Thank you, Gregory, for your thought-out comments. I reply below to some of them about others' work as well as to my own.
-yoram
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Gregory <fyrframe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The only point of such a photograph is the inscription and the monument's context. So without being able to read it. . .
Bicycle:
I fail to understand the point. If comp is the only subject, the image works. Contrast, color levels all work. . .
I agree, but yet the scene is evocative. As plain as it might be, it has value in a nostalgic collection.
Smiley Tower:
. . . Are you trying to juxtapose the road with the tower? Good contrast, color levels but the point (titling) of the image it seems, is lost in that I have to look hard to even see the tower much less define that tower. . .
This raises the question: should the title be necessary to judge or appreciate any image? I think a work should not depend on the title -- unless it's a journalist's explanation of the subject. In this case, without the title, there is little interest.
Memorial:
First, why are you standing to the left of this memorial? Second why is the focus so soft I can't read the entire memorial's scripture?. . .etc. . . .
The only point of such a photograph is the inscription and the monument's context. So without being able to read it. . .
Smoke:
An interesting viewpoint. . .
I agree. The body language of the smoker is what I see. And the smoke.
Crooked Mile:
I respect Yoram's work. This image needs something to break up the lines both the shadows as well as the fence line. An awesome addition would have been a natural inclusion of say, a horse in the "V" section of this image or a contrived addition such as a couple making love, or......???
Thank you. I admit I'm still puzzled with what to do with this. In fact, I replaced the first version that I sent to the Forum, and I was about to replace it again but decided to just let it go. What got me was the white posts against the black rails, the crooked rail shadow, and the painted road edge, all referencing each other somehow. Maybe I should go back and just wait for the right moment and change my camera position. By the way, there were some lovers in the little gully and a horse too but I cloned them out! -- just intruders.
Arches:
. . .Dramatics would have succeeded had the author presented a more intense rendering of this site . . . This image is boring.
Sometimes the implied statement makes an otherwise plain image interesting. To see these pillars of hard rock makes me imagine what it was like when nearly everything was covered with the molten substance which these pillars represent. And the plumes breaking through the surface so closely spaced.
There are those, who assume they are great, i.e.: lots of success. But sometimes, that requires an arrogance to sustain that success. The end result is, that person can not see failure.
First Camera: OK, so what?
Well put.
Andrew Davidhazy: Another in his series of motion imaging. This images lack knowledge. Should we simply defy understanding? Motion is obvious subject? If so, then why the defined hand? Technically, the image works without needing to know how it was achieved. But adding the hand involves confusion. Also, the background looks like low-res pixilation.
I've tried to understand the relationship between motion photography and the effects produced by moving and/or still portions of the subject. But I don't. I'm guessing that the pinkie was moving slower than the rest of the hand, which was moving slower that the rest of the body(?) but that's as far as I get. Perhaps our instructor can hand out a solution sheet? To me, it is interesting as an abstract, and even more interesting as a puzzle.
My thoughts are intended to criticize but not bash. I would appreciate any comments.
My intentions as well.
