CHAT Thread - W/e comp 5-7 Feb 2010 - "Collection"

[oggalily]

OK, let's move on.

My up and down reviews:
SieSmith - Golf Markers: nice work, I like the use of selective focus combined with the overall unifomity / distribution of the markers. I might have been tempted to play around with the lighting so that it either highlighted a few badges or came in at an angle to create a catchlight on some of the metal bits.

Semaj - Thimbles and Bells: My eye is drawn to the plate with the Queen Mum on it, rather than the thimbles and bells. Your pic works better as a "collection of collections", as it were, including not only the thimbles but the plates, figurines, whisky, and something I can't quite make out on the left! Homemade pottery perhaps? I've got loads of my kids' efforts around the house. In this context (a "meta-collection") I like the framing as it gives it a feeling of enclosure, but perhaps it should have been taken straight on to the shelf so the shelf line would line up with the frame.

[HinFrance]

Well done Terri, and Happy Birthday!

Above: reggy – not MY little pony! Only a small image so not much margin for technical verbiage. The lighting is subtly directional from the front and left giving a pleasing highlight on the head of the pony in focus. The depth of field is effective. It is also very pink and quite clearly a collection of MLPs. And we'll take your word for it that it's not your collection.

Below: Delamanda – Collection of schnaps pots. Bit of record shot look to it (look who's talking). I don't know if it is the screen printing on the Rüdesheim am Rhein pot in the front right that is blurred or if it is slightly out of focus. I hope you didn't empty them all before you started. It looks like it may have been lit by camera mounted flash and could have benefited from a little bit of side fill perhaps even from a couple of bits of white paper.

Interesting take on this critiquing stuff from all concerned. Personally I can't abide Picaso's work. I think the direct translation from Spanish might be 'I take the p*ss'. The only truly horrific thing about Guernica when I saw it in the flesh is just how awful it is at full size - it's dull and trite at the sizes it is usually reproduced, but covering a whole wall . . anyway I digress, a little.

It seems that for Flake photography is science, for some an art, and for others a combination of the two. My take is that the science bit is like a language, the photograph is the story. The more you know of the language the more able you are to convey your story; but this does not mean that every story must use the most exacting and complex language to be effective. Photography is not geometry.

The science of photography is a tool - the creation of an image is often an art. The circular definition of art, of course, goes as follows: 'What is art?' ' Something created by an artist'. 'So who is an artist?' 'Someone who makes art'. So for what it's worth I think that if Terri had perfectly aligned and evenly lit her image it would have just been advertising copy at best - emotionally and mechanically devoid of humanity (but oh the frame . . why oh why oh why?). Definitely not what I look for, which, of course is the exact opposite of what Flake is looking for. Vive la difference!

Meanwhile back in the real world of important stuff I am glad to hear that you are recovering well Paul. The whole scene must have been like a sitcom scene gone very awry. Here's hoping that you are back to normal (or what passes for that) very soon.

[Sarasocke]

@ Paul - yes it was natural light.

Above : Elephants - a rather sombre image and difficult to pick out the details in the bottom half. I am guessing there is a crystal elephant in there - it may have been better to just take the wooden ones and make the photo a tick lighter. I love the two in the back - very unusual figures.

Below : Gravestones - I voted for this one because I liked it immediately. Obviously I'm no expert, I just liked the picture

[oggalily]

H, whatever you think about Picasso, he provides the perfect example of your point about having technical know-how and choosing when and how to employ it. Picasso was ridiculously talented and was perfectly capable of producing "technically" competent work from a very young age. Here's a painting of his at age 14:

He could have had a decent career with this kind of work but fortunately (IMHO) he decided to start experimenting and took the art world forward with him.

[michaelb104]

Well done Terri, what a triumphant return to the competition.


top and bottoms

purplegurl - a nice image and unique take on the theme. I like the depth of field that draws your eye to the 'collection' word in the dictionary, I just feel that the sticks and stones are a little dark.

flake - what a collection of stamps, are you a philatelist or a stamp collector?? I've got to admit I'm not sure if the background is something you've done in Photoshop or it's part of the collection. With your preamble earlier in the chat thread it tells a story but as a picture I'm afraid that it didn't draw me in.

[Forseti]

Originally Posted by HinFrance

.....for some an art, and for others a combination of the two. My take is that the science bit is like a language, the photograph is the story. The more you know of the language the more able you are to convey your story; but this does not mean that every story must use the most exacting and complex language to be effective. Photography is not geometry.

Good Lord, that's deep. Are these really your own words LOL?

Originally Posted by flake

When any of us sets up a camera for a shot, we should be thinking of the image we want to create, and how we are going to do that, after the image in on the PC we can assess how well it meets that original idea. Of course in a photo competition the original idea is going to be judged, but also we should be looking at other factors such as exposure depth of field, etc etc. The image should be judged as a whole not simply as one part, because if all we do is look at the 'WOW factor' then we are no better at judging than the Lady Mayoress who is judging a photo competition without any real knowledge, and selecting what appeals.

Originally Posted by jinky

For me, as stated elsewhere, the skill elements of taking the photograph must meet with interpretation of the theme and that is just as important - otherwise it is worthless setting the theme.

