paraskave In reply to MarkRFriedman [2010-08-02 14:39:23 +0000 UTC]

thank you for taking your time to critique this picture. i appreciate it. remember with honesty can come a bit of harshness. i am only 14 so reading this didn't really make me feel great. i know you were only speaking your mind and i am glad that you did. in the future, maybe after saying what you don't like about the picture, you can end in what you did like or something. i haven't done a critique yet so i don't really know much about it. i hope you don't take this the wrong way or anything because i don't want to sound like i'm saying this just because you didn't like my picture. i hope there are no hard feelings towards either of us. have a great day

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MarkRFriedman In reply to paraskave [2010-08-02 15:18:10 +0000 UTC]

I liked your work. As I looked at all of the images on the page, there were only a few that drew my eye -- yours was one of them. Then I saw that you asked for a critique, something that's optional and requires a thick skin. It means that you're asking for an honest evaluation of the image from someone who's (hopefully) qualified to do so. That's the problem with asking for a critique.

If I didn't like your picture I wouldn't have critiqued it - something I don't do very often for this very reason. If I say anything, I leave a comment. In all cases, it's impersonal. The difference is how closely I look at your image and whether or not you've asked to hear what I saw.

I didn't check anything about you - who you were, where you lived, how old you were, male female or other.
A critique isn't about, unfortunately, the feelings of the artist, only the art. And then it's only my opinion.

I'll share something personal about me: I have Asperger's Syndrome. One of the symptoms of this disability (which has gotten me fired from some jobs in the past) is brutal honesty, sometimes termed "Asperger's Arrogance" because we tell it as we see it without regard for the consequences. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I think you have potential (I've been shooting for over 40 years).

I find this definition of critique useful source: [link]

CRITIQUE: An instance of serious practical criticism. The term is also habitually used of the evaluation of fine arts students’ work, but the intellectual level of these critiques varied widely from instructor to instructor and institution to institution.

CRITICISM: The analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and study of works of art. While it is certainly true that disapproving remarks are sometimes made, it is a common mistake to assume that “criticism” simply means negative commentary and that to be critical means to be cynical, derogatory and insulting. While there is a multitude of critical methods, it is the contention of this glossary that their bewildering variety is created by subtle adjustments, selective foregroundings, and interplays of the subdivisions of three basic structural elements: form, content, and context. I.e., critical methodologies as diverse as connoisseurship and structuralism are related in that they both address formal aspects of works of art. From that point, however, they part ways in methods and motives. See the individual entries for aesthetics, antiquarianism, anxiety of influence, art appreciation, art conservation, art theory, artistic biography, arts journalism, combined studies, connoisseurship, correlational social histories, cultural analysis, cultural anthropology, deconstruction, ethology, feminism, formalism, Freudian criticism, Geistesgeschichte, gestalt psychology, hermeneutics, iconography, iconology, jungian criticism, Lacanian criticism, Marxism, material history, museology, new art history, new historicism, patronage, periodicity, post-structuralism, psychoanalytic criticism, public history, reception theory, scientific studies, semiotics, sociological criticism, structuralism, syntactical analysis, and typological studies. See also argument, historical methodologies, illustrement, interpretation, taxonomy.

Regards,
Mark

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

paraskave In reply to MarkRFriedman [2010-08-02 16:07:05 +0000 UTC]

i really appreciate that you critiqued my work and i am sorry that maybe i responded to it the way i did. after words i kinda regretted what i said. i know that you were only giving your honest opinion and i should have been able to handle it. this was the first critique i have ever received so i guess i have not learned how to handle them quite yet. i am sorry that because of your Asperger's Syndrome, that you have lost past jobs. in that small paragraph that you wrote that it causes you to be brutally honest, that reminded me of my best friend. she does not have Asperger's but she is very honest and true to her self. i have always admired that about her. once again, i am glad you gave me this critique and i hope that next time i will be able to handle it. there was one thing that i was wondering that you wrote in the critique. where did you mean to crop the picture because i kinda wanna look into that? normally i try not to crop my pictures because it ruins the resolution but i would like to see what it might look like before i turn it down.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MarkRFriedman In reply to paraskave [2010-08-03 00:27:03 +0000 UTC]

A critique is never personal. It's only about the art - that's why it's optional.

Don't worry about what you said - this isn't like Facebook: There's no chance at all that we will ever meet and that's not the intent of this site, as I perceive it. It's a place for artists of all ages, working with various types of media, to show their work. While you do that, you get exposed to other people's works (there's very little that's unique) and it give you the opportunity to see how someone else might approach a similar subject, or display a similar concept.

You are, in my humble opinion, absolutely right to ask me to show you an example of what I meant. This is not what I would consider my best work, but it might serve as an example of how you could highlight the web by lighting and cropping. And judicious use of the Curve tool.

[link]

Regards,
Mark

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

paraskave In reply to MarkRFriedman [2010-08-04 15:37:38 +0000 UTC]

wow you are an amazing photographer!!!! what type of camera do you use? ill look into the picture and see what i can do to make it better thank you

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MarkRFriedman In reply to paraskave [2010-08-04 16:24:26 +0000 UTC]

If you look on the bottom right hand corner of the photo in the link, you'll see the EXIF data that was carried over. If it says Nikon LS-50, Canon 8800F or is black and white, the picture was scanned from film. For this picture, I used a Canon EOS 50D, Canon 180mm macro lens, Gitzo tripod and Manfrotto ball head.

The pictures in my gallery from the 1970s - 1980s, however, were taken with a Konica Autoreflex T-3. The film pictures taken after 2000 were taken with a Canon EOS-3. The 50D was a fairly recent purchase (less than a year ago), mostly Canon Rebel XT or one of the Powershot cameras. I recently sold everything I could find and spare - lenses and the 50D in order to purchase a 5D Mark II.

I wanted that because it's an affordable (depending upon your definition of the word) full frame sensor camera. The lenses will work like they did on my film cameras and the resolution, so far, is excellent.

Bottom line is, though, good equipment can make a good shot better because of technical reasons (rare earth glass, sensor technology, ...) but that has nothing to do with basic technique: being observant of how the light is falling, what's actually in the frame and in focus - not what you believe or want to be there. Light has color and it's different at different times and places throughout the day. Patience is not a virtue, it's a requirement: I waited a very long time for the frog to stick his head out of the water for this shot [link]

I'm ALWAYS waiting for the wind or breeze to stop blowing, or for a bug to crawl into focus.
Any camera will do for that (and a tripod). You might consider borrowing or renting a hand-held light meter and really begin to see the differences in the amount of light in different parts of your picture. The camera's computer tries, with it's metering system to make your photo based upon an 18% gray background. That's not always what you want.

Just take lots of photos -- look at them and discard everything except your best shots. You'll still have a lot of pictures and you'll be setting the bar quality, yourself.

I hope some of this was helpful.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0