For you to look upon / critique

Regards

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), April 09, 2002

Answers

Nice as far as it goes, but would be much improved if you had filled the entire frame IMHO. The empty corners are a distraction.

-- Tim Franklin (tim_franklin@mac.com), April 09, 2002.

Nice shot Ivan. the colour and composition make it interesting, but unfortunately, it doesn't have an impact. Although I am being objective because I like people shots. For the shot it is, well done. Better than what I could've done. :-)

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 09, 2002.

I love it! Nice framing, nice exposure, nice color. I wouldn't change a thing. Fascinating how different people react. And that's why it's important to get your work out to many people & not to rely on a few reactions.

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), April 09, 2002.

What were you trying to show with that shot Iván? I learned awhile back that its useful for the photographer to provide a narrative so that the viewers can attempt to see the photograph through his context. Right now all I see is a picture of a potlid... not too exciting unless you give me an idea of why you chose to render this potlid the way you did.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), April 09, 2002.

Hi, John:

Thanks for taking your time to comment on my photo.

John, being consistent with what I have already said somewhere else, I think that no written explanation will improve this photo nor any other one either. If it is not strong enough to convey a meaning by itself it is simply that it is not the good I though it was.

That said, what led me to render the potlid the way I did is that under that particular light I saw two main things (but don't read any further if don't want to risk to get bothered):

1.- The light itself and the way it made apparent details on the metalic surface that would pass unnoticed at a slightly different incidence angle / intensity, i.e at any other moment. For me that is kind of a constant: to perceive that an image will live only the moment a given object is at a given point of space at a given moment in time reminds me the precarious our whole existence is. And being able to capture that only moment in life gives me great satisfactions when it works. If not, I feel that that particular moment that was important for me at the moment I pressed the shutter definitely passed away and part of my own life did too. As a consequence, I seldom try to make it better the second time . . .

2.- The many hours devoted by people at something as noble though basic as preparing the family's meals by years and years.

And Tim, that is why the image was composed the way it is, too: if the whole frame had been filled with the lid, the geometric meaning would have been the prevalent one since few shapes are graphically stronger than a circle. If I had wanted to show (document)the lid itself maybe I had done exactly that.

But still, I'm not trying to excercise "the high art of post- trascendentalizing" (Vestal's concept) here: if you didn't get any meaning from my photo it is simply that I wasn't able to convey mine. And it is good for me to be aware.

Though I still love this photo, of course.

Regards, friends, and thanks for your patience if you made it to this point.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), April 09, 2002.

It's pretty, but the image itself isn't quite intriguing. I'm a bit curious about Lulu, though . . .

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 09, 2002.

Ivan, you're response was posted while I was writing mine. Considering that the image made me wonder about Lulu, I think you have, to some degree, been successful at #2.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 09, 2002.

Partial agreement Iván.

A picture should be captivating enough to grab the attention of the viewer BUT if he is given context then it transcends voyeurism: it tells a story. Even quintessential pictures that define a period need narration to elevate their worth (Steve McCurry's portrait comes to mind). Case in point:

Would you get more out of the picture if I told you this was part of Easter Sunday service at a United Church parish? Or should I leave you guessing as to what's up with the hands????

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), April 09, 2002.

just beautiful Iván, faltan las palabras, y sobran! thanks foe share

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), April 10, 2002.

I haven´t read any other answer, before post first time, IMOO it doesn´t need a thing. it is just what it is, the rest is in your mind.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), April 10, 2002.

Beautiful, Ivan.

Captivating composition, light and tonality. The sepia adds to the mood, too.

BTW, am I missing something, John? What more meaningful narrative than the title could Ivan have supplied? Doesn't it tell you enough?
As for this forum, just a thought: You can never bath in the same river... ;o) Bests.

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), April 10, 2002.

Very good study of light and shadow. No explanation needed; it is a still life composition. The viewer should decide for herself whether it is interesting. Technically it is fine.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), April 10, 2002.

Why does a picture have to tell a story? If you want to tell a story, buy a typewriter.

