Author Topic: 2 out of five need to go (Read 5305 times)

gregor · « **on:** February 14, 2010, 05:22:05 PM »

Opening this for critique, 2 out of these 5 need to be eliminated for an exhibit I'm planning. I'll be taking these into the darkroom along with 15 other pieces and printing at 24x24 inches. Feedback will be appreciated. Kindness is not required in any comments/critique !

The theme of the work is "Place" and refers to the public, private and natural in that theme. It is not being billed as a "toy camera" show, nor will all shots be from the diana.

Thanks

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

al · « **Reply #1 on:** February 14, 2010, 06:18:17 PM »

I'd keep 1, 3 and 5, especially 1 and 3.

2 - find myself distracted by the lengths of timber at the top, doesn't sit so nicely with the other shots as a set
4 - there doesn't seem to be a focal point to draw my attention,the off focus centre is a bit extreme for me

Nigel · « **Reply #2 on:** February 14, 2010, 07:07:22 PM »

I agree with Al, for me it's 1, 3 and 5 are by far the strongest, and I like them. good luck with the exhibition.

calbisu · « **Reply #3 on:** February 14, 2010, 07:24:05 PM »

I specially like 1, 2 (because the wheels) and 4 (because the window). The only ?but? is that #1 seems out of place in relation to 2 and 4, may be because the tone. Hope it helps

vicky slater · « **Reply #4 on:** February 14, 2010, 08:00:16 PM »

1, 2 and definitely 5.

Karl · « **Reply #5 on:** February 14, 2010, 09:17:12 PM »

Speed, ie gut, reaction says go for 1, 3 and 4. I think these are the stongest and create the most emotive feelings for me as a viewer. 1, 3 and 5 might work better as a set. I am not so keen on the tyre swings. It just seems a bit ordinary/lacking in atmosphere, something the others have in abundance. I've done 2 exhibitions over the past 6 months so I empathise with your situation. I did pick images that I knew others had remarked on and that were also important to me as showing that I was developing a voice of my own so I had hit 2 criteria beyond just what I liked.

Mike (happyforest) · « **Reply #6 on:** February 14, 2010, 09:47:42 PM »

To some extent I agree with Al I find the top of this picture cluttered.

However when I was scrolling through them the top of this was cut off and I think makes for me a better image.

Out of the others I agree with others here 1 and 5.

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

Francois · « **Reply #7 on:** February 14, 2010, 10:29:27 PM »

Still, I find the tires don't seem to fit with the others which are more natural looking...

gregor · « **Reply #8 on:** February 15, 2010, 02:15:00 AM »

Interesting feedback thus far and appreciated. I find it interesting that 1 & 5 seem fairly consistent choices and I'm curious as to why. Among the 5 they are the 'prettiest' to some extent, but I don't know if they have the weltanschauung of #4 (despite the crappy scan of the negative here), which I feel is the strongest of the five images. #3 has had very favorable response among my peers and colleagues here. However I wonder if it's a bit kitschy in it's use of blur - which is to say I'm not certain the blur from coating the diana lens with several layers of nail polish adds depth to the image or merely differentiates it from other shots due to that blur.

Just as a contrast, let's look at it like this side by side with a rothko painting that I've grayscaled so color doesn't interfere. Of course they are different mediums but that isn't a consideration. The consideration is where the image takes the viewer based on the image maker's intentionality. Are #1 & 5 compelling images (are any of them for that matter), or are they just diifferent grades of decoration or even wallpaper...

So I'm posting two contrasting views pared with the rothko just to add a new element into the discussion.

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

LT · « **Reply #9 on:** February 15, 2010, 07:39:52 AM »

Hi Greg.

I have to say that none of them particularly stir my coffee. I find them a bit 'generic toycamera' = more about the effect than the composition, and none of them suggest the theme "place" to me, other than their being taken in a place, which of corse is the same for any photo. There is no consistency in style either ... It would be difficult to tell that they were all taken by the same photographer. Of the 5, the 1st has the most promise and with some careful printing to bring out the highlight halo and exagerate the vignette - perhaps some Kenna-esque light thiocarbamide to the highlights to really make it glow, it would be much more promising. I'm not really getting the whole Rothko thing - can you explain that some more?

vicky slater · « **Reply #10 on:** February 15, 2010, 08:59:23 AM »

Greg, I'm a big blur fan (the band too :) but personally i think it has to be used with some intention....you're blurring areas to bring the focus to other parts or you're blurring it all to emphasise the compositions or colour...3 and 4 are lacking in those elements to me whilst 5 IS pretty (and there's nothing at all wrong with pretty, i like it).

