critique
Posted: Thu 18 Sep 2014, 12:40
We had a critique yesterday evening and I wondered what makes a picture tick.
This is no criticism of the other photographers involved but is of interest.
I spent quite a time constructing a series of graffiti into one image, and if I say so myself, you cannot see the joins.
There were at least 3 artists involved and I mean artists, I was truly impressed with their work, and myself the photographer !!
Now time taken doesn't make an image but my picture told a story.
The judge's comment was all I did was copy someone else's image, fair enough, he couldn't tell how much work was eventually involved.
Two other works had come up , a bronze and a street scene involving graffiti.
The bronze had been created by an artist and manufactured by an artisan, probably just photographed lightened, cropped and enhanced
interesting picture as a copy of something, came out fine. The Street scene was just a street with a little graffiti on a wall, was that not copied, they both received certificates.
Neither of those told a story other than what the artist wished to tell. Mine did. Could somebody tell me why mine was considered inferior.
To be honest the judge did say he did not like the picture, that to me might have been enough, but there are other criteria. Quality of printing interpretation, composition, crop, colour rendition et al.
This isn't the first time my graffiti images have been scored down and other similar images have received certs. What am I doing wrong people.
The only thing right about all this is I enjoyed the project tremendously, and liked the result.
This is no criticism of the other photographers involved but is of interest.
I spent quite a time constructing a series of graffiti into one image, and if I say so myself, you cannot see the joins.
There were at least 3 artists involved and I mean artists, I was truly impressed with their work, and myself the photographer !!
Now time taken doesn't make an image but my picture told a story.
The judge's comment was all I did was copy someone else's image, fair enough, he couldn't tell how much work was eventually involved.
Two other works had come up , a bronze and a street scene involving graffiti.
The bronze had been created by an artist and manufactured by an artisan, probably just photographed lightened, cropped and enhanced
interesting picture as a copy of something, came out fine. The Street scene was just a street with a little graffiti on a wall, was that not copied, they both received certificates.
Neither of those told a story other than what the artist wished to tell. Mine did. Could somebody tell me why mine was considered inferior.
To be honest the judge did say he did not like the picture, that to me might have been enough, but there are other criteria. Quality of printing interpretation, composition, crop, colour rendition et al.
This isn't the first time my graffiti images have been scored down and other similar images have received certs. What am I doing wrong people.
The only thing right about all this is I enjoyed the project tremendously, and liked the result.