W/R winterrose A Serious Critique
Dec 20, 2016 19:19:39 #
Today we have a look at “Nova the cat” by chefneil.
Have a look:- http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-429955-1.html
This is not a good photograph unfortunately.
Sure, a lot of the subject is out of focus but as they say down here in Aussie, “that ain’t the harf of it mate!”
Although given with the best of intentions I would think, I see much 'advice' provided there as inadequate and misleading.
When requesting advice on a photo it pays to ask those who actually know something about the subject.
Those who habitually reside at the FYC, the regulars who are so free and confident with their daily opinions, appear to have the impression that anything and everything can be fixed in post.
That correct exposure is irrelevant as there are sliders for that.
Composition? Just straighten and crop.
Focus? Not of much importance.
Lighting? Huh?
And they seem to have the ability to look at an image but not actually see it.
The only fault that they perceived was that the subject is in poor focus, but they treated this very fundamental fault as only a minor niggle.
Where are the comments about the other shortcomings so obviously evident?
To them, for all intents and purposes, this is a perfectly fine shot with only a slight, almost imperceptible focus aberration.
So let us examine it intelligently.
Here we have what I assume is a black or brown cat, it’s not really possible to tell.
I haven’t, however, seen many blackish brownish cats with large purple and white splotches lately.
Now you might say that that is how dark cats look in photographs……
Yes, they do.
In BAD photographs.
That a smaller aperture would have provided a more favorable depth of field is a given but this shot is overexposed, and there was too much light.
Cats have shiny fur so there are spectral highlights to deal with and especially in the case of a very dark coloured cat there is very little tonal gradation so it is vitally important that the light level is carefully evaluated and controlled, and exposure suitably selected, or all that will be achieved is a rather murky, unnatural rendition such as this.
Then there is the issue with the eyes.
Few, I expect, would disagree that the eyes of a cat are fascinating.
They evoke the soul, or is it the soullessness, of cats.
Here the cat has no eyes.
Rather than a set of mesmerizing greenish-golden almost fluorescent retinas we see only a room and a miniature of a man on his haunches desperate to grab a quick snapshot and although that sort of novelty might be “fun” to some, to me it is merely evidence of poor planning and a lack of experience.
The problem occurred because the OP fired his substantial flash pointing straight up which might well suit for some situations but not in this case.
Shooting straight up lit the ceiling impressively, reflecting down and illuminating the cat but this also did a great job of brightly illuminating the entire room.
Had the OP used more subdued, localized lighting it would have kept the area surrounding his viewpoint in relative darkness so that the reflection would not have been as evident if at all.
Remember also that bounced flash will ‘pick up’ the colour of whatever surface or multiple surfaces it encounters and this must be taken into account when making the white balance determination.
Whether cutting off the ear takes away from the shot is a matter of taste but to me, doing so gives the impression of having been done in haste (which in this case it was) rather than it having been purposefully considered as being for the best composition.
Lastly there’s the issue of the rather unsightly dust and fibers in the cat’s coat.
In the days of film this would have like been due to an unacceptably contaminated negative but here it is obviously on the subject and is a severe distraction.
A vigorous rub and fluff up will usually be sufficient to dislodge this.
Have a look:- http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-429955-1.html
This is not a good photograph unfortunately.
Sure, a lot of the subject is out of focus but as they say down here in Aussie, “that ain’t the harf of it mate!”
Although given with the best of intentions I would think, I see much 'advice' provided there as inadequate and misleading.
When requesting advice on a photo it pays to ask those who actually know something about the subject.
Those who habitually reside at the FYC, the regulars who are so free and confident with their daily opinions, appear to have the impression that anything and everything can be fixed in post.
That correct exposure is irrelevant as there are sliders for that.
Composition? Just straighten and crop.
Focus? Not of much importance.
Lighting? Huh?
And they seem to have the ability to look at an image but not actually see it.
The only fault that they perceived was that the subject is in poor focus, but they treated this very fundamental fault as only a minor niggle.
Where are the comments about the other shortcomings so obviously evident?
To them, for all intents and purposes, this is a perfectly fine shot with only a slight, almost imperceptible focus aberration.
So let us examine it intelligently.
Here we have what I assume is a black or brown cat, it’s not really possible to tell.
I haven’t, however, seen many blackish brownish cats with large purple and white splotches lately.
Now you might say that that is how dark cats look in photographs……
Yes, they do.
In BAD photographs.
That a smaller aperture would have provided a more favorable depth of field is a given but this shot is overexposed, and there was too much light.
