Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Morning Fog & Trees, Lone Madrone Vineyard #2  (Read 1342 times)
Mjollnir
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 309


« on: February 07, 2013, 01:49:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Actually, I found out that this part of the property I was shooting was, indeed, NOT Lone Madrone, but I have no idea what it's called, it border's Lone Madrone's vineyard and they make the best wine in the Paso Robles area, so the title stays.


Morning Fog & Trees, Lone Madrone Vineyard #2 by tanngrisnir3, on Flickr
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6516



WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2013, 02:50:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Very nice whatever it's called.
Logged

RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2013, 06:18:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I looked at this earlier and wasn't sure about it. It's well executed and the photograph has all the technical considerations ironed out. The composition is traditional, and maybe that's where I lost interest - it's too traditional given the limited content. It's lovely of course at first glance, but I found my eyes were hunting for something after the tree. What's next? What is going to create some drama, tension, or interest with the tree? By itself, the tree is not exceptional. With the fog it's a bit moodier but that doesn't provide enough to carry the picture for me.

I think it is then very pretty but not provocative enough. Consider for instance had there been a figure of some sort to the right - human or animal. A cross or gravestone under the tree. Something to emphasize distance, size, shape. Something to get the eye more around the picture. With just the tree, maybe the traditional composition doesn't help. Lovely in many respects, but not fascinating.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2013, 08:16:07 AM by RedwoodGuy » Logged
Mjollnir
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 309


« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2013, 09:45:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I looked at this earlier and wasn't sure about it. It's well executed and the photograph has all the technical considerations ironed out. The composition is traditional, and maybe that's where I lost interest - it's too traditional given the limited content. It's lovely of course at first glance, but I found my eyes were hunting for something after the tree. What's next? What is going to create some drama, tension, or interest with the tree? By itself, the tree is not exceptional. With the fog it's a bit moodier but that doesn't provide enough to carry the picture for me.

I think it is then very pretty but not provocative enough. Consider for instance had there been a figure of some sort to the right - human or animal. A cross or gravestone under the tree. Something to emphasize distance, size, shape. Something to get the eye more around the picture. With just the tree, maybe the traditional composition doesn't help. Lovely in many respects, but not fascinating.

Why would I want a tree and a plowed field to be provocative?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Logged
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 821


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2013, 10:01:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps he means evocative.

I like it, the fog gives quite a remarkable painterly feeling. How heavily is this post-processed? It's doesn't feel quite real to me (all the not-real is for the good, though) but fog sometimes does that. It feels like where it is, I've been in that area a bit, and that's just how it feels.

EDIT: there's a very old salt print at the local museum that this reminds me of very much, for the subject matter but also the, uh, "texture" if you will. I like that one, too.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2013, 10:04:07 AM by amolitor » Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2013, 10:22:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Why would I want a tree and a plowed field to be provocative?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
You might not. That's of course your choice like all choices in making a photograph. I assumed you posted it under the critique heading to have it critiqued? If you didn't want that, maybe put in the post "not for critique."

If you wanted a critique, that's what I did. And the critique would simply be my opinion. Others would have other opinions right? Isn't that how this works? I can't answer why you would want X, Y, or Z. I can only comment on the photograph as shown as it impacts me. That's what an opinion means.

If you are offended by my critique, I can't offer much compensation. It wasn't done to offend.
Logged
Mjollnir
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 309


« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2013, 10:50:54 AM »
ReplyReply

You might not. That's of course your choice like all choices in making a photograph. I assumed you posted it under the critique heading to have it critiqued? If you didn't want that, maybe put in the post "not for critique."

If you wanted a critique, that's what I did. And the critique would simply be my opinion. Others would have other opinions right? Isn't that how this works? I can't answer why you would want X, Y, or Z. I can only comment on the photograph as shown as it impacts me. That's what an opinion means.

If you are offended by my critique, I can't offer much compensation. It wasn't done to offend.

No, I'm not offended in the least.

I just found your comments rather nonsensical.  Hence my question.

Sorry I wasn't clearer about that.
Logged
Mjollnir
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 309


« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2013, 10:52:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps he means evocative.