I'm not sure I understand the comparison to Rothko either, wasn't colour the most important element in his pictures, removing it doesn't make sense???

Alan · « **Reply #11 on:** February 15, 2010, 09:55:11 AM »

well #4 is my fav of the images, thats not what your asking . . . I know.

I would have to go with Leon on this as regards my interest for the images.

as a set for me 1, 3 & 5 work and also as a set 2 & 4 work.

I suppose a thought would be
'how do these images work with the rest of the project'

Miller · « **Reply #12 on:** February 15, 2010, 12:30:16 PM »

4 and number 2 cropped (possibly)... Trees are not my genre being from a concrete jungle. Having seen a few real Rothko canvasses (in colour) I cannot understand the correlation.

A friend of mine is a good art critique and knows the Brian Sewell type language. I'll see what he says.

Hope it goes well....

gregor · « **Reply #13 on:** February 15, 2010, 05:23:42 PM »

good feedback. here's why the rothko was brought in: "The consideration is where the image takes the viewer based on the image maker's intentionality."

Vicky - sure, color was important to Rothko although he flatly denied being a colorist. However that's not the point here, it's the painting's composition & foundation itself where Rothko's painterly language emerges.

Leon - I appreciate the honesty and still giving some thoughts on top of it. By the way, it's Gregor, only my mom and bill collectors call me Greg.

vicky slater · « **Reply #14 on:** February 15, 2010, 06:35:13 PM »

Hi Gregor, I still don't understand.
Doesn't removing the colour means that we are no longer viewing Rothko's intentions?
Isn't the use of colour as much part of the painterly language as composition?

I'm genuinely curious how you see it.

sapata · « **Reply #15 on:** February 15, 2010, 06:38:32 PM »

I'd keep 1, 4 and 5 as they're stronger in my opinion. I think that is too much going on with the second shot. Maybe if was taken with the Diana the blur would soften some areas and the wheels would be in evidence.

sapata · « **Reply #16 on:** February 15, 2010, 06:40:06 PM »

sorry... just noticed that the wheels shot was also taken with a Diana camera !!... looks totally apart from the other shots...

gregor · « **Reply #17 on:** February 15, 2010, 06:59:13 PM »

:-) the tire swing is a Diana +, thus the substancial difference!

Vicky, I'll clarify later - on mobile now!

LT · « **Reply #18 on:** February 15, 2010, 07:22:41 PM »

apologies re the name spelling - it was a genuine typo, I'm usually careful to get names correct - I hate it when people shorten me to Le.

I blame Apple - it was my iPod Touch auto spell correction.

Le.

PS - like Vicky, I'm still missing the Rothko Point - why desat it? could it be replaced with any type of picture? What does it add to your picture, or to what others might see in your picture? Placing something so obviously abstract next to something that isn't ... I'm doing my best, but I cant see the point?

Francois · « **Reply #19 on:** February 15, 2010, 10:32:32 PM »

Can't figure out the Rothco connection either...
Rothco was an abstract painter in the colorfield abstraction category. He was painting the colors of a foggy landscape. The paintings have pop colors with soft edges. Turning them to B&W is pretty much going against the original intent.

original_ann · « **Reply #20 on:** February 16, 2010, 02:50:27 AM »

Great images, but the ones that make me gasp are two in particular: I'm a huge fan of 1 and 4.

CamerAsian · « **Reply #21 on:** February 16, 2010, 07:15:40 AM »

Keep #1, #3 and #4.

Diane Peterson · « **Reply #22 on:** February 16, 2010, 04:19:44 PM »

for what its worth..I love #1..#2 and #4...I'm always the odd man out with my choices!

Stu · « **Reply #23 on:** March 02, 2010, 01:43:24 PM »

Quote from: Diane Peterson on February 16, 2010, 04:19:44 PM

for what its worth..I love #1..#2 and #4...I'm always the odd man out with my choices!

Completely agree - not with you being the odd one out but with your choices.

Blaxton · « **Reply #24 on:** March 03, 2010, 12:20:00 AM »

For me, #1, with all that mist, might make a beautiful large print. #4 is a near miss. I start to get lost in the shadow and wood stains on the side of the building--lovely abstraction--but I don't feel it strongly enough. I keep coming back to an out-of-focus picture of a building. Maybe a large print would work better. Of the others, only #2 interests me but I think it might just be a nostalgia button being pushed.

gregor · « **Reply #25 on:** March 03, 2010, 04:38:38 PM »

thanks for all the feedback. I've been pre-occupied with work related deadlines...

my proofsheets are in the hands of an impartial ehxibit curator, who I'm sure will pull togethet a coherent group of shots. being one's curator, the tendency is to select based on criteria that may or may not work.

thanks again.