idiots as they just want the attention... Posted by Geo Silva: Posted by Brent Burzycki: Critisizm should be constructive. But when somebody says, "that picture sucks", or "don't give up your day job", or "what the f**k were you thinking", none of that is constructive. And anybody that would comment like that is just looking for a fight. We should judge the picture, not the photographer or model personally... what's wrong with this pic?... what's right with this pic? Aug 07 05 07:13 pm Link The tag needs to be photoshopped out - it is distracting from the central theme of the flower.... "distracting" now there is a word overused greatly in this critique world of photography... Aug 07 05 07:15 pm Link Criticism also should distinguish between issues of Craft and issues of Art. This is a huge grey area but it's part of the expertise that a critic should bring to the table. For example if you're looking at an image that's flat-out poorly exposed, it's a helpful critique to say "this image is really overexposed" BUT if you're looking at an image and it looks like the photographer was going for a fashionable intense effect and might have deliberately blown parts out, then "it looks like you overexposed this deliberately. I think that's a cool idea but it doesn't work for this shot and here's why..." "IT SUCKS" is neither a comment on the photographer's artistic vision nor his craft. Personally, I find myself almost incapable of saying anything useful to another photographer about artistic vision, but I'm good on the craft side of things.  mjr. Aug 07 05 07:20 pm Link If we're talking about major adjustments in photoshop, this image might benefit from having the lintel of the door be a true vertical. Using massive image deformations like that may be out of bounds for some photographers. Aug 07 05 07:22 pm Link Posted by Brent Burzycki: For me, I critique what's asked to critique. When I give my input, I try not to sound condescending, overbearing or, authoritative. I try to remember that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As a photographer, who am I to tell another photographer what is visual art? I think the idea way to give a critique is to give the photographer the motivation to take the same shot as many times over again and try to come up with the most perfect one. Easier said than done, but... Aug 07 05 07:37 pm Link Posted by Marcus J. Ranum: If we're talking about major adjustments in photoshop, this image might benefit from having the lintel of the door be a true vertical. Using massive image deformations like that may be out of bounds for some photographers. This is a perfect example of Color Vs b/w.. Aug 07 05 07:42 pm Link I've written a few constructive reviews elsewhere (my share you might say) and a few principles have held up over time: 1. Is the work as good as it can be for what it wants to be? a. What is it (factually)? What does it represent? That's just plain old Plato. 2. Technical. Given ambitious humans and stellar recording technologically democratically dispersed through a large population of enthusiasts, lol, "average" posts in venues such as this have gotten very good. Nonetheless, craftsmanship remains a first concern as may the limitations of a medium (this one serves the body well, for example, but complex landscapes possibly less well) and a work's final intended realization, which may not be a web presentation but a magazine page, a poster or mural, or subway light box display. 3. Literary. Every art has its literature, and perhaps of chief interest is where an artist's work in regard to the traditions and potentials of the discipline. When an artist regularly exhibits mastery of craft or technique, interest naturally shifts from what the artist is doing (technique) to what his art may be saying (expression). Through the pursuit of projects or specialization -- in most cases, work in series, within a method, or otherwise containing internally consistent elements -- the artist fashions new language for the culture. The ability to proffer "constructive criticism" may have to do with understanding through various means how other artists acquire knowledge and technique while exercising intuition and vision in the construction of their work. Some sympathy also for constraints on resources and other aspects of circumstance may be helpful. Aug 07 05 10:17 pm Link Posted by marksora: Posted by Brent Burzycki:
Thankyou all to those who critiqued my flower picture. It was meant only as a reference to the above statement. But it was fun to see. No excuses for the image at this time. Aug 07 05 10:48 pm Link See MArk - thats what you get for posting flower images.. Aug 08 05 11:52 pm Link What is all this nice talk? If someone sucks, you should be able to they suck. What is the problem? Aug 09 05 07:59 am Link Ok in that case - not that your photos are on trial here - but this is a forum for models and photographers that work with with.... you might want to have just one shot in your portfolio of somethign other than a dog.... But hey thats only my opinion... Jack D Trute wrote: Aug 09 05 10:02 am Link Jack D Trute wrote: The problem is that if all you say is that someone sucks, it doesn't help that person not suck. If it doesn't help her or him not suck, it's a waste of time for both of you. Aug 09 05 10:47 am Link Brent Burzycki wrote: I agree. Bring back Jesus. Aug 09 05 11:17 am Link XtremeArtists wrote: I don't think we're ready for that yet... Aug 09 05 11:20 am Link Brian Diaz wrote: Well don't get me started on religion...... Aug 11 05 06:31 pm Link Brent Burzycki wrote: Credit where credit is due: Luis Santiago is a mad genius. Aug 11 05 06:59 pm Link HI Brent! Don't know if you remember me and I honestly don't remember how i found you previous. I joined your yahoo group ages ago. Probably as CIASpook, otherwise DigitalCMH. I either know you from DPReview forums or OMP...wait...infact, I think was OMP. I asked about a girl and it turned out you were managing her. But that she was actually living in No.Cal rather than So.Cal. Anyways...hey  Aug 11 05 07:42 pm Link Brent Burzycki wrote: I agree...that's why I keep my images under 800 pixels tall or wide. Usually. Aug 11 05 07:45 pm Link |