Cats have shiny fur so there are spectral highlights to deal with and especially in the case of a very dark coloured cat there is very little tonal gradation so it is vitally important that the light level is carefully evaluated and controlled, and exposure suitably selected, or all that will be achieved is a rather murky, unnatural rendition such as this.
Then there is the issue with the eyes.
Few, I expect, would disagree that the eyes of a cat are fascinating.
They evoke the soul, or is it the soullessness, of cats.
Here the cat has no eyes.
Rather than a set of mesmerizing greenish-golden almost fluorescent retinas we see only a room and a miniature of a man on his haunches desperate to grab a quick snapshot and although that sort of novelty might be “fun” to some, to me it is merely evidence of poor planning and a lack of experience.
The problem occurred because the OP fired his substantial flash pointing straight up which might well suit for some situations but not in this case.
Shooting straight up lit the ceiling impressively, reflecting down and illuminating the cat but this also did a great job of brightly illuminating the entire room.
Had the OP used more subdued, localized lighting it would have kept the area surrounding his viewpoint in relative darkness so that the reflection would not have been as evident if at all.
Remember also that bounced flash will ‘pick up’ the colour of whatever surface or multiple surfaces it encounters and this must be taken into account when making the white balance determination.
Whether cutting off the ear takes away from the shot is a matter of taste but to me, doing so gives the impression of having been done in haste (which in this case it was) rather than it having been purposefully considered as being for the best composition.
Lastly there’s the issue of the rather unsightly dust and fibers in the cat’s coat.
In the days of film this would have like been due to an unacceptably contaminated negative but here it is obviously on the subject and is a severe distraction.
A vigorous rub and fluff up will usually be sufficient to dislodge this.
Dec 20, 2016 19:39:59 #
Dec 20, 2016 19:46:10 #
Dec 20, 2016 19:54:14 #
winterrose wrote:
Today we have a look at “Nova the cat” by chefneil... (show quote)
Winter, good to see you've not lost your spunk!
Ahhh, the good ol days when we had those innocent Canikan wars and so many got so ruffled over them!! LoL
To be quite honest, I stay completely away from some of these sections.
A good, honest critique takes a lot of time and energy and are meant to be the most serious of learning tools to improve ones skill.
In sports it's called "over-reaching". That means you do the best you're capable of, then you go a little further into the uncomfortable zone then you eventually catch up to it and it now becomes what's comfortable.
For the same reason, I don't go into the gallery. To me, a gallery is where I go to see the best of the best. To see inspos.
When I see the images that you are talking about to me is an absolute waste of time to critique. What could possibly be learned from it?
Let's see here, I post my worst shot. I know it's my worst shot. Them I'm asking that someone tell me what's wrong with it? I already KNOW what's wrong with it...., everything. So if I already know what's wrong with it, the ONLY person that learned anything was the critiquer whom got to practice giving critique. But even there, the critiquer was not tasked or Lerner anything.
Kinda like sending the best Nat-Geo photographers to judge a 3rd grade photography contest. The 8th grade photography teacher could judge it just fine. No reason to bring in the big guns!
Maybe if the work is rudimentary enough, it allows even a basic beginner to give informative input and practice learning critique .
How many times have you seen those that consider themselves good photographers walking out of a MOMA saying that the exhibition was pure crap? Maybe you've said that yourself? Well, the exhibition wasn't crap, the viewer was just NOT advanced enough to be able to understand the work!!! If that was you, how in the world are you qualified to critique that work if the concepts are way over your head?!?!
If you want to learn from critique, show your BEST work, not your WORST!!!
But then the critiquer has to have an equivalent or better skill set.
SS
Dec 20, 2016 19:58:56 #
looks as though all those issues and more were covered yesterday in the original post;
is there something you would like to add?
is there something you would like to add?
Dec 20, 2016 20:01:50 #
oldtigger wrote:
looks as though all those issues and more were covered yesterday in the original post;
is there something you would like to add?
is there something you would like to add?
Oh really?
Show me......
Dec 20, 2016 20:12:47 #
no need to attack me, i just thought if you had an additional comment i would post it for you.
Dec 20, 2016 20:22:57 #
oldtigger wrote:
no need to attack me, i just thought if you had an additional comment i would post it for you.
Attack???
I don't think I need any help but thank you anyway?
Dec 20, 2016 20:29:12 #
SharpShooter wrote:
...If you want to learn from critique, show your BEST work, not your WORST!!!
But then the critiquer has to have an equivalent or better skill set....SS
But then the critiquer has to have an equivalent or better skill set....SS
I tend to agree with you SS and assume anyone posting already knows about balance, DOF, composition, focus, etc.. etc..
