Care to explain how it is "shallow, sloppy, clumsy and weak"?... but somehow the reflection came out as shallow, sloppy, clumsy and weak.
Care to explain how it is "shallow, sloppy, clumsy and weak"?
But that's exactly the intended effect: sharp vs blurr, strong vs subtle, etc its all about contrasts ... in any case I think this is a more exciting effect than an exact reflected replica as in a mirror - the reflection is more like a shadow, suggesting but not exactly the subject itself, and definitely not as crystal clear too.well, in comparison with the strong distinctive lines of the object, the blurry lines of the reflection made the reflection look sloppy ...
But that's exactly the intended effect: sharp vs blurr, strong vs subtle, etc its all about contrasts ... in any case I think this is a more exciting effect than an exact reflected replica as in a mirror - the reflection is more like a shadow, suggesting but not exactly the subject itself, and definitely not as crystal clear too.
I still dont see how the adjectives of "clumsy", "sloppy", "shallow" and "weak" apply. In fact I dont understand what you mean by these terms at all.
I think in English, clumsy suggest that the image is somewhat unbalanced, as in a clumsy person tripping over himself.
I would agree that there is some hint of unbalance, at least at first glance, but this hint is to create a tension in the otherwise still picture.
Sloppy suggests carelessness, as in a the much contented phrase here, a snap shot. That I would say you have no evidence to say, but on contrary the picture suggested total deliberateness.
And if by "shallow" you mean simple, then I agree completely. But you seems to suggest shallow means "flat" or 2D as the reflection is in contrast to the 3D object. I see that as only accentuating the contrast between object and reflection.
And finally if by "weak" you mean subtle, then again I accept that completely. The reflection is meant to be "weak".
But when you speak your views it is no longer private, and then people who "hear" you - which on the Internet is all the whole world - must understand what you mean ... or else people may get wrong ideas ...my views are mine to keep.
But when you speak your views it is no longer private, and then people who "hear" you - which on the Internet is all the whole world - must understand what you mean ... or else people may get wrong ideas ...
That's not the question here.... but minus the intention to influence opinions over to my point of view.
That's not the question here.
We are simply trying to understand what you see. Maybe you see something we don't.
And that is the most valuable thing about critique, and also distinguishes a good from a bad critic.
I think as long as a critique is honest and accurate then the words - any words - are good.i think critiques should avoid those adjectives ...
And as I've said earlier, a critique reveals more the critic than the thing critiqued.