I like it, the fog gives quite a remarkable painterly feeling. How heavily is this post-processed? It's doesn't feel quite real to me (all the not-real is for the good, though) but fog sometimes does that. It feels like where it is, I've been in that area a bit, and that's just how it feels.

EDIT: there's a very old salt print at the local museum that this reminds me of very much, for the subject matter but also the, uh, "texture" if you will. I like that one, too.

It has some exposure adjustments and a wee bit of NIK sharpening, but that's it.

I find that unconsciously I tend to frame/shoot/process things that are sort of dreamscapes, for lack of a better term.
Logged
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2013, 11:04:25 AM »
ReplyReply

No, I'm not offended in the least.

I just found your comments rather nonsensical.  Hence my question.

Sorry I wasn't clearer about that.
I understand. It's a fair question for anyone to ask a reviewer why they'd expect a photograph to be provocative.
Logged
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2013, 11:41:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps he means evocative.

 
I am not trying to be argumentative here for the sake of argument, but clarification seems both necessary and useful. No, I didn't mean "evocative," I meant provocative. The ability to cause a reaction in the viewer. I have a bias, and that bias is that photographs ought to be more powerful than wallpaper. I want to feel something or think something when spending my time with a photograph. If I get "no reaction" - then for me it is dead and unsuccessful as a photograph. These critiques are "user critiques" and I am a user. Others may be bowled over and have a massive reaction to the same photograph and they will say so if they want. I am not adopting any mantle other than one of the "users" here. Thanks. Again, it's not for argument's sake, it is for clarity.
Logged
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5807



WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2013, 12:59:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Very nice whatever it's called.

Yes.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4088



« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2013, 08:35:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Actually, I found out that this part of the property I was shooting was, indeed, NOT Lone Madrone, but I have no idea what it's called, it border's Lone Madrone's vineyard and they make the best wine in the Paso Robles area, so the title stays.

I like it a lot: well-composed, lovely swirling mist, nicely desaturated. If I have one criticism, it's that the tree is a little cramped at the top: I'd have liked a bit more sky above it.

Jeremy
Logged
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 821


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 13, 2013, 11:29:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I am not trying to be argumentative here for the sake of argument, but clarification seems both necessary and useful. No, I didn't mean "evocative," I meant provocative. The ability to cause a reaction in the viewer.

That's what evocative means. Provocative means something else. So, you did mean evocative.
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #13 on: February 13, 2013, 11:44:11 AM »
ReplyReply

That's what evocative means. Provocative means something else. So, you did mean evocative.

As I said - - argument for argument's sake. But fine, this is a vast improvement from your sophomoric jokes about "nuts" with Mr. Hefner.

And, this is a chance for you to learn something valuable about photography. What's the difference in these words? Provocative means, likely to arouse a strong reaction. Evocative means, provoking a memory or mental association.  The former is a wide category that can include many kinds of reactions, where the latter is a narrow category which only includes "memories and mental association." Let's apply it to photography.

The photograph to be interesting must cause a reaction of some kind. If no reaction, then no interest. The reaction just caused could be just a memory association, but it might also be anger, which has no connection to memory. Or it might stimulate identification a metaphoric truth, which again, is not associated with memory. Evocation is one narrow kind of reaction. My use of provocation was to mean the widest range of reactions.

 
Logged
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 821


WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 13, 2013, 11:53:19 AM »
ReplyReply

No, that is not what provocative means.
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2013, 09:28:00 PM »
ReplyReply

No, that is not what provocative means.
This is the user critique forum. It seems obvious people post photographs for them to be critiqued. My comments were to fulfill that purpose. What are yours for? Here's part of my critique, which used the word "provocative."----

"I think it is then very pretty but not provocative enough. Consider for instance had there been a figure of some sort to the right - human or animal. A cross or gravestone under the tree. Something to emphasize distance, size, shape. Something to get the eye more around the picture. With just the tree, maybe the traditional composition doesn't help. Lovely in many respects, but not fascinating. "

If you want to critique this photo differently, I see nothing stopping you. 
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad