ediesaul

Critiques appreciated, and thanked in advance.

(Download)

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Two faults from my perspective. One is that there is no subject, as such, that stands out as what this is a picture of. But part of that is also because of the second problem, which is low contrast. It looks too muddy. BW in particular looks better with some extremes in contrast, showing total black and absolute white. It this case the sky, for example, could be pure white or very close to it.

I like the square format, and found there are so many interesting ways to crop that image that I couldn't really decide. One that I really liked was to crop it so that the bright square of the lower deck area is exactly in the center of the image. That trims off some at the top, and some on the right side, but seemed to focus attention in a more interesting way.

Cropped as it is, the tree branches on the left and the vertical drain pipe on the right are very nice, and essential, parts that provide framing and balance. Any crop that changes them has to be done to maintain that same balance in some other way.

But... as with all of your images (and as is usually the case with others too), I would be fascinated to hear what you think that picture is! What is the subject, what is the purpose, why did you keep it, what exactly do you see when you look at it!

It's your picture, and what you see in it is vastly more interesting than what I see...

Treepusher Loc: Kingston, Massachusetts

Hi, Edie. This is a nice shot of s beach/lake house with a view of the water. With so many contrasty areas to deal with, might you consider using a touch of HDR to bring up the shadows? Just a thought.

That aside, the biggest issue I can see is there's no real focal point with this. Nothing really draws the eye and the viewer doesn't know where to look, the eye just wanders around the image. If you're trying to direct us through the porch/lower deck to the water beyond, you might crop it a bit tighter to push the eye in that direction.

Did you have any set purpose in mind for the shot? Perhaps a bit of explanation might help us to critique this more accurately.

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

Hello Eddie, to me this appears to be a personal snapshot for personal memories of where one has stayed. I also think the prospective should be more off the front not perpendicular to the side of the structure. The contrast is also a little off and can stand some brightening in the dark areas.

Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

ediesaul, can't tell you how delighted I am to see you and your visions here. While I agree with most others that a few slider adjustments would greatly benefit this image, my eye is drawn directly to the water through the porch. This for me makes the view of the house the subject and defines it as a lake house. To enhance this definition of the location I would crop from the bottom up, to almost the steps. I would like to hear some answers to Apaflo's questions.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Hi, Edie - so glad to see you here.

I sometimes include more elements in my landscapes than is optimal for the enjoyment of others. I'm trying to learn to be more focused, as it were :)

And though I often prefer to not have any information about the photographer's intent, in this case I would be interested to hear about your composition choices, what attracted you most, what you were hoping others would see and feel.

Looking forward to further discussion!

ediesaul

Thank you, Apalflo, Treepusher, Bill, Frank, and Linda From Maine. I very much appreciate your looking, commenting, and asking questions. I will answer them as best as I can.

Subject: I wanted to depict the potential. In this case, the potential of a good time, a restful time, a fun time, by the shore. To that end, this photo shows the water, the beach chairs, the outdoor furniture, the rotisserie. Nobody is there yet. A single bird is flying toward the open water - harbinger of good times.

Perspective: I like the frame within the total frame of the photo - a picture within a picture. Because the inner frame does not show all the potential, one still needs to peruse the entire photo to get "the complete picture." This kind of framing would not having been accomplished with a different perspective, a side-view, for example. Perhaps a side-view might make for a good photo, but it would be a different photo for sure.

Focus: This photo is from the eyes of someone who has just arrived. I remember seeing a Wyeth painting from the perspective of a bird just above and behind a bird in formation as the flock was flying over agricultural lands. Yes, the birds and landscape were very well depicted, but the perspective was the subject, I think.

Black-and-white/no high contrast: While I like the architectural dimensions in the photo - stairs, beams, slats, awning, window - I wanted detail to show texture. I did darken the chairs to make them stand out more as silhouettes. I also darkened the foreground. I extra-sharpened and added contrast in the water to make the ripples stand out. In addition to texture, there were buoys hanging on the far left that I didn't want the viewer to miss. I felt that more contrast would have deleted texture and would have overexposed white areas. The bird, for example, would not have been recognizable as a bird, I think. The light on the leaves would have been too white. I think, with all the objects in this photo - the house, the foliage, all the stuff on the decks, the water - that this photo cannot be a high-contrast photo, just a suggestion of high contrast but with delineations in hue.

To Bill's point about lightening some areas, please direct where you think that would enhance the photo. I could do that.

Cropping: I tried to crop as Apalflo suggested, and could not find a way that I liked. I would not mind Apalflo, if amenable, doing a crop so we can see how the image could be improved.

Re: cropping to see the water. I don't think that just the view would make an interesting photo; what do others think?

