Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/12/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]George, You have been doing this regularly in the Print Exchanges, and it has been very helpful, as have others there as well - I do not think that I am capable of analyzing photographs in such detail, I am not trained to look at photographs in this fashion (on the other hand, I am trained to look at Company Financial Reports in similar detail). I know immediately whether I like a photograph or not, and that is good enough for me. I think that if listmembers really want to improve, they take part in the print exchange rather than post tiny jpeg and expect expert criticism. I think there are a few places up for grabs this round, get in touch with Richard Man... Cheers Jayanand On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:52 AM, George Lottermoser <imagist3 at mac.com>wrote: > Thinking about the recent thread(s) on photo comments and critiques: > > For me, > While comments such as: "?great, ?like it, ?number 4 is the best one, > ?doesn't do anything for me, ?WOW! ?looks like you missed the focus ?etc." > do provide a certain amount of motivation and encouragement (or sometimes > discouragement), > they don't really qualify as "very useful critiques." > > They simply express rather quick first impressions; > which I do value; > because that may be all the time and consideration our photographs receive > from most viewers. > > A detailed analysis (critique) of any given photograph (or body of > photographs) would need to consider and discuss: > > 1) The genre > a) commercial > 1 - portrait > 2 - event > 3 - advertising > b) news > c) editorial / documentary > d) fine art > e) casual / family > f) others > > 2) The conceptual context > a) what's the point? > b) what do you wish to communicate? > > 3) The aesthetics > a) composition > b) design elements > c) the moment > d) the light > e) feelings > > 4) The technicalities > a) exposure > b) focus > c) depth of field (or lack there-of) > d) color and/or tonality > e) noise / grain > f) etc. > > 5) How do the above three work (or not) together? > > 6) The historical context > a) place in history > b) place in art (or media) > c) from the traditional > d) to the cutting edge > > It may be helpful, if we want more than a cursory first impression comment, > to include information as to the intention and purpose for photographing > and posting the photograph, > along with a clear request for advice regarding one or more of the above. > Some already do this - as in Lawrence's "IMG: Maggie at the helm - opinions > wanted." > > That of course is much different than what most of us tend to do here; > which amounts to simply sharing photographs (and sometimes stories) of > where we've been, what we've done, who we've seen, what we tend to look at, > gear demonstrations, etc.; > along with the occasional sharing of "actual client and/or published work." > > Regards, > George Lottermoser > george at imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com/blog > http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >