Topic: my critique session

[hookstrapped]

Michael Foley, who runs a gallery in NYC and teaches at the School of Visual Arts, hosts these critique sessions of 4-6 photographers for three hours in an evening. I've been to a few and found the feedback helpful and I like being forced to think about and try to articulate why I like or dislike a given photo.

So I took my 11x14 prints of the Fuji pos-negs and little 5x7 prints of my Brooklyn at Night pics to the critique.

There's something to be said for looking at photos for more than the typical fraction of a second. This one guy's stuff, a mix of solitary contemplative figures in the city with abstract geometrics from the city, really grew on me from just looking at them for a long time (each person's stuff was up and discussed for about 45 minutes), with this one in particular that went from dismissed to my favorite.

Then the next guy had these crowd pleasers (lightning over Venice) and others that wouldn't get many social media likes but were much more interesting.

Then my pos-negs, which everyone really liked a lot (which was gratifying because I feared that being so dark they wouldn't print well). But then people commented a bit more and the first guy was pointing out the ones he liked (Keila, Yesenia nude figure, Sahomy sitting on bed portrait):












and the ones he didn't (the other two of Yesenia):








He said because the two he didn't like so much told him everything there was to know or feel at the first look, whereas the others engaged and drew him in. Like with the second guy's crowd pleasers vs his more interesting stuff.

This is what the edit looks like now (with borders trimmed -- another strong suggestion):
http://www.hookstrapped.com/photo-obscura

This was my big take-away from the night. He had similar comments about the Brooklyn night pics. He really loved the last one, the woman walking alone in Bushwick which is also my favorite.




So, this has implications for my trip to Cuba in January ($240 round-trip, btw). I can't just do straight portraits. I'll do them because I want to give folks something they'd like, and I might get something good doing that, but I also need to think of other set-ups, full-body, shots that contain some ambiguity and mystery that can't be read in a second, interactions with their environment, abstract figures...

We talked about a series needing the easy to read pics to create breathing space, but yeah, that was important for me to hear.

The last person, a woman who does this collaborative stuff with women tapping into their inner goddess (many were cliché, some were quite good -- again, the same thing, what makes a cliché a cliché? partly the ability to read it, recognize it, and know it in a fraction of a second). She used this process of gluing the fiber paper to wood, then brushing melted beeswax over, called encaustic (apparently the place to learn how to do it is up the Hudson River Valley north of NYC). It worked.

Ever since I got my pos-neg prints, I was thinking about how I'd like them to physically have the texture and layering the chemical goop gives to the actual neg. I think I'm gonna play around with this technique.

[02Pilot]

I've been sporadically attending a photographer's salon up in Woodstock, and like you I find the process of commenting and critiquing a useful one. Some of the responses I've gotten are what I expected, while others are things I never considered. Everything is done with prints (no phones/tablets/laptops) laid out on a table. Discussions are shorter than at yours, and attendance is higher (12-15, typically). Still, I've found it a very productive experience.

[Francois]

Encaustics are pretty easy to do. You basically use bees wax to adhere the paper to other medium.
There are two typed of bees wax: regular and bleached. The regular will give everything a sepia look. The clear stuff is just that.
An easy way to apply it is to keep it in a cheap slow cooker and use a brush. You can also use whatever heats to do larger surfaces.
It does smell good but they say the fumes it produces when you heat it is carcinogenic...

[Dave Elden]

This resonates with me. For me one useful way to categorise photographs is as "looking" images & "seeing" images. In a looking image the photographer is saying "look at this". The subject is clear and the photograph is describing it - maybe with great clarity and insight but all the questions are being answered.
In the "seeing" photograph the photographer is asking "what can we see in the image?". This is perhaps the harder photograph to make work, so many ways it can go wrong compared to the looking photograph (maybe the viewer can't see anything to interest them, usually not a problem with the looking photograph). But when it connects and an interesting question is posed and prompts interesting answers it can be more rewarding than the "looking' photograph.
Dave.

