Your Photo: Our Critique

This photo submitted by Richard A. Wells has gone through too much post-editing. What was originally an average shot, now barely resembles a photograph at all. I am not a fan of using extreme Photoshop filters to achieve unrealistic looking photographs. If you want a graphic design, draw one, and if you want a painting, do it yourself!

—Linzee Karasik
Pop Photo

This photo gets four stars on the PopPhoto Flash rating system.

The PopPhoto Flash rating system.
*= This part of the camera is called the lens
**= Don’t quit your day job
***= Good, but not yet great
****=So close you can taste it
*****= Yes, a thousand times yes!

Want us to critique your shots? Send 'em to us!

Comments

[Troutmask]

Four stars, what?

[Sean Phillips]

I was about to say that you got 4 awful critiques in a row, btu this one really isn't a critque. Rather it's just a meaningless statement.

[Kip]

Does this woman ever has anything nice to say? And obviously she wanted to give one star and gave four by mistake.

[Dan]

Wow, I don't even know where to start with this one. If I'm interpreting Ms. Karasik's critique correctly then she's basically saying: "If an image doesn't match my very limited view of what a good photo should be then it sucks."

In her view, a good photo shouldn't:

1. Look unrealistic
2. Look like a graphic design
3. Look like a painting

Now she is, of course, entitled to her opinion and is also entitled to go into the world and shoot realistic photos with a clearly defined subject and lots of rules of thirds to her heart's content. If she's going to take on the role of doing public photo critiques, however, especially for a magazine that has promoted the very techniques she is slamming other photographers for using, then there is a problem.

Then there is the issue of why she gave this image 4 stars after clearly showing her disgust for it. I can only chalk that one up to a typo.

On to the image itself. I think Richard has done a nice job of evoking a particular mood with this shot, especially given the color contrasts and the deep black for the sky. The period setting also plays into the mood. The composition of the shot is the one thing that weakens it. You can't rely on effects alone to carry an image...the effects should act to enhance the strength of an already strong image.

I give this one 2.5 stars.

[Ryan]

LOL! Do you have any paintings in your house Linzee? Did you paint them? Every order food at a restaurant?? If you want food, MAKE IT YOURSELF! :-p

[torgeaux]

I have questions. The photograph is described as "average", and the post processing as "too much" and the end result is. . .4 stars.

So, a good, if not spectacular, sunset image is 1 star, and an "average" but over processed image is 4 stars?

As for the post processing, I am also not a fan of this style, but that's not to say it's intrinsically bad. The painting look has its fans, and to condemn it because you don't personally care for it is unprofessional.

[John Oback]

Good job, RIchard. It's art. Art is not universal and everyone is entitled to their own tastes, but this fine shot does not deserve the slam it received. Please restrain Linzee from future blog posts!

[DB]

She pans the pic, then gives it 4 stars???????

[Phrelco]

Hey, I like it. If someone likes it (especially the author) & it elicits a favorable emotion and/or response, does that still mean it has no merit?