I guess I don’t understand this statement. Second guessing is reevaluating ones image. What’s the point of doing it if it’s not going to change anything.
In fact, what’s the point of coming to NPN. I’m really not interested in comments about leading lines, S curves, or cropping out bright spots. That’s craftsmanship. I’m interested in it’s artistic merit, how it affects the viewer. Of course, the other stuff is valuable as well but much less so. If you have nothing to say it doesn’t matter how well it’s said. I can tell you why I prefer the first image if you’re interested.
Igor, when I mentioned second guessing, I was talking about the craftsmanship part of the equations, second guessing cropping, composition, and the like. Artistic merit, IMHO, is something personal, something different in everyone’s mind. Some people like abstracts, some don’t. Same thing with contemporary work or modern art. Just because someone doesn’t like my image (artistically) would not mean I would stop liking it. I would just assume they didn’t appreciate the style or didn’t “see” the same thing I did within it. If they disagreed on craftsmanship issues, then yes, I would be open to change. I hope this clarifies things.
Late to the dance on this one, Igor, bit I simply had to say something about how taken I am with the first image. To me it is the clear choice. The first image is confident. You are clear what it is this picture is about and not afraid to cut anything that distracts. Yes, the second image has wonderful elements but they lack coherence and the image feels … tentative. But the first one - so beautifully and, I might say, tenderly composed.
Super late to the party here Igor. I read through most of the comments and your return comments and I agree when you say “That’s partly because I’m never really confident what I like and what I don’t. And that’s likely because I get emotionally invested in my work and lose any sense of objectivity.” I think this is a lot of us photographers. I know for sure it’s me which is why I post. I really don’t know if it’s good, great or Pedestrian. I’ll come back to the pedestrian in a minute but first I much prefer the first image. In landscape photography they always say to reduce the scene to include only what’s important and leave everything else out of the frame. The first image tells a story of the little guy starting out life in some rather harsh conditions and maybe trying to break away from his dad. The second image would be pretty good but for the branches leaking into the left side of the frame but it also doesn’t tell any kind of a story other than it’s a pretty scene.
Back to the pedestrian shots. I actually really like both of them. Maybe as much or more than your original post. I think @Ed_McGuirk really hit on something with his comment “This may have been partly due to you going there with the preconceived objective of shooting ice and water abstracts, and then not being able to do it. Once you knew it wasn’t possible, it can be harder to connect with other things there. It’s becomes easy to just start shooting " pedestrian” images because you feel like you need to justify the time invested in the trip." I couldn’t agree more.
The ‘pedestrian’ images were warm-up images. My way of shooting is to not hold off until I find ‘the image’ and shoot it. I shoot images from the beginning just to loosen up my ability to see. I make shots that I know will not be keepers. That’s how those came about. That’s my workflow in the field. Others set up a composition and wait for all the components to come together - sunlight, shadow, clouds.
While it’s true that I went with certain expectations it’s not why I shot ‘pedestrian’ images. I always shoot them. Often I don’t go beyond such images.
The first pedestrian image has a nice composition and design (layout) but it doesn’t have a soul. The second image is just a cliche shot that many have seen numerous times. In a word - it’s a copycat image.
May I just say, this is an outstanding “conversation” and critique discussion. This goes well beyond the s-curve, cropping, color balance and cloning conversations - and enters the world of real in depth critique, personal response and discussion of the “art and technique” of nature photography.
It takes “Two to Tango…” as the saying goes. I very much appreciate your honesty and engagement Igor and equally so appreciate the responses and discussions of the other members.
I’m writing this response because I think there’s something to be learned here. For anyone posting an image, please consider revealing much more about the image you’ve posted than f-stops and camera settings. The LESS you reveal about your image, why you captured it and how you responded - the LESS the viewer (and critiquer) may have to offer back.
Didn’t mean to hijack the thread, but just wanted to make note - I wish there were more discussions like this. And it all honesty - it starts with the OP. Thanks Igor!
I look forward to reading the article. I find others creative process fascinating. Especially if one thinks about composition in the field or whether people run on instinct in the field and analyse later.
I remember a basketball commentator saying that you start missing baskets when you start thinking about your shot. Good shooters just let it fly. They let their body do all the moves. I think it was Tom Tolbert. C
Like you, I have been emotionally invested in that little tree … the haiku took shape for me a couple days ago.
– Reflections of a little tree –
Now in a puddle
My image next century
Shows across the lake
It’s been several years since I made this image. I was going through my work and was once again struck by it. I think it’s all that space on the right that is so important. Negative space. It’s a minimalist image in a way. I think it’s appropriate to refer to this with a haiku because it does have a sense of what the Japanese consider beautiful.