Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Whitby, England
#2
Posted 09 August 2014 - 01:02 AM
#3
Posted 09 August 2014 - 09:41 AM
Without wishing to provoke or be argumentative in any way i look at these pictures and wonder exactly why it is they are a great set.
Looking through many of the picture sets posted here on the forum i often read "awesome/great/good set"and rarely any inkling as to why this that or the other particular set should be awesome/great/good.
It's exceedingly hard to learn what makes a good picture a good picture when all commentary is biased towards simple positive statements without any form of substance.
When i look at these pictures i see number one as having leading lines leading my sight into a pale blue nothingness. Number 2 is a little more interesting but here i cant' make up my mind if i should be looking at the wall detail on the right hand side or the fuzzy something in the distance. The wall lines are telling me to follow them but the pay off seems diffuse and undefined.
Number 3 just seems wrong with the dark underexposed wall.
What is it i'm missing?
- greenwing likes this
#4
Posted 09 August 2014 - 11:02 AM
Interesting point. I wouldn't say that you are missing anything. You simply have your own way of viewing other people's work, just like everyone else does. And that is the way it should be. Variety keeps things......well, interesting. I can't speak for anyone else here, but I can certainly explain my reasoning. As has been stated many times by many people, opinions vary and what is pleasing in a photograph is subjective. If I find a particular photograph interesting, or like in the case of the set above, I find a group of pictures interesting together (with no particular photo standing out on its own, but the set as a whole being what is interesting), I will compliment the photographer. Especially if the subject is something I might never have seen if they had not shared it by posting it. (Such as with geographic locations or animals that I would not encounter where I live, etc.). I also like shots that break the "rules" and still keep it interesting. If someone posts an image or images that I don't like or that I don't find interesting, I generally won't comment on them at all. I almost never offer any sort of a critique on anyone's work unless they specifically ask for it or if they post their work in the critique section, and even then, any feedback, at least from me, would be with the intention of helping the photographer grow. I have I difficult time critiquing people's work because often times, I simply couldn't have done it any better. I am just a hobbyist photographer, and I like seeing others pursue photography at any level, be it professionally or just the occassional fair-weather P&S shutterbug, and everything in between. It is fascinating to me, and I like to encourage others to keep shooting.Without wishing to provoke or be argumentative in any way i look at these pictures and wonder exactly why it is they are a great set.
Looking through many of the picture sets posted here on the forum i often read "awesome/great/good set"and rarely any inkling as to why this that or the other particular set should be awesome/great/good.
It's exceedingly hard to learn what makes a good picture a good picture when all commentary is biased towards simple positive statements without any form of substance.
When i look at these pictures i see number one as having leading lines leading my sight into a pale blue nothingness. Number 2 is a little more interesting but here i cant' make up my mind if i should be looking at the wall detail on the right hand side or the fuzzy something in the distance. The wall lines are telling me to follow them but the pay off seems diffuse and undefined.
Number 3 just seems wrong with the dark underexposed wall.
What is it i'm missing?
But that is just me.
- TBonz likes this
#5
Posted 09 August 2014 - 11:07 AM
Living in the desert I love photos that include water. I wonder on these as to what we are being drawn into. If #2 showed more of the reflection of the tower I may appreciate it more. I don't know what it is but these photos don't put me into the picture. I also seem to be missing the intent.
I do appreciate Nikonians thoughts. I like the photos as I would never see this landscape where I live. Just accept them as they are presented.
#6
Posted 09 August 2014 - 01:30 PM
Hm, ok .. i see. Then i'm the clumsy oaf that stepped in it. I was under the impression that any discussion of pictures on a photography forum would have a bit more depth than a facebook like click.
I apologise. It wasn't immediately apparent to me despite the fact it's been steering me in the face these last few weeks.
Encouragement i agree can be vital for growth although i feel it needs balancing with realism....the choice is simply down to whether or not we feel comfortable being realistic.
That and a myriad of other choices are what makes us different from each other and quite frankly, thankfully so....it's good that we all can say, "but that's just me ;)"
I appreciate the clarification plus your feedback and thoughts guys.
#7
Posted 09 August 2014 - 01:57 PM
But in that light, I completely agree with the technical assessments of the photographs posted. No individual photograph stands out, but the set works better as a set, and I like where Timlad was going with it.