I like the color and the light. The composition is more static than formal. I like formal, formal appeals to me, but it's hard to do formal and maintain interest. This is the kind of shot that would make me think, "almost there."

Title, backstory unecessary. If you don't have the confidence to present a picture of a pot lid just as it is, don't do it.

-- Steven Hupp (shupp@chicagobotanic.org), April 10, 2002.

Bom Dia Ivan, another lovely still life. Such everyday items can have profound meaning. Together with the taps, you should be collecting a good series. No, I don't think you need to include the whole lid unless you are doing an advertising shot. Sepia, and "creamy" tonality work well.

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), April 10, 2002.

As story telling goes, if the picture doesn't capture the fancy of the viewer then the viewer isn't going to be interested in reading the caption. In reportage the pictures support the story and that is a different case completely.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), April 10, 2002.

Yet another posted picture that shouldn't have been. It's a pot lid for goodness sake! Why is everyone getting so excited?

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), April 10, 2002.

Giles, or PINHEAD, or Phil MEAN, or whatever you call yourself. Leave this forum alone. No one here welcomes your rude and insultng comments, especially to Ivan, a great contributor to this forum.

"Yet another posted picture that shouldn't have been. It's a pot lid for goodness sake! Why is everyone getting so excited?"

We are all getting excited because we haven't yet caught a glimpse of your magical work to set the standard. Why don't you show us your marvelous work before criticising others. And even if your work is good, does that give the position to put others down? I think NOT.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 10, 2002.

"It's a pot lid for goodness sake!"

Hmmm - some critics back in the 30's probably looked at Edward Weston's work and said "It's a pepper for goodness sake!" or "It's a toilet for goodness sake!"

I don't know that this is necessarily up to Weston's level of seeing - but abstract images of natural/manufactured forms is certainly a well- considered photographic genre.

It's late and I'm tired so I can't give a full-scale critique - the tones/printing look good to me and the light is effective - but something seems to be missing. It just doesn't quite seem to reach the 'iconic' state that Weston's pictures do (as if MINE did!). But that may just be the difference between an 8x10 silver contact print and a 4x6 web image....

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 10, 2002.

This must be the most emotionally charged pot lid in history.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), April 10, 2002.

Oh dear Kristian, just to repeat I have only ever posted under ONE name - I do not hide behind aliases.

If someone posts an image for critique and an opinion is offered then that is all it is - an opinion. If it does not agree with others (or yours) please don't attack that person.

I am not attacking Ivan, I am "attacking" (if you like) his photograph. There is a difference which you seem unable to understand. I have enjoyed Ivan's comments and I am sure he has many photographs I would enjoy but a picture of a pot lid is not my cup of tea (or cooking container! - Ha Ha.) Do please try to be a little less defensive and sensitive.

This is a forum, for people to share DIFFERENT opinions, stop trying (once again) to act as a self appointed policeman.

I stand by my post - it is simply a picture of a pot lid.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), April 10, 2002.

Ivan, 1) crop the white borders.

2) why is it blurred? handheld at low light? 3) where's LuLu? and who is she?

4) I think u need a story for this photo.

Just my thoughts, nice effort though.

regards.

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 10, 2002.

Ivan,not my sort of photo,so will not comment.Would like to see photos of people,landscapes etc in Chile.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 10, 2002.

Thanks for your time and comments, gentlemen.

It's good to "see" you back here, Lutz.

The ones who asked who she is can see Lulú here. BTW: she has been my wife since 1970. Still is, in fact . . . What a patience she has ! For a critic, she IS a good example: she has almost no idea of photographic tecnique but points out errors both technical and aesthetic like a skilled master. Maybe my errors are too obvious for everybody else but me ?

Regarding the famous potlid: I was reading what I formerly posted and, though I sustain my feelings as true, I laugh a lot at myself and then Rob said it right: "This must be the most emotionally charged pot lid in history." But thinking twice: yes, it is indeed, FOR ME. If it wasn't it had never made it to here, of course. But it was trashed time ago (same as some of you would do with my photo); sic transit gloria mundi . . .

