The internet is a fickled place

[chauncey]

I'm continually searching for a site that will give succinct C&C on my images as "objects d'art", whatever that means. To that end, I subscribe and post images on numerous sites, flittering around, much like the proverbial blind squirrel searching for the acorn.

My latest example posted here Mini Competition #1784 which some of you thought it was quite decent...for those accolades, I thank you all. The reception on Luminous Landscape was considerably less subdued with numerous responses going off into tangents.

My question is...are there sites out there that lean in the direction of "photographic art" for C&C?

[Andrew76]

Hi William. I'm not familiar with many other forums for critique, besides DPS, and some more specific for underwater photography. I think you will find that the 'general' tone around here is pretty light though. I think the topic has been brought up numerous times, and most of the people who participate in the critique threads agree that a more constructive type criticism is more ideal for learning. Which, in general leads to a lighter atmosphere in the forums for critiquing images.

The mini comps, on the other hand, are a whole different ball of wax. The topic of how those should be run, and/or judged has also been beaten to death. From a recent thread that I believe was started by you, I think it was determined that a majority of the 50 or so people who actually vote on them, vote by how they 'like' the image. So if an image appealed to that individual, they'd vote for it. Which, in my opinion, was a little shocking - but that's a whole other thread. I was OBVIOUSLY in the minority on that one.

So, as I ramble, I'll try to make a point. I think that by you winning the mini comp with your water bird in flight photo, you've proved that a fair number of people visually enjoy your image. BUT, if you want more direct critique, I'd probably have posted it in the Nature forum.

Other than that, try DPS for critique - I'm not saying they're better, because CiC is by far the best photography forum I've been involved in, but at least you'll get a different audience.

[ajohnw]

The winner didn't get my vote because the birds looked very artificial to me. 1st impression.

Personally I feel part of the problem in this area is that people want a set of rules that produce better photo's. I had a look at the dps critique forum for instance - the sailing on.......... Usual comments - 1/3rds, cropping,busy, get rid of the house and so on. Looked at from the true art world comments would be different. A painter might paint the scene more or less as per the photo but wouldn't allow the nearby grass and boat to be anywhere near as strident. 1/3rds, golden ratio's etc do not always figure in that world at all. The artist would generally want to lead a viewers eye where they wanted it to go and might even leave busy detail in that will be noticed later. A photographer would look at the scene in this particular shot and reckon it was a pretty good sky - detail, interest and exposure etc then often try to apply a set of rules to the rest and take no notice of their initial impression. On other shots some might be attracted by the processing that has been done and their initial impressions if the whole thing works. Often seems to happen. 1/3rds - not really, cropping - over all effect, so yes, busy - might be so not always relevant.

On that one I voted for coast in the end thinking foreground too clear and detail not evenly lost with distance but rather nicely cropped or framed. The critical aspects came after I had looked at it for a while and could be cured.

Frankly I feel that this forum is easily the best one available,. People can always post shots and ask for criticism but frankly when people start throwing in the "rules" it's probably best to not let yourself get too wrapped up in them.

Overall I feel there is and always has been a heavy element of current fashion in the photographer looks at other's photo's world and that tends to have an influence on how shots are viewed and not true artistic merit which of course will vary from person to person..

John
-

[chauncey]

The winner didn't get my vote because the birds looked very artificial to me. 1st impression.

Please be assured that I take no offence to your opinion but could you expand on that somewhat?
Those BIF series that occupy a fair amount of my time are rarely more that a simple photo-merge
process in PS. I'm always looking for a way to improve the work that I cough out.

[ajohnw]

I can't really add more. That was my immediate impression and then that the background etc was perfect. If I look again and wonder why I thought that I would guess it's something to do with an apparent flatness to the various parts of the bird - sort of graphic artist style birds.

Alternative that could be a juxtaposition of different lighting on the birds and the background which could have the same effect. If that is the case matching the lighting on the background to the birds might look natural but would spoil the shot. If this could be done the other way round that might improve it.

Anyway it represents work that I suspect I would have difficulty matching. When I am around on here I sometimes look though the shots and don't vote for any of them. Like / dislike comes into that. I prefer augmented realism might be one way of explaining that. In that respect your background is fine for me but others might prefer it more along the lines of what I call a pastely effect. Semi hdr tone/colour wise might be another way of putting it. Some times I see shots that have a marked technical flaw considering the types of shots they are. That puts me off too. In some ways the tone aspect is getting a bit boring and often doesn't seem to really add mood which seems to be the objective. Everybody who votes will have their own set of feelings as to what constitutes a good shot which in some ways makes the whole thing more interesting.

I put one shot in that didn't get any votes at all. Another recently that has something odd about a part of a bird which is real as it was there but could have been taken out. I'm moderately pleased with the shot and that comes 1st for me. 2nd is what others think about it. I think that is the best way to approach photo competitions of any sort. On the other hand I could look and see what does win / get votes and use the same techniques on different subjects. I feel that aspect is what leads to photographic fashions. Probably an important aspect if some one wants to sell prints as nothing makes the shots stand out from the crowd - me I just do it for myself.

John
-

[Geoff F]

That image is a bit 'specialised' and may not appeal to some photographic purists. Which often occurred on some other sites which I previously used.

However, if posting on a wildlife site photo forum you would probably get a totally different response.

Those competitions were designed to be a bit of fun so aren't really the best place for true artistic criticism.

I limit myself to a maximum of 5 votes (some people limit themselves to only one vote) so it can sometimes come down to deciding between a bird and a landscape or a portrait. Which is where people have different opinions.

There were 5 other images in that competition which also appealed to me in some ways.

And then there are other sites which become 'mutual back scratching' areas where everything is considered good - as long as you are going to be equally kind to me!

CinC is generally regarded as being fairly neutral and open minded, providing you ask the right question in the right place. But by all means try elsewhere and see what happens.

[Dusty]

If I vote in the mini competition I look at the quality of the composition, sharpness and the trouble I think the photographer has took to take the image.

I don't vote on what I like but purely on the image whatever it might be. I have seen post on here and they say they won't vote for this or that because they don't like the subject, fun or not that is no way to repect somebody's time they have taken to take the image.
Dave.

WM what do YOU think photographic art is?

ePHOTOzine is a good site for CC

[ajohnw]

If I vote in the mini competition I look at the quality of the composition, sharpness and the trouble I think the photographer has took to take the image.

I don't vote on what I like but purely on the image whatever it might be. I have seen post on here and they say they won't vote for this or that because they don't like the subject, fun or not that is no way to repect somebody's time they have taken to take the image.
Dave.

WM what do YOU think photographic art is?

ePHOTOzine is a good site for CC

A question for you Dave - just how do you judge composition? I know my view. Nothing other than initial impressions is of much consequence. I'm curious about yours.

Sharpness is a bit of thing for me as I often see too much of it. Myself included especially in the past before I obtained a decent monitor. That aspect makes judging some one else's attempt at sharpening rather difficult - do they like it like that or is it due to the monitor they use?

John
-

[chauncey]

WM what do YOU think photographic art is?

If I could only define that...I would be much wiser than I am.
As I'm a hobbyist and don't try to sell my stuff but have been known to donate.
Were I to have a 24x20 metal print made to be auctioned for charity and it brought...say $1,000,
I could then call myself an artist. Dreams are important.

[revi]

The problem with art is that it is highly subjective. Look at Sharon's (Daisy mae's) pictures: very good images, but not technically perfect (or even "correct") in the normal photographic sense (focus, DoF, ect.). But the technical "imperfections" are important to the image...

As others, in the mini competitions I vote for what I like, or what interests me. But I do take into account the care taken with the image: a sloping horizon in a landscape won't get a vote, same with unintentionally out-of-focus images and such, or overly large signatures/logos.

And let's not forget that photography, like drawing, has several uses. Producing art is one possible use. Documentation of an event or object is another, which is not art, in the sense that the craftsman is not trying to give his vision through the image. Take for instance a flora: the older ones, and the better modern ones, contain lots of line drawings. Those drawings are very well executed, but not art. Modern versions, especially those for the larger public, (also) use photographs. But it's still not art, nor intended to be art.

[tbob]

From my recollection, these people are very serious about photography as art. I don't use it anymore, mainly because the critique section is far beyond anything I am capable of. Maybe try this site if you want an artistic assessment.

http://1x.com/critique