[Leica] Levels of critique

[tedgrant at shaw.ca (tedgrant at shaw.ca)]

George Lottermoser offered:
(more than I'm going to repeat)
Subject: Re: [Leica] Levels of critique

George an absolutely beautiful analysis of one of the greatest photographers 
of the Crew!
It's so intellectually interestingly informative and descriptive of it's 
subject it's quite wonderful!

Is this the kind of critique and analysis we should be looking for? On the 
one hand, yes! I don't have any problem with your post. However, how many 
people on the LUG are qualified to make this kind of analysis you've made?
Not many! How many can learn? A whole bunch!  And another whole bunch, who 
if they made their photography available for critique could learn how to be 
better photographers without any problems and for..... the best part?  FREE! 
:-)

cheers,
ted

> My thoughts, in your particular case, Doug:
> The vast majority of what you post fit snugly into the "wildlife" genre
> (possibly within some further sub-categories).
>
> You seem to bring extremely high technical standards to your
> photography;
> so may be your harshest technical critic.
> You seem to post only the best (or at least very good) examples;
> so may be your harshest editor.
> You've clearly stated your intentions as to:
> present the subjects in their natural habitat;
> with accurate coloration of both subject and environment;
> and in optimal poses and/or behaviors.
> You've studied deeply the various species and probably know more
> about them than most of us (certainly more than I).
>
> So what's left that I could seriously discuss (or critique) - beyond
> "WOW - gorgeous"?
> The aesthetics:
> While not a truly serious student of wildlife photography; I do enjoy
> looking at the photographs (as well as dabbling occasionally).
> Aesthetically I find some WL photographers seem to shoot and post
> process for the "spectacular" effect; where the image, IMO,
> transcends the subject.
> Other's seem to shoot for strong and true documentation (I put you,
> Doug, in this category).
> Others seem to use wildlife subjects in pursuit of "Fine Art" prints.
> Aesthetically I find many of your WL photographs rely heavily on the
> beauty of the subject, generally centered (or nearly so) in the
> frame, and flawless technique. In this regard they often leave me
> with similar feelings as when I view Audubon prints; beautiful, rich,
> technically incredible; yet not particularly emotionally moving or
> poetic. I sometimes wonder if you ever experiment with strong
> asymmetry or other more experimental concepts; while fully realizing
> (from my dabbling) that just getting the tiny suckers into the frame
> is plenty challenge enough.
>
> The historical context:
> As stated above - I think your work fits into the ornithological
> illustration tradition;
> with the added and more contemporary use of photography to bring
> "true documentation" into the mix.
> I suspect that the seriousness with which you pursue your subject
> documentation
> concomitant with the quality of your prints,
> puts you in a relatively new photographic market place.
>
> Obviously I'm not critiquing a particular photograph here;
> but rather discussing a body of work as I've come to know it.
>
> Do we as a group have interest in these types of discussions;
> whether on a particular photograph;
> or a photographers body of work?