Meet with a REAL photographer...His suprise favorite.

[Radtech1]

I met with a real photographer the other day. He shoots medium format and hangs in the gallery/coffee shop downtown. Two weeks ago I gave his wife a stack of about 150 of my favorite shots all in 10 by 12 format. He asked me "Do you want me to shoot straight?" and I of course said yes. He handed me back 135 out of my 150 and said "Good, we don't have to bother with these."

Now that the wind was knocked out of my sails, he did spend the next two hours going over the remaining 15 shots, with very specific ideas as to what he liked and why. What caught me offguard was the shot that he felt was my best. Though I allways liked it, I felt that it never "grabbed" me. Again with this, his critique as specific and articulate and once he explaned to me what he, as the viewer saw, I agree with him.

I post it here for your general critique. Composition, subject, feeling and mood. I don't want to post what he said right now because I don't want that to skew your critique. If I get a few responses I will follow by posting but his critique was.

Good news and bad news regarding the gallery. First the good news, they did invite me to hang is a guest artist. The bad news is that they have a one year waiting list to hang as a guest artist.

Here's the shot:

http://home.ripway.com/2004-2/78486/Canon/IMG_2602.jpg

[PhotosGuy]

It's a good human interest shot. The two diagonals take you to the girl on the right. You wonder what she's looking at & think about that a bit. Then your eye follows the two walking out of the pic, you look up & the two diagonals take you... I can see this one in a gallery.

Lucky guy! He gave you 2 hours of his time so he did see something he liked in your work.
If you get a chance, ask him what he didn't like about the rejects, but first try to figure it out for yourself using what you learned. You can learn a lot from that, too.

[sGu]

I have mixed feeling for this shot, can't really say it's good or bad, beach splitting frame which is nice, three objects in shot justifies rule of third which is eye pleasing, with age gap between them, very good from human interest point of view, but in terms of colour, light, it's rather plain to me.

But something I don't agree in your statement. He shoots medium format DOESN'T make him a REAL photographer, a good photographer has unique eye and creativity for photographs, and skills/techniques to capture and present them in a artistic way, regardless which format or what equipment he/she uses.

If I go out and buy a medium format camera today, shoot couple of rolls of film, am I a real photographer all of a sudden? No. Because I'm shooting digital and I can produce images that attract clients and create potential profits, does that say I'm still not a real photographer? No.

Nothing personal, just wanna get it out of my chest

[Radtech1]

But something I don't agree in your statement. He shoots medium format DOESN'T make him a REAL photographer, a good photographer has unique eye and creativity for photographs, and skills/techniques to capture and present them in a artistic way, regardless which format or what equipment he/she uses.

But, what makes him a "real" photographer by my reckoning is that he takes pictures that please him, hangs them, and other people buy them and hang them in thier homes. As opposed to client based photography, people pay for his vision. The fact that I mentioned format was only for additional information.

[JCK]

The mother with two daughters follows the little one, as in caring for her safety, while the older one is allowed to be distracted by new things, such as may be her reflection in the water or a pretty shell, she is, nonetheless trusted to do so. Human interest as mentioned. As for technical, three humans, rule of thirds. Also vertically, shadows, human figures, and empty top of shot attain rule of thirds. Wet sand, not so wet sand, and water also form 3 elements. Exposure is good, except of course for the humans. While this is a fairly decent shot, I don't really see what may possibly be the features he saw to make it the best one, I haven't seen the rest, but I'd imagine out of 150, there would be some competition. This is just my opinion, and no judgement of mine is passed as a final decision, nor do I mean to put down your shot or his ideas. I do look forward, however, to read his reasonongs. It will probably enlighten me.

[Dimitry]

Could you at least host the other 15 somewhere so that we can judge between them for our favourite and give reasons why?

[Radtech1]

As promised, his critique:

He said that as far as the composition goes, first, he liked the balance of the division into thirds. But to keep the shot from being too static he likes the diagonals. First is the wet sand running from corner to corner. The second diagonal is the actual water. He noticed the coincidence of them intersecting right where the 3rd person is standing. Additionally, he really likes the fact that the grandmother and granddaughter are caught in virtually the same pose, stepping forward on the right foot, left foot just off the sand.

As far as the theme goes, because of the similarities in pose the grandmother/daughter, they serve as echos of one another. What he sees there is the older generation chasing after (it's) youth. Meanwhile, the current generation is at a intersection, contemplating.

Hmmmm......

Pretty heavy stuff, and I would have LOVED to have thought of it. But now that he points it out, I will embrace the sentiment. Honestly, even if this was not my shot, and I saw it hanging somewhere with a commentary to that end, I would say, "Yeah, I see that."

