@compuwar, I know what you're saying so you don't need to tell me to remind me how I should read an image. I'm simply telling you that this has artistic merit.
Being snippy and negatively trying to negatively reduce someone's elements of style to "tick boxes" isn't going to help the OP produce better images.
.....I gave a detailed run-down of how those "tick box" elements affect this particular image in negative ways. The fact that you continue to cling to the fact that you like it as shot is fine- but you've yet to rebut any of those "tick box" points that you seem to disagree with, so your responses to my posts have less merit than they could.
You don't have to get all snippy about it. I was simply asking you to see how I drew the conclusions I drew. I'm not telling you how *you* should read an image, I'm telling you how *I* drew the conclusions I drew and why.
I understand that you see artistic merit in it, I'm simply pointing out why it's not as good a shot as it should be, and therefore doesn't have much merit in my eyes. Art is subjective, we're all going to connect differently with different images, but more people will connect more deeply with an image that has better overall elements than this one. I'm not saying art has to be popular- I'm saying the image doesn't work anywhere near as well as it could work if it were shot and lit differently.
You can *see* where the depth the OP was looking at is in the image, but the composition and lighting don't draw your eyes in the photograph like I imagine the OP was drawn to shoot the scene in real life in the first place. If the shot did, it'd have a lot more merit. That's the difference between poor, good and great photography- being able to portray the scene you *saw* as your vision, not the one you *shot* with your gear.
Being snippy and negatively trying to negatively reduce someone's elements of style to "tick boxes" isn't going to help the OP produce better images.
Some people see artistic merit in fecal matter flung against a canvass, some see it in the Mona Lisa's smile- I'm not trying tell either camp what they should or shouldn't find artistic, I'm explaining why *I* don't find merit in it, and what improvements would give it more merit.
I gave a detailed run-down of how those "tick box" elements affect this particular image in negative ways. The fact that you continue to cling to the fact that you like it as shot is fine- but you've yet to rebut any of those "tick box" points that you seem to disagree with, so your responses to my posts have less merit than they could.
You don't have to get all snippy about it. I was simply asking you to see how I drew the conclusions I drew. I'm not telling you how *you* should read an image, I'm telling you how *I* drew the conclusions I drew and why.
I understand that you see artistic merit in it, I'm simply pointing out why it's not as good a shot as it should be, and therefore doesn't have much merit in my eyes. Art is subjective, we're all going to connect differently with different images, but more people will connect more deeply with an image that has better overall elements than this one. I'm not saying art has to be popular- I'm saying the image doesn't work anywhere near as well as it could work if it were shot and lit differently.
You can *see* where the depth the OP was looking at is in the image, but the composition and lighting don't draw your eyes in the photograph like I imagine the OP was drawn to shoot the scene in real life in the first place. If the shot did, it'd have a lot more merit. That's the difference between poor, good and great photography- being able to portray the scene you *saw* as your vision, not the one you *shot* with your gear.
Being snippy and negatively trying to negatively reduce someone's elements of style to "tick boxes" isn't going to help the OP produce better images.
Some people see artistic merit in fecal matter flung against a canvass, some see it in the Mona Lisa's smile- I'm not trying tell either camp what they should or shouldn't find artistic, I'm explaining why *I* don't find merit in it, and what improvements would give it more merit.
I gave a detailed run-down of how those "tick box" elements affect this particular image in negative ways. The fact that you continue to cling to the fact that you like it as shot is fine- but you've yet to rebut any of those "tick box" points that you seem to disagree with, so your responses to my posts have less merit than they could.
I wasn't being snippy.
Here are my retakes of the 'dumpster' area..
A reminder here: if you're interested in studying PHOTOGRAPHY, then it might behoove you to have some photographs in your portfolio which are relatively unaltered, at best only gently altered.... HDR and other techniques show more about how proficient you are at Photoshop and other software, how skillful you are at editing/retouching/manipulating images than they do in showing how good a basic photograph you can take. Forget the fancy retouching and tricks: just go out there and concentrate on taking some really good photographs which require little editing to demonstrate the quality of your work.....
I applaud your effort to go out and have another go at the same site. However, I have to ask if you know about the "rule of thirds" and are trying consciously to reject it, or if it's not something you've learned yet. It's clear that you are struggling with the basics of composition, so I would recommend spending a day trying to shoot images with a "subject" or visual pay-off located at one of the intersections of the thirds. I think it might be a very useful exercise for you and could produce a portfolio shot.
That's my advice, for what it's worth.
I also shot a large amount of 'detail' shots of this area, which I am considering adding to the portfolio.. I will probably add them later though, after I have some time to sort through them .
You weren't?
Follow this advice at your peril. This rule of thirds thing is one of the most annoying pieces of advice that can be given. If you have ever spent time analysing some of the worlds most famous imagery, you'll note that much fails to fall into this mythical 'rule of thirds'.
If you have ever spent time analysing some of the worlds most famous imagery, you'll note that much fails to fall into this mythical 'rule of thirds'.
'You must not shoot very much'.
How wrong you are.
But anyways. I've always found the thirds thing to be fairly interesting to observe. If you divide a frame up into the nine areas, chances are, that some aspect of the image will follow some particular pattern or route for the reader to decode. I can remember first being taught this, and several students stated the same - the teacher agreed, but simply stated - thats how it is. Now don't get me wrong - I've spent much time analysing and writing about how images are read and decoded, and I know how important it is to create a dynamic piece, but the most important thing is (imo) not the rule of thirds - its geometry. The two are not the same.
Despite all this - i think to be too critical on certain aspects, such as whether the golden rule or thirds is followed, is to miss the point and the power of photography. Sure use your knowledge where ever you can, but don't lose sight of what your images are trying to say. My point being - a crappy, uninspiring picture may follow the rule of thirds - but will still be a crappy uninspiring picture. The reverse is true also.
My point being - a crappy, uninspiring picture may follow the rule of thirds - but will still be a crappy uninspiring picture. The reverse is true also.
Short on time, but one thing I would add is that your comparison to fishing isn't really appropriate. Fishing, is totally objective (in the sense you used), whereas Photography like all artistic mediums is subjective - with no rights or wrongs....
Even though they're not my pictures, it's been great reading this thread to get a feel for how people critically examine photos. Thanks for the awesome read everyone.
While it's subjective on an individual basis, you can certainly objectively measure how many people like an image, how well a particular image sells, and what particular compositional elements are in the most well-regarded images of a particular genre. Once again, it doesn't have to be popular to be art, but to be popular art it needs to follow at least some of the rules or have a darned good reason for breaking them.
If we apply objective measurements to portraits, for instance- you'll find that most portraits that "work" for most people have the subject staring into the frame, not out of it. Can you break that "rule?" Sure! Is an image breaking that rule _likely_ to be a well-regarded image? Not according to more than 600 years of precedent. You may even be able to get a short novelty "bump" by doing portraits that don't work that way- but in the longer term, your portraits aren't likely to be well regarded if you put the negative space behind the subject instead of in their line of vision.
You could make the argument that a shot of the back of a person's head was representative enough to be a portrait. You could even create a body of work in that style. Don't think for a minute though that you'd be considered a good example of a portrait photographer in the annals of time.
The point remains, you can either follow the established methods for a field and do relatively well, or you can ignore them and likely do not so well. As a photographer, you have a choice. It's much easier to be Constable or Turner than it is to be Picasso. Even Picasso _started_ with eight years of formal training, he didn't ignore that step and jump right to breaking all the rules.