Critiques - - critiques, please!

dvation · #1 06-21-2006, 04:05 AM

I need critiques about this image. Thanks!

Vikki · #2 06-21-2006, 05:23 AM

Not sure what you're posting. What exactly do you want critiqued? A photograph, manipulation, retouch, art?
With no other information, I'd have to say, the image is rather lifeless. It does not hold one's interest.

dvation · #3 06-21-2006, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vikki

Not sure what you're posting. What exactly do you want critiqued? A photograph, manipulation, retouch, art?
With no other information, I'd have to say, the image is rather lifeless. It does not hold one's interest.

I want exactly critique like this:"the image is rather lifeless". But really does it not hold one's interest? Are you sure?

Ziaphra · #4 06-21-2006, 06:27 AM

Abstract architecture...? You have a great subject there, unfortunately an image like that needs to be crisp and clear. Your image seems a little soft and perhaps too uniform to pull any 'punch'. Try taking it at an angle for added interest...

These are great examples of abstract architecture:

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/187500/187755VBDA.jpg
http://www.worth1000.com/entries/211500/211646pUWT.jpg
http://www.worth1000.com/entries/227500/227577tYcx.jpg
http://www.worth1000.com/entries/227500/227559MrTQ.jpg

dvation · #5 06-21-2006, 07:13 AM

Thank, but exactly what do you intend for "try taking it at an angle for added interest..."?

RokcetScientist · #6 06-21-2006, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dvation

I need critiques about this image. Thanks!

It's a dead image with false color. Sorry, but that's what I see.

dvation · #7 06-21-2006, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RokcetScientist

It's a dead image with false color. Sorry, but that's what I see.

Probably it's a dead image, but color isn't false. Thanks

Kraellin · #8 06-21-2006, 11:41 AM

dvation,

welcome to RP.

this is the old story about the difference between a 'shot' and a 'picture'. a shot is just any old thing that really doesnt say much or do anything by itself. a picture is about the old saying, 'a picture is worth a thousand words'. it says something. it maybe tells a small story or something like that. 'shots' are often used in montages or collages to create a more full picture, tell a story, but by themselves they do little.

you've also got a couple problems with the image itself. mostly, the whites are blown out, giving an unkind glare to the image. this detracts from the color and geometric interest. and the other thing is the angle, as someone else mentioned. it's straight on. had you taken this from a 45 degree angle on one side or another, i think it might have been better. even taking it up higher or lower might have worked, but dead, straight on tends to say 'this is a shot' and not a 'picture'.

and one other thing that might help with an image like this is a bit of contrast. and i dont mean contrasting colors or light here; i mean something else in the picture itself to give the eye something to contrast against. it wouldnt have to be anything large; a tree branch, a bird flying by....something. even a person behind the glass would have helped. the old 'rule of thirds' somewhat applies here and that old rule works because of contrasting objects and contrasting the images within the picture.

i'll give you an example. if you take a picture of a penny, straight on, dead center in the shot, and close up, it will be so-so. it's just a shot. if you move your angle off to the side a bit or lower the top of the penny down for a big perspective shift, it gets better. if you then moved out a bit, put the penny off-center in the image and added some shadows and highlights, it gets a bit more interesting. if you then added some other object in the image, say a fly flying by off in a corner, you've now got some contrast by object. this last one isnt as crucial as the others, though.

basically, your image says 'here's a sort of interesting geometric pattern in a building'. ok, that's fine. it's a shot. it does say something, but it's like it's not quite complete yet. it needs something else. with the glare cleaned up it would make a fine addition to a montage. but by itself it just doesnt quite stand up. even if there were an interesting reflection in the glass it would be better.

so, basically, what you've got is a foundation here; a foundation that now needs something added to it. and that's really pretty much it.

craig

dvation · #9 06-21-2006, 12:08 PM

You are GREAT! Thanks

Kraellin · #10 06-21-2006, 12:15 PM

you're welcome

i look forward to seeing more of your work.

craig

Vikki · #11 06-21-2006, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dvation
Are you sure?

Again, I don't know what you're asking. Am I sure it holds no interest for me? Yes.

dvation · #12 06-21-2006, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kraellin

you're welcome

i look forward to seeing more of your work.

craig

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zerantuno/

mchawkes · #13 06-21-2006, 05:05 PM

If we are strictly judging based on photography and composition, I think it looks soft and grainy... like it is a tight crop on a larger picture so you loose critical sharpness and detail, not condusive to such a highly technical rendering. It also seems kind of boring.. not much interest. I saw some of your other work on your link. I like other images you have done much better