I am stalled... Need some tough love.

None of the images do it for me but, then, I'm not your most important viewer.

Unless you are working for a client YOU are the best judge of your own work. Not Instagram. Not Flickr. Not even POTN.

You.

GlimmerMan wrote in post #18889565
..........this theme of detachment.

GlimmerMan, the 5 images you posted have a lot of similarity to a number of your previous image postings. To me, they convey a theme of darkness, sadness, human tragedy, isolation, depression, days of the past, etc, etc. I have often thought about working on similar stories, but the thought alone brings me down and that is why I seldom gave a 'like' to your previous images. I am not a good enough photographer to critique your work on technical basis, but I have seen the common thread among them. If I could only make one observation, it would be that the photographs are "trying too hard" to convey a message.
Just my humble 2 cents worth.

Sibil wrote in post #18893294
.....I have seen the common thread among them. If I could only make one observation, it would be that the photographs are "trying too hard" to convey a message.

Thanks for the comments; I didn't realize it myself until folks pointed it out.
I like the 'trying too hard' comment as there's truth to it. That'll fit quite well on my tombstone. (#UnintentionallyTragi​c).

.
For perhaps the first time ever, someone has presented images for critique, and I don't have anything to say about them.

I guess that the reason I normally have so much to say - so many insights about images - is because it is usually clear to me what the photographer was trying to do, or trying to say, with the images that they took.

With your images, when I look at them, it is not clear to me what it is that you were trying to say through them. . I don't know what visual message you were trying to convey. . It is impossible for me to suggest how you could better convey your message, if I have no idea what that message is.

So, in a move that is completely new for me, I am going to ask you if you would be so kind as to articulate for us what exactly it was that you were trying to accomplish with each photo. . You could tell us just what it was that you wanted each photo to say, and then tell us why you shot each one the way you did - why you shot from the particular POV that you shot from, why you included each thing in the composition, etc.

I guess what I'm saying is that I would really need to "get into your head" in order to know how to begin assessing these photos that you have presented to us.

.

Tom's comments pretty much summed up my initial thoughts about these photos. On balance all I saw is photos that were devoid of people without a story. Hopefully the OP will dive in with some explanations.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18894317
For perhaps the first time ever, someone has presented images for critique, and I don't have anything to say about them.

Sweet. Thanks for asking; I took all the straight forward shots in these locations, but didn't think they were anything unique. Here's what I was thinking to myself when I took the image:

1) Drive in - How do you show nature reclaiming and burying this place? I also liked the idea of sneaking into a drive in.
2) Tent - This is a really beautiful scene; what if it were creepy instead?
3) Winter - I just liked the lines and perspective in the location; simply wanted to make a bright winter photograph.
4) El Camino - El Caminos are awesome and belong in car chases. The red white and blue colors were a happy accident, although that's why I love this image. I fought to get the comp, spacing and that exact moment.
5) TV - Perhaps context is missing from the image, but it was in a chapel in a prison. The idea of being watched from above, and also being watched from above, made a mark. In prison, not even your prayers can be your own.
Cheers!

Maybe I focus more on maintaining a type of style, maybe some rules, and I like the idea of triptychs. IDK, just tinkering with a Watching You Controlling You thing.
But anyway, we've beat this thread to death. The comments gave me more than I asked, more to consider than I knew, and some insights along the way.
Cheers to the journey!

I like Tom's comments, but we need to be a little careful here. Not all art - regardless of the medium - does or should appeal to all people universally. Tom does great wild life images. I appreciate the technical expertise he has in this area. He does good work. But it doesn't "resonate" with me because I see most of that stuff in my back yard daily. In fact it is a constant battle to keep those critters out of my yard. Likewise I was in DC a couple of weeks ago, did a couple of the museums of the Smithsonian, and some of the work "resonated' with me, and some did not. Not all art will talk to people in the same way, nor should it.

Some images have very clear focus. This is an Elk... a majestic elk. Or here is someone doing something very athletic. Or hey, look at this very appealing person. I get stuck in that rut too often. Other work is more abstract... and some just make you say WTF. Often though that is exactly what the artist wants you to think. Confusing often is just as compelling as explicitly obvious content.

This is sounding all a bit too pompous.... sorry about that. But there is a clear difference between "artful" images, images that record an event, and things that are just snap shots. They all do not equally apply to all people. I am profoundly bored at my age at glamour images. You've seen one, you've pretty much seen them all. Many think the same of Sports images which I play in. And that is totally ok.

