Views: 84 (41 Unique) 
Vote 3
Award Shortlist   

Eclipsed

By WoadV
Constructive Crit & Helpful Comments Much Appreciated.

Original Title: Anonymous Self-Portrait In A Car's Rear-View Mirror - changed after crit.

Tags: Close-up and macro Digitally manipulated Portraits and people

Voters: wandaD, Eviscera, banehawi


Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Comments


GHGraham 7 7 10 Scotland
24 Jan 2010 11:09AM
Best left anonymous

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

WoadV Plus
9 12 8 United Kingdom
24 Jan 2010 11:12AM

Quote:Best left anonymous


Hi Graham: care to explain, please?

Thanks in anticipation.

Perhaps I ought explain: this is no snap-shot. It is one image selected from about twenty similar, cropped, rotated, multiply-processed - using lighting and colour curves - and had other processes applied. It has had the same care as all my images do. So, it may be very poor but it is not slap-dash, just in case that it what you were implying.

Hence, I think it deserves a crit (which may be to say it is poor for x reasons - that is fine and how one learns). But not just a shallow, sarcastic comment, please. Else just leave it alone.

K.
Eviscera 11 1.1k 149 United Kingdom
24 Jan 2010 2:59PM
Intriguing image ,

The result is certainly effective , almost high key.

Once you've got to this stage , its worth adding a final unifying texture that would consolidate the underlying image and help remove some of the vast expanse of white. Do play with the blend modes of your chosen texture , and mask away those parts that intrude.

I admire experimentation.
WoadV Plus
9 12 8 United Kingdom
24 Jan 2010 3:23PM
Hi Eviscera,

Thank you very much for your most helpful crit. (One of the best I've had on epz).

>E> Intriguing image , The result is certainly effective , almost high key.

Thank you.

>E> Once you've got to this stage , its worth adding a final unifying texture that would consolidate the underlying image and help remove some of the vast expanse of white. Do play with the blend modes of your chosen texture , and mask away those parts that intrude.

Thanks again. I shall try that. I do not know if it will produce the effect I wish (blank person; all being in the gift of the camera with some mental activity - as if brain and camea are linked, by-passing the person and humanity) but certainly worth trying - and I shall.

>E> I admire experimentation.

Thank you muchly. Appreciated.

All the best, K.
banehawi 13 1.7k 3747 Canada
24 Jan 2010 3:40PM
Hi Kapulco,

I came across your portfolio as I am on the team the approves critiques, which Ive done with Evisceras comments, so I spend the majority of my time in the critique gallery, and think Ive seen just one of your shots ever,

One thing that struck me is that youve never put up a shot for critique, all your shots are in the gallery for votes, - so try marking one of your shots for critique, - you wont get votes, but you may get constructive feedback as above.

I get the concept of anonymity in this shot, and agree its worth expanding on this idea, - for example in this one Im conflicted about leaving the camera in, or removing it, - as an example.
As already said, - experimentation can take you on paths that have not been traveled, and you can develop your signposts on the journey.


Regards



Willie

PS, - dont mark as constructive critique!
WoadV Plus
9 12 8 United Kingdom
24 Jan 2010 4:50PM
Hi Willie,

>W> I came across your portfolio as I am on the team the approves critiques, which Ive done with Evisceras comments

Thank you for your message and for the constructive-crit approval for Evisceras.

>W> One thing that struck me is that you've never put up a shot for critique, all your shots are in the gallery for votes, - so try marking one of your shots for critique, - you wont get votes, but you may get constructive feedback as above.

You are right, I do not put images for crit. Actually, I do not post them for votes, either (which is just-as-well, as I receive very few). The votes are (for me) but a by-product of posting for crit / comments.

Sorry I cannot find the regulations but I seem to recall that, should I put the images for formal critique, I would no longer be able to remove them? I am not prepared to agree to that, hence one reason I do not post for formal critique.

Another reason is that I do not know who would be making the critique. Unless it was someone whom I knew understood what I was trying to do (which is usually not photography) I would prefer to leave the image open to a plurality of critics.

I have read (and now forgotten, sorry) some of the formal critiques (I do not know by whom) and they seem excellent on the photographs but I was very disappointed with the critiques I read on some of the other surreal / abstract / art images. I felt some of those formal critiques were unsympathetic to - what I thought - the artists were attempting. They (the formal critics) seemed more interested in technical photography and less in artistry. As I am usually disinterested in the technical aspects of photography - though I appreciate an intimate knowledge of them can enhance one's final image - I am not sure what I have to gain.

If there is a formal critic who was not interested in photography per se - but is much more interested in (say) the emotions and philosophical arguments conveyed by an image; as well as its analysis of the human condition, communications and the depths beneath the veneer upon which we live, then I would welcome a crit (though still the having to leave an image might well prevent me from posting in the crit gallery).

Another problem is that a formal critique take a rather grand place amongst criticisms - causing others to either not bother or making other criticisms seem less important.

Finally, one person's crit is not terribly useful in itself. Almost every image I produce (I have over three hundred on my website, so it means a vast amount of criticism) has been run-past a group of people - writers, painters and so on. All of them take photographs but none would even begin to call themselves a photographer. Again, all arguments for a plurality of crit. I do need several people to tell me what is wrong / right because different people like different things. It is not as if I am interested in technicalities like depth-of-field nor exposure - for me the questions are far more subjective. I guess it is why I looked into joining a number of camera clubs - all with very friendly people in but, in the end, joined a contemporary art group instead (I am the first photo-based person in it - all the rest are painters or sculptors).

Now, if there are any formal critics on here I have missed (please do let me know) - who have a mind-set of (maybe) messy art, rather than pristine photography, I may reconsider. Nevertheless all those other problems remain.

By the way, I ought to say, I do regard much photography (if not all) as art. Just that I am having to use incorrect terms to explain some complex arguments, sorry.

I am very grateful to you for affording me the opportunity to both crystallize and state my views on this.

>W> I get the concept of anonymity in this shot, and agree its worth expanding on this idea, - for example in this one I'm conflicted about leaving the camera in, or removing it, - as an example.

Thanks but the camera was the whole point of the shot. I am trying to argue that we live in a World where people are becoming subject to the machine and the machine taps directly into human brain-power, whilst by-passing individuality and humanity. It is the camera appearing - causing the person to disappear - which was my aim. (EG: Showing human eyes replaced by the camera's lens, yet heat in the person's brain area).

Thank you very much for your helpful comments and suggestions and for your vote. All appreciated.

>W> As already said, - experimentation can take you on paths that have not been travelled, and you can develop your signposts on the journey.

Thank you - Regards - Willie

Thank you very much, Willy - really appreciated.

Best wishes,

K.
banehawi 13 1.7k 3747 Canada
24 Jan 2010 5:09PM
I like this response, - it makes a point I havent thought of, that yes indeed there are a team on the critique panel with different tastes and approaches, and I understand your desire to open up to the masses, - but I think the masses may generally prefer landscapes and portraits especially on this site.

Re the camera in the shot, - I see the point, but I dont think its coming across as intended, - when I see the subject as anonymity I may be restricting my interpretation to a faceless person, when the presence of a camera in fact makes the anonymous known.

A simple title change may direct the interpretation, as the title in an abstract or experimental shot can be quite important I think.

Anyway, - good luck, and keep it up!


W
Eviscera 11 1.1k 149 United Kingdom
24 Jan 2010 7:34PM

Quote:Now, if there are any formal critics on here I have missed (please do let me know) - who have a mind-set of (maybe) messy art, rather than pristine photography, I may reconsider. Nevertheless all those other problems remain.


Its an eclectic place K, and the transition from formal purism to constructive mutation is never easy to crit or change artistic licence.

You posted this under the "Portraits / People" section , it wont get much attention there.

As yet , there isn't a "creative / conceptualisation" category to receive work like yours (I enjoyed your explanation also) which would allow artistic debate.

But then again , I might start a meeting room on this very topic, haven't decided yet.
WoadV Plus
9 12 8 United Kingdom
24 Jan 2010 7:49PM
Hi W,

Sorry I mis-spelt your name last time - tried to change it but system disallowed me anothed edit.

