# c&c welcome



## amolitor




----------



## Derrel

Kind of an odd composition. The two towers are crowding the edges of the shot, and the field and fence take up a TON of the space, as does the rather simple sky. There's really not much in the picture that holds the eye. It feels flat, and boring. It's certainly "different". I keep going back to the edges of the towers, and the way they pull my eye out of the frame. Overall this is kind of a big, black hole.


----------



## shaylou

What he said.   ^
I think you might want to read a bit on composition. Start with the rule of thirds. No worried you will never stop learning, I know I don't.


----------



## Juga

shaylou said:


> What he said. ^
> I think you might want to read a bit on composition. Start with the rule of thirds. No worried you will never stop learning, I know I don't.



Funny you say that...he wrote a book on composition.


----------



## timor

Amolitor is just playing with us. This picture is not of "wow" category. It is a compositional experiment, however I don't know if not we are the subjects of this experiment.


----------



## amolitor

Thanks, folks. This is about balance, and also I thought the towers looked interesting. It's not wow, but I like it tolerably well.

Looking at it now, I guess it would come across very weird to some, since the thing in the middle definitely isn't anything interesting. All the interesting is around the edges, and even that stuff isn't all THAT.

When I shot this, I was entirely about balancing the two towers and the vertical fence element in the foreground. Everything else just fell where it fell. If i could have been ten feet taller, or moved some of the buildings around, I would have, but my train was coming and that's a secure facility, so I didn't have time to push buildings around. I'm moderately pleased with it, still, but it's certainly an example of the compromises that occur, how there isn't always a picture to be had anyways, and how we get tunnel vision getting specific things in the frame the way we want without necessarily paying as much attention as we ought to the rest of the frame.

I am on the "fence' about whether this is a keeper, whatever that even means. I really doubt I'll ever print it.


----------



## cgipson1

shaylou said:


> What he said.   ^
> I think you might want to read a bit on composition. Start with the rule of thirds. No worried you will never stop learning, I know I don't.



lol.. Amolitor wrote a book on composition!   Look in his sig!


----------



## cgipson1

I see no balance! Pretty much agree with everything Derrel said!


----------



## Designer

For me, the balance really isn't there.  The two towers are the same, but the relative sizes in the photograph make them not actually generate balance.  So not left/right nor top/bottom either for me.  

Trying something:


----------



## amolitor

I'm certainly not going to argue with anyone else's take on it! One of my fundamental beliefs about composition is if the lay person can't feel it, it's not there, at least not for that lay person, and no amount of "explaining" is going to produce it. My remarks were entirely about how *I* see it, not how you should see it.


----------



## sleist

amolitor said:


> I'm certainly not going to argue with anyone else's take on it! One of my fundamental beliefs about composition is if the lay person can't feel it, it's not there, at least not for that lay person, and no amount of "explaining" is going to produce it. My remarks were entirely about how *I* see it, not how you should see it.



I'm uncertain how to take this comment.  It sounds a lot like you are dismissing the comments because they came from "lay people" who aren't capable of understanding what you were going for, despite them knowing from a "gut reaction level" that the photo doesn't work.  Is that what you are saying?


----------



## cgipson1

amolitor said:


> I'm certainly not going to argue with anyone else's take on it! One of my fundamental beliefs about composition is if the lay person can't feel it, it's not there, at least not for that lay person, and no amount of "explaining" is going to produce it. My remarks were entirely about how *I* see it, not how you should see it.



Funny.. I would consider you a "lay" person... since to my knowledge, you have never been a professional photographer? Whereas, Derrel and I have been / are... not sure about the others!


----------



## timor

cgipson1 said:


> professional photographer?


 O, is there a licence for that ?


----------



## amolitor

sleist said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm certainly not going to argue with anyone else's take on it! One of my fundamental beliefs about composition is if the lay person can't feel it, it's not there, at least not for that lay person, and no amount of "explaining" is going to produce it. My remarks were entirely about how *I* see it, not how you should see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm uncertain how to take this comment.  It sounds a lot like you are dismissing the comments because they came from "lay people" who aren't capable of understanding what you were going for, despite them knowing from a "gut reaction level" that the photo doesn't work.  Is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...


Certainly not, quite the opposite. The lay person's opinion is the only one that matters. If it takes some sort of Art Expert to "get it" or it requires some long explanation from the artist to make sense of it, the work's no good. It's relative, to an extent. Ultimately, if I like it, I'm ok with that. One can, and I have, argued that work isn't successful unless, as a general rule, lots of laymen can "get it" to some reasonable degree without much struggle. That doesn't prevent me from taking pictures for myself, though. There's a dichotomy here, and I'm ok with that too.

But honestly: "if the lay person can't feel it, it's not there" <-- I have to say, I am puzzled as to how this could possibly have been so completely misconstrued. It seems crystal clear to me.


----------



## amolitor

Charlie, I know you hate me, so why on earth would I pay attention to anything you say? There's nothing that comes out of your mouth aimed at me that's honest commentary, it's all venomous bile. It's a free country, and your bile doesn't actually hurt me, but neither I nor anyone non-partisan is going to pay the slightest attention to you. On subjects where you are not ruled by your emotions, sure, you have things to contribute. When I'm involved, though, you simply don't, and everyone who is interested enough to pay attention to this disgusting little personal situation knows it.


----------



## cgipson1

timor said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> professional photographer?
> 
> 
> 
> O, is there a licence for that ?
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, no! Or it is unlikely we would have so many... lol!


