Artist's Wall

[Don Schaeffer]

This artist (Keith Wood) uses melted wax with added pigment. He can take the droppings and re-use them to produce grays. 18-55 mm Nikkor lens

[Themage]

Very interesting , Is it a little bit dark ?

[Don Schaeffer]

yes it may be. I'll repost it.

[Addies Granddaddy]

Don, I like the abstract quality here. Well done.
John

[Don Schaeffer]

Thanks John

[Themage]

That looks better , i like it alot after awhile of looking at it i just get lost in it

[Loupey]

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to critique since it is a photo of someone else's work.

I have no idea what the original looks like.

[Don Schaeffer]

Its not someone's work. It's the wall of his studio. His paintings don't look like this at all.

[GB1]

I think it is a decent shot Don, but unfortunately like many of your images posted here, I think it is way over processed. Am I incorrect that you did that? I see no reason to process a shot like this, it would make a good abstract photo on its own. Just my 2c.

Gb

[Don Schaeffer]

It's not overprocessed at all. It's straight except for a little brightness adjustment.

[chaman]

This misunderstanding happens because aprox 98% of the photos you post are over processed. IMO you should cut back some on the over processed stuff and direct your efforts at getting the best photo possible with only some minimal corrections with the software you use. Take this as constructive criticism only.

[GB1]

Ok but to my uneducated eyes, there is a lot of artifacts in the shot in the area 2/3s of the way down above and below the curvy line, which usually depicts over sharpening. I could be wrong, though..

Please take all this as constructive criticism. I really believe there is absolutely no reason to process a lot of the shots you do unless there are major technical problems. And if there are such issues, wouldn't it be best to correct the underlying problem, which is probably too slow a shutter speed and/or not using a tripod?

Peace.

G

[Don Schaeffer]

I understand--i'm not bothered by the critique. It's useful. I'll try posting some photos without the sharpening. I usually do sharpen because i'm not happy with what comes out of the camera. Maybe it's my eyes.

[danic]

I enjoy seeing Don's style of photo's. I think it would be a sad day if Don started posting photo's which turned out like everyone else's.

Not having a go at anyone else, but I can't think of anyone who posts images like he does, and I believe you should critique according to one's style of photography, not necessarily because the WB is off, or it seems a little soft, or whatever technical aspect the shooter might not have nailed.

[Don Schaeffer]

thank you danic. I do think the critique is valuable. It keeps me honest. I am pretty tough by now and can ignore unfounded fault finding. Ive been doing these forums for a while, been blasted, banned, panned and every other uncomfortable thing. I'll never stop taking photos and sharing them.

[GB1]

Sorry Danic and Don, but I respectfully disagree.

Saying that an image looks over-processed is not an out of line comment, nor bad critique. Note that I didn't criticize it for being processed, but "over processed." That's a subjective thing I admit, but when I see artifacts appearing, I know there's a problem.

Plus, as I stated before, I really don't understand why this particular image needed it. If you look at the scene, remnants of old oil paint and other stuff with some really neat curvy design, it's a super creative place to photograph and I would have to guess that it would totally stand on it's own. I can see someone manipulating it as an experiment perhaps, but I just don't think it needs it.

I guess I consider technical issues very critique-able along with composition, creativity, imagination, and everything else that constitutes the world of photography. Indeed, it's more objective critique than that concerning creativity. It's up to the artist to take the advice or ignore it. In the end though, their body of work will probably reflect their decision.

GB

[Frog]

I don't know about the processing but compositionally I think it needs something else in it.
Without an object it lacks depth. Perhaps the artist's paleete?