Ross Island, Portland: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7458/10483196544_dbd2018b0a

Musket Loc: ArtBallin'

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7458/10483196544_dbd2018b0a_b.jpg

ISO 3200, f5.6, Leitz 35mmR

photoninja1 Loc: Tampa Florida

What is the purpose of this photo? What is the story? What do you like or dislike? What were you trying to do?

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

While this might have been an interesting photo on another day or location. The fog/mist does little to help this image. Maybe if you were closer to the bridge. There is just too much of the same grey, not enough contrast. I assume the bridge was your point of interest, but you have to search too hard to find it.

Musket Loc: ArtBallin'

photoninja1 wrote:

What is the purpose of this photo? What is the story? What do you like or dislike? What were you trying to do?

Making art is the answer to most of those questions.

The bridge isnt the focus.

Urban Landscapes should force you to not look at just the infrastructure of a city, but how it intersects with nature and creates a form of balance between raw and man-made.

Fog makes everything gray at 5AM, iso 3200 creates intentional noise, everything about this photo was intended.

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

Musket wrote:

Making art is the answer to most of those questions.

The bridge isnt the focus.

Urban Landscapes should force you to not look at just the infrastructure of a city, but how it intersects with nature and creates a form of balance between raw and man-made.

Fog makes everything gray at 5AM, iso 3200 creates intentional noise, everything about this photo was intended.

If you like it and it is as you intended then that is all that counts. I guess that begs the question though why did you post it here? Are you looking for a critique? What kind of response do you want?

jonsommer Loc: Usually, somewhere on the U.S. west coast.

Musket wrote:

Making art is the answer to most of those questions.

The bridge isnt the focus.

Urban Landscapes should force you to not look at just the infrastructure of a city, but how it intersects with nature and creates a form of balance between raw and man-made.

Fog makes everything gray at 5AM, iso 3200 creates intentional noise, everything about this photo was intended.

Having driven by this location for many years to and from my former home in Washougal at the time of day this was taken, you did an amazing job of capturing the 'ambiance' of the area. I get it. It takes me there on a cold, gray and drizzly November morning. And to think that a city of millions sprawls all around on both sides of this river scene makes it the more remarkable. Yes, it's gray, yes, it's subtle, and, yes, if you are from the Pacific Northwest, you somehow understand what this photograph is all about.

Musket Loc: ArtBallin'

Country's Mama wrote:

If you like it and it is as you intended then that is all that counts. I guess that begs the question though why did you post it here? Are you looking for a critique? What kind of response do you want?

I cant answer those questions or address the statement because critiques come from you or others based on their personal tastes and opinions of what is art. I wouldn't want to lead you to those either as it would taint the process of being critical of someone else work being presented.

/pretentious artist statement

Graham Smith Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

Country's Mama wrote:

If you like it and it is as you intended then that is all that counts. I guess that begs the question though why did you post it here? Are you looking for a critique? What kind of response do you want?

Tricky one isn't it Country's Mama?, I really like the image. I completely "get" what it is about, it's atmosphere, it's feeling. It's cold, damp and dismal. I cannot criticise it. All a viewer can say is whether they like it or not, and that probably says more about the viewer that the photograph.
This begs the question, which is the better image to post? One with little merit so that it is easy to criticise, or an image that has much merit and is difficult to criticise? These are just my musings, the random thoughts of an eccentric Englishman and should be taken as that :D 8-)

Graham

Nightski

Musket wrote:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7458/10483196544_dbd2018b0a_b.jpg

ISO 3200, f5.6, Leitz 35mmR

Musket, I am having trouble finding a clear center of interest. The viewer should immediately be able to identify one. There isn't really anything leading me into the photo, such as a reflection on the water, or maybe a boat leaving a wake. It's just dark slightly wavy water. Nothing special about it. The bridge in the fog could be interesting if it was more visible in the photograph. To me it's a big chunk of dark water, a big chunk of dark trees, and a bridge that I can barely see. I think I could have picked up more of the feeling you were trying to convey if you had focused more on the bridge in the fog. I'm sorry, but I don't get this one.

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

Graham Smith wrote:

This begs the question, which is the better image to post? One with little merit so that it is easy to criticise, or an image that has much merit and is difficult to criticise? These are just my musings, the random thoughts of an eccentric Englishman and should be taken as that :D 8-)

Graham

But even that is subjective. I have seen images that I thought had little merit that others thought genius. And ones that I loved that others thought better deleted.
I did not care for this image, because it doesn't evoke any feeling for me, but as you said that says more about me than the photographer. Maybe, if like jonsommer, I drove by this location everyday, I would have a relationship with it and thus feel stronger about it.

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

Musket wrote:

I cant answer those questions or address the statement because critiques come from you or others based on their personal tastes and opinions of what is art. I wouldn't want to lead you to those either as it would taint the process of being critical of someone else work being presented.

/pretentious artist statement

But that answers my question. You are looking for how this image affects different people. How they feel about it and why. :-)

Nightski

Country's Mama wrote:

But even that is subjective. I have seen images that I thought had little merit that others thought genius. And ones that I loved that others thought better deleted.
I did not care for this image, because it doesn't evoke any feeling for me, but as you said that says more about me than the photographer. Maybe, if like jonsommer, I drove by this location everyday, I would have a relationship with it and thus feel stronger about it.

This may be true, CM, but the whole idea of critique is to be objective. It is a hard thing for a photographer to be objective because he/she is emotionally attached to the photo. He was there. He felt the cold, he smelled the air, he heard the sounds or lack thereof. His job is to convey that in his image. If people who were not there, don't get it, then he has not done that.

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

Nightski wrote:

This may be true, CM, but the whole idea of critique is to be objective. It is a hard thing for a photographer to be objective because he/she is emotionally attached to the photo. He was there. He felt the cold, he smelled the air, he heard the sounds or lack thereof. His job is to convey that in his image. If people who were not there, don't get it, then he has not done that.

But just because this emotion was not there for me does that negate the worth of the photo? Did he fail in his purpose of the photo just because I didn't "Get it"? There are several who have posted on this thread that they like the image. Where does that put them? Is one opinion enough to have failed him at his endeavor?

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Musket wrote:

Making art is the answer to most of those questions.

The bridge isnt the focus.

Urban Landscapes should force you to not look at just the infrastructure of a city, but how it intersects with nature and creates a form of balance between raw and man-made.

Fog makes everything gray at 5AM, iso 3200 creates intentional noise, everything about this photo was intended.

Hey Musket, I get what you are trying to achieve, but have to ask why you posted your photo in the Photo Critique & Analysis Forum if you will not answer the questions posed to you in a way that helps those trying to give critique. Steve

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Musket wrote:

I cant answer those questions or address the statement because critiques come from you or others based on their personal tastes and opinions of what is art. I wouldn't want to lead you to those either as it would taint the process of being critical of someone else work being presented.

/pretentious artist statement

Allowing others to know the background of the image and given a chance to hear your story, likes and dislikes, gives the viewer a chance to understand what your intentions are and therefore build a better critique.