Eye Full

Post a photo to get comments and suggestions on how it can be improved. For best help you should include the relevant EXIF information. (Use "Photo Sharing" if you simply want to share images and are not after feedback.)
User avatar
davidc
Posts: 2410
Joined: Wed 12 Sep 2012, 11:27
Location: location, location.
Contact:

Re: Eye Full

Postby davidc » Fri 10 Jan 2014, 14:52

Are you not simply using photographic techniques here to pick out the part of the sculpture you find interesting... and that is still someone else's sculpture, in isolation. I could, for example, saying that I deliberately chose to remove any background elements, other buildings, chose a reasonable f-stop and rendered Usain Bolt in colour to present my own photographic take on it, but it's still the artist's picture not mine. I'm not saying you have used "bad technique" at all - far from it, please don't think that ;)

In a weird way I feel like I'm arguing both sides of the argument here :) There's nothing wrong with record photography, though personally I find little "artistic" to admire in it. I don't log in to amazon to admire the record shots of the products they sell, for example ;) Yet I do think that taking photos of paintings/sculptures/other people's art is just inherently limiting. Even with the technical skill you have used to render your photo above, it's a photo of a tomb and as such it's appeal is limited by how appealing the tomb itself is - you've used your technique to focus attention.

To give examples of how I think both of our pictures could be improved, for mine I often thought that if I could have included more of the surrounding area and caught someone running hard underneath, a nod to Usain himself, it would have added a human element and shown that I as the photographer had added something of my own to the image as a whole. For yours, reframing and capturing people praying in the background, echoing the shape of the hands you've shot, would make for a much more appealing and well seen shot maybe?

Again I've rambled, it's a lazy Friday, but to try to crystallise my position I think that while there's nothing wrong with shooting art in it's own right I just think it's limited in appeal. It can definitely be utilised to make great shots if the photographer can factor it into a wider image. This definitely seems to be at odds with what Gerald thought in that using it in any form was to be discouraged. I've uploaded a shot Rudolph entered to illustrate the point -

untitled.JPG
untitled.JPG (56.08 KiB) Viewed 2017 times


The judge scored this higher than other "art incorporating" shots but still remarked that he had used the design of someone else to make a shot and it was more "simple observation". Didn't agree with THAT assessment at all...
Check out my website - davidcandlish.photography
My Top 50 album is here
Mike Farley
Posts: 7316
Joined: Tue 11 Sep 2012, 16:38
Contact:

Re: Eye Full

Postby Mike Farley » Fri 10 Jan 2014, 16:44

davidc wrote:Are you not simply using photographic techniques here to pick out the part of the sculpture you find interesting... and that is still someone else's sculpture, in isolation.


I put this image in for two reasons, neither of them because I think it is a particularly good photograph. ;) Rendering the background out of focus has made it less of a record shot and it can be argued that a degree of artistic interpretation has taken place. For some reason, I find it more acceptable to use someone else's handiwork in an image when it was not specifically intended to be a work of art. Whilst clearly it does have artistic merit (otherwise there would have been little point in making the image), the primary purpose of the sculpture is to commemorate the occupant of the tomb. What surprised me is that it seems to be this factor which makes the inclusion of others' efforts more acceptable. It's interesting at what point the dividing lines occur and how the boundaries are blurred.

davidc wrote:I'm not saying you have used "bad technique" at all - far from it, please don't think that ;)


Of course not. This is a debate about aesthetics and what people feel comfortable making the subject of their images. I included the Hands shot as following his talk, I wanted to try Clive Tanner's style of photography for myself and that image was one of the few I had available to show as an example.

davidc wrote:
In a weird way I feel like I'm arguing both sides of the argument here :) There's nothing wrong with record photography, though personally I find little "artistic" to admire in it. I don't log in to amazon to admire the record shots of the products they sell, for example ;) Yet I do think that taking photos of paintings/sculptures/other people's art is just inherently limiting. Even with the technical skill you have used to render your photo above, it's a photo of a tomb and as such it's appeal is limited by how appealing the tomb itself is - you've used your technique to focus attention.


Image assessment is so subjective, with widely ranging opinions, that it is impossible to make a definitive statement on one side or the other. It all comes down to the merits of each image and the particular viewpoint of any given individual.

davidc wrote:
To give examples of how I think both of our pictures could be improved, for mine I often thought that if I could have included more of the surrounding area and caught someone running hard underneath, a nod to Usain himself, it would have added a human element and shown that I as the photographer had added something of my own to the image as a whole. For yours, reframing and capturing people praying in the background, echoing the shape of the hands you've shot, would make for a much more appealing and well seen shot maybe?

Again I've rambled, it's a lazy Friday, but to try to crystallise my position I think that while there's nothing wrong with shooting art in it's own right I just think it's limited in appeal. It can definitely be utilised to make great shots if the photographer can factor it into a wider image. This definitely seems to be at odds with what Gerald thought in that using it in any form was to be discouraged. I've uploaded a shot Rudolph entered to illustrate the point -

The judge scored this higher than other "art incorporating" shots but still remarked that he had used the design of someone else to make a shot and it was more "simple observation". Didn't agree with THAT assessment at all...


I have recently observed another SPA registered judge making a similar comment. Before judging commenced, they stated that they considered finding an interesting location and waiting for something to happen there was not a valid form of photography. When such an image came up as you describe, the entire "critique" was "This is exactly the type of image which I have said I do not want to see". Unsurprisingly, the shot then got the lowest score of the evening.

I am currently in communication with SPA to establish to what extent this is official policy or whether it is individual preference. Suffice to say that I have heard other judges make statements which indicate that they do not find street photography appealling, so such images do run the risk of not scoring well. In my opinion, someone who can dismiss an entire genre of photography has no place setting up their stall as a judge.

Provided SPA is in agreement, I post their response here when I receive it.
Regards

Mike Farley
(Visit my website and blog - www.mikefarley.net)
Rose
Posts: 806
Joined: Sun 16 Sep 2012, 18:09
Contact:

Re: Eye Full

Postby Rose » Fri 10 Jan 2014, 16:56

Mike Farley wrote:Before judging commenced, they stated that they considered finding an interesting location and waiting for something to happen there was not a valid form of photography.


Whoah ! :o That's ridiculous !! I for one have done just that, very many times... Besides, how would a judge know whether you'd stood in one spot for an hour taking dozens of photos before "the one"... or whether you'd just happened upon the shot as you passed by ??
Rose
Mike Farley
Posts: 7316
Joined: Tue 11 Sep 2012, 16:38
Contact:

Re: Eye Full

Postby Mike Farley » Fri 10 Jan 2014, 17:18

Rose wrote:
Mike Farley wrote:Before judging commenced, they stated that they considered finding an interesting location and waiting for something to happen there was not a valid form of photography.


Whoah ! :o That's ridiculous !! I for one have done just that, very many times... Besides, how would a judge know whether you'd stood in one spot for an hour taking dozens of photos before "the one"... or whether you'd just happened upon the shot as you passed by ??


I got the impression that it was not the waiting that was the issue, but that particular style of photography which they found so abhorrent. As part of the judge's introductory comments, the audience was soundly berated for showing a lack of imagination in the selection of images which had been submitted, with this type of shot being singled out for criticism. There were two such pictures in the competition and there was no attempt to differentiate between them in the marks awarded.
Regards

Mike Farley
(Visit my website and blog - www.mikefarley.net)

Return to “Image Critique”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests