[fionaB]

not the sharpest of photos...... but my excuse is that i was falling down a river bank as the shutter button was pressed!!!!

[nichpr]

Well done for taking a still picture while in motion........... I think you nailed it when you said its not the sharpest - and these kind of shots demand tack sharp focus on the subject. On the other hand, I really like the composition and lighting.

Gives me the feeling that the aliens are emerging from the ground all together to mass an attack on civilization...
Guess I need to cut back on the late night movies...

- Paul

[fionaB]

lol thanx Paul, that is the same image it provoked in my minds eye which is why i posted it..... ok not sharp but there is something quite.. oh i dont know weird about it! lol

Fi

[Charlotte]

Love the title, Fiona

Even funnier is that I have these in my garden + I took coupla shots of them day before yesterday Well the garden beats falling down river banks Will have to post them up

BTW Fiona you've put this in critique section whilst admitting it's not even in focus I'll have to look thru' a pair of coke bottles to focus on the image, in order to critique it LOL

[fionaB]

thanx charlotte, but i thought i could get critique on all the other elements of the image, i was only trying to point out that i realised it wasnt in focus so every one would just say " its OOF" lol

Fi

just realised OOF is kinda like the noise i made when i landed after shooting this. but it was more like " oof........ splash" ( just the feet so dont worry about the camera hehe)

[Sonsey]

Looks very film like, almost like you'd get if you paused a DVD, I like it!

[Charlotte]

Originally Posted by fionaB

thanx charlotte, but i thought i could get critique on all the other elements of the image, i was only trying to point out that i realised it wasnt in focus so every one would just say " its OOF" lol

Yes but see it from the viewer's point ... you were there, we weren't, so we can only see what we see from your image + if it's not in good focus, we can't see very much to critique on From what I can see, the only crit I have is that the FG "triffid" (lol) seems to be a different colour to all the other "triffids" (lol again), or rather the only one that has much colour, i.e. the image seems unevenly colour-saturated. Because of this, the BG looks very dull + colourless. Other than the focus (oops, not s'posed to mention that ) + the colour issues, the comp looks 'ok' apart from a few stalks without heads + a few half-triffids down the bottom

All in all, Fiona, not reeeeeally impressed by this one Well, you did ask

Originally Posted by fionaB

... just realised OOF is kinda like the noise i made when i landed after shooting this. but it was more like " oof........ splash" ( just the feet so dont worry about the camera hehe)

Originally Posted by Sonsey

Looks very film like, almost like you'd get if you paused a DVD, I like it!

Now you mention it Iain, you're right

[Rob Barron]

I do think Charlotte has a point Fi: the only real detail to talk about in the photo is the one in the FG that is lit. We would have all said 'It has a touch of motion blur' but that is about it so it is hard to critique the photo.

I definitely agree it has a certain Hammer House of Horrors feel to it, even if it is only bracken leaves unfurling in reality! But to be honest, YOU made that comment simply by the title you gave it so there isn't much left to say!

I am only saying this because we perhaps all need to consider that when we post a picture for critique we shouldn't be saying too much about it or else there is not much point. If we tell everyone what we already know, e.g. 'This is a bit out of focus and the lighting is flat but tell me what you think...', there is not a great deal left to warrant putting it in the Critique section.

I hope that makes sense to people and doesn't sound like I am trying to restrict what people post and things, that is far from the truth. I love viewing this thread and it is not often I don't make a comment if I am able to. I just don't want to come on and say 'Yup, I agree with what you said when you posted it' as that doesn't help the poster or anyone else.

Cheers,
Rob

[skipper954]

[quote=Rob Barron;126050]

I am only saying this because we perhaps all need to consider that when we post a picture for critique we shouldn't be saying too much about it or else there is not much point. If we tell everyone what we already know, e.g. 'This is a bit out of focus and the lighting is flat but tell me what you think...', there is not a great deal left to warrant putting it in the Critique section.

Hi Rob

Time for me to respectfully disagree.

There are really two elements to a critique.

Technical

Emotional

Both are important, but as I have said here frequently, we tend to discuss ad infinitum the technical aspects and gloss over the emotional impact of an image, which of course is critically important.

So when posting that "I know the image is not sharp but what do you think" (as unfortunely I often do) that opens up other lines for thinking critically and for discussion.

skip

[Rob Barron]

I agree about the emotional impact of a picture being important, there wouldn't be much point in taking pictures if they were merely exercises in lighting, focusing and composition!

I must admit though I tend to look at the Sharing thread as more of an emotional impact response and the critique thread for getting down to the nitty gritty and looking at all the aspects that have gone into the picture, what could be done differently etc. so I guess I personally feel this thread IS more about the technical side.... remembering that this includes how the composition or technique used has given the picture more appeal, impact, etc. Does that make sense?

Cheers,
Rob

[Charlotte]

I'm with Rob on this ... Critique is more technically-orientated, while Sharing is more suited to light-hearted + emotional aspects. We offer up images in Critique for serious dissecting in order to learn from others how to improve our pictures technically; whereas in Sharing we would expect more general + emotional responses, even if they were not technically good. These are, in any event, the patterns I've seen in the two threads, + indeed their intended purpose, I believe.

I also feel that if an image is technically flawed then, in most cases, the emotional response will be likewise diminished. Why? Because technical flaws are distracting, + thus hinder an emotional reaction.

[skipper954]

I really disagree with you, Charlotte and Rob, wholeheartedly.

My view of the Sharing section is that it is a quick comment, mostly without any detail technically or emotionally. (I am not sure that emotion is the correct term here...what I mean is how the image impacts the viewer).

The critique section should include both tech and impact. Sometimes the impact is discussed, but not in much detail.

We should be able to separate the technical from the emotional.


So Iwould like CREW to weigh in on this weighty subject, if you please.

skip

[Charlotte]

Originally Posted by skipper954

... The critique section should include both tech and impact. Sometimes the impact is discussed, but not in much detail.

I agree Skip that both tech + impact should be discussed, but as I said, without a good technical start to an image, it will not have as much impact as if it were technically sound.

I do not agree that impact is not discussed in much detail. I personally have commented in detail on an effect that a particular image has had on me MANY times in the forums, + have seen others do so too. I think it depends on my previous statement about whether there IS an impact to be had.

Originally Posted by skipper954

... We should be able to separate the technical from the emotional.

Yes I agree. They are separate, but also inextricably linked. A photo with good technical qualities will have far more impact than one that is technically flawed. That is not to say that a technically flawed image will not have an impact, but just that it will have less of an impact than a technically good image.

Most photographers will automatically see a photograph technically before they see it emotionally, whereas non-photographers may only see the impact (emotion) of an image, simply because they do not recognise technical qualities, thus ...

As this site is mainly for and used by photographers, you can't reasonably expect viewers to favour emotional impact over technical detail.

Originally Posted by skipper954

... So Iwould like CREW to weigh in on this weighty subject, if you please.

Crew have already set out guidelines for the use of these threads. I believe the Crew set guidelines for us to follow but use as we see fit, within those guidelines.

It's a good debate Skip, + worth discussing Crew might want to make a separate thread of this discussion tho', as we've hi-jacked Fiona's thread, sorry Fiona!