----------



## terri

timor said:


> Amolitor is just playing with us. This picture is not of "wow" category. It is a compositional experiment, however I don't know if not we are the subjects of this experiment.



^^ This.     Thanks, timor.    

People, before this thread spirals out of control, please keep the comments helpful _and objective_ to the image at hand.   The OP is saying it's not the best, he's experimenting with a composition he thought looked interesting at the time he shot it - and he's welcoming discussion, AND edits.    It's all good.     

There is a particular poster who shouldn't even be commenting since he cannot remain objective, which sidetracks good discussion.   :thumbdown:


----------



## pixmedic

strangely enough....and I dont know if this was an intended effect on us or not...
but my eyes are drawn to a triangle formed by the two towers and the fence post. 
every time I look at the picture. 
as soon as the fence or a tower is cropped out, I just don't see anything in the photo. 
this photo only works for me as it was first posted.


----------



## amolitor

The triangle is precisely what I was going for, in fact. As Derrel points out, the towers definitely crowd the edge of the frame, and I think moving slightly further right to compress that might have helped. I tried it over there but either didn't like it as much or was constrained by the location in some way, I forget.

Another point to perhaps take away: The center of the frame is actually very interesting, there's a strong subject there. It just happens to be mostly hidden behind the nearer building. This makes it worthless to you all, the viewers who were not there, of course. It IS to an extent what was drawing my attention, and helps to explain why I made this picture. I see it as two towers and a fencepost framing two very very large hangars in the distance -- you do not, because you can't really see the hangers. The picture is a lot better for me than it is for anyone else, whatever that even means.

I can explain my experience of the picture, but I can't make you experience the picture the way I do.


----------



## hopdaddy

Man, Did I ever miss the Boat on this one ...LOL.   What I see is an Environmental shot . I see a Great Blue Heron (some what lower left) ,Living in a restricted to the public ,Enclosure . Kind of ,"Man might take the land over ,But I'm still going to live here " Bird Mentally . Oh well .


----------



## amolitor

Hah! That is actually a small piece of trash on the fence  Good eye!


----------



## Derrel

amolitor said:
			
		

> SNIP> *The picture is a lot better for me than it is for anyone else*, whatever that even means.
> 
> I can explain my experience of the picture, but I can't make you experience the picture the way I do.



Not to sound flippant or glib, but that is the ESSENCE of a memory snap, or a snapshot, or a for-the-record shot, or a recording. I dislike the loaded word "snapshot", and so have provided alternate terms like "memory snap", and "for-the-record shot", as alternatives to describe the type of photographs that millions of people take, make, snap, or record, using whatever camera they have with them.

I'm not trying to classify this as "nothing more than a snapshot"; no, that's not my goal here, but it is worth considering that there *is* a type of photograph in which the photographer, the shooter, has a degree of personal involvement, or personal investment, in the scene, or the place, or the trip, or the moment--and many times, that personal involvement/investment, is really the most important reason for the photo having been made or taken. Notice the use of the word "made" and the word "taken".

If I am right, this photograph was "made", as in created with at least a modicum of thought behind it, but the fact that the creator states the picture is, "A lot better for me than it is for anyone else," sort of hints at the reason for the creation of this image. It has an off-putting vibe, a disconcerting feel...it has weird balance...it is built around a discordant vibe...deliberate or not, methodically constructed or instantaneously snapped, this photograph gives off a discordant, off-kilter vibe. It is what it is.

Now, as amolitor mentioned a week ago...imagine if this photo were *part of a series *of similarly-made photos...

OMG, he could pitch it as "Art," with a capital A, and people would buy it!


----------



## sleist

amolitor said:


> sleist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm certainly not going to argue with anyone else's take on it! One of my fundamental beliefs about composition is if the lay person can't feel it, it's not there, at least not for that lay person, and no amount of "explaining" is going to produce it. My remarks were entirely about how *I* see it, not how you should see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm uncertain how to take this comment.  It sounds a lot like you are dismissing the comments because they came from "lay people" who aren't capable of understanding what you were going for, despite them knowing from a "gut reaction level" that the photo doesn't work.  Is that what you are saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly not, quite the opposite. The lay person's opinion is the only one that matters. If it takes some sort of Art Expert to "get it" or it requires some long explanation from the artist to make sense of it, the work's no good. It's relative, to an extent. Ultimately, if I like it, I'm ok with that. One can, and I have, argued that work isn't successful unless, as a general rule, lots of laymen can "get it" to some reasonable degree without much struggle. That doesn't prevent me from taking pictures for myself, though. There's a dichotomy here, and I'm ok with that too.
> 
> But honestly: "if the lay person can't feel it, it's not there" <-- I have to say, I am puzzled as to how this could possibly have been so completely misconstrued. It seems crystal clear to me.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the explanation.  Wasn't my intent to stir the pot.


----------



## runnah




----------



## amolitor

I'm with ya, Derrel. No offense taken.

One of the many weird little corner topics that interests me is that the photographer invariably has a different relationship to the photograph than anyone else. This is, I think, the basic reason that it's so hard to really get a handle on your own work. Since it's true of every picture, it's certainly true of this one.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan

I'm going to dive right in on this one. I've looked at this picture way longer than I would normally look at it, in the spirit of helpfulness. 

I have the image open in another tab so I can switch back and forth as I type this out. 

Basically, the first thing I "see" are the towers. They demand attention. They are taller than everything else in the picture, and also darker. So I want to take in these two towers, as they offer a balance in the composition. But I keep getting caught up on the micron of space between the left tower and edge of the frame. If you framed this picture, the tower on the left would likely be cut off. I don't think you left enough room for the subjects, especially on the left side. 

I also find the foreground black line in the fence (the pole) to be a bit distracting. This image would be easier for me to digest, and like, if there was more room on the borders, and the black area in the fence was cloned out.


----------



## sleist

I would have shot it horizontal and cropped it square.
Among other things.


----------



## shaylou

cgipson1 said:


> lol.. Amolitor wrote a book on composition!   Look in his sig!




And I'm sure it's a great book.

I call it as I see it. This "balance" is actually the part that doesn't work imo . I understand balance in composition but that balance can be taken too literally is some cases , overwhelming the overall compositions to a point that the subject is lost and forgotten. Your eye bounces back and forth between the two distractions. This takes away from the shot to me. It's just my opinion. This was a critique.


----------



## shaylou

Juga said:


> Funny you say that...he wrote a book on composition.



Awkward. Lol


----------



## shaylou

amolitor said:


> I'm certainly not going to argue with anyone else's take on it! One of my fundamental beliefs about composition is if the lay person can't feel it, it's not there, at least not for that lay person, and no amount of "explaining" is going to produce it. My remarks were entirely about how *I* see it, not how you should see it.



Or it could be that us "lay people" don't see anything good about it because there isn't anything good about it. 
If this was an experiment then you had to start with the idea that it was going to work or not work or possibly fall somewhere in between. The notion that everyone is wrong (for the most part) pollutes the accuracy of the experiments conclusion. Correct me if I'm wrong but this was a critique post right?


----------



## shaylou

sleist said:


> I'm uncertain how to take this comment.  It sounds a lot like you are dismissing the comments because they came from "lay people" who aren't capable of understanding what you were going for, despite them knowing from a "gut reaction level" that the photo doesn't work.  Is that what you are saying?



Yeah I think you pretty much summed it up.


----------



## shaylou

timor said:


> O, is there a licence for that ?



Yes and I heard I cost a lot. I'm saving up for mine.


----------



## ceeboy14

Well, I don't know of the personal problems you and Charlie seem to have for one another...nor frankly do I give two hoots and a holler. The image as it stands doesn't work for me because it breaks too many "norms." Notice I did not say rules as I believe there isn't a rule not to be broken in photography if the artist can make it work. As per the norms, it needed to be rotated, cropped and the very brightest brights toned down a notch. I cropped half the far left tower as it really wasn't doing anything to push the eye from one side to the other. I also got rid of the birds between the fence and the structures for the same reason.

I could work this image until the cows found the greener grass, and still not have a wow image or even one I would hang on a wall unless it was one to show my students what not to do. I understand the concept, but knowing how something should work and executing it so it does are quite different. How you perceive the image may be the most important, but once you present it to a forum, you lose that ownership perspective and my opinion have to acquiesce to everyone's take, be it from a "pro" or a "lay" person.


----------



## pgriz

Wassamatter wid youse peeepul?  It's clearly a portrait of Harvey.  He's 6' 3.5" feet tall, and he likes to come up close.  (see Harvey (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).


----------



## pixmedic

ceeboy14 said:


> Well, I don't know of the personal problems you and Charlie seem to have for one another...nor frankly do I give two hoots and a holler. The image as it stands doesn't work for me because it breaks too many "norms." Notice I did not say rules as I believe there isn't a rule not to be broken in photography if the artist can make it work. As per the norms, it needed to be rotated, cropped and the very brightest brights toned down a notch. I cropped half the far left tower as it really wasn't doing anything to push the eye from one side to the other. I also got rid of the birds between the fence and the structures for the same reason.
> 
> I could work this image until the cows found the greener grass, and still not have a wow image or even one I would hang on a wall unless it was one to show my students what not to do. I understand the concept, but knowing how something should work and executing it so it does are quite different. _How you perceive the image may be the most important, but once you present it to a forum, you lose that ownership perspective and my opinion have to acquiesce to everyone's take, be it from a "pro" or a "lay" person.
> _



i am going to somewhat disagree on that last part. How a photographer feels about a picture they took may not ever change, nor should it if they feel they like it for whatever reason. If you post a candid photo of your child doing something that was personally special to you and got terrible reviews on it, would you suddenly stop thinking it is special and worth keeping just because some photographers pointed out all the technical or compositional flaws in it? Amolitor already stated that he knew he saw more in this picture than others would because he was there and saw parts of the scene we couldn't see in the picture. Unless i have missed a post somewhere, I am pretty sure Amolitor already admitted to this not being a great picture, just a picture he had _personal_ interest in.


----------



## timor

shaylou said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> O, is there a licence for that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and I heard I cost a lot. I'm saving up for mine.
Click to expand...

Do you need it ?


----------



## LoriStead

Wow... this thread got a little crazy, huh?  Are you still interested in feedback?  

Composition: It feels off... too much top and bottom.  I would have loved to see the landscape view, but maybe there were things that didn't belong in the picture?  Just seems like too much grass and fence...  

Lighting and tone:  The picture is too monotone... you need more contrast.  I'm guessing the sky was very blue, because once black and white, your picture only has a few things that stand out in contrast (roof, power poles), which is a key to strong b/w images.  

These, of course, are just my personal opinions/critiques - take them for only that.  

Thanks for sharing!!! 

I plan to post some pictures soon - feel free to give feedback, as well


----------



## shaylou

pixmedic said:


> i am going to somewhat disagree on that last part. How a photographer feels about a picture they took may not ever change, nor should it if they feel they like it for whatever reason. If you post a candid photo of your child doing something that was personally special to you and got terrible reviews on it, would you suddenly stop thinking it is special and worth keeping just because some photographers pointed out all the technical or compositional flaws in it? Amolitor already stated that he knew he saw more in this picture than others would because he was there and saw parts of the scene we couldn't see in the picture. Unless i have missed a post somewhere, I am pretty sure Amolitor already admitted to this not being a great picture, just a picture he had personal interest in.



Your comparison is flawed. A picture of ones child invokes emotion that can be dear to the heart and remind one of a cherished moment making the quality of that picture irrelevant to the photographer. Whereas the pic in question holds no emotion.
I'm confused on something here. If the photographer saw something in the scene that we can't see, didn't he fail ? I mean the very Essenes of of photography is to capture and share, tell a store and so on...


----------



## sleist

> If the photographer saw something in the scene that we can't see, didn't he fail ?



Success or failure depends on the goal, if it was achieved, how close one got, and if anything was learned in the process.
Unfortunately, none of this could be determined from the original post.

We all experiment.  We all learn something - even from the failures.
We don't often post these experiments for C&C though.
If I posted an experiment of mine, I would explain what it was in the original post and why I was posting it.
How is anyone to really know what the photographer was thinking when they took the shot or, as in this case, what they were looking for when they posted for C&C.

This is a good example of how not to ask for critique.


----------



## pixmedic

shaylou said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> i am going to somewhat disagree on that last part. How a photographer feels about a picture they took may not ever change, nor should it if they feel they like it for whatever reason. If you post a candid photo of your child doing something that was personally special to you and got terrible reviews on it, would you suddenly stop thinking it is special and worth keeping just because some photographers pointed out all the technical or compositional flaws in it? Amolitor already stated that he knew he saw more in this picture than others would because he was there and saw parts of the scene we couldn't see in the picture. Unless i have missed a post somewhere, I am pretty sure Amolitor already admitted to this not being a great picture, just a picture he had personal interest in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your comparison is flawed. A picture of ones child invokes emotion that can be dear to the heart and remind one of a cherished moment making the quality of that picture irrelevant to the photographer. Whereas the pic in question holds no emotion.
> I'm confused on something here. If the photographer saw something in the scene that we can't see, didn't he fail ? I mean the very Essenes of of photography is to capture and share, tell a store and so on...
Click to expand...


why do you say that this picture holds no emotion? amolitor said he found it interesting, and it held more meaning to him than it would to other people. 
he found it compelling enough to photograph even though he knew others would not find it as interesting. 
so...is it not possible that this picture could, in fact, evoke an emotional response from him when he looks at it?
I would say then that the picture in question does hold emotion, even if only for amolitor. 
a picture of someone elses kid holds zero importance or emotional attachment to ME,  but i would not say that the picture holds no emotion, because it obviously does to someone.  this picture could be no different. 
unless of course, you know amolitor well enough to speak for his emotional attachments. I don't myself, im just guessing here. 

I wouldn't call it a fail, per se. 
its only a fail if the person that took the picture sees no value in it. 
if someone paints a picture that only they like, but they enjoy looking at it, is it a fail?
the picture might fail to tell other people a story, or evoke an emotional response from others, but as long as the person that took the picture enjoys it, i cant personally call it a failure.


----------



## shaylou

How is anyone to really know what the photographer was thinking when they took the shot

That's my point. It's the photographers job to show, express or simply reproduce a scene. If we look at this shot and don't get it and the photographer comes back and says that we don't get it because he left out things that matter then he failed in my opinion. 




.  This is a good example of how not to ask for critique.[/QUOTE]  

Agreed.


----------



## amolitor

I try never to lead the critique. I'm interested in what people see in the picture, not in what they can be persuaded to see. If I have to explain it, then it's definitely a failure. It's fascinating to me how text can direct the reaction to a picture. In a critique thread like this, you can easily tell who's read the thread before posting, because their opinion is cleared formed by assembling pieces of other opinions as much or more than by looking at the picture itself. I wouldn't be helping one bit by explaining myself.

I'm not very interested in how people feel about my motivations, or whether people think I am doing a good job of asking for critique but hey, free country. Feel free to continue to discuss.


----------



## amolitor

Also, just to throw this out there. I continue to quite like the picture. It's not great art, I recognize that my reasons for liking it are to a degree personal, but I think it's pretty good and ultimately I like it. It's a big world with lots of room for conflicting opinions.

That said, thank you all for taking the time to express an opinion. I truly do appreciate the time and effort.


----------



## sleist

> If I have to explain it, then it's definitely a failure.



Well, I guess we know how you feel about this shot given all the explaining in post #6.


----------



## LoriStead

amolitor said:


> I try never to lead the critique. I'm interested in what people see in the picture, not in what they can be persuaded to see. If I have to explain it, then it's definitely a failure. It's fascinating to me how text can direct the reaction to a picture. In a critique thread like this, you can easily tell who's read the thread before posting, because their opinion is cleared formed by assembling pieces of other opinions as much or more than by looking at the picture itself. I wouldn't be helping one bit by explaining myself.
> 
> I'm not very interested in how people feel about my motivations, or whether people think I am doing a good job of asking for critique but hey, free country. Feel free to continue to discuss.



Wow... and your opinion of those responding is clearly already formed.  Why ask for a critique if you don't value the opinions and thoughts of others?  I'm new to this forum... as of today, actually.  One of the reasons I sought out a forum was to offer feedback and request it, as well.  This is how we ALL learn and grow. This is how we are able to "borrow" the eyes of others to get more insight into our own work.  If you like the shot, you like the shot.  But that's not why you posted, right?  You wanted C&C, right?  If you just want praise, a "tell me what you love about this picture" may be a better way to post?


