Rich, Pictures should have many layers of interest. Formal qualities are but one. The gallery PF critiques are too often reductionist, "crop-osis" efforts to mold the image into something suitable for commercial photography. Commercial photography has to be explicit. Anything off-message is eliminated. I'm not saying commercial work doesn't require great skill and an intelligent eye. That also goes for popular tastes in decorative "boutique" work that many people, I have to say too many people, strive for. Regarding editing for a gallery show or art book - the editor is very important to the finished work. Ideally the collaboration should extend all the way back to the lab. AZ LOOKAROUND - Since 1978 Build a 120/35mm Lookaround! The Lookaround E-Book 5ed. http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [SPAM] Re: Working on your "eye" > From: Rich Mason <cameratraveler@xxxxxxx> > Date: Sat, September 12, 2009 7:00 pm > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > I have to say WHAT? Looking for nice compositional studies isn't a > challenge? I think it's one of the greatest challenges. It's why so > many of the pictures submitted to the gallery each week fall short. > The author didn't present a good composition and we are left to try > and figure out how we might improve what we're seeing because the > photographer didn't worry. Or maybe it's that they didn't know what > to worry about. I admire David for requesting assistance in improving > his work. Many of the Gallery submitters seem put off by a bit of > honesty, and that won't help their work get better. I know that all > praise never helped me improve much of anything. > One of the best exercises in training my own eye was working as a lab > tech for a newspaper and having to deal with other people's photos. > Some of them made by professionals and many submitted by amateurs. I > guess you could say I was one of those tasked with adding my values to > the work, because much was unusable as submitted, often requiring > cropping out 50% or more of the image to get anything resembling a > decent composition, or wishing there was 50% more in the picture with > which to work. > I agree that many published images are heavily edited, but that's > often because they have to conform to a specific inflexible space such > as a magazine cover, or they're slated to be covered with type. > Speaking of which, David's blacksmithing picture would have been good > for illustrating an article where type could have been dropped in to > the large dark area in the background. Something like this: http://img.skitch.com/20090912-td1uwgwg2pdicu7cb9fw3wjbdm.jpg > (apologies for crapping up your image, David) > Not sure what you mean by galleries editing work. If you mean they > edit out whole works to present a cohesive whole, I would agree with > you. But I don't think I've ever heard of a gallery editing > individual pieces, have you? I'd think the artist would be > responsible for presenting what they want shown in a final form, > hopefully all with good composition. > Anyway, the best way to get an answer is to ask a question. A good > way to improve is to recognize what needs improvement, otherwise > you'll likely keep on doing the same thing, getting the same results. > I respect David for requesting opinions. > Rich > On Sep 12, 2009, at 10:23 AM, lookaround360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > > > > David, > > > > I agree with those who say don't worry. I say look at raw, messy > > images > > to get the eye going. I don't think looking for nice compositional > > studies is much of a challenge. > > Formal issues are just a last tidy-up process once you have seen the > > picture. With digicams and zoom lenses one can shoot a half-dozen > > formal > > tweaks. I have found this very helpful to my "eye". The seeing in the > > first instance is the hard part. For various obvious reasons gallery > > and > > published images most often are the results of heavy editing > > emphasizing > > formalist values by people other than the artist. This bias sticks in > > every one's brain and gets in the way of really seeing. > > > > AZ > > > > LOOKAROUND - Since 1978 > > Build a 120/35mm Lookaround! > > The Lookaround E-Book 5ed. > > http://www.panoramacamera.us > > > > > > > >> -------- Original Message -------- > >> Subject: [SPAM] Working on your "eye" > >> From: David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx> > >> Date: Fri, September 11, 2009 2:17 pm > >> To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > >> <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> So how does one work on one's "eye", by which I think I mean one's > >> instinctive grasp of composition? Or for that matter, how does one > >> improve one's sense of composition at any level? I'm reasonably sure > >> that's the weakest point in my photography, and at least one > >> commenter > >> this week seems to agree. > >> -- > >> David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ > >> Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ > >> Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ > >> Dragaera: http://dragaera.info > >
