Critique Style Requested: Standard
The photographer is looking for generalized feedback about the aesthetic and technical qualities of their image.
Description
This picture was taken in Algonquin Park at the same canyon site as some of my previous posts. But this time, something a little more intimate. I was particularly drawn to the leaves and twigs that had been trapped by the flow and which reminded me of shrimp, of all things. It was good luck to get this kind of side lighting, which revealed the texture of the rock as well as the contrast between the bright, flowing water and the dark, still rock face.
Specific Feedback
Lacking the expanse and grandness of the “big” landscape shots, intimate landscapes, while intriguing to photograph and having meaning for me, often don’t have enough of that certain “je ne sais quoi” to hold the reader’s attention. I would love to get some feedback on the extent to which this image succeeds (or fails) in drawing and holding your attention and, for my benefit, why or why not.
Technical Details
Critique Template
Use of the template is optional, but it can help spark ideas.
- Vision and Purpose:
- Conceptual:
- Emotional Impact and Mood:
- Composition:
- Balance and Visual Weight:
- Depth and Dimension:
- Color:
- Lighting:
- Processing:
- Technical:
2 Likes
Kerry,
I think that there is this notion of the pristine natural world and we photographers feed into and also perpetuate it as well when we make photos that exclude the unsightly jetsam and flotsam that is the natural world. Scenes like this one presented are overlooked because they are not picturesque, but that is a true depiction of nature - stuff is everywhere and it gets caught in everything. Sometimes it is not what we include in the photograph that makes it shine, but what we exclude.
While I am not particularly drawn to this particular photo, I do like how you composed it and were fortunate to get some interesting light that did bring out the texture in the rock and in the branches and leaves. Given that there are really only two tones in this photo, the texture is what shines here, and I think if this was in B&W the entire mood of the photo would change, and possibly have much more appeal.
3 Likes
Your image really grew on me the more I pondered it Kerry.
You’ve done an excellent job on the lighting. I’ve been enjoying your exploration of chiaroscuro, and in this image it focuses the eye while leaving a lot of room for mystery. It makes the brighter kisses of light star in a way that is quite attractive.
The water is a good texture. It doesn’t look harsh, but yet has definition; I think that marries quite well with the chiaroscuro.
The flotsam and jetsam is compelling here, which surprises me. It flows well with your composition; the lines complimenting the flow of the water. I think the leaves are essential, almost like decorations on a Christmas tree really change its character.
In the end, this one works for me. I find that fascinating, because I would likely have spent some time trying to figure out how to exclude it from my composition. 
2 Likes
I am not drawn to the subject matter that much - what it is. Perhaps if I encountered this more often it could pull some emotional strings. But as a picture itself I think it’s very successful. The wall of wet surface on the right is beautifully displayed. The very different wet rock in lower left is a great counterpart due to it’s difference. The twigs form beautiful arches and their darkness shows up nicely against the brighter water. I’m not sure how I feel about the leaves. My current opinion that unless color makes a statement by the color itself there is no need for color. From that viewpoint I think this would work well in b&w. Should. You never really know until you see it.
1 Like
@Youssef_Ismail - Thank you for your very detailed and thoughtful response. I agree wholeheartedly, that, as photographers, we have a tendency to want to clean everything up and create a sense of order where, often, especially in the natural world, there may not be any - at least not as we “rational” humans define it. The natural world expresses itself in terms of fractal rather than Euclidian geometry, the latter being much easier to set rules by. And those rules are often more limiting than liberating, keeping us at a distance from what, ostensibly, we’re trying to connect with.
@John_Williams - I am so delighted to hear that this one worked for you … in the end. What pleases me is that you were willing to give it time and review such that your relationship with the image actually evolved. Sadly, in our fast paced world, I often find myself looking at a photograph or art work in general, and making a quick decision - “like/don’t like” - without allowing my experience to mellow and evolve. I think of one of my favourite photographers, Keith Carter. If I’d seen one of his photographs on, say, Facebook, I wonder if I would have just dismissed it and moved to something more “obvious” (and in focus, for heaven’s sake 
). By the way, I want to thank you for taking on the Moderator role. It’s a lot of work but it really makes a difference in how this whole process works. We all put ourselves in a vulnerable position when we post and what you all do, your very presence, matters.
@Igor_Doncov - As always, Igor, much appreciation. I did this image in B&W and found it just didn’t have much life. I agree with your assessment about colour vs. black and white - that unless the colour, as colour makes a statement, it interferes rather than enhances. But I actually feel that colour is important to this image and, in fact, spent a lot of time working with it. I feel that the light comes alive in good part, because of those yellow leaves and that the brighter yellow up there on the left is a compliment to the subtle blues in the darker areas of the water. Over in the darker area of the lower left - the bits of blue all along in there make a difference that doesn’t play in B&W. Anyway, that’s my story and I’m sticking with it 
I could not agree more Kerry. It seems that more and more our internet connection to the world is driven by the need for a quick hit of dopamine, and we are losing the ability to deeply connect. It really bugs me when I find myself falling into this trap by mindlessly scrolling, glancing at something and moving on without really “finishing” it. One of my goals in photography is to do more looking and less glancing.
Thank you for that; it means a lot. These are big shoes to fill, and I have ever so much to learn about quality critiquing. I hope to continue to improve, and I think I can speak for all five of us that one of our goals is to provide consistency in that.
1 Like
I enjoy reading your detailed responses to commentators almost as much as your images themselves. You do put a lot of thought and effort. Your responses often refer to art, philosophy, and other photographers, and even life itself. All of which makes them abundantly readable. Sadly I don’t do the same, but should (although it becomes more difficult when you post more often).
1 Like