These two quotes confuse me somewhat - are not Jinky and Flake essentially in agreement here?

My own views on this subject (for what it's worth) essentially comes down to this: two words - 'fun' and 'competition'. The first (fun) meaning it's something to be enjoyed by all with the implication being that any criticisms of an entry should deal specifically with the merits, or otherwise, of the submitted image. It should not degenerate into becoming personal for which PM's will serve quite nicely. Because it is a 'competition' this obviously necessitates an element of judgement and my own personal view is that submitted entries should be judged first and foremost as to whether or not they have met the brief. The next step in the judging process should take into consideration the technical aspects of the entries - lighting, composition and others aspects that have been mentioned earlier by other posters. Other factors such as 'humour' and 'wow' (if applicable) should only be taken into consideration following this process and only then if it comes down to making the final selection. I sympathise with the point Flake makes when she says "then we are no better at judging than Lady Mayoress who is judging a photo competition without any real knowledge, and selecting what appeals" because by the simple fact that we are members of a photographic forum and therefore take an interest in our chosen hobby (or should do) then our knowledge hopefully is somewhat more detailed than the Lady Mayoress.

In entering the 'competition' I think it reasonable to say that entrants expect to see some sort of reward/acknowledgement of their efforts either reflected in the votes attracted or by way of constructive criticism in the follow up discussions. I can imagine that for some it must be pretty frustrating to have seen their submission which both meets the brief as well as being technically perfect (well almost) attracting only 1 vote whilst another which by the entrants own admission states that "it was a rushed entry of a shot that I spent 5 minutes processing at a difficult time" attracts 4 votes.

Flake sums it up nicely when she says "It's a plea to people to look at images for a little longer, including their own, to find the faults, and judge accordingly". I too hope that those who submit images to the weekend competition, as well as those just voting without taking part, can find the right balance between the fun and competitive elements because only then will this particular competition have some real meaning.

Finally, congratulations on your win Terrik. It didn't attract my vote - and not because of the imperfect circle I might add LOL.

[matt wilson]

well having looked at my own and read The crit I agree .It's too cluttered .I used glass to try for a reflection but it's ended up making a mess of things .

Less is more (good job I didn't put any more of the collection in !)

[flake]

"It seems that for Flake photography is science"

I don't think you have understood what I've been driving at at all!

As a photographic competition all aspects should be considered, but surely we need to look forther than the image itself? Technical correctness is something which is objective, and can legitamately be criticised, someones artistic vision is much more difficult to criticise, because there is no right & wrong. I don't agree with you that creating a technically perfect image makes something no better than advertising copy. Photo editors spend a lifetime critically assessing images - to get to talk to these guys is like the holy grail for many photographers, because this is the man who makes the decisions on what images are purchased, - and they do know what they are talking about!

There have probably been books written about symmetry and it's importance to the human eye a quick google search turned up nearly 600, 000 hits! People with symetrical faces appear more attractive to us, we are programmed to appreciate symmetry at a subconcious level. Some images cry out for symmetry & this is one of them. Again with lighting it's a known technique to vary the lighting, but in this case it didn't suit it. It wasn't for any single reason that I didn't vote for Terriks image, it was the whole number combined. Perhaps Terrick might recreate the image with the critiques taken into account, and we can compare the two?

Thank you Forseti for your peice you seem to have fully understood what I'm driving at. So many images this week were technically very good, Sarasockes Ferraris for example, technically it's difficult to fault other than a few suggestions over lighing and spacing (which are only suggestions!), but it doesn't say anything to me, it's a photo of four model cars, and although it's well done there needs to be more.

This weeks subject was difficult to tell any kind of story with, the temptation to just take a shot of a collection of items is strong, but for me there should be something to gel the items together, some glue to make a story.

[flake]

Not something I normally do, but given the discussion this week I'll go through this images and critique them.

Foresti's Luft Hansa & Friends:
Technically the photo is well taken, there a small criticism of uneven lighting at the top left (very minor), for me it's too crowded - too many bears, sometimes less is more. Again this is a photo of a collection, and it doesn't say much to me, if these were yours when you were young, perhaps you might have included a small photograph to personalise it. The message then would have been of a little girl and her much loved bears (who could resist that!)

reggy's not MY little pony:
God these things are awful! I like the use of depth of field and the background stars you've added, but sheesh that pink! LCD monitors even when calibrated can turn this colour into a neon disaster, and this figure in the foreground appears over saturated, it screams at the eye too much for me. Again other than the photo of someones collection, what are you trying to say to me?

HinFrance's A Collection of Dessert Fruits:
Love the lines of the wood on the table and the way they run top left to bottom right. Lighting is OK, but from the rear right? The highlight on the apples has run to clipping, a reflector on the opposite side might be useful to bring up the light. Focus is running out on the grapes, which I don't think is intentional. Is a bowl of fruit really a collection? Does this meet the brief?