What I like about this stuff presented here is it is this persons unique vision on the world. I like seeing how people see things differently than I do.... so I guess that is what I liked about it.

GlimmerMan wrote in post #18889095
2) Fixed Tent at State Park

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/NuFd​GX (2018-1005)-Ohiopyle-X100T-108 by Super Nobody, on Flickr

.
I really, really appreciate the way that the tree trunks are arranged in this image. . They are positioned so that their arrangement appears to be entirely random ..... which is actually very difficult to accomplish.

I love that there is no "standout" tree trunk in the middle of the frame - when there is, an image will always look extremely awkward to me because the tree trunk will cause the image to appear to be divided down the middle (which is awful looking).

I also love that there is a partial tree trunk along the right edge of the frame ..... and that there is NOT a partial tree trunk along the left side of the frame. . In order to achieve good design, it is imperative that a tree trunk form the edge on one side of the image, but not the other. . Otherwise, the sense of randomness is lost and the image would look too intentionally framed.

There is one tree trunk that is much larger than the others, and that serves a a major visual element in this composition. . I like that it is positioned where it is in the frame - not at all central, but not hovering on the brink of an edge, either.

This aesthetically appealing arrangement of the tree trunks is the thing that really resonates with me in this image. . When I look at them carefully, I do not wish that their arrangement were any different than it is ..... and that almost never happens!

.

GlimmerMan wrote in post #18895702

.
I really like this image ..... the composition is visually engaging.

I also like the "washed out" color palette - it's quite beautiful. . Except for one thing - the color of the grass at the top of the frame. . The overall image has this nice washed out, muted look, and then that grass is a strong, dark, bold, over-saturated green. . Yuck! . This green color just doesn't go with the rest of the image. . It is completely incongruous with its surroundings.

Have you attempted to tame the overbold, too-dark tones of the grass, and just weren't able to figure out how to do it? . Or did you actually want it to look so over-saturated and to stand out from the rest of the image?

Overall it really is such a nice image, and it is a shame to have it ruined by just one thing that looks like it could be easily corrected.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18895870
I also like the "washed out" color palette - it's quite beautiful. . Except for one thing - the color of the grass at the top of the frame. . The overall image has this nice washed out, muted look, and then that grass is a strong, dark, bold, over-saturated green. . Yuck! . This green color just doesn't go with the rest of the image.

Tom, on my screen the green is fine. It's so dark that it's not conspicuously green. For me, it works as an asset by contributing to a pattern of symmetry.

The dark area at the top and the orange area at the bottom are shaped similarly enough that they reflect each other. They come from opposite corners. At the other corners, upper right and lower left, patches of almost matching texture likewise "signal to" each other. Then there are small round details closer to the center which are also complementary, one on each side.

I think that someone beginning to study composition would do well to trace the main features in a copy of this image, as a hands-on exercise, with tracing paper, to force attention to the way these elements combine to create tension, leaving aside any consideration of their colors.

.

OhLook wrote in post #18895932
Tom, on my screen the green is fine.

.
Look closely at the green grass, particularly the area at the base of the "ONE WAY" sign and the lamp post. . Are you really sure that it is not a richer, more vivid, more saturated color than the other colors in the image?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18895977
Look closely at the green grass, particularly the area at the base of the "ONE WAY" sign and the lamp post. . Are you really sure that it is not a richer, more vivid, more saturated color than the other colors in the image?

Hosted photo: posted by Tom Reichner in
./showthread.php?p=188​95977&i=i145688805
forum: Critique Corner

There's so much black in it that it hardly registers as green. FYI, my screen brightness is typically set to one notch below the middle.

.

OhLook wrote in post #18896064
There's so much black in it that it hardly registers as green. FYI, my screen brightness is typically set to one notch below the middle.

.
That would explain the difference between what you are seeing and what I am seeing. . "One notch", to me, seems like a big difference. . But then again, I am extremely sensitive to any slight variations in tones or colors or tints. . Extremely sensitive! . And picky, as well.


.

I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I'd say from your original 5, I really like 1 and 5. They give a great sense of abandonment and isolation. 2 is similar but less strong. I would probably like it better in B&W, but then again I like almost every image better in B&W

3 & 4 don't do the same for me - the tram and truck moving through kill any sense of isolation in 3, and closely parked cars don't give me that in 4, despite the lack of people.