Fields off North Livermore Avenue, Livermore, California

I'd love to comment on this, but it's in the standard gallery so I can't.

I have a sneaking suspicion I know what Jovo might be thinking I like this photograph.

I only posted in the galleries a couple times before this so I'm not sure what the gallery-posting etiquette is. Did I miss something?

I don't care much about etiquette so here goes. This picture is rather an interesting dilemma. And I've seen this type of picture before in many forms. If a rank amateur took it, I'd say it's rather boring with no real focal point of interest and would probably dismiss it. However when you look at other work by the author, you realize that this is no rank amateur, which forces you to look harder. The bleakness has a certain feeling and mood to it, and the use of texture, which in this case is not only the field but the "grain" of the sky, and then add in the human element of the tire tracks, you have a very subtle interesting picture which at first glance may have escaped you. So I don't really love it, but I respect it.

He he. I appreciate blansky's honesty. We each have our likes and dislikes and this one first blush did not strike him. I'm honored he found my other work admirable enough to give him pause and perhaps study this one more closely. I find his comment refreshing. And I see it as very positive and encouraging to me. It's not entirely unlike some of my other work but I have been admiring the work of Hiroshi Sugimoto recently and in the last year or so attempted to break away from my usual perspective and experimented in emulating some of his style and influence, that and I simply enjoyed the elements quite accurately described by blansky.

Michael R 1974 said:

Why not try to look as honestly as possible at a photograph, if you're going to critique it? Instead of dismissing it, you looked harder because you find merit in other work by the photographer, which seems to have urged you to read more into it - stuff you wouldn't have come up with otherwise?

Click to expand...

Michael, you are actually right, but we all live in a world of context. For better or worse. As I said, I don't really like it that much but do respect it because since I have context I realize it is an attempt, a departure if you will. I have stated to others, that when actually asked to critique something, I usually ask the person first, what they were trying to achieve. Then using their mindset, decide if they achieved their goals. Because otherwise, the critique tends to be more, do I like it or don't I. Honestly has nothing to do with it for me. It's all honesty. It's all an attempt to help someone get better, or at least get better in my opinion. That's why I like my criteria for critique, because context lets me in to the mind of the author. If I cold critiqued this picture, I probably wouldn't like it much and maybe that's partly because I grew up on the prairies in Canada, now live near Livermore, and have seen this scene a lot, so there is nothing really new and exciting for me here. I also grew up in the Rocky Mountains, so mountain pictures don't really jump at me either. But when people do good work, then you see something different from them, I will tend to try to see where and why they are going in that direction.

I see and understand your point and perspective Michael, then again, as mentioned am refreshed and admiring of blansky's raw honesty. He says "Honesty has nothing to do with it. It's all honesty". If people could switch off all subjectivity and be 100% objective that would have some value i guess but just how real would that be? (let alone even possible) blansky is upfront and honest about what influences him, rightly or wrongly, and I mean that not as if he can be "right or wrong" as in correct, but in how people or even himself might say those influences can be either a positive force or perhaps a negative force, but admitting such "biases" and where they come from and why is more valuable than a straight and perhaps even lazy, "Meh, don't like it". The effort in explaining his like or dislike, and in the end, respect, is honorable and deeply appreciated. I'd rather have 5 people say they respect my work even if they do not exactly like it so much, than 1000 say they like it but find little to respect in it. Frankly, in the end, I could actually not give a rat's ass what anyone thinks of my work, I do not do it for them. I do it purely for my enjoyment. That said, I'm selfish: if someone likes my work I wholeheartedly embrace that and believe they are brilliant in their taste ;-). if they don't like it, I don't care. Is that fair? To me? Eh, whatever, again, I shoot for me. If someone does not find joy or interest in my work, no problem. There's plenty of other work to go look at. I do enjoy sharing my work and viewing others, which is why I participate here and elsewhere.

My impression of all this is that we all take a ton of pictures. Then we review them and find some we think are worth printing. We don't all fall upon Moonrise over Hernandez to use a bad example every day so we use what we took that day. That being said, some stuff works and some stuff doesn't. For all of us. And sometimes we may even force it by trying to make a silk purse.........We all do that. Conversely we sometimes can find hidden gems we overlooked when we go back and look at contact sheets at a later date. Sometimes years later. As for critiques on this site, the "very nice dear" is not really helpful and is more of an ego boost (nothing wrong with that, we all need it) than anything really helpful. That's why I break the rules and give an opinion, with reasons for it. But to me context is important.

blansky said:

My impression of all this is that we all take a ton of pictures. Then we review them and find some we think are worth printing. We don't all fall upon Moonrise over Hernandez to use a bad example every day so we use what we took that day. That being said, some stuff works and some stuff doesn't. For all of us. And sometimes we may even force it by trying to make a silk purse.........We all do that. Conversely we sometimes can find hidden gems we overlooked when we go back and look at contact sheets at a later date. Sometimes years later. As for critiques on this site, the "very nice dear" is not really helpful and is more of an ego boost (nothing wrong with that, we all need it) than anything really helpful. That's why I break the rules and give an opinion, with reasons for it. But to me context is important.

Click to expand...

Even more thoughtful clarification which is even more appreciated.

Michael R 1974 said:

Rich, one off-topic (for APUG) comment I wanted to make - the scan quality looks quite good, which allows some of the quality in the original negative to come through on the screen. Looks nice and crisp. You don't often see that. Often I find peoples' postings are let down by the scanning part (actually it's one of the reasons why I don't post pictures).

Click to expand...

I agree. It can of course make all the difference when trying to share the character of the lens (which is why I love Rolleiflex TLRs so much), the subtlety of the tonality, and lastly sharpness in a way that does not detract.