Thanks for your reply.

>W> I like this response, - it makes a point I havent thought of, that yes indeed there are a team on the critique panel with different tastes and approaches, and I understand your desire to open up to the masses, - but I think the masses may generally prefer landscapes and portraits especially on this site.

Yes, landscapes, portraits, nude female humans, fully-feathered robins, swans and kingfishers all do especially well.

>W> Re the camera in the shot, - I see the point, but I dont think its coming across as intended, - when I see the subject as anonymity I may be restricting my interpretation to a faceless person, when the presence of a camera in fact makes the anonymous known.

Excellent point, thanks. I absolutly love the irony; the contradiction in that. Much of my work (photo-art, prose, poetry - plus the crap paintings, which I hide from all) is abstract. I try not to prescribe to the audience what the subject is, let alone the meaning is. Here (and in much writing) the subject is axiomatic; but the meaning open to interpretation.

Titles are, therefore vital. As you say, they direct one. In this title, I was trying to be factual - I described what the image is, literally but not what it is about (ie its meaning). However, it seems my chosen title may be too easily taken as a meaning - so thank you for that indication.

So, by my title, I focussed you too much onto the person; too little onto the generality? Understood.

I do, however, love interpretations. Yours is as valid as mine. All I was saying, in my previous reply, was that I doubted I would make the suggested change as it would go away from "my" meaning. But I should certainly have said "your" meaning is as good as "mine", any day.

Actually, do not try this in poetry. I write abstract poetry sometimes and people are sometimes really upset when they work-out a meaning and ask me if that is what I meant, only to see my reply: it was totally abstract; I meant no meaning. They feel cheated that their conclusions have no litmus test of validity.

This picture, however, for me was not abstract - I offered the meaning I had. BUT if others take different meanings from it - as if it were abstract - that is a delight to me. All I was saying was I would not change it to another POV, despite thinking that very valid.

>W> A simple title change may direct the interpretation, as the title in an abstract or experimental shot can be quite important I think.

I entirely agree. I choose all my titles with great care. But, I think you are right: this one I may have to change and shall certainly ponder it. I am very grateful to you.

>W> Anyway, - good luck, and keep it up!

Thank you very much indeed.

And, even if you reject the request, I shall certainly mark your comments as constructive crit - because they are and have been most helpful. (Please don't reject it - you really have been helpful).

K.
WoadV Plus
9 12 8 United Kingdom
24 Jan 2010 8:04PM
Hi Eviscera,

Thank yoyu also for returning.

>E> You posted this under the "Portraits / People" section , it wont get much attention there.

Did I? Does the first catagory determine the posting? I also posted under "digital art" and "close-up" If the first catagory is critical, I shall change the order next time. Thank you.

>E> As yet , there isn't a "creative / conceptualisation" category to receive work like yours

I use "Digital Art" - is that different?

>E> (I enjoyed your explanation also) which would allow artistic debate.

Thank you very much.

Yes such debate would be brill.

>E> But then again , I might start a meeting room on this very topic, haven't decided yet.

Well, if you do, please let me know; I shall be most interested.

Best wishes and thank you again.

K.
GHGraham 7 7 10 Scotland
25 Jan 2010 11:26AM
Its arrogant to expect the viewer to "get it" when the images are nothing short of bizarre.

You may get sweaty palms looking at them but the style wont appeal to the mainstream.

Thankfully we live in a free democracy so we can say what we like so long as its not overtly offensive and you of course are entitled to disagree since its your work.

If you have to spend hundreds of words explaining what you are trying to say or write volumes defending your work then you are probably trying to appeal to the wrong audience.

It may be great work but only great to those that think it; great work isn't automatically revered; many artists only achieve recognition after much time & exposure and some never do despite being avant garde, unique, bold etc.

The length of your posts here speaks volumes.

Time for a pause in this discussion and some quiet reflection all round perhaps ....
WoadV Plus
9 12 8 United Kingdom
25 Jan 2010 1:24PM
Hi Graham,

Thank you for your reply.

>G> Its arrogant to expect the viewer to "get it" when the images are nothing short of bizarre.

One person's meat is another's poison. What may be bizarre to you may not to be to me and so on. If you are saying my images are bizarre that is fair enough - your opinion is as valid as mine and I thank you for it.

However, if you are saying I am being arrogant, I reject that entirely. I never expect any particular viewer to "get" (awful word) anything. How could I? I do not know particular viewers' preferences, perspectives, experiences nor intelligence. Do not all who work in the arts produce what they will, thence offer it for critique / appreciation. And, of course, much art is widely unappreciated and oft negatively criticised.

>G> You may get sweaty palms looking at them but the style wont appeal to the mainstream.

Thank you for that unpleasant comment. I shall deal with the latter part only. I have never attempted to appeal to "the mainstream." For a start I would not know how to, what the mainstream was nor of whom it was composed. Secondly, what I do is not led by a commercial perspective. Do not take that wrongly; in many ways, I wish it were: I could be much better-off. I have a friend who assesses the market and paints to it. But I cannot work like that. I produce what I do, then put it out. If no one likes it, so be it: that is disappointing but fine - it goes with my methodology.

>G> Thankfully we live in a free democracy

As a political student of some decades, I would take great issue with that - for example consider the photographers' rally in London this weekend. True, they were able to stage it but why was it necessary? Why does it take mass, high-publicity protest to right wrongs done against individual photographers? I suspect we could debate this for weeks.

>G> so we can say what we like so long as its not overtly offensive and you of course are entitled to disagree since its your work.

You may still say what you wish, even if overtly offensive but I shall reserve the right to reply. I was offended by your first post and am most grateful you returned to explain. Thank you.

>G> If you have to spend hundreds of words explaining what you are trying to say or write volumes defending your work then you are probably trying to appeal to the wrong audience.

Sorry, axiomatically you cannot have seen my above reply before you wrote that. To re-state: I am not trying to appeal to any audience: mass nor niche. When people appreciate my work I am mega-chuffed but I do not try to court anyone.

I am wordy, true. I write novels and poetry; the latter has taught me brevity. But when contesting arguments, I remain wordy in an attempt to explore as many avenues as possible.

I do agree that images must stand (or fall) on their own merit. That is why I (almost) never offer explanations under the image-posting. But, if people ask me questions or offer crits, I regard it as only good manners to reply and then, of course, I inevitably pen longer replies than ideal. We are all different. I think the rudest thing is something I see all over ephotozine: posters receiving crits, comments and votes and not replying. We all make mistakes but many posters seem to have a policy of non-engagement and a determination not to thank people. I may be (am) long-winded in my replies but I do try to reply to all who take the time and trouble to appreciate my work (even if they do not like it).

>G> It may be great work but only great to those that think it; great work isn't automatically revered; many artists only achieve recognition after much time & exposure and some never do despite being avant garde, unique, bold etc.

Absolutely. Many artists have to be long-dead before being appreciated.

"Great work to those that think it" - Yes but is not all art highly subjective?

>G> The length of your posts here speaks volumes.

Ah, but that sentence says nothing. One has to read - and comprehend - what is written to understand what is said. Measuring writing with a ruler would surely classify The Complete Works Of Shakespeare as very poor art, indeed.

>G> Time for a pause in this discussion and some quiet reflection all round perhaps ....

Actually, no, after this reply, I must reply to the other kind people who chose to comment on my works.

Thank you, best wishes.

K.
GHGraham 7 7 10 Scotland
25 Jan 2010 5:13PM
Yawn........
WoadV Plus
9 12 8 United Kingdom
25 Jan 2010 6:46PM
Hi Graham,

Thank you! You have taught me something: I now understand a possible reason why many people do not bother responding to some people who post on their tiles.

I appreciate it is Winter but, if one is bored I do not know why one does not go out and about to take some photographs - even use a light tent indoors or perhaps read some photographic items. Else something away from photography, maybe? Really, to quote the old song, "It's always later than you think," so such a shame to waste one's precious life, don't you agree?

Indeed, lots to do really, rather than visit people's tiles merely to be objectionable. (And I noticed mine was not the only one so visited).

Take care; I hope you feel more constructive soon.

Good wishes,

K.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.