This interview also taught me that my critiquing skill have an even longer way to go than my photography skills.

To all who replied, thank you, and if you have a mind to critique further, please do.

Thanks,

Rad

[Steven M. Anthony]

I find it hard to give a meaningful critique unless I know what the artist was trying to say with a particular photo. Oh sure, I can find meaning in any given picture--like the "real photog" did with the one posted above. But I'm not sure how the photog's critique has helped Rad express RAD'S vision. By the sounds of Rad's response to the photog's comments, the intense meaning the photog got was unintended.

I think this is a major failing of web-hosted critiques--that artists don't let the person offering a critique know what they were trying to accomplish/say with a particular image. Now if your goal is to find out how many people like your image and how many don't (or how many people you move with your photo and how many you don't) then this system works great.

But how do I know if a shot is over or under exposed if I don't know what message you are trying to say? Without that info--like the photog above--all I can do is tell you what meaning the image has for me, and whether I like it or not. The problem with that is I didn't take this photo--YOU did. And you had a reason for taking it, not me.

To me a critique is about helping the artist clarify thier voice/vision--not telling them mine...

[Sailor Don]

That has to be a very lucky coincidence. 2 hours of free critique from a real photographer.

I don't know how I would value that. This real photographer, maybe not on purpose, but something in his subconscious, might cause him to alter the outcome of his critique to protect his own livelihood. I wonder if that could have anything to do with the selection of his "surprise favorite".

My opinion: I would judge the photo as technically correct, but the composition doesn't do anything for me. But then I'm not a good judge of human interest mood photos.

[jim monroe]

Steven wrote above

I find it hard to give a meaningful critique unless I know what the artist was trying to say with a particular photo.

But if I have to ask the artist what he or she was trying to say then isn't it rather clear that at least at some level the artist has failed. I would think that from looking at the photo, ideally at least, you see what the artist is trying to say and no separate statement by the artist is needed. Although I can certainly see different individuals seeing different things in the same photograph as seems to be done above.

[marie]

hello Rad
I would like to ask you what he thought of the photo you posted last week please.
the post was left in mid air and I am curious.
surely that's normal ?

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47292

photography is different to different people.
he is not a real photographer because he sells stuff.
or whatever camera he uses
it's something personal
and for others it's supply and demand

what one person may like another may not .
that's beautiful too.
it's important we all have minds of our own
some of our work may not be tech. perfect but if it pleases someone and they want to buy it that's nice.
at times I have seen 'not very good' pictures from what some may call 'real photographer's'
but it's all a matter of choice
or opinion

I was interested in your post , as I am in everybody's
and I am interested in the follow up
wanting to know, did you show him this picture , and if so what was his opinion please.
as it was your choice, have you changed your mind about it now
or do you feel the same ?

thanks

I really am interested,
because I love photography

[snibbetsj]

For what it's worth (not very much), I'll give you my interpretation and opinion:

I see the older girl standing on the edge of the water and letting the waves wash the sand from under her feet. You have to have done this to know what it feels like, kind of like sinking into the sand.

I see the footprints of the younger girl as she has turned around and headed off to see something which caught her fancy.

I see the mother running after her :)

I like the way the wet sand and the water intersect, neat.

I think a circular polarizer may have helped keep the water blue and get a better exposure on the older daughter.


How did you take this shot? You have to have been pretty high above them! :D


Jeff

[turbotony]

For my eye pleasing remark....to me, the height is to high for the photo...also, more direct infront of the small girl who's life is just beginning...(in focus)...the older woman who's life is justified...(in focus) and the stray daughter...(slightly out of focus) as she is in reality...shown with trouble on her mind and sinking while in to deep of thought.......just the way I see life in that shot.

[Muffin Princess]

Wow... am I the only person who looks at a photo or any other piece of art and doesn't analyse it with how it represents society/ life or anything else? I think the fact that the girl and the lady are in the same pose is a coincidence, is it not? And the lady is chasing after the girl to make sure she's not getting into trouble, not to chase after her youth....? :?

I look at a photo and think "yeah, that's nice" or "no, that's rubbish". I look at the technnical aspects of it, the composition, that kind of thing. Am I missing something by not analysing everything?

And yes, I did a degree in Media Production where I spent 3 years critically analysing films/ photographs etc in this way, I also found it pointless back then....

[Steven M. Anthony]

Jim wrote "But if I have to ask the artist what he or she was trying to say then isn't it rather clear that at least at some level the artist has failed."

Not necessarily. You can get a sense of what the image says to you without knowing what the artist intended. And it might be the same thing. But you will ALWAYS get SOME meaning or have some reaction to an image--even if it is "this doesn't make sense to me."

If you critique an image on the basis of what it SAYS to you, you are critiquing it based on YOUR vision--any advice you give will essentially be telling the artist to say what YOU want to say with the image. If the artist tells you what they were trying to say with the image, you can critique with respect to THE ARTIST'S vision. That way, you can help the artist say what they had intended more clearly as opposed to telling them to say what YOU would have tried to say with the same scene.

Muffin Princes wrote: "Wow... am I the only person who looks at a photo or any other piece of art and doesn't analyse it with how it represents society/ life or anything else?"

MP, all art is an expression. As humans, we interpret everything with multiple meanings. You might not interpret art as a comment on society, but even you consider it more than just, say, a picture. Think of every photo shared on this forum as a form of visual communication. Just as we talk or write, we are saying something whith every photo we take, and with every photo we share with others. If we weren't trying to communicate anything with our photos, we wouldn't take them or share them with others. To think that someone here would post a picture of a bird to simply offer it as an example of a bird is naive at best.

There is a deeper meaning and symbolic interpretation to everything we do. Think of the simple act of offering a glass of water to someone. It has many levels to interpret. Water is the source of life--offering it to others is a sign of acceptance. It is also a polite action which brings with it other implications (like you think enough of that person to be polite to them).

Now think of the effort that goes into making a film. Do you really think people go to all that effort just for the surface meaning of providing entertainment or making money?

I guess to answer your question--yes, you are missing something profound by not looking at works of art through a more interpretive lens.

[IncompletePete]

I agree with sGu, you cant dedine a real photographer by kit and wear he displays his work!

And Stephen, you cannot put artisitic, philosophical interpretation into all art. Sports photography is designed to capture a moment in time, I don't look for deeper meanings in all photos I see.

In regards to films, can you honestly say all films have a deeper meaning?! Do you honestly think movies such as the newly relased "Taxi" has a deeper meaning, some art is designed for interpretation but other art is there for purely surface viewing, nothign deeper.

[Steven M. Anthony]

I-P: Maybe sports photography isn't art...

Any photo taken and shared to tell a story has a meaning beyond the image itself. The shot of a great play is taken and shared to signify a greater story of the success of a team or the fruits of their practice. The shot of any decisive moment is taken to communicate the meaning behind that moment--not simply to document that it existed. If there was no meaning behind its existance, no one would care that the moment was documented.

And the movie you referenced surely has some deeper meaning to it--even if only by microns. For there to be a plot there must be meaning. All stories are, at their root, allegorical. We don't waste our time merely communicating facts. We communicate meaning.

[Andy_T]

Do you honestly think movies such as the newly relased "Taxi" has a deeper meaning, some art is designed for interpretation but other art is there for purely surface viewing, nothign deeper.

Well, that's why you normally critisize movies like 'Battleship Potemkin' instead :lol:

I assume the deeper motive behind 'Taxi', apart from letting people have a good time, was to make lots of money :o

Best regards,
Andy

[theflyingkiwi]

You know this post is all about trying to find a meaning in art. It does not matter what kinda of art it is. Just image the photo posted as a painting, how would you look at then?

Like any art, it comes down to the person viewing it. It does not matter what the subject is. In this case the experienced photographer saw something else that others have missed. a meaning behind the technical skills. That is the point of making art. What he saw does not mean that everyone else saw, just like a painting.

But it is interesting to note that this experienced photographer saw the little details in the photo, which in his mind made it a better photographer. Perhaps that is what makes it a photo worth looking at. Like any "art" the meaning is there and often found in the small details.

Like film, some are worth just enjoying, but if you ever listen to a director about any film he or she makes, they always have some kinda topic/message with in the movie.

All art is subjective, no matter what the artist is trying to tell you. At the end of the day it comes down to what you get out of it. If you look a photo and see nothing, however if you see something else no one sees. Then it doesn't matter.

[karusel]

This shot gets deeper the more you think about it.

It's got three 'three thirds' in it's composition.

First, the sand, the wet sand and the sea, second, three people dividing the shot in three parts, and the last, three shadows.

The shot is nowhere really empty, though it may seem so, all the space has either some meaning because of the subjects, or it contributes to composition, or is just necessary ballast.

Metaphorically it is good as well, like people before me have said, the behavior of those people can be nicely explained and the present symbolism has quite some impact. I'm sure there are many other ways to interpret this photo and that's another reason why it's good.

It is true that at first glance, it's 'just a shot', which would make very very few clicks in an online gallery, since average person always seeks something differend, new, sensational, screaming, hot, spicy, you know what I mean. Knowing this makes me like it even more.

[Steven M. Anthony]

There is no doubt that there is meaning in this image. It had some meaning to the photorgapher when he took it. It also has meaning to all who look at the image.