Travis, either you didn't read my previous posting (lucky you) or you should be jocking when you say "4) I think u need a story for this photo." I think that if I write one single extra word as a story for the potlid Tony would be justified to kick me out from here. Might I explain myself: if the photo doesn't tell a story for you it is either that you have no meaning in your personal background able to be validly attached to the image or I wasn't able to convey my own. In either case I'm afraid there is nothing I could do, right ?

Allen: this is tipical chilean though not exactly a person . . .

Andy, your conclusion that "It just doesn't quite seem to reach the 'iconic' state that Weston's pictures . . ." might well be the most incredibly favorable comment I have ever got. Thanks ! !

That is it about the lid. Thanks everybody, once more. See you later . . .

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), April 11, 2002.

Ivan,

I'm happy to read your well tempered reply and watch your photography progressing, both technically and aesthetically. Keep going and posting! Cheers.

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), April 11, 2002.

Well said Lutz, Ivan, good to see you unlike our paranoid Australian friend can differentiate between disliking a photo and disliking the photographer!

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), April 11, 2002.

Sorry if I offended you giles and I appreciate what you are saying. But I do think there are slightly less negative ways of saying you don't like someone's photograph. Remember that attacking someone's photograph is similar to attcking them personally as a photograph to most people is a way of expressing themselves personally.

Instead of attacking a photograph, how about "constructive" criticism? I think that is what Ivan and most others may prefer.

If you could slightly adjust that and offer some advice it would be very helpful. Seeing your previous posts, I know thta you are highly capable of offering great advice.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 11, 2002.

Thank you Kristian, I think we should call it quits. As a study of a symbolic, representative object in Ivan's life the picture is obviously of importance to him. Yes, even I can see the attraction of the light and tone that was admired by others, IMO it didn't appeal to me but it is simply my opinion - this is a wonderful forum for different opinions - some agreeable some not so.

Apologies if my first post was flippant.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), April 12, 2002.

This forum is definately moving on. We can all get along, no matter what. And isn't it great when we can disagree AND avoid conflict at the same time?!

I'll be passing this forum address to my (now unborn) son after I pass on the Leica :-)

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 12, 2002.

Ivan, thx for replying. Yes, I think I do not have the background knowledge to understand your photo. Im sure there is one, and a great one with LULU ;)

Keep them coming!!

Giles: With regards to your misunderstanding with some of us, just let me say this when u make a critique.

When anyone post a pic for critique or sharing, it is obvious that they think it is a grea pic or something worth sharing. Or else, why else would anyone post? Would anyone post a DULL pic on purpose?

So, when u critique a photo, be it bad or good, please be constructive as best as u could.

When u say " This photo does nothing for me" . Fine. But show us an example of something that does. Or else, why should we care if it does anything for u or not? I mean, the poster would not know what does for u and he/she did not post a pic just to suit u.

If u dislike a photo, just say something that can improve a photo. Please dun say things like " This photo should go to the family album" etc. This says nothing about the photo but only your likings.

Like u said, this forum is for different opinions. But we can make this better by supporting each other's work, right?

Im sure u dun make WOW pics everytime, so why should u be so bold at times? We can help each other by asking questions about techniques and compositions, but we can destroy each other more easily by saying " THIS PIC DOES NOTHING FOR ME"

And im of the opinion that if one does not regularly post pics for critiques, their comments should be even less harsh.

I mean, how do we know how good your work is and why should we agree that our work is bad just because u said so?

Show us something, so we can learn from u too, GILES.;)

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 12, 2002.

Sure the attention is on Giles right now but he is not the only one guilty of not offering advice after disagreeing. We all are at times, and I myself sometimes find it difficult to find the right words when typing. And if you see Giles new post, he is trying to find out what scanner to buy so that he can display his work too. I am sure we are all excited about seeing what he has to offer, and giving our respectful and honest opinions. Nuff said on this issue.

Any more comments about Ivan's pic?

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 12, 2002.