A good subject for discussion might be: is a photograph successful when viewers have to look all over it to "get it" vs. a simple subject; can ambiance itself be a subject or only part of the subject?

Cropping closer to the house - I tried that since the grass is not the subject of the photo. The proportions seemed off. Maybe it's my inexperienced eye?

HDR: The photo was taken when we arrived. If I had thought of HDR, and, frankly, I'm not that sophisticated as a photographer to recognize in advance when it should be done, I might have taken multiple shots at different settings. I do in-camera HDR, at times, when I see a scene with differing light. I wonder if the data associated with this photo would tell us if I did in-camera HDR. I don't remember. This vacation was the first time I shot in RAW and I am still learning how to use the sliders. My monitor is only 18", and I look forward to one day having a larger one to really see the differences in shades.

Treepusher suggested HDR to bring up the shadows. Is this suggestion similar to Bill's? Does Treepusher mean an overall effect, or in specific areas?

I hope these answers cover all the issues that you have raised. If you have more questions, I would certainly be delighted to tackle them. These are very important questions that challenge a beginner like me. If I can't defend my choices, then I know I need to look at things differently, to acclimate my eye differently, and to learn more. Please grade me on my answers! Thanks again, all you wonderful people!!!

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Wonderfully articulate, interesting replies, Edie. Fascinating to understand your vision. Many openings for further discussion.

I'll address a couple (chopped out of your replies and quoted above):

Potential for good time and perspective/focus of someone just arriving : Perhaps a staged shot, with the back of a person walking towards the house, with towel over shoulder and beach ball in hand? :) Something more active.

I didn't notice the rotisserie, partly because on upper deck, and a few other details you mention (I still can't see the bird, but I'm on an 11" chromebook). I think maybe they are too small individually.

MinnieV and I have talked about the "scene itself" being the subject (she's away on vacation :) ), I think in reference to a couple of shots I have posted in critique forum.

I absolutely believe there doesn't need to be one dominating subject to be successful. Probably this has more to do with mood; I'll look for some articles to link, and photo examples from pro's, and also hope others will expound on that interesting question.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

MORE



MinnieV and R.G. addressed my query about “landscape with no strong subject” in this critique forum topic:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-292407-1.html

Perhaps a “simpler” photo of land is more conducive to “no single, strong subject?” Don’t know, would love to hear that discussed in general, and your image specifically.

One pro’s viewpoint (halfway down the first page)

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/10/06/outstanding-1/

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

Everyone sees things a little differently hence different colored eyes I guess. You might think I'm a little crazy on this point, and you might be 99% right. LOL

I would just bring it up enough so the black blob wouldn't be so obtrusive.

ediesaul

Thanks, Linda From Maine, for your response.

Having read your suggestion about someone walking into the house, I realize my analogy to the Wyeth painting is incorrect. If someone had been walking into the house, the analogy would stand. I guess a better description of the perspective would be a film noir where there is an unseen narrator telling the story. One follows a scene through his eyes although we never see the narrator.

Someone walking into the house, perhaps with a suitcase in hand, would make for a more accessible story, I agree.

I can see "mood" being the subject of many a minniv photo, especially those in her swamp oeuvre.

ediesaul

Thanks, Bill!!!!!

ediesaul

I remember the photo. I don't understand how someone can say that the photo had no subject; how many artworks have been painted of scenes like the photo?

Thanks for forwarding the site to me. The photographer is amazing and I signed up to get his newsletters.

Treepusher Loc: Kingston, Massachusetts

Thanks for giving us your thoughts on this, Edie. I understand more now what you were going for. Might I ask why the choice of B/W? I associate fun with color, not with monochrome. Going to the beach involves blue sky and water, brightly colored beach towels, the green grass of summer, etc. The monochrome gives it a much more cold and forbidding appearance, almost as if we're looking at a police photo of a crime scene at this house, or a film noir drama about to unfold (not being critical about or disputing your choice, just wondering at it, since you mentioned the anticipation of fun at the beach).

ediesaul

Thanks for asking, Treepusher! I love black-and-white and I feel that, if there's no particular reason to use color, such as a photo of a bird with beautiful plumage, then black-and-white, as a general rule, will make for a photo I like. Probably a bias from seeing my father develop photos in "the olden days."

You are right that one would associate fun and beach with color. I took this photo on a bright, gray day. The light was coming from the bay so the house was going to be in silhouette. I knew that the strong architectural features, especially the stairs and "the frame" would be conducive to black-and-white. There were a few things that were colorful, but not many. No colorful towels hanging from a clothes line. No colorful beach chairs or beach balls. (I WISH we had had blue skies; the humidity lifted after a rain on the second-to-last day.) When I converted the photo to black-and-white, I liked it.

Maybe I'm an oddball.