nickyw_uk said:
It's very nice but, I much prefer butterfly faces to arses
Technically very good. Good use of depth of field and very natural colour in good light. Just that I'd like to see his face!
What kind of butterfly is it?
submit a photo to the urban75 critics
- Thread starter alef
- Start date
It's very nice but, I much prefer butterfly faces to arses
Technically very good. Good use of depth of field and very natural colour in good light. Just that I'd like to see his face!
What kind of butterfly is it?
Louloubelle
Well-Known Member
nickyw_uk said:
I disagree
I like the guy sitting there, it stops it from looking too symetrical.
Great photo
Barking_Mad said:That's ok.I did think about photoshopping him out but I don't like manipulating images too much.
The bloke sitting there sunning himself adds a nice human touch to what is a good monochrome image. Would I be right in thinking the image was shot in Scarborough? Seems vaguely familiar from a holiday I had there about 20 years back...
Cheers,
Dave
Stanley Edwards said:It's very nice but, I much prefer butterfly faces to arses
Technically very good. Good use of depth of field and very natural colour in good light. Just that I'd like to see his face!
What kind of butterfly is it?
Hehehehe! I like to see the butterfly from this angle. I think it's a Red Admiral. It's funny how you think it's techincally good when I just saw it, shot it on auto and hoped for the best
I really appreciate your comments though 
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
portman said:
Yes, is indeed Scarborough!
Barking_Mad said:
Cheers... these were actually in the dark with the full-length exposure (15 seconds).
I shall have to try doing this again and finding some more 'interesting' subject matteer
Sky
OK, so I've been brave enough to post one photo, so I'll try my luck with another one. I took this yesterday, handheld, on a Kodak Z740. Comments please!
http://www.nickyw.co.uk/sunset.jpg
OK, so I've been brave enough to post one photo, so I'll try my luck with another one. I took this yesterday, handheld, on a Kodak Z740. Comments please!
http://www.nickyw.co.uk/sunset.jpg
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
nickyw_uk said:
Really nice sky, not a bad photo in my view, although the silhouette at the bottom could have been more interesting in terms of what was in it. Dunno if it was possible but a silhouette of a tree or something of that ilk would have given it a little extra punch.
dlx1
Well-Known Member
nickyw_uk said:
I sense a Romantic revival is in the air.
Similarly to the comments I made about Riot Sky's London sunset; it is just a beautiful sky. In this case a relatively unmanipulated beautiful sky but, just a beautiful sky nonetheless.
It's a very nice picture. However, it has no unique value. You need that in a photograph these days because we all think we can just buy a digi cam and go out and get a pic of a beautiful sky. It's just a photograph afterall!
Ideas. Imagination and that little bit of human magic that computers can't do is what everyone here should be chasing.
(IMHO).
Cid said:
Very, very nice macro photograph of a dragonfly.
took this at the Tate Modern today.
the colourful display is actually behind me (it's a reflection in a window above the turbine room), as is the girl who looks like she's walking on air.
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j58/the947/tate1.jpg
the colourful display is actually behind me (it's a reflection in a window above the turbine room), as is the girl who looks like she's walking on air.
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j58/the947/tate1.jpg
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I do see what you're getting at Stanley, but I'm still learning about really basic skills, so what I'm hoping for some self-improving feedback on today is this set of rather conventional pictures of a singularly boring parkStanley Edwards said:
Local Colour
Scallies nicked our bench
Tree and Shadows
Bernie Gunther said:
My advice to anyone learning the basics would be to forget the science for the time being (beyond the simple basics) and concentrate on the art. That said, I would give advice on the science of art rather than the science of photography.
I'd like to give a full reply to this post by comparing some of my photographs with yours but, that could read a little arsey and it's going to take some time and thought. If it's not going to be read (and why should anyone necessarily want to read it?) then I won't take the time.
If you're up for it I would like to suggest I compare and critique three of my photographs with yours. Then I would like you to critique mine and yours.
Back in an hour or, so (need to lubricate my mind). Will probably post anyway
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Yep. I'm up for that deal Stanley. I very much appreciate you taking the time.
PS Please feel free to pick anything from that set if it makes matching up with some of yours easier.
PS Please feel free to pick anything from that set if it makes matching up with some of yours easier.
Bernie Gunther said:
I'll stick with the three you posted. A €3.30 bottle of Campo Viejo may have lubricated my mind a little to slippery but, here goes;
(The young girl next to me in this internet cafe is already tut-tutting at my inabillity to type blind
)It's no longer necessary to learn the technicalties of photography but, learning them is a good step into the technicalities and psychologies of art. The simple relationship of time and amount of light reaching the lens is all anybody needs to know. I was invited by a photographer to join him on a day shoot. He wanted to learn how I 'see' photographs but, also had an unhealthy obsession with the technicalities. He was shocked to see me shooting on aperture priority mode and considered it to be almost cheating. Why? As far as I was concerned I knew what film I was using, knew I wanted to use the smallest possible aperture and knew I could trust the cameras metering system 100% in the conditions on that day.
I'll happily give my opinion here in the full knowledge that not so many people get what my photographs are about for me! To try and explain myself possibly as much as give advice, I'll attempt to compare three of my own photographs to the three samples of your photographs posted here. I firmly believe we all see the world differently. So, don't read my comparisons as being judgemental about your photographs - they will just be explaining what I see.
BTW: None of these are romantic in style or, context. I've moved on. And, presentation counts for a lot with photography. Moreso than painting etc.
1. My comparison: http://w ww.freewebtown.com/johncolley/berlin/large/wall2.jpg
All of the three photographs of mine here are about alienation, solitude and and the conflict/harmony between man and nature. Your shot is good in terms of technicalities and composition. However, it fails to draw me in as a viewer. It's not forcing me to ask questions.
It was my intention whilst taking this photograph to force the viewers to ask why I had taken it (this is true of all examples here - and all my photographs). The colours have been exagerated subtely to give the dandelions as much prominence as the graffit. The tones, colours and textures in the wall. Those dandelions are ignored on a daily basis. So, is the graffiti. However, the dandelions will be there every year without fail. The graffiti will fade or, be eradicated. Fresh grafitti may be more noticeable but, it will die and vanish forever. People will ignore the dandelions year in year out.
Your photograph captures textures, tones and colours but, fails to convey any unique feeling you had at the time. Nice to see the contrast between the old laid stone and new laid stone but, not a lot else for me. Sorry!
Every photograph needs a 'star'. A leader to be compared. I'm not going much further with this cos it would take a book but, I'm sure you could advance.
2. My comparison. ht tp://www.freewebtown.com/johncolley/berlin/large/tabletennis.jpg
Your shot is just a shot of a park with a couple of wrecked benches to my mind. TBH this shot is ultra week. Nothing grabs me at all.
My shot of the table tennis table conveys solitude and alienation on a couple of levels. Firstly, it's disused - it has no purpose in a modern Berlin. It has no friends. But, what a fucking good idea? Public tables in public spaces. They are apparently not an affordable option in the west. However, childrens play areas are everywhere in the west.
I used a small depth of field to help isolate the table in the way I felt isolated at the time.
Enough.
--/
Your shot is just a view of a park. There is no central view point and nothing to beg further questions. The benches are just there because they are. You need context. You need to isolate a viewing point. You need to know why you took the picture and need to learn how to express that in words as well as pictures.
3. My comparison. http://w ww.freewebtown.com/johncolley/berlin/large/trees.jpg
Your shot is just another tree in another park. So is mine.
But, amongst all those trees at the edge of this forest one single tree begs you in further.
--
Finito.
I'd like to say more but, I'm not going to. I'd really like to get more feedback from you.
The science of art is a very difficult subject to some. To others it comes very naturally. Your photographs of roses are amongst the very, very best photographs of roses I've ever seen. Perhaps that is because you just love them and don't need to think about how you can communicate that 'love'. They're very beautiful and very sensitive photographs. I just try and do the same for table tennis tables. I love them more than roses.
It's a big and varied world. Thank fuck it's filled with a varied range of people and minds and ways of seeing.
A post here is so much harder work than a conversation over a couple of vino tintos!
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Thanks Stanley
Give me about an hour. I want to repay you as best I can for taking the trouble, and I need a bit of time to come to grips with your photographs.
Give me about an hour. I want to repay you as best I can for taking the trouble, and I need a bit of time to come to grips with your photographs.
Bernie Gunther said:Thanks Stanley
Give me about an hour. I want to repay you as best I can for taking the trouble, and I need a bit of time to come to grips with your photographs.
Don't try to hard. It's simply an exchange of views!
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
OK. Here's my initial response. I'd like a bit more time to think about it properly though.
1) My immediate response was fairly strong to this. Initially I thought the flowers at the bottom of the wall were some sort of tragic wreath, and wondered what the story was. Then I thought probably they were growing in cracks in the tarmac. I realised my initial reaction had been conditioned by an experience I had a few months ago, wandering round a dodgy part of Bradford with my pocket camera at night. I saw some sad and bedraggled flowers, went to take a picture and then suddenly realised that must have been where the policewoman had been shot a week or two previously.
Then I started looking at the elements in the picture. Three fairly harmonious surfaces. Got me thinking a bit about some early pattern matching algorithms where they discovered the counter-intuitive result that the more constraints you have, the easier it is to resolve whether a vertex is pointing in or out. This vertex is unambigious. Different textures on each surface, but sort of harmonious again. Interesting gap between the two walls I think, one imagines a letter to the dear departed hidden inside the crack.
I have the advantage that you've already told me what you were trying to do, at least in basic terms. It didn't quite work that way with me. I wasn't aware at all of the photographer, probably because I had a strong specific reaction described above, but you were at least partially successful simply having got that reaction. I'd missed the ephemeral/eternal thing, but it's quite interesting now that you mention it.
Mine fails, at least in your case to convey some of the emotional content the picture has for me. This isn't a big surprise now that I analyse it a bit, because that particular place has all kinds of personal resonances for me.
I do think though, that there are some questions that anyone might want to ask on viewing that picture. For example, as in your picture, what's the story on those different kinds of stonework? I used to walk past that corner every morning on the way to school, and knowing that Tranmere Hall used to be someplace around there, I wondered if that sandstone had been the foundations. I love the texture of our local sandstone and it has a real resonance of place for me, but (duhh) not necessarily for anyone else. A very useful thing to be reminded of (again)
Next one in a bit.
1) My immediate response was fairly strong to this. Initially I thought the flowers at the bottom of the wall were some sort of tragic wreath, and wondered what the story was. Then I thought probably they were growing in cracks in the tarmac. I realised my initial reaction had been conditioned by an experience I had a few months ago, wandering round a dodgy part of Bradford with my pocket camera at night. I saw some sad and bedraggled flowers, went to take a picture and then suddenly realised that must have been where the policewoman had been shot a week or two previously.
Then I started looking at the elements in the picture. Three fairly harmonious surfaces. Got me thinking a bit about some early pattern matching algorithms where they discovered the counter-intuitive result that the more constraints you have, the easier it is to resolve whether a vertex is pointing in or out. This vertex is unambigious. Different textures on each surface, but sort of harmonious again. Interesting gap between the two walls I think, one imagines a letter to the dear departed hidden inside the crack.
I have the advantage that you've already told me what you were trying to do, at least in basic terms. It didn't quite work that way with me. I wasn't aware at all of the photographer, probably because I had a strong specific reaction described above, but you were at least partially successful simply having got that reaction. I'd missed the ephemeral/eternal thing, but it's quite interesting now that you mention it.
Mine fails, at least in your case to convey some of the emotional content the picture has for me. This isn't a big surprise now that I analyse it a bit, because that particular place has all kinds of personal resonances for me.