But this was posted under the "Critique Corner" part of the forum. To ME, that means the photog wanted a CRITIQUE of this image.

To provide a CRITIQUE that helps the photog clarify what he was trying to say with an image (we share photos as a form of communication and generally wish our communicated messages to be understood) one needs to know what the ARTIST was TRYING TO SAY.

If you know the ARTIST'S INTENT, you can then CRITIQUE the photo relative to that intent--pointing out aspects of the image that support the intended message and those that do not.

Commenting only on technical details or JUST WHAT YOU SAW in an image (without relating it to the artist's intent) is not as helpful to the photog in terms of clarifying their voice.

[marie]

MP, all art is an expression. As humans, we interpret everything with multiple meanings. You might not interpret art as a comment on society, but even you consider it more than just, say, a picture. Think of every photo shared on this forum as a form of visual communication. Just as we talk or write, we are saying something whith every photo we take, and with every photo we share with others. If we weren't trying to communicate anything with our photos, we wouldn't take them or share them with others. To think that someone here would post a picture of a bird to simply offer it as an example of a bird is naive at best.

There is a deeper meaning and symbolic interpretation to everything we do. Think of the simple act of offering a glass of water to someone. It has many levels to interpret. Water is the source of life--offering it to others is a sign of acceptance. It is also a polite action which brings with it other implications


(like you think enough of that person to be polite to them).



Now think of the effort that goes into making a film. Do you really think people go to all that effort just for the surface meaning of providing entertainment or making money?

I guess to answer your question--yes, you are missing something profound by not looking at works of art through a more interpretive lens.



I could stay up and listen to what you have to say.. forever
(it's late)

thanks for your input around

:)

[Hellashot]

That image doesn't do anything for me.

[karusel]

Steven, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The way you put it, there is no way to critique a photo that is a result of the right person being at the right place shooting the right thing at the right moment - because he felt he liked the shot.

There are numerous 'lucky snapshots' around, also made by actual professionals or advanced amateurs. The artist's intent could only be to capture the moment, but accidentally the way he captures it creates a thrilling image.

There are two ways of understanding art; first, by truly knowing an artist one can guess what he meant with what he produced and then critisize within that realm alone; and second, by ignoring the artist and just inspecting his piece.

You have to admit that you cannot admire something, that is not connected to some part of you, a memory, a wish, a dream, present, past, current event you heard of or read about, a book, etc. Nobody knows everything, we would have difficulties understanding Japanese jokes, but still, we like their art, actually, we would probably find art around the globe pretty much equally likable. Even if we fail to see what the artist meant with it. We're just awed, somehow.

[Steven M. Anthony]

Steven, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The way you put it, there is no way to critique a photo that is a result of the right person being at the right place shooting the right thing at the right moment - because he felt he liked the shot.

There are numerous 'lucky snapshots' around, also made by actual professionals or advanced amateurs. The artist's intent could only be to capture the moment, but accidentally the way he captures it creates a thrilling image.

There are two ways of understanding art; first, by truly knowing an artist one can guess what he meant with what he produced and then critisize within that realm alone; and second, by ignoring the artist and just inspecting his piece.

You have to admit that you cannot admire something, that is not connected to some part of you, a memory, a wish, a dream, present, past, current event you heard of or read about, a book, etc. Nobody knows everything, we would have difficulties understanding Japanese jokes, but still, we like their art, actually, we would probably find art around the globe pretty much equally likable. Even if we fail to see what the artist meant with it. We're just awed, somehow.

But the intent was to capture the moment--or there would be no photo! If the photog's camera was set in a way that made a cool image, fine. It might not have captured the original intent of the photog when he took the photo. But the act of sharing the photo is the act of communication. So even an "accidental" photo is processed in some way and shared FOR A REASON--WITH AN INTENDED MESSAGE (even if it is just 'look at the cool image I made'). Once we, as CRITIQUERS, know the reason the image was shared, we can CRITIQUE in a way that will help the artist clarify their message.

And I'm not confusing "understanding or liking" art with CRITIQUING art. Sure, every image says SOMETHING to me. And sure, we can be awed by something the artist never meant. But that approach to critique is egocentric. But my point about critiquing to the intent of the artist is that it HELPS THE ARTIST CLARIFY THEIR MESSAGE--so the artist has a better chance of being heard for what they were saying. Like if you were in Italy, speaking english to a group of people, they could like the the sounds you were making while crying for help because you broke your leg. But wouldn't you just love to have someone available that could translate what you were saying so they would understand your message?

[mdude85]

nice photo, BUT I bet he threw away a lot of your photos, because if he didn't, you wouldn't think he was a "real" photographer as you put it. Perhaps he was acting to protect his image?

The real question is, did you like his photos?