So i try to consider those as non-issues; the OP must be looking for some other sort of input.
The one skill set we have, even if we've never taken a decent shot, is the knowledge of what we like or dislike.
Sometimes that is the only information the OP is seeking.
Dec 20, 2016 20:50:49 #
oldtigger wrote:
I tend to agree with you SS and assume anyone posting already knows about balance, DOF, composition, focus, etc.. etc..
So i try to consider those as non-issues; the OP must be looking for some other sort of input.
The one skill set we have, even if we've never taken a decent shot, is the knowledge of what we like or dislike.
Sometimes that is the only information the OP is seeking.
So i try to consider those as non-issues; the OP must be looking for some other sort of input.
The one skill set we have, even if we've never taken a decent shot, is the knowledge of what we like or dislike.
Sometimes that is the only information the OP is seeking.
I always find it interesting that people who "know" all about these things habitually fail to actually apply them......
Dec 20, 2016 20:52:03 #
steve_stoneblossom
Loc: Rhode Island, USA
winterrose wrote:
Today we have a look at “Nova the cat” by chefneil... (show quote)
I'm not sure I understand your intention. What was the purpose of your critique of others' critiques?
As for your own critique regarding the actual photo- in which you made several good, useful points- of what use is it to the OP when you make it in a separate, unrelated thread which the OP may or may not find?
Dec 20, 2016 21:00:57 #
steve_stoneblossom wrote:
I'm not sure I understand your intention. What was the purpose of your critique of others' critiques?
As for your own critique regarding the actual photo- in which you made several good, useful points- of what use is it to the OP when you make it in a separate, unrelated thread which the OP may or may not find?
As for your own critique regarding the actual photo- in which you made several good, useful points- of what use is it to the OP when you make it in a separate, unrelated thread which the OP may or may not find?
There is no doubt that a great many people read, digest, and then are influenced by the comments made by others but if that comment is unbalanced, incomplete or misleading then the commentators serve only to misguide not only the OP but potentially many others.
I expect that the "grapevine" will reach the OP........
Dec 20, 2016 21:25:55 #
steve_stoneblossom
Loc: Rhode Island, USA
winterrose wrote:
There is no doubt that a great many people read, digest, and then are influenced by the comments made by others but if that comment is unbalanced, incomplete or misleading then the commentators serve only to misguide not only the OP but potentially many others.
You're hoping to put a stop to others giving poor advice?
winterrose wrote:
I expect that the "grapevine" will reach the OP........
If you're trying to help, why make it harder than it need to be?
Dec 20, 2016 22:53:06 #
steve_stoneblossom wrote:
You're hoping to put a stop to others giving poor advice?
No, I am a realist, but when a group of people in a section are seen to be available to provide opinion when opinion is sought, and the gist, if not the detail, of that opinion has the potential to affect others, then I believe that those commentators have a duty of care to ensure that their input has validity and truly reflects the relative quality of the work.
To give the impression that every image is of high merit both technically and aesthetically and to ignore or overlook obvious shortcomings or errors in execution, can only lead to confusion.
Dec 21, 2016 12:00:20 #
winterrose wrote:
... To give the impression that every image is of high merit both technically and aesthetically and to ignore or overlook obvious shortcomings or errors in execution, can only lead to confusion.
You might have heard the story of the boy at cotillion who was told to find something nice to say to his partner so he told her, "Gee, for a fat girl, you don't sweat much."
I think that the point is that the compulsion to soften the blow by finding something positive about an image really has no place in a serious critique. This was encouraged in the Critique section and it has carried over to FYC.
If there is going to be any value in critique it has to come from someone that knows more about the topic than the person asking for the critique. It might be nice for the critic to be polite and not deliberately hurt the photographer's feelings. But think back to your school days. Did you learn more from a soft teacher who handed out gold stars and trophies for attendance and effort? How about the one that made you work hard for a good grade?
What about the tacit agreement that, "If you say something nice about my image, I will say something nice about yours?" That is bound to be a lose-lose proposition. Both parties will stagnate - never grow.
So what is the proper response when someone posts an image that has no redeeming value? Should we ignore it? Try to find something nice to say about it?
Or should a critic give a thoughtful and detailed assessment of the image's faults with suggestions about how to avoid the problems next time?
How often when someone provided a negative assessment have others ganged up on the critic? Some of them have gone so far as to insist that all of the critic's images are garbage, they are old and stupid and will die soon. Of course, by that point, the thread has been hidden in the Attic.
It would seem that it's a shame that W/R has been led to feel that this kind of critique is not welcome in Critique or FYC. Shame on a lot of people!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.