I do think though, that there are some questions that anyone might want to ask on viewing that picture. For example, as in your picture, what's the story on those different kinds of stonework? I used to walk past that corner every morning on the way to school, and knowing that Tranmere Hall used to be someplace around there, I wondered if that sandstone had been the foundations. I love the texture of our local sandstone and it has a real resonance of place for me, but (duhh) not necessarily for anyone else. A very useful thing to be reminded of (again)
Next one in a bit.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
2) Initial reaction. Hmm, I think I've seen this one before. OK. Table-tennis table in middle of field. Why? It looks like it's solidly concreted in, so it isn't one he brought with him for surrealist purposes. Nice sunset or something in the background. I wonder if he thought the whole scene was wreathed in magnificent light? Only to find that part looks dull. Been there, done that.
It's almost in compartments though, interlocking rounded greens are suggested by what we can see of the spaces in the park. In the background, we have a nice pastoral sunset or something, but over here, everything is dull municipal green, with this weird table in the middle of it.
Harmonious again, the worn circle within the vaguely circular outline suggested by the treeline in the background. That treeline is flat too, which is nice because the table's flatness is a contrast to the locally bumpy ground and it provides another instance of (more or less) flat to go with it, as does the flat bit under the table.
Table seems popular though from the wear and tear around it. Not necessarily for ping-pong. Municipal parks. Stuff about communities etc.
I think you succeeded in your intention of conveying 'here I am, just me and this fucking weird table' and eliciting some of the thoughts intended. To a greater extent than the other two, I could feel the presence of the photographer in this one, and wondered about his thoughts.
My intention with that whole set was mainly an exercise. I had limited time and shitty looking weather but wanted to get some photography in. At the time what I was concentrating on was: getting better at tough exposures, experimenting with ways of making highly conventional scenes look subtly unreal (ie making people wonder if it's a photo, a painting, cg etc) and trying to get a bit better at distinguishing boring from interesting. Photographing an outstandingly dull park on a shitty day was a good challenge on all three fronts, especially the latter one.
Again, that scene has a bit of local emotional resonance for me. I grew up with that distant view of Liverpool Anglican cathedral across the Mersey. So to some extent I'm making the same mistake as with 1). I had some vague idea about three local religions, church, football and oak-tree worship, but nothing much came of it in that picture. I did sort of like the bench with no planks, but in retrospect that's because in some other pictures it was much more ambiguous, there it's quite clearly a bench with no seat, which is less fun. I was fairly happy with the composition, because I was trying to be totally predictable in that way, but subtly off in another. That didn't work, or at least it didn't on you. It feels like something like that might turn out to be worth doing though, so I'm probably going to keep at it for a bit.
It's almost in compartments though, interlocking rounded greens are suggested by what we can see of the spaces in the park. In the background, we have a nice pastoral sunset or something, but over here, everything is dull municipal green, with this weird table in the middle of it.
Harmonious again, the worn circle within the vaguely circular outline suggested by the treeline in the background. That treeline is flat too, which is nice because the table's flatness is a contrast to the locally bumpy ground and it provides another instance of (more or less) flat to go with it, as does the flat bit under the table.
Table seems popular though from the wear and tear around it. Not necessarily for ping-pong. Municipal parks. Stuff about communities etc.
I think you succeeded in your intention of conveying 'here I am, just me and this fucking weird table' and eliciting some of the thoughts intended. To a greater extent than the other two, I could feel the presence of the photographer in this one, and wondered about his thoughts.
My intention with that whole set was mainly an exercise. I had limited time and shitty looking weather but wanted to get some photography in. At the time what I was concentrating on was: getting better at tough exposures, experimenting with ways of making highly conventional scenes look subtly unreal (ie making people wonder if it's a photo, a painting, cg etc) and trying to get a bit better at distinguishing boring from interesting. Photographing an outstandingly dull park on a shitty day was a good challenge on all three fronts, especially the latter one.
Again, that scene has a bit of local emotional resonance for me. I grew up with that distant view of Liverpool Anglican cathedral across the Mersey. So to some extent I'm making the same mistake as with 1). I had some vague idea about three local religions, church, football and oak-tree worship, but nothing much came of it in that picture. I did sort of like the bench with no planks, but in retrospect that's because in some other pictures it was much more ambiguous, there it's quite clearly a bench with no seat, which is less fun. I was fairly happy with the composition, because I was trying to be totally predictable in that way, but subtly off in another. That didn't work, or at least it didn't on you. It feels like something like that might turn out to be worth doing though, so I'm probably going to keep at it for a bit.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
3) Macro of pubic hair?
Spooky trees. OK. Is that snow or leaves? Leaves probably.
Some interesting patterns in the trees. Triples making an enclosure around the fallen tree. The tree has been cut. Is it a plantation? Trees about the same size. Maybe a birchwood. I see birches. Somewhere up North perhaps?
OK. Patterns. Lots of wiggly upright things. Fuzzy surface. Something pointing inwards gives depth. Lots of trees meeting the ground implies flatness of the surface more strongly than the light reflected off the ground does.
Chaotic. What's that thing that looks like a cable plugged into the dominant standing tree? Strong pattern of wiggly upright things, chaos on other levels. There is a pattern, or many patterns, but they aren't particularly harmonious or inviting. This provokes a sort of wary response. It makes me want to move quietly about and observe the scene from different perspectives, as though I were worring about lions in among the trees and wanted to see them through the strong tree pattern.
Mine. I was just struck by the play of light on the tree and the contrast with the silhouetted leaves in the foreground. Attractive tree. Contrasts and harmonies in the overlapping branches and the shadows I found pleasing.
I do understand what you were saying about digicam sunsets being increasingly common, but I am not wholly with you on the need for every photo to be shining with unique insights and visions (please clarify if I've missed your drift), although I think it's nice if they turn out that way.
It seems to me that novelty for it's own sake is a really bad goal to pursue. I could see how that might be a sort of job requirement for some professional artists or people in creative professions though. Uniqueness as an outcome of some internal process is probably OK, but that's not striving for uniqueness, it's actually (assuming it occurs) becoming unique as a result of sustained effort and experience. This seems to me to be the right way to go about things.
Biggest lesson here for me is that just because I can feel an emotional resonance, doesn't automatically mean that anyone else is likely to find my pictures as interesting as I do, unless I make more of an effort to distinguish between personal and universal significance (duhh again). That first one of yours actually communicated very well, because it clicked with the experience I described above. I doubt that you planned it that way, but this encourages me think that the trick is to train yourself to pick up resonances like that while your conscious mind is doing craft stuff, but then to think discriminatingly about whether the resonances you reacted to will actually mean anything to anyone else seeing the picture.
Spooky trees. OK. Is that snow or leaves? Leaves probably.
Some interesting patterns in the trees. Triples making an enclosure around the fallen tree. The tree has been cut. Is it a plantation? Trees about the same size. Maybe a birchwood. I see birches. Somewhere up North perhaps?
OK. Patterns. Lots of wiggly upright things. Fuzzy surface. Something pointing inwards gives depth. Lots of trees meeting the ground implies flatness of the surface more strongly than the light reflected off the ground does.
Chaotic. What's that thing that looks like a cable plugged into the dominant standing tree? Strong pattern of wiggly upright things, chaos on other levels. There is a pattern, or many patterns, but they aren't particularly harmonious or inviting. This provokes a sort of wary response. It makes me want to move quietly about and observe the scene from different perspectives, as though I were worring about lions in among the trees and wanted to see them through the strong tree pattern.
Mine. I was just struck by the play of light on the tree and the contrast with the silhouetted leaves in the foreground. Attractive tree. Contrasts and harmonies in the overlapping branches and the shadows I found pleasing.
I do understand what you were saying about digicam sunsets being increasingly common, but I am not wholly with you on the need for every photo to be shining with unique insights and visions (please clarify if I've missed your drift), although I think it's nice if they turn out that way.
It seems to me that novelty for it's own sake is a really bad goal to pursue. I could see how that might be a sort of job requirement for some professional artists or people in creative professions though. Uniqueness as an outcome of some internal process is probably OK, but that's not striving for uniqueness, it's actually (assuming it occurs) becoming unique as a result of sustained effort and experience. This seems to me to be the right way to go about things.
Biggest lesson here for me is that just because I can feel an emotional resonance, doesn't automatically mean that anyone else is likely to find my pictures as interesting as I do, unless I make more of an effort to distinguish between personal and universal significance (duhh again). That first one of yours actually communicated very well, because it clicked with the experience I described above. I doubt that you planned it that way, but this encourages me think that the trick is to train yourself to pick up resonances like that while your conscious mind is doing craft stuff, but then to think discriminatingly about whether the resonances you reacted to will actually mean anything to anyone else seeing the picture.
^^^
Excellent
I was so pissed and stoned last night I barely remember reading this thread nevermind posting. I can be an arrogant tosser at times.
Thanks for taking the time to view and critique. I'll try and be a bit more constructive in critiques in the future
I think we should all swap photos for critique here. Be as nasty and knock each others pics down as much as possible. Then try and argue for your own case. Very difficult to do!
Excellent
I was so pissed and stoned last night I barely remember reading this thread nevermind posting. I can be an arrogant tosser at times.
Thanks for taking the time to view and critique. I'll try and be a bit more constructive in critiques in the future
I think we should all swap photos for critique here. Be as nasty and knock each others pics down as much as possible. Then try and argue for your own case. Very difficult to do!
Louloubelle
Well-Known Member
I recently took some photos of a rather photogenic young man and I love strong lights and shadows and I prefer to take photos near to dawn and dusk for this reason.
Just as an example, I would probably now reject this photo as I'm now noticing areas of overexposure to the left of his face that I woudn't previously have notivced, or to be honest, that I would have thought added an element of life / texture to the photo.
Perhaps this isn't the best example, I'll try to find another, but I'd be interested to hear other people's views on this.
can you be so preoccupied with getting things technically right that you lose some creative 'fire'? Or can you suddenly realise that what you thought was texturally interesting is just a technical fault.
I hope this makes sense.
Sorry to just barge in to the thread with this, I'll take a look at the recent submissions too
Just as an example, I would probably now reject this photo as I'm now noticing areas of overexposure to the left of his face that I woudn't previously have notivced, or to be honest, that I would have thought added an element of life / texture to the photo.
Perhaps this isn't the best example, I'll try to find another, but I'd be interested to hear other people's views on this.
can you be so preoccupied with getting things technically right that you lose some creative 'fire'? Or can you suddenly realise that what you thought was texturally interesting is just a technical fault.
I hope this makes sense.
Sorry to just barge in to the thread with this, I'll take a look at the recent submissions too
Louloubelle
Well-Known Member
Stanley
I'm not sure if it's just me but I get timeouts on all your links
I get a timeout on nicky_w_uk's link too so perhaps it's a fault my end
I love the dragonfly, that really works for me
I'm not sure if it's just me but I get timeouts on all your links
I get a timeout on nicky_w_uk's link too so perhaps it's a fault my end
I love the dragonfly, that really works for me
Louloubelle said:
Good move IMO. But, I am a little pissed!
Louloubelle
Well-Known Member
Stanley Edwards said:Good move IMO. But, I am a little pissed!
I'm not but I think I might nip out and buy a can of guiness (purely for the iron content / medicinal purposes)
Hope all is well with your art project / movement stanley
Louloubelle
Well-Known Member
thedyslexic1 said:
very simple and elegant
I've got a old one on a similar subject that kind of also raises my point about over-exposed photos
there's glare and over-exosure in this but I like it
http://www.pbase.com/louloubelle/image/30557645
Not sure if I like it as much now as I did when I first took it and was enthralled by just about any photo I took though
edited to add that now I look at it again I think it's a bit average, the composition leaves a lot to be desired, it's a bit all over hte place, but I still love the light.
Similar threads
