Quick thirty second impression

I've been going through old files and re-evaluating them. I'm curious as to the first impression people have to some of these (testing my "eye"). Yea or nay? Eh or Blah? These are not worthy of detailed c&c, I think. I'm just looking for a fast "gut" reaction.


ISO 400, f/9.0, shutter speed 1/400, 250 mm.

Hi Rachel,

The subject is a wonderfully colored duck feeding in a center of a reflecting body of water surrounded by grasses.

As a start, there was, it seems, a potential for the curve of the upper right edge of the grass to complement the curve of the ducks back. However, the curve presented is incomplete. Is this cropped? If not then you framed too tighlty! By taking a tight shot of this area, the needed attractive shape of the grass concavity seems to be amputated, like having half a cloud! Still, the subject itself is wonderful nature, even without the extra compositional elements. The picture, by the way can be made prettier, by slightly increasing the saturation and contrast. Then you'll see more reflection in the water of the duck and grass. Still we cannot see the whole head of the duck, so we lose out!

The picture must work on some level to grab our attention. So what does a picture need? It could be the shape and texture of things and how they are placed in a composition. Here you have placed the duck plonk in the middle and that's not interesting. Look at the "rule of thirds"

Checking for form, converting to B&W sometimes helps: To better evaluate the form and physicality of your picture, simply desaturate the colors in "hue/saturation" in Photoshop or other program. Sometimes, it's the color that hides stunning form. Here you'll find little of great notice. Back in its native saturated form, natural colors return a delightful sense of life. So we're to stay in color. However the picture still is not there!

Now we do not need to see the entire duck! Then at least the shape of the bird or how it relates to other components of the picture should be fascinating, surprise us or else arouse our senses. Well it is pretty and the duck has fine color so we have to go with a simple narrative of nature.

If one cloned away a few strands of grass and managed to bring out the clarity of the eye, you might then have a far better photograph of a duck feeding. You might have another picture to use as a source for the retouch.

Asher

Thanks Asher. You know me too well! Yes, it was cropped a fair amount. I was drawn by the reflection. I'll have another look at that. Thanks!

It needs ot be much sharper, I think. I keep blinking to see if the problem is on my side of screen.

Rachel Foster said:

Yea or nay?

Click to expand...

In the absence of specific conceptual guidance, "Nay".

How to get a worthwhile picture of a duck? Start with an idea that's impressive.

Rachel,

I want to take advantage of Ken's direction to importance and relevance of this take to you. He asks

"What makes this compelling to you?"

That's such a good question. So let's follow this line of thinking.

What was it that made this picture significant? Was it perhaps that you just are thrilled that you were actually able to get an image of a pretty duck and thus you feel great? If that's so, then the picture is likely just a personal aide memoire, a token that is meaningful only to you.

I'm asking this because I don't think I've been harsh enough in dealing with values. We can describe technical shortcomings till the cows come home. But really the composition is just not there and neither is the whole duck and there's no rational or aesthetic reason for that.

Still, I do commend you for posting this as a direct question in this, the appropriate forum. It has given you a clear answer and didn't create a headache for bird lovers!

I'm wondering whether it would help you to make quick sketches? One needs to see an entire scene and include at least all that's needed and perhaps no more. You should have some concept. "Duck reflecting in water" is a start but undeveloped. There needs to be a compelling gestalt or backbone to what you are doing. Otherwise, what are you trying to engrave into a final image? Just the snapshot of a duck is indeed fun but without an idea or motif holding things together, it's just a record of the duck that was there and nothing more. One can say, "Look, this wonderful colored duck was in in this lake on this occasion". If it was the Dodo, it would be very important, but it's a duck, albeit pretty, but not unusual. The bird does not need to be unique to make a great picture.

The concept or physicality of your image must however be unique and compelling or else the image must be a thing of unusual beauty and in that case, needs to carry no idea at all.

Now we can go back at the time when the light is right and at the place you have scouted out and planned your shot and set up, wait until the duck is where you need it to be, for example, and then take your photograph. More likely than not the light will not be right or the ducks not cooperate or will be chased away by kids throwing rocks in the water. So you'll come back, day after day until you get your planned picture. That's how luck comes your way.

Now when you've done this, the picture still may not be quite what you wanted. So what I do is print it out in B&W on a plain piece of paper and sketch with a pencil what the next attempt will be. Eventually, you'll do this in your head. I still need to sketch out to do my best.

I hope this helps you to go develop this or another theme for work.

Asher

"In the absence of specific conceptual guidance, "Nay". "


OK, this brings out an issue I've been hesitant to deal with. I think an image should stand alone, with no guidance. When you see an image, either you like it or you don't. I want an image directed by the image itself. If it cannot communicate without words, by just visual alone, I have failed.

I am most interested in others' views on this.

Rachel Foster said:

"In the absence of specific conceptual guidance, "Nay". "


OK, this brings out an issue I've been hesitant to deal with. I think an image should stand alone, with no guidance. When you see an image, either you like it or you don't. I want an image directed by the image itself. If it cannot communicate without words, by just visual alone, I have failed.

I am most interested in others' views on this.

Click to expand...

Nonsense, Rachel!

All images require some qualification of the observer, same with music. To experience fully one needs a background and context. Here's my opinion on this:

Without some preparation, only the artist, when they re-experience their own work, can perceive what the importance, meaning or implication of the art might be. Everyone else needs some background and openness to new experience to qualify them to fully appreciate the same work of art in anything like the nature of the artist's intent or experience.

Exceptions, such a beauty of an infant, flower or sunset or physicality of a monumental pole might not require special insight or learning.

Asher

it may sound lil hursh, but the duck is big/large.

the grassy canvas has been portryed fully. Even Asher was modest to say that the image was cropped so that the result is such shallow. the problem is nothing hard to solve. you try reading some books on basic composition and also can practice drawing on white papers. the more the white portion is left vacant more you can glue observers eyes.

Nothing that is well-motivated is too harsh! Honesty and taking time to comment are kindnesses.

Cropping is one thing I've been working on. I wanted to direct attention to the reflection. Obviously, unless an extreme crop is in order, I need to back off with the crop.

Thank you.

Asher, perhaps my goals are not practical. I want to someday get the "sunset effect" with more than infants and sunsets (and the other exceptions mentioned).

Yes, I think the crop may well be too severe.

Asher Kelman said:

Nonsense, Rachel!

All images require some qualification of the observer, same with music. To experience fully one needs a background and context. Here's my opinion on this:

Without some preparation, only the artist, when they re-experience their own work, can perceive what the importance, meaning or implication of the art might be. Everyone else needs some background and openness to new experience to qualify them to fully appreciate the same work of art in anything like the nature of the artist's intent or experience.

Exceptions, such a beauty of an infant, flower or sunset or physicality of a monumental pole might not require special insight or learning.

Asher

Click to expand...

Asher, you are dead wrong. Are you saying that when a person walks into a gallery and looks at a work of art you need some background from the artist to appreciate it........

Entire unedited post moved to new daughter thread here. Asher

The topic is the critique and feedback on Rachel's photograph of a handsome duck reflected in water.

Is it merely a great idea executed poorly? If so, what might be a better approach?

Answering Rachel's question as a "30 second impression" doesn't do justice to the problem here. We can underestimate the barrier of moving beyond the "great idea" to a unique physical form of expression. It's not a documentation of that duck that Rachel seeks, she's already achieved that very nicely! What she wants, instead, is to see that "Duck with its Reflection" in the water" as art!

Asher