What do you think?

[Raymond Lin]

Lol, I don't feel bad about it. I really appreciate the fact that people have taken the time to critically analyze my work. It's just the reasoning sometimes doesn't justify it for me.

well, we could all have different reasons, and at the end of the day it would only be our own opinions. It's no right or wrong, it's just an opinion. However, if the majority of people think it could be improve upon, then they probably have a point.

For me, the first one doesn't work that much. first, the name. There is nothing decisive about that moment, Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relation with that woman" is a decisive moment, a girl holding a muffin and another holding a bottle of pop talking isn't. And I can't help thinking she should wearing a witch hat, you can leave out the fake nose, her smile isn't photogenic. Also, the focus is everywhere. Is it on her muffin (or a cheese bagette? doesn't matter) or is it on the blonde? Add to that, you've missed out the top of her head on the blonde, and the back of the head on the brunette.

The DoF on the second pic is just too deep, everything is in focus, I am sure you don't mean that stool to be part of the story of your picture. Also, the body language of the girl is unnatural. She has her arm crossed while a boy is kissing her, its not what one think of when they think of affection or love.

I've always believe a good photo should tell a story, i can see you are trying to do that, and on some levels you have hit the mark. However, as I stated before, there is a lot more room for improvement. What we have here is simple quick candids in the college recreation room. And I haven't even gone into rules of thirds

 

[Naffa]

My photography teacher (yes I'm a student noob ) said that he doesn't care much for the rules of composition (he knows them all as he's told me a few) as one persons poor composition can be another's masterpiece. I agree with fundamentals such as being in focus, but sometimes even that can be used as a desirable feature. Unfortunately in my shot, this is not desirable. I understand you not thinking this shot is decisive. When I try and take decisive snaps (which this thread has proved I don't do very well) I find that the photo is there and I can either take it.. or no. Because I'm an extreme amateur I need to take my time with properly framing the shot etc, and trying to capture decisive moment whilst lining up a shot, focusing properly and what have you, doesn't work in my case. I know it's something to improve upon and I appreciate the critique as I know it's how I'll improve. I'm just trying to justify my noobness.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Rules are there to help, some are meant to be broken and now and again it would work great. And people will think you are a genius, "I would never have thought of that etc!" But that comes with practice, knowing when to break them, when to follow them. I am not just talking about rules of thirds, its a general feel of the shot.

Candids are one of those photos that is easy to do, very hard to master. I mean you have no time to plan your shot. As the name implies, you have to take it as and when it happens. You either get it or don't. What you can do is guess what could happen, get in position and get ready with the shutter. See the shot in your head, then soon as you see that shot comes alive in front of your eye, snap.

We were all beginners, hell i still am ! But the beauty of the internet now is that you get feedback from lots of people, lots of people who's been over that road before and give you pointers along the way. Art teachers have a tendencies to encourage students to think outside the box, I know, i've got a few photography students at uni, and seen a few end of year shows. It's all very magazine style shots, not saying its bad but it's just the current trend. Some of it is amazing, but some a just samey.

 

[Naffa]

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound ungrateful in any way shape or form. I really appreciate you taking to time to offer critical analysis of my shots.

With what you said about rules being there to assist learning, I think I've got where you're coming from now. You learn all the rules of what makes a good shot then you can see the shot better before it's taken.. I think I can understand exactly what you're trying to say to me. But I've always had trouble explaining things in my head, hence that poor description there.

Thanks for all you've said in this thread, I really do appreciate it.

 

[Naffa]

While I'm here, what do you think of this photogram I've done?

Again, I appreciate any critique given.

 

[ChroniC]

Naffa you make me smile.
Especially not because you are wrong, far from it.

You are following a path, similar to me. I did college photography etc etc. I was a member of this board before that, but i never ventured into here. It wasnt until i started my degree, and i came back to these board that i looked.
The funny thing is, you will get the complete opposite opinion from your tutor than you will from anyone on here. (no offence intended to anyone)

Rules are there to help, some are meant to be broken and now and again it would work great. And people will think you are a genius, "I would never have thought of that etc!" But that comes with practice, knowing when to break them, when to follow them. I am not just talking about rules of thirds, its a general feel of the shot.

This made me laugh too Sorry again no offence intended, these are just my thoughts on the subject.
Rules of third, angles, cropping etc ect, is simple photography. They're designed to be nothing but a redumentory techniques, pioneered along time ago by 13th century painters.
These rules work for people trying to make photos that looks nice, but doesn't express or conote anything. They are bodies without the soul.
Look deeper into photography and you will discover that contemporary photography rules (i.e rules of third, digital photography magazine help whatever you want to call it, even HDR) essentially are nothing but a rip off of advertising, and that they are basically conforming to subliminal messages you see everyday to make you happy or excitied. (imagine having to do years of library work on aesthetics, understanding art, and semiotics its soooooo boring)

On the other hand, (of course there is one) dont forget the basics, just remember what your taught. a lot of photographer ignore the very simple basics i just slated. They produce what i call creative disaster, because they think they can explain their crap, even though because they didnt include even the basics, it is still crap.

Naffa, listen to your tutors.
I like your photocopy/photography.
We had a guest speaker, i personally didnt like the guy, (he was an arse) although i understand his contemporary photography and conceptualism, i dont really like it. Either way, your work reminds me of this guy.

http://www.babakghazi.co.uk/billgates.html

 

[Naffa]

Thanks for your comment.

When I looked at your link and it said Bill Gates I thought you were having a laugh! But I think I agree with you, the photography doesn't particularly stand out to me either. I can get contemporary feel from these photos, but with so much contemporary modern art, it just feels soulless to me. I went on a tour of 4 galleries in a local town and one thing I learned from it is that I like what I like and I dislike what I dislike. There really wasn't very much that caught my eye, but when something did, it really did.

This work is part of the former for me, quite uninspiring. Obviously it's entirely subjective and if he was a guest speaker then he's obviously quite prestigious and respected.

And am glad I made you smile, at least I can do something right in this forum.

 

[ChroniC]

Contemporary is just a word for new'ish. Unfortunately, the current contemporary artistic form is conceptual art. I.e tracy eminins bed (if you ever saw it) Im not a fan at all, it turns anything or anyone into an artist if you claim its art.
However i have learnt not to dismiss anything. I dislike it, just like you, but try to find meaning, or something in it, then dismiss the rest.
Funnily enough im currently writing my disitation on aesthetics in photography, which is exactly what your talking about.

When i start a project i do massive amounts of research on the subject, whether i like it or not. Assimilate it, then try and show that ive considered what they did, and have adapted my opinion and views based on what they did etc etc.

In the future, i will probably never end up owning my own gallery and showing my work, but i know for sure im glad it will influence my photography.

Anyways enough rambling. Good night.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Contemporary ? yuck, just like modern art, its like the lazy man trying to justify his piece of crap with some BS about how he came up with it and the journey he experienced making it.

 

[Naffa]

That's exactly what I think about it!

In my eyes.. It's just rubbish. My mum is a part time professional artist and takes the same view as me or maybe I take the same view as her. Probably the latter. And it's true, I believe that absolutely anything can be passed off as 'modern art' now a days and it does get quite depressing..


I'm off now, night guys.

And thanks for your input again.