- This topic is empty.
Old buds
-
Brutally honest eh? Not enough contrast for a black and white image. Doesn’t do for me, sorry!!! :oops:
Brutally honest:
As a texture I think it’s great. As a photo it would have to fall into the abstract category for me. I wouldn’t hang it on my wall, but I might use it as a texture or background in a PS creation.
Tim
Thanks to all who took the time to comment, the results are pretty much as I expected. This is actually one of my favourite pictures so far this year, though I wouldn’t expect anybody to get that by looking at this reduction. So far I’ve printed this up to A3+, and will print it even bigger- I’ve already enlarged it to a quarter of a billion (interpolated) pixels, and the final print size will be 900 x 1350mm. The image posted above is one/ twelve hundred of that size.
For me, one of the main ways that photography manifests itself as an art form is in the presentation of the print. Browsing tiny reductions on the internet will always be a distant relation. There is a danger that the print is being bypassed already in some instances, and that most images are only ever destined to be a flicker on a screen.
The picture postcard, or chocolate box type picture, will always do well when reproduced at any scale- that is what it is designed to do. Many images will fall into both camps and can be reduced as well as enlarged. But there are some images which rely on minute detail to seduce; this can never be achieved in 200,000 pixels.
This is an image that does not reduce well, that’s fairly obvious. However I do think there is a danger that these forums will tend to narrow the spectrum of photography down to images that are easily legible at a small scale. As long as there continues to be an ambition to produce printed work, then that is not a problem, however I think there is a danger in commenting on pictures here as if they were finished pieces (unless, of course, thats what they are)
To John, there isn’t really a problem with contrast on the printed image, as you can see from the detail- this detail is reproduced at approximately print size, depending on the dot pitch of your monitor. There could be more contrast, but there wont be. Yes, there is a colour original, but that is not the picture I’m printing.
To Tim, its definitely not abstract, even at this scale. I wouldn’t expect you to hang it on your wall, as you are an accomplished photographer and probably don’t have much wall space left. However, this is already hanging on other walls at the moment, and will be hanging on more soon.
To Paperdoll, you’re dead right, it is too difficult to see anything- but to me that is a problem concerning the medium rather than the image. I’ve chosen to present a picture in entirely the wrong format. It is a photograph, its just not the right type.
Of course, I might be the only one on the planet who likes this image (not actually the case), I’m just a little bit concerned that these forums are promoting a reductive approach to the presentation of photographs, if not actually the taking of them. Sorry to go on so much…
Thanks again for the comments, however, what would be useful to me would be some discussion regarding the composition, if someone would care to try.
It’s just that I don’t get the point of posting for comment a small image, without reference to the bigger, relevant, image. Were you just posting to show the shortcomings of posting in these forums? If so why not just make that point in your first post?
Danny , I just don’t have the time for a full reply at the moment, but one reason is to provoke a discussion about the nature of photography in the digital age, and whether the technology is promoting a different way of looking at things, and is the presentation of pictures online to be seen as an end in itself? If so it may be chaging the way we look at photographs, and maybe its worth a thread of its own, away from this one.
I wouldn’t use the word ‘shortcomings” myself, I would prefer ‘limitations’ as its probably slightly less emotive.
Again, sorry I don’t have more time just now, and if you’re slightly irked, well, sorry for that too.
joseph
jb7 wrote:
To Tim, its definitely not abstract, even at this scale.
Perhaps when asking for comments and criticism (especially “brutal”), you could take what people say at face value – i.e. THEIR opinion. In my mind, there is no strong compositional element, and no single area of interest. Yes – I can tell what it is, but in MY eyes I think it has a certain abstract appeal to it. Thanks for letting me know I’m “wrong” though :wink:
(Don’t think I’m having a go by the way – that’s all been written very tongue in cheek)
As for compositional feedback:
It’s a very flat “front on” composition – no real depth to the shot (which for me makes it hold limited interest)
Looking at the larger version, it’s obvious that the shot holds a great deal of hidden detail only noticeable when reproduced large. As you rightly mention – the shot doesn’t translate well into a small web image. If you’d shown me it full size, or in print at billboard size, I would probably have had a totally different viewpoint and critique, but you didn’t. You asked me to critique the image you posted, so I’ll continue on that vein. I just find my eyes scattering around the image with no real focal point or detail that grabs the eye. Again – to me this led me to term it “abstract” if not a strictly textbook example.Hope this clears it up, and hope it’s in someway useful, else I’ve just wasted 5 mins of my life typing!! :lol:
Tim
If your going to post images that are taken for the purpose of fine art shots at sizes 30x20inches or bigger, well then you should state that with your post and not get all upset with people for judging your photo according to the size they see. It simply is not a good pic at the size we see and i appreciate that it makes a good image at the sizes you later gave us, an image the size you posted needs large areas of contrast to work in B&W and yours only gets that space when printed large.
A little unfair to be honest. I get your arguement but you should have out it on its own thread. I print, frame and sell also and i know where your coming from as regards the future of photography, but i think prople will still want to put our pics on their walls cos you can’t beat a good quality print.John.
I have to say the way you presented the image initially makes it look quite poor, it’s too busy and too sharp for my liking. It’s a little difficult for me to imagine the image printed on the scale you’re talking about but the way I picture it, I think it would be very powerful. I wonder though if colour might be better? Again, it’s difficult for me to imagine it in real life. As far as commenting on the composition, I’m not sure there’s any point. I think that if I was viewing this image in real life, I’d be viewing it at close range (considering the level of detail and the scale), I’m not sure I’d spend much time viewing the image as a whole. As you mentioned, the image doesn’t reduce well, but there is a wealth of detail if you get up close and personal.
Overall, I think I might like this a lot if I saw it in the flesh. I’m glad I saw this for the first time AFTER your second post
//Cian
Apologies to all if you think you’ve been duped, on my original post I did state that it would be printed large, but edited this out this morning before anyone had reviewed the image. I suppose I didn’t want to give it undue prominence. The picture has been submitted at pretty much the same size as my other posts, though in this case, you’re all correct, I should have submitted it larger, given the subject matter. Let me say first of all that I am nowhere near upset, and I don’t know what I might have written to give this impression. I answered the comments, and defended the picture, nothing more.
I have had this Idea about this image (and others) since the moment I took it, and have been meaning to post a thread on this subject for some time, however it was proving difficult to couch the subject in exact terms without actually using an image. I was prompted to post it last night after reviewing ‘Mud Flats” by john Griffin, an image similarly lacking traditional compositional elements, and relying heavily on texture. In my brief review I indicated a desire to see it printed large, which reminded me of this image, which to me has similar qualities.
My request for ‘brutal’ criticism was sincere, as I think that a warts and all critique is more valuable, and will produce a livelier debate than any other kind. Not everyone can take it, however, and I would be cautious about giving this kind of comment unless it has been specifically asked for. ‘Nice’ comments have the advantage of winning friends, but in my view a lot of things that could be said are usually not said for fear of giving offence. Maybe we could have more requests for ‘brutal’ critique from some more of the masochists among us.
John, I appreciate that its a bit unfair to present the image as I did, and completely agree with your comments, given the circumstances. And to Tim,, I (and I’m sure everyone else) appreciates your 5 minutes, and I’m sure its not been wasted time (I have to say that to validate the multiples of 5 minutes I spend on this site, as for my own wasted time, well, thats another matter) Cian, thanks for the remark about the composition, thats what I find myself doing with this picture, moving around it up close, and only stepping back to find another detail. I suppose that was the most reassuring thing for me to hear, as the overall composition (or lack of it) is the most worrisome part of this image.
All in all, no real harm done, and sorry for hanging onto the ‘scale’ card in this little game of Top Trumps. And if anyone has some more views about the reductivist nature of pictures submitted for viewing on the web, then I’d be very interested to hear them.
joseph
Well,
apologies for bumping this thread, but I got the print back, and felt that this post needed completion-This is not the print’s final destination, but does show the scale of the thing- sorry about the quick snap-
Overall I’m pleased with the quality.
I would never have been able to get this degree of enlargement from miniature films, and maybe not even medium format,
without the film structure and grain becoming a major part of the print-As for whether I still like the picture,
well its too early to tell-
Others apparently do, but they maybe don’t have the finely honed critical facilities (or candidness) that I’ve come to expect here-:D
This was printed on the Epson 9800 (I think)
and is the bigges print possible on mounted canvas from a single 2:3 frame on that printer.over to you-
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
