Frenetic

[chrisc]

[chrisc]

It is very difficult to know how to continue to work similar types of imagery without some constructive feedback. I submitted a similar one (Symphony) not long ago and not sure if there was ever a comment on it.
I love this forum but sometimes I wonder what it takes to get a decent critique. I don't need or want false platitudes, just some simple interpretation and evaluation.

[Stevewebb]

I do sympathise Chris but sometimes it is hard for the viewer to know what you are after if there are no accompanying words to the post.

Maybe just a few words or short explanation would help to flush out some more comments.

FWIW I like the idea behind the image and title but find the movement a liitle hard to find in this particular image. Maybe it would be easier for my simple mind to resolve there was a stronger or darker background so that the foreground and the movement was easier to define and more separated from the rest of the image.

I also see three areas of interest in this one which maybe is a bit too much for me. the tree with the red bits, the tree on the right and the lighter coloured tree middle/bottom. I think it would make for a stronger inage overall with maybe just one or two??

I hope this helps

[chrisc]

Hmmmmmmm...I generally don't like to lead a viewer into what I was trying to convey but rather the viewer either confirm or deny my intent; hence, few or no words.

I will for this image explain the circumstance and to some degree my mindset. This was the prelude to a sudden summer squall. of late, we've been getting quite a few of them in the mid afternoon hours. I wanted to capture the movement of the trees, yet slow the action down enough to not "overly" capture the rain as well.

I do not have a "Big Stopper" filter so I used my .9 and .6 Lee filters stacked, ISO 100, f:22 @ 1.8 sec exposure. I probably could have also used a polarizer but time didn't permit as this instance passed inless than three minutes.

I've always loved how things move and how I look at the movement. One thing which has always come to mind is that I tend to look at each part as a whole and rarely the whole as a whole. I eat like this as well...first the peas, then the potatoes, then the meat..okay, so I am a little weird.

In composing this scene, I tried to capture each of the tree images as separate pieces, yet overlapping as they are naturally anyway, however providing very distinct areas of focal interest in each. Some layers, but not as much that as having shot a zillion test exposures prior to this and being at the ready when it reoccured.

I really got to get a big stopper.

This is a slightly toned down version on the original, lowering the intensity of the crepe myrtle's red flowers.

[jeeperman]

As Steve has said, some {myself} find it difficult to comment on some types of shots as it can be difficult to get where the photographer was going.
While I see the movement, the shot is very busy and no one thing stands out over the other enough to grab my attention.
The composition is such that it forces my eye in to the trees in the center as they are more static so sharp, lighter/brighter and there is a path to them. This caused my eye to push past the subject and it took a bit to come back and find it.

[nickjohnson]

Chris, I feel I owe you some kind of reply on this – goodness knows you've given me a shed load of help.

As you may remember, I do have a bit of trouble with the written word so for the most part I'm a bit … err … sparse with my comments – not to mention wooden. Shakespeare it ain't. Accordingly, I tend to take the “easy way out” and comment on those images with which I can engage. Now to some extent that means that I only comment on things that I like – at least in some small part. Occasionally I do comment on images I don't like. But for the most part I say nothing since it's hard to be positive about any aspect of something you don't like.

Sadly things get worse. I find the most difficult images to comment on are the ones that I can't engage with – and which I don't actually dislike, or like. I'm talking about stuff which I can only sum up as “shrug shoulders” images. Now this worries me greatly. If I don't like something it should be the same as if I do like something. I both cases I should be able to at least give a list of elements or parts of an image that appeal – or not, as the case may be. (Oh, and there are whole genres of work that I simply choose not to look at since I find them repulsive / ugly / uninteresting / <insert bigoted phrase here>)So all this is – for the most part – a statement about my own difficulty with artistic expression and shortcomings in the word-smithing department.

That all said, what to do? Well as of right now I will try harder to reverse the situation.

This image:-
I can discern no obvious message or story – nor do I find the scene beautiful for it's own sake. The light and shade are not contributing in any discernible way. The geometry and shapes are sparse and are apparent only as some pleasing vertical elements in the mid-ground. The other obvious shape element is that of the sky which makes little apparent contribution, and is rather distracting. I feel sure that the blurred details in the foreground are meant to convey something. Sadly all I get from them is confusion. