Y ur thread indicade "Summer" .... i dint feel it on ur Pic ????
this pict, if you crop until the leg of the signboard stand "Roaster" - thus including
two shadows on the right which compliments the spots on the dog and balances the pict,
could make an interesting shot.
I feel the same way that the scorching heat of summer did not come through in your photo. It feels cool.Originally Posted by Hugoleong
The background is cluttered, and there doesn't seem to be a subject, save for the dog, whose positioning is weird. The shadow on the right edge of the photo is also distracting.
So is it "my problem" too? Post in streets/candids if you don't want comments... this is the critque corner, no?
Last edited by Wisp; 28th September 2006 at 10:10 AM.
No harsh feelings, it's just my humble opinion. Cheers.
There is this little story which I told sometime ago.
Perhaps I might relate it again.
Mr Chow Chee Yong, a lecturer in Temasek (specialising in photography) had an exhibition in Raffles Hotel. His images were photograms of leaves and plants.
There was a picture of some leaves. It was titled "Nasi Lemak". For the life of me, I could not see where the "Nasi Lemak" came in. I asked Chee Yong to kindly explain the title. He explained that there are many ways to title an image. In that particular instance, when he was making photograms of banana leaves, he was thinking of those days when nasi lemak was wrapped in banana leaves.
The title reflected his emotive state when he made that image, and he titled it that way. As far as he was concerned, whether the image had "Nasi Lemak" or not is not important.
This is not the issue here. I am not talking about right or wrong. I am not interested to be right in this issue.
I am relating how a respected professional/teacher photographer titled his prints.
You decide for yourself how you want to title your images.
Why is everything translated into what people want? I show, you don't like it, that's okay.
Just don't go around telling me how should I go take my photographs.
this is critique corner, i quote
"Critique Corner Post your image in here to get serious and honest feedback from fellow photographers. Please read FAQ before posting."
if you dont want other to comment on your photo, than kindly post in other sub forum and pls state you are not looking for critique.
i find your reply very rude and uncalled for.
hi student, i agree with you on your view, but question here i believe is, is his reply to others commenting his photo just? would you reply to those who had expressed their views on you photo that you had posted under critique corner "your problem"?
Last edited by denniskee; 28th September 2006 at 02:06 PM.
photography makes one sees things from all angles.
Anyway, I can see the summer there. the shadows, the blown highlights. The empty street. Actually, come to think of it, there is really nothing to critique in art.
If I were Wisp, I wouldn't have posted in Critique Corner. Since my objective is not to get critiques. But that's my problem
Firstly, the words I put forward is meant to present you a new point of view. You may take it rude as you wish, but I present a point I wish anybody looking at this thread to consider.
ALot of times when you critique another person's photograph, at what context are you looking at?
'Oh you should put another person in there' 'Oh the DOF is not wide enough..you should open up your aperture' 'Oh, too blur..you should use a tripod'.
When a critique is presented , it's ABOUT the picture..not how it's shot. The quality of the photograph..what you agree and disagree about it. If it's too blur for your liking, just say that person is out of focus and it's not to your liking. Not telling the photographer what to do.
That's why I never agreed on people putting their photographs going 'What title do you guys suggest' or' Please help me select the best photograph'. It shows a lack of resolve in the photographer.
If you want to recommend, please put in the line :' I believe you're trying to do so and so...so this if it is so how it's done'.
You, as a critic, are doing a service to the photographer when you present a comment. A photographer relies on critique as a sampling point as to how people react to his/her photograph, and it is really up to him/her how she wants to use it. Not you, the critic.
Secondly, a critique is suppose to help the photographer. This idea means the critique MUST be clear. Not lump everything into a general statement and go 'If you shoot in landscape mode this and this would happen'. Be explicit why you don't like/like it, each certain aspect.
That's why it's hard to provide good critique, cause it's hard to give a full view on each detail. This I point out to the above critique 'WHy this title? Cause I don't feel it's summer...'
How , is this going to help me make a decision?
Thirdly, before you look at a picture, try to go in in all angles of prespective. Keep an open mind, Not how you 'supposed' it would be. Standards are a rough guide line, but like photographers, be prepared to approach boundaries. Like the rally photograph I shot, I'm shot it with the mind of not showing it's a rally , but each invididual in that particular moment, and people accuse me of not reporting the event accurately. Had it occured to them that it's not the rally I was trying to portray?
What I'm simply pointing out, is not that I would mind critique, but the quality of the critique! I could accept harsh critique, but it must be clear, concise and of course, it's up to me to decide whether the viewer got my point.
And that is my case.
Last edited by Wisp; 28th September 2006 at 02:40 PM.
The term "dog days of summer" comes to mind when I see this pic with its accompanying title.
So hot that the poor dog is trying to shelter in what little shade there is, but the poor back legs are still baking on the pavement. So hot that everyone has closed shop and gone to the beach and nobody bothers about going shopping. The dark sharp shadows indicate how hot and sunny it is. The prominent word "roaster" in the background is an appropriately sardonic comment on how hot it is. 3 pm is usually the saddest most dreary time of day, and this is the approximate time the shadows indicate. The feeling is "bleah!", somewhat like when you are in the army and getting ready to set off on a long route march.
Or maybe not. Maybe that's not at all what Wisp was trying to portray. But that is what the picture (and its caption) says to me.
But, as student has pointed out - and I agree with him - what the picture cannot show is how Wisp felt when he took this photo. That is the magic of BEING the photographer (as opposed to just looking at a photo taken by someone else). Looking at a photo you've taken yourself (even if it was many years ago) brings you right back to that moment when you snapped that shot. You can remember why you were there, how it felt like, what you did before and after, and even how the air smelled like at that point in time.
So, instead of writing long critiques which may not be appreciated, go out and capture those memories!
Last edited by StreetShooter; 28th September 2006 at 02:59 PM.
aiyoyo...what happened here?!
Wisp: i came back because i was having 2nd thoughts abt my first comment.
Upon a 2nd look...it looked like a portrait of a dog, an environmental portrait mayb.
but somehow, i still feel that the pict be crop a bit at the top n left side...
ppl misunderstood what student was trying to say... teruk giler!
perhaps can enlighten us on why you pick this title?
Last edited by zhuanjia; 28th September 2006 at 07:33 PM. Reason: not appropriate. I withdraw my comments.