----------



## amolitor

I'm willing to explain after the first few reactions have been given. After a couple of reactions have been given already, pretty much all the value of presenting a picture without explanation is gone anyways, so if I get the sense that there's some interest or am simply feeling vain, I'll trot out some explanation. The point of asking for critique, for me, is those first few clean reactions, though, before the consensus has set in. Look, see, react. It's really worth something.


----------



## amolitor

LoriStead said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I try never to lead the critique. I'm interested in what people see in the picture, not in what they can be persuaded to see. If I have to explain it, then it's definitely a failure. It's fascinating to me how text can direct the reaction to a picture. In a critique thread like this, you can easily tell who's read the thread before posting, because their opinion is cleared formed by assembling pieces of other opinions as much or more than by looking at the picture itself. I wouldn't be helping one bit by explaining myself.
> 
> I'm not very interested in how people feel about my motivations, or whether people think I am doing a good job of asking for critique but hey, free country. Feel free to continue to discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... and your opinion of those responding is clearly already formed.  Why ask for a critique if you don't value the opinions and thoughts of others?  I'm new to this forum... as of today, actually.  One of the reasons I sought out a forum was to offer feedback and request it, as well.  This is how we ALL learn and grow. This is how we are able to "borrow" the eyes of others to get more insight into our own work.  If you like the shot, you like the shot.  But that's not why you posted, right?  You wanted C&C, right?  If you just want praise, a "tell me what you love about this picture" may be a better way to post?
Click to expand...


With all due respect: Work on your reading comprehension before you reply. I am getting seriously sick of having to parse out meaning that is already crystal clear, and explain that there is no hidden subtext, and, and , and to people who cannot and will not bother to read and understand what I have to say. You are jumping to unwarranted and simply wrong conclusions. My opinion of YOU is quite low, but strictly because of this particular snotty and unpleasant response based on.. I don't even know what.

I think I'll stop replying in this thread, the general tenor of it seems to have turned to 'andrew is a dickhead, I can't quite put my finger on why, but I think I'll take a **** on his head anyways' and that's just not very productive for anyone.


----------



## pixmedic

LoriStead said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I try never to lead the critique. I'm interested in what people see in the picture, not in what they can be persuaded to see. If I have to explain it, then it's definitely a failure. It's fascinating to me how text can direct the reaction to a picture. In a critique thread like this, you can easily tell who's read the thread before posting, because their opinion is cleared formed by assembling pieces of other opinions as much or more than by looking at the picture itself. I wouldn't be helping one bit by explaining myself.
> 
> I'm not very interested in how people feel about my motivations, or whether people think I am doing a good job of asking for critique but hey, free country. Feel free to continue to discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... and your opinion of those responding is clearly already formed.  Why ask for a critique if you don't value the opinions and thoughts of others?  I'm new to this forum... as of today, actually.  One of the reasons I sought out a forum was to offer feedback and request it, as well.  This is how we ALL learn and grow. This is how we are able to "borrow" the eyes of others to get more insight into our own work.  If you like the shot, you like the shot.  But that's not why you posted, right?  You wanted C&C, right?  If you just want praise, a "tell me what you love about this picture" may be a better way to post?
Click to expand...


where has he not valued other peoples critique of his work?
im really not understanding how that opinion was formed based on this thread. 
I thought his explanation of the picture, why he took it, and why he didnt write a whole dissertation on it when he posted it was pretty easy to understand.


----------



## sleist

amolitor said:


> I'm willing to explain after the first few reactions have been given. After a couple of reactions have been given already, pretty much all the value of presenting a picture without explanation is gone anyways, so if I get the sense that there's some interest or am simply feeling vain, I'll trot out some explanation. The point of asking for critique, for me, is those first few clean reactions, though, before the consensus has set in. Look, see, react. It's really worth something.



I feel that one of the major benefits of asking for and providing critique is learning to critique you own work.  Perhaps you feel differently.
I think that waiting until others render an opinion, and then deflecting it later on with excuses and explanations, short circuits learning to self critique.

IMHO, If you are going to say anything at all, say it up front.


----------



## pixmedic

sleist said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm willing to explain after the first few reactions have been given. After a couple of reactions have been given already, pretty much all the value of presenting a picture without explanation is gone anyways, so if I get the sense that there's some interest or am simply feeling vain, I'll trot out some explanation. The point of asking for critique, for me, is those first few clean reactions, though, before the consensus has set in. Look, see, react. It's really worth something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel that one of the major benefits of asking for and providing critique is learning to critique you own work.  Perhaps you feel differently.
> I think that waiting until others render an opinion, and then deflecting it later on with excuses and explanations, short circuits learning to self critique.
> 
> IMHO, If you are going to say anything at all, say it up front.
Click to expand...


I think  asking for "C&C" was perhaps a poor choice of words. 
as amolitor has already explained, he was just interested in seeing what peoples initial reaction to the photo was without him having to "push" people in the direction he wanted with explanations.  maybe what he SHOULD have said instead was "first reactions---GO" and left it at that. 
I got the impression that this was never a picture he was looking for photographic critique on, but more of  a "how do you feel about it", gut reaction.


