I decided to offer my take on Nautilus. I intentionally went with a shell that had some problems; an imperfect shell to contrast with Weston's pristine choice reflecting the chasm between myself and the likes of Weston. An unexpected surprise was the adult face of Anakin Skywalker peering out from behind his mask, a broken shell. And so, I have captured the pensive melancholy of the prodigal father.
Statistics
Place: 143 out of 147 Avg (all users): 4.1899 Avg (commenters): 4.5000 Avg (participants): 3.8308 Avg (non-participants): 4.4409 Views since voting: 1305 Views during voting: 303 Votes: 158 Comments: 7 Favorites: 0
Greetings from the Critique Club. You requested an indepth critique of your image and here it is:
Ah! The much-discussed Weston entry. You probably already got all the critique you need, so I'll keep this short.
The subject as such would have been great for Weston. I love that cracked hole in the front of the shell. However, the image is painfully out of focus. Also, there's a large black area at the top that is just empty space, so the composition could be tighter and better composed. That said, the BW tones are good.
Having made this mistake myself when I first started here: if it's out of focus, don't submit it - you'll get hammered. Unless of course, it's one of those type of challenges or you you've mastered the art of blur.
I know people have said it before but the only problem with this is it being out of focus. I think I read somewhere that Edward Weston was in the 'f/64' group with the likes of Ansel Adams etc. I'm not sure what that involved bit its fairly obvious that the image had to have a deep DOF (all in focus).
I used a shallow DOF on my image and it got some comments about it so it was obvious voters were looking for clean, sharp images.
Actually, Weston used a lot of flawed subjects -- just look at the veggies! The problem is, Weston didn't seem to use a shallow depth of field. Usually he had focus throughout the entire image.
I think the flawed shell is quite interesting -- it was the focus that did you in. :)
Since you mentioned within the thread that you wished you had more comments, I thought I would drop by and see what I think.
The face is cool.
You remarks state that you purposely chose an imperfect shell as a metaphor for your own inadequacy as a photographer in comparison with the likes of Mr. Weston, and I understand where you were going with your creation. However, in my opinion, not only is it a flawed shell, it is a flawed execution as shot due to the poor focus. Voters could not be expected to understand your intentions, and all they can go by is what they see. It was a brave and creative effort, but not a strong example in the style of Edward Weston. That is my take.
Yes, sometimes folks revel in receiving last place ie a "brown ribbon". All in fun. Worth about as much as blue/yellow/red, minus the bragging rights. :)
Cool title, too, and since you actually did score the Brown, kind of appropriate, eh?
"And so, I have captured the pensive melancholy of the prodigal father."
If you say so. ;-)
So much of photographic art is interpretation -- not least that of the photographer. If your notes are not thoroughly tongue-in-cheek, I applaud you for your message of distance between you and someone like Edward Weston. I think that's a sincere message, and, once explained, well-received. The trouble is, there is simply no way to deduct that interpretation from what's presented here. Your imagery therefore exists in a vacuum without some kind of active participation from you, and that, unfortunately and at least in my view, should not be the primary vehicle of interpretation. Your photo should present its story in its own right, without your help (after you offer it for consideration, that is). The danger, and the thrill, is always that your message will be misinterpreted, lost, or ignored, but if you've done your job, we should have felt something.
With this, though, I fear you've left us behind. Aside from the arcane nature of the message, the major reason has already been pointed out: the technicals are simply too poor for us to want to consider anything beyond them. Work on the technicals, then work on how to deliver a message like the one in your notes (half goofy and half sublime as it strikes me), and if you really have the interest to do so, and the time and effort required to move from the spot you're in now, you are suddenly a great photographer. In my opinion, your heart's there, and your head. You just need a steadier hand.
In a classic shot like this focus is so important, and it is sadly missing. the framing and lighting are strong, but without focus there isn't the textural element that would complete the shot
Add photograph to your favorites
Add photographer to your favorites
Photographer found comment helpful.
