A six pack for the critics:
.
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
User ID wrote:
A six pack for the critics:
.
Love the variety. All are great. Really like each one for itself. Cannot be more critical than that. I'm sure that there will be others to offer actual advice, but I just plan to enjoy.
But there is nothing to photograph. Boy, that is a bunk statement, you. User ID. prove that wrong.
I especially like #2 and the last one.
dpullum wrote:
But there is nothing to photograph. Boy, that is a bunk statement, you. User ID. prove that wrong.
I especially like #2 and the last one.
Thanks. Im especially glad you enjoy the last one. I wondered whether anyone would get into that one at all, due to the unclear identity of the content.
User ID wrote:
A six pack for the critics:
.
#1 - I likes / striking colors and patterns / that's enough to make for enjoyable viewing
#2 - Cool! / first thing that popped into my head is an image of a bunch of hungry fish in Myrtle Beach, almost vertical in the water, mouths wide open / wondering why the bottles are so beat up and dirty - archeological dig?
#3 - Love it! (as I said before on the thread that spawned this one) / You said: "Its got great tension, like bottled up kinetics"; in addition to a great arrangement of colors, shapes, and textures, I see a very delicate balancing act; maybe that's the same thing as "bottled up kinetics"?
#4 - Thought-provoking but not quite memorable / first look said this is a run-down, empty building with attached decaying vegetation / 2nd look says, no, the vines are just seasonally "dead" and the windows offer no indication that the interior of the building is "dead" / mysterious
#5 - Does not speak to me / haphazard arrangement of textures, colors and shapes with no eye-grabbing graphic pattern
#6 - First impression: move along, nothing of interest here - a jumble of unidentifyable stuff that doesn't speak to me and I don't really want it to speak to me / but wait, is that broken glass? is that a glove? an instrument of some sort? / better hold off judgment on this one; there is more here than meets the eye
Just the ruminations of an unbusy brain...
The content of a photo is whatever the viewer sees?
When this section was first opened there were strict rules. One was that we only post one photo. Another was any responses to the photo had to be in the form of a critique. How is one supposed to critique six photos of random subjects?
As an aside, another rule was the person doing the critique was not allowed to mess around with another person's images. I see that rule has gone by the wayside too. I guess no one is moderating this section anymore. I'm glad to see so much activity. For a long time this section was dead. But the rules were put in place for a reason, to provide a place where we could work together and share our knowledge to make better photos. Looking at this post, I thought I'd accidentally clicked on the Gallery.
dpullum wrote:
But there is nothing to photograph. Boy, that is a bunk statement, you. User ID. prove that wrong.
I especially like #2 and the last one.
Glad to hear of anyone liking either of the last two. I love finding ways to "package" a cluttered scene. Many viewers have an automatic negative reaction to all clutter.
10MPlayer wrote:
When this section was first opened there were strict rules. One was that we only post one photo. Another was any responses to the photo had to be in the form of a critique. How is one supposed to critique six photos of random subjects?
As an aside, another rule was the person doing the critique was not allowed to mess around with another person's images. I see that rule has gone by the wayside too. I guess no one is moderating this section anymore. I'm glad to see so much activity. For a long time this section was dead. But the rules were put in place for a reason, to provide a place where we could work together and share our knowledge to make better photos. Looking at this post, I thought I'd accidentally clicked on the Gallery.
When this section was first opened there were stri... (
show quote)
Thank you for your observations.
srt101fan wrote:
#1 - I likes / striking colors and patterns / that's enough to make for enjoyable viewing
#2 - Cool! / first thing that popped into my head is an image of a bunch of hungry fish in Myrtle Beach, almost vertical in the water, mouths wide open / wondering why the bottles are so beat up and dirty - archeological dig?
#3 - Love it! (as I said before on the thread that spawned this one) / You said: "Its got great tension, like bottled up kinetics"; in addition to a great arrangement of colors, shapes, and textures, I see a very delicate balancing act; maybe that's the same thing as "bottled up kinetics"?
#4 - Thought-provoking but not quite memorable / first look said this is a run-down, empty building with attached decaying vegetation / 2nd look says, no, the vines are just seasonally "dead" and the windows offer no indication that the interior of the building is "dead" / mysterious
#5 - Does not speak to me / haphazard arrangement of textures, colors and shapes with no eye-grabbing graphic pattern
#6 - First impression: move along, nothing of interest here - a jumble of unidentifyable stuff that doesn't speak to me and I don't really want it to speak to me / but wait, is that broken glass? is that a glove? an instrument of some sort? / better hold off judgment on this one; there is more here than meets the eye
Just the ruminations of an unbusy brain...
The content of a photo is whatever the viewer sees?#1 - I likes / striking colors and patterns / that... (
show quote)
The patina on the bottles is due to having been submerged in a flooded basement.
I think youre quite right about content being viewer dependent.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.