----------



## sleist

pixmedic said:


> sleist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm willing to explain after the first few reactions have been given. After a couple of reactions have been given already, pretty much all the value of presenting a picture without explanation is gone anyways, so if I get the sense that there's some interest or am simply feeling vain, I'll trot out some explanation. The point of asking for critique, for me, is those first few clean reactions, though, before the consensus has set in. Look, see, react. It's really worth something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel that one of the major benefits of asking for and providing critique is learning to critique you own work.  Perhaps you feel differently.
> I think that waiting until others render an opinion, and then deflecting it later on with excuses and explanations, short circuits learning to self critique.
> 
> IMHO, If you are going to say anything at all, say it up front.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think  asking for "C&C" was perhaps a poor choice of words.
Click to expand...


Yes it was, if it wasn't what he wanted.  Even without it, he posted in a part of the forum were C&C is considered to be expected whether asked for or not.

For the record, I felt that the remarks in this thread about his book on composition were mean spirited.
That being said, that line in his sig raises the bar of expectations whether he likes it or not.  A higher level of scrutiny is to be expected.
Otherwise he should explain himself up front.


----------



## shaylou

"why do you say that this picture holds no emotion?"

You compared a persons child to this picture of an in-adamant scene. I say that's a bad comparison. I have never been emotional over a fence, pole grass and so on. Perhaps others have but for me they hold no emotion. Heck you may cry your eyes out every time you see a fence for all I know. 


."is it not possible that this picture could, in fact, evoke an emotional response from him when he looks at it"

Yes it is very possible and the fact it was stated that things were left out and that's the reason we don't see what he was seeing (that possibly evoked the emotion) is where I believe the problem with the shot started. Well other then the compositional issue. You see if there is emotional value and that value is what makes the shot special the photographer job is to capture that emotion and put it on display. If that was what make this shot special (to anyone) and it was not captured then the photographer failed. Failing a shot is not all that big of a thing. I have thousands of failed shots. The failed shots are what makes us learn. 

This is not a personal shot at anyone just food for thought. Think about it, your on vacation and see a beautiful sunset and want to capture it to show all your friends back home. But opps something went wrong and the pic is bad. Sure the shot is still special to you but you failed in capturing the moment. Just because you have the memory of how it really looked doesn't make the shot any better, it's still a bad shot. I hope this makes a little sense to you. 

" I would say then that the picture in question does hold emotion, even if only for amolitor." How exactly did you reach this conclusion? I guess you could have a thing for fences or poles or something but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most people don't have emotion attachments to these things.  Therefore the shot doesn't hold emotion like a pic of a persons child potentially does. 

Once again this is not a personal attack on anyone, just keeping it real....


----------



## shaylou

amolitor said:


> Also, just to throw this out there. I continue to quite like the picture. It's not great art, I recognize that my reasons for liking it are to a degree personal, but I think it's pretty good and ultimately I like it.
> 
> As I study this great art I realize I miss as much as I pick up. One great thing about surrounding yourself with other photographers whether on a forum or in person is that you can help each other see things that you might of overlooked.  That said I find it disappointing that you somehow see it pointless to share your thoughts on this shot. My guess is that your pride may of taken a hit from the "lay" peeps responding to the "authors" shot. Or perhaps there is nothing really good to point out. Either way no matter how good or bad I am, I will always lean on my fellow photographers for their input. Of course if you are beyond that and have no desire to help out fellow photographers that is your choice.


----------



## pixmedic

shaylou said:


> "why do you say that this picture holds no emotion?"
> 
> You compared a persons child to this picture of an in-adamant scene. I say that's a bad comparison. I have never been emotional over a fence, pole grass and so on. Perhaps others have but for me they hold no emotion. Heck you may cry your eyes out every time you see a fence for all I know.
> 
> 
> ."is it not possible that this picture could, in fact, evoke an emotional response from him when he looks at it"
> 
> Yes it is very possible and the fact it was stated that things were left out and that's the reason we don't see what he was seeing (that possibly evoked the emotion) is where I believe the problem with the shot started. Well other then the compositional issue. You see if there is emotional value and that value is what makes the shot special the photographer job is to capture that emotion and put it on display. If that was what make this shot special (to anyone) and it was not captured then the photographer failed. Failing a shot is not all that big of a thing. I have thousands of failed shots. The failed shots are what makes us learn.
> 
> This is not a personal shot at anyone just food for thought. Think about it, your on vacation and see a beautiful sunset and want to capture it to show all your friends back home. But opps something went wrong and the pic is bad. Sure the shot is still special to you but you failed in capturing the moment. Just because you have the memory of how it really looked doesn't make the shot any better, it's still a bad shot. I hope this makes a little sense to you.
> 
> " I would say then that the picture in question does hold emotion, even if only for amolitor." How exactly did you reach this conclusion? I guess you could have a thing for fences or poles or something but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most people don't have emotion attachments to these things.  Therefore the shot doesn't hold emotion like a pic of a persons child potentially does.
> 
> Once again this is not a personal attack on anyone, just keeping it real....



i reached that conclusion (having actually read amolitors posts) based on the fact that amolitor SAID he found this scene particularly interesting, and liked it even though he knew most people would not. he felt compelled to take the picture, and even mentioned it being a keeper, despite its flaws. you are basing your conclusion on the idea that a picture of a child is more emotionally evoking than a picture of a building. which is completely subjective. it is not a fact. it is totally based on different peoples feelings. what emotional attachment a picture "potentially" has doesn't really hold much weight, and is based purely on speculation. 

you call my comparison bad...but your following statements completely confirms my comparison as true. just because YOU have never been emotional over a type of picture, does not exclude others from being emotional over it. you actually prove my point with your second paragraph. 

I dont know why people keep rambling on about this photo being a failure. amolitor said a page back that he admitted that this photo is probably a failure to most people, and that he only liked it based on personal reasons. I really think people read way to much into what amolitor was asking for with this post.