Delamanda's Collection of Schnapps pots
I know that schnapps is a big thing in Germany, and that there are different flavours etc, but it's not something I know much about, unfortunately I still don't know much about it other than there are special pots to drink it from! Technically it's nicely done with even lighting, use of depth of field, and the black is nice & solid. As a criticsm when viewing the image on the link, there is a green mark on the front left pot, and another mark on the front centre one. They're only small but once the eye has seen them, they grab the attention like a magnet. Before photographing any object like this make sure that they are pristine, if there isn't a pristine on then clone out any marks in photoshop. Again what are you trying to say to me? I'd like to have seen the actual schnapps as a more prominent part of the image, after all that's the purpose of the pots! Gesundheit !

Michaelb104's Collection of Glasses:
Glass is notoriously difficult to photograph and to avoid reflections techniques like dark field have been developed. You haven't used this technique, and as a result there are specular highlights all over the place. Is that a chip in the rim of the glass closest to the viewer? It's very dark, but the black is not solid, there are reflections of light intruding which should have been removed. My first impression is that these are someones everyday glasses, what is it that makes them so special that they form part of a collection? Again what are you trying to say to me?

Beauxreflet's Trick Candles
A nice low light shot of someones birthday cake, particularly the white balance which shows the warmth of the candlelight (was this intended?). Depth of field is good enough, not always easy when the temptation is to open the aperture, and noise is well controlled. I suspect that it wasn't as dark as the photograph makes it appear to be. But does it fit the brief ? a collection? who you trying to kid? As a canidid it's a nice shot, but for me it doesn't come anywhere near the requirements set.

Cutter's Sharp Focus:
I wonder if you know just how good this shot is? anything reflective is so difficult to photograph, but this is really good. For anyone who wants, take a look at the histogram, right up to the 255 but no clipping! Check the detail on the indie blade of the top pair of scissors ! Fingerprints on shiny metal is a normal hazzard, but I can't see any, did you wipe these down first? The black background is nice & solid. In terms of composition the 'falling' effect is good, certainly better than laying them all flat in a line, but why are they cout off on the lefy? I'm thinking that there is some fixing there you want to hide? If there isn't then this would have looked really great if they were 'suspended' in mid air. But again a collection? Why would anyone collect scissors? what is it that makes them 'special' What are you trying to say to me?


SieSmith's Golf Markers
One thing I love about this, (and it makes me smile) is the central position of the 'Gleneagles' marker, I don't know much about golf, but of course I've heard of Gleneagles, and I'm pretty sure that marker isn't slap bang in the middle by accident? Are there other prestige ones there I'm missing? Depth of field is nicely done, and lighting is even (other than a dark spot on the left, although this might be the angle of a marker, and it's nit picking). This a nice image of a collection which is 'living' and has great sentimental value to its owner, although I think its subtlety might have been lost on some.

Oggalily's go-go party:
What have you done with the real Buzz Lightyear? This is a confusing image, with so many figures. For me it's far too dark especially at the foreground. The lighting is quite specific on the central red figure, what's so special about that one, because the image forces the eye to it. In terms of depth of field the figures in the forground are blurred, while the rest of the image is in focus, this confuses the image further. If you are going to use depth of field effects it's normal to blur in front and behind, I suspect that this is unwanted blur. I think there are too many figures crammed into this, and it confuses the eye. Again what are you trying to say to me?

Semaj's Thimbles & Bells
I get the impression that you weren't taking this weeks shot too seriously Semaj? The composition is terrible! You've clipped the top off the bottle, there a strange blue & green thing on the left, the plate on the right is cut in half and on the bottom you have a portion of the front of the shelf comming into view! There's been no attempt to isolate the subjects from the other items, and I'm left with the impression that this was a brief that you didn't really want to spend too much time over?

matt wilson's elephants
I quite like this especially the way the light drops, top left, however the elephant far left appear to have had the detail blasted out by the lighting. (why isn't this shown in the reflection?) The lighing on the right is too dark for detail to show, and there is an annoying green specular highlight which should have been removed in photoshop. Although the dark lighting works well in some areas of the image, in other areas it's just too dark to be able to clearly see the detail. Lighting when the subjects are on a mirror is never going to be easy, consider adding the mirror effect in post processing. The composition is good, it's nice to see an attempt to make an image, but again what are you trying to say to me? what is the glue that gels this collection together (other than them being elephants!)

Sarasocke's Ferrari collection
I've done this one elsewhere so I'll keep it brief. Technically this is very good, and the only comments I can make are of a 'suggestions' nature Lighting from above means shadows underneath, consider the use of a reflector to fill the area underneath the cars. They are very close together, too close? Other than that black is nice & solid and lighting is even and not over done. But for me it's just a photograph of four cars, what is it that makes them special? I keep comming back to this phrase, but again what are you trying to say to me?

Well that's it! It's taken me an age & I've tried to be constructive and to hopefully give some food for thought. I hope that it's of some use, I don't normally critique images so this is a bit of a one off!

[Sarasocke]

Well done, flake ! You certainly have much more experience and know-how than me

I'm not sure what we all could have done to answer the "what are you trying to say to me?" For the most part the articles are objects people have collected, whether they be glasses, thimbles or Ferraris.
For me, the Ferraris were something I collected many years ago - the story was told in the chat thread. Maybe I should have included the brake caliper.