[hookstrapped]

Encaustics are pretty easy to do. You basically use bees wax to adhere the paper to other medium.
There are two typed of bees wax: regular and bleached. The regular will give everything a sepia look. The clear stuff is just that.
An easy way to apply it is to keep it in a cheap slow cooker and use a brush. You can also use whatever heats to do larger surfaces.
It does smell good but they say the fumes it produces when you heat it is carcinogenic...

The woman who used the process says she glues the print to wood, then applies the wax over it. She used clear wax. She says the hardest part is gluing the print to the wood, but overall it's simple and easy to do.

[hookstrapped]

This resonates with me. For me one useful way to categorise photographs is as "looking" images & "seeing" images. In a looking image the photographer is saying "look at this". The subject is clear and the photograph is describing it - maybe with great clarity and insight but all the questions are being answered.
In the "seeing" photograph the photographer is asking "what can we see in the image?". This is perhaps the harder photograph to make work, so many ways it can go wrong compared to the looking photograph (maybe the viewer can't see anything to interest them, usually not a problem with the looking photograph). But when it connects and an interesting question is posed and prompts interesting answers it can be more rewarding than the "looking' photograph.
Dave.

Yup.  I don't think this is something we all haven't thought about or realized before, but the way it became the theme of the night really reinforced the idea. I like the way you describe it.

Another theme that came out, which a critique session like this is very good at revealing, is how we tend to like certain of our own photos for the circumstances around which we shot them but which no one else looking at them knows or appreciates.

[Francois]

Encaustics are pretty easy to do. You basically use bees wax to adhere the paper to other medium.
There are two typed of bees wax: regular and bleached. The regular will give everything a sepia look. The clear stuff is just that.
An easy way to apply it is to keep it in a cheap slow cooker and use a brush. You can also use whatever heats to do larger surfaces.
It does smell good but they say the fumes it produces when you heat it is carcinogenic...

The woman who used the process says she glues the print to wood, then applies the wax over it. She used clear wax. She says the hardest part is gluing the print to the wood, but overall it's simple and easy to do.

You can use acrylic medium as a glue. It's easy to apply and it gives you a bit of working time. Best of all it's acid free.

[hookstrapped]

Encaustics are pretty easy to do. You basically use bees wax to adhere the paper to other medium.
There are two typed of bees wax: regular and bleached. The regular will give everything a sepia look. The clear stuff is just that.
An easy way to apply it is to keep it in a cheap slow cooker and use a brush. You can also use whatever heats to do larger surfaces.
It does smell good but they say the fumes it produces when you heat it is carcinogenic...

The woman who used the process says she glues the print to wood, then applies the wax over it. She used clear wax. She says the hardest part is gluing the print to the wood, but overall it's simple and easy to do.

You can use acrylic medium as a glue. It's easy to apply and it gives you a bit of working time. Best of all it's acid free.

Cool, thanks!

[Ed Wenn]

Fantastic thread; thanks for taking the time to post the details and your 'take aways' . I'm going to dwell on this concept of 'looking' and 'seeing' photographs too.

BTW, I'm already looking forward to you Cuba pictures!! 

[Late Developer]

It is a good thread.

Like Ed, I'm also doing some pondering on the differences between understanding a photo and simply looking at one.  I might invest in one or two of the learned tomes written on the subject - but I also think a lot can be achieved without by simply spending more time looking - at the environment, the focal points and the interactions between them.  Is there a narrative?  Is it obvious?  Are there "blanks" we feel the need to fill in for ourselves?

I'm also going to start thinking about my potential audience when shooting.  I used to do this all the time when I was shooting weddings and portraits (for obvious reasons) but, when there isn't a brief to work to, it's easy to get into the habit of shooting solely for oneself.  Nothing wrong with that, on the face of it, but we shouldn't assume that anyone else will understand either our motivations or intentions.