----------



## squirrels

pgriz said:


> Wassamatter wid youse peeepul?  It's clearly a portrait of Harvey.  He's 6' 3.5" feet tall, and he likes to come up close.  (see Harvey (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).



Invisible pooka rabbit! Just what this forum needed! 

I have to say I'm enjoying this discussion. I'm glad you posted it amolitor.


----------



## Tee

I'm just a lay person so I won't comment.


----------



## terri

shaylou said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, just to throw this out there. I continue to quite like the picture. It's not great art, I recognize that my reasons for liking it are to a degree personal, but I think it's pretty good and ultimately I like it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I study this great art I realize I miss as much as I pick up. One great thing about surrounding yourself with other photographers whether on a forum or in person is that you can help each other see things that you might of overlooked.  That said I find it disappointing that you somehow see it pointless to share your thoughts on this shot. My guess is that your pride may of taken a hit from the "lay" peeps responding to the "authors" shot. Or perhaps there is nothing really good to point out. Either way no matter how good or bad I am, I will always lean on my fellow photographers for their input. Of course if you are beyond that and have no desire to help out fellow photographers that is your choice.
Click to expand...


This is an incredibly presumptuous response.   You are taking what you want from what has been posted and twisting it to get it to fit your position.  



> Either way no matter how good or bad I am, I will always lean on my  fellow photographers for their input. Of course if you are beyond that  and have no desire to help out fellow photographers that is your choice.


 
Well then, bully for you.   This is YOUR choice, YOUR approach, and if you don't ever feel you can make your own judgment call on your work without leaning on others' input, perhaps you may ultimately find yourself artistically stymied and not understand why.  You're also relatively new to the forum, or you would think twice before accusing one of our more active, regular posters of having no desire to help out fellow photographers.   How you can arrive at this conclusion based on a thread _where his own work is posted_ is beyond me.

There are two schools of thought regarding approaches to critique.   One is to post your image and give lots of information about it - your camera settings, your intentions with the shot, and whether or not you believe you met those intentions, and why.

The other is what we have here: an image is posted with little or nothing offered up.   The poster retains much of the background, and still asks for objective C&C.    It puts the burden on the viewer, yes.   You get no help, no comments to guide you along with what you think the poster is trying to get you to see.   

TPF has had specialized critique forums in the past where both of these approaches were put into play - and both forums ultimately failed, because of the large number of members who prefer one style over another.   Some people don't want to feel led around by the nose by too much information, and others _assume_ a negative attitude by a photographer who offers up nothing but his work.     It led to very rambling and ineffective critique threads.

This is a good example of the latter.


----------



## pgriz

I see two towers, which appear to be for radio communication, besides several buildings two of which look like hangars.  Foreground consists of a chain-link fence topped by barbed wire.  Lower quarter of the image is a field of grass, edged by another chain-link fence with barbed wire.  Pretty much all the objects in view appear sharp, so a small aperture was used giving a deep dof.  Exposure is good, with strong whites, deep darks and a full range of grey tones.  Light fall-off at the sky may indicate a polarizer was used to darken the sky.  Position of the sun was about 45 degrees to the right, and about the same angle above the horizon.

From a content point-of-view, my eye gets attracted first to the bright roof at the middle of the image, then scans over to each tower, then the lower fence, then returns to the dark hangars at the back.  I do not see any visual connection (shape, tone, line) between the elements, other than their proximity to each other visually.  The image, in fact can be divided into 2 horizontally, the upper part being mostly empty sky, and the lower part has all the ground-based elements.

Looking at the picture subjectively, the visual prominence is occupied by the two towers, with stuff in between.  However, there is nothing in the image which tells me why these towers are there, why they are important to the photographer, or whether there is a context that should be interesting me.  As a pattern play, I dont see much pattern.  As a shape/texture play, there is some texture and shape, but nothing that I can put together as a pleasing composition.  I am not sure what I should be looking at or noticing.

Andrews comments in post #6 shed a little light on what I should be seeing, but the balancing exercise is ruined in my opinion by the mass of dark buildings and bright roof in between, which seem to intrude.  The fence appears to be visual afterthought, and does not seem (again in my opinion) to tie in together very well with the towers.  Perhaps if the light was from the left and behind the photographer, the buildings would be much lighter in tone and therefore less heavy, and intruding.  Some mist or fog would also serve to bring our attention to the foreground elements.

This may be one of those situations when several visits are needed until the right conditions exist to let the vision come through clearly.


----------



## amolitor

Thanks, pgriz. I appreciate your thoughtful thoroughness!


----------



## shaylou

pixmedic said:


> i reached that conclusion (having actually read amolitors posts) based on the fact that amolitor SAID he found this scene particularly interesting, and liked it even though he knew most people would not. he felt compelled to take the picture, and even mentioned it being a keeper, despite its flaws. you are basing your conclusion on the idea that a picture of a child is more emotionally evoking than a picture of a building. which is completely subjective. it is not a fact. it is totally based on different peoples feelings. what emotional attachment a picture "potentially" has doesn't really hold much weight, and is based purely on speculation.  you call my comparison bad...but your following statements completely confirms my comparison as true. just because YOU have never been emotional over a type of picture, does not exclude others from being emotional over it. you actually prove my point with your second paragraph.  I dont know why people keep rambling on about this photo being a failure. amolitor said a page back that he admitted that this photo is probably a failure to most people, and that he only liked it based on personal reasons. I really think people read way to much into what amolitor was asking for with this post.



My god give it up buddy. You are arguing that a fence "potentially" hold more emotional value the someone's child. Would you like to debate whether the sun will come up tomorrow? You obviously have a some sort of tie with the op and my guess is that's the reason you are not subjective. Fan club comes to mind....


----------



## pixmedic

shaylou said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> i reached that conclusion (having actually read amolitors posts) based on the fact that amolitor SAID he found this scene particularly interesting, and liked it even though he knew most people would not. he felt compelled to take the picture, and even mentioned it being a keeper, despite its flaws. you are basing your conclusion on the idea that a picture of a child is more emotionally evoking than a picture of a building. which is completely subjective. it is not a fact. it is totally based on different peoples feelings. what emotional attachment a picture "potentially" has doesn't really hold much weight, and is based purely on speculation.  you call my comparison bad...but your following statements completely confirms my comparison as true. just because YOU have never been emotional over a type of picture, does not exclude others from being emotional over it. you actually prove my point with your second paragraph.  I dont know why people keep rambling on about this photo being a failure. amolitor said a page back that he admitted that this photo is probably a failure to most people, and that he only liked it based on personal reasons. I really think people read way to much into what amolitor was asking for with this post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My god give it up buddy. You are arguing that a fence "potentially" hold more emotional value the someone's child. Would you like to debate whether the sun will come up tomorrow? You obviously have a some sort of tie with the op and my guess is that's the reason you are not subjective. Fan club comes to mind....
Click to expand...


Again, you are wrong. Please show where i said a fence has "more"  emotional value than a child?  In fact, i did no such thing.  I said that anything is capable of having emotional value to someone. Which you admitted in your own post. You obviously have some sort of issue with OP, despite allegedly only being on the forum for a few days. . Are you another member starting a separate account to hound the OP anonymously? You obviously are more concerned with misquoting people than actually reading the posts.


----------



## shaylou

terri said:


> This is an incredibly presumptuous response.   You are taking what you want from what has been posted and twisting it to get it to fit your position.  Well then, bully for you.   This is YOUR choice, YOUR approach, and if you don't ever feel you can make your own judgment call on your work without leaning on others' input, perhaps you may ultimately find yourself artistically stymied and not understand why.  You're also relatively new to the forum, or you would think twice before accusing one of our more active, regular posters of having no desire to help out fellow photographers.   How you can arrive at this conclusion based on a thread where his own work is posted is beyond me.  There are two schools of thought regarding approaches to critique.   One is to post your image and give lots of information about it - your camera settings, your intentions with the shot, and whether or not you believe you met those intentions, and why.  The other is what we have here: an image is posted with little or nothing offered up.   The poster retains much of the background, and still asks for objective C&C.    It puts the burden on the viewer, yes.   You get no help, no comments to guide you along with what you think the poster is trying to get you to see.  TPF has had specialized critique forums in the past where both of these approaches were put into play - and both forums ultimately failed, because of the large number of members who prefer one style over another.   Some people don't want to feel led around by the nose by too much information, and others assume a negative attitude by a photographer who offers up nothing but his work.     It led to very rambling and ineffective critique threads.  This is a good example of the latter.



Presumptuous ? That's an incredible statement coming from someone that Posted in cc. Got bad reviews from the forum and responded by calling the members "lay people" and in your utter arrogance declaring we were not worth explaining to. I posted off what you posted and have as much right to do so as anyone else in this forum regardless of how long I have been here.  If you can't handle criticism perhaps these type of post are not for you. Perhaps next time you will think twice before talking down to other members. 

I'm done!


----------



## shaylou

pixmedic said:


> Again, you are wrong. Please show where i said a fence has "more"  emotional value than a child?  In fact, i did no such thing.  I said that anything is capable of having emotional value to someone. Which you admitted in your own post. You obviously have some sort of issue with OP, despite allegedly only being on the forum for a few days. . Are you another member starting a separate account to hound the OP anonymously? You obviously are more concerned with misquoting people than actually reading the posts.



A few days? Not you too. Wow digging deep i see. Well I have stated my point and at this point there is nothing more to add. I hope you and the op live happily ever after. 

Good day.


----------



## Tee

pixmedic said:


> You obviously have some sort of issue with OP, despite allegedly only being on the forum for a few days. . Are you another member starting a separate account to hound the OP anonymously? You obviously are more concerned with misquoting people than actually reading the posts.



Dude- did you notice their join date?


----------



## pixmedic

Tee said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously have some sort of issue with OP, despite allegedly only being on the forum for a few days. . Are you another member starting a separate account to hound the OP anonymously? You obviously are more concerned with misquoting people than actually reading the posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude- did you notice their join date?
Click to expand...


Nope. Did you notice their inability to properly quote what people write.?


----------



## terri

Tee said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously have some sort of issue with OP, despite allegedly only being on the forum for a few days. . Are you another member starting a separate account to hound the OP anonymously? You obviously are more concerned with misquoting people than actually reading the posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude- did you notice their join date?
Click to expand...


I am the one who brought up that member's length of time on here because of the presumptuous and incorrect statement regarding the OP having no desire to help others - amongst other things.   That member has been here less than a year and should take care before running off at the mouth in this way.   He or she appears to also have me confused with the OP in his response to my comments.   Pix is correct that this person was misquoting others and in this thread, at least, appears only to be spoiling for a fight - with me, or Pix, or the OP, whomever.   

Bottom line: doesn't matter how long the member has been here; with this kind of behavior I predict a short shelf life, anyway.   

I think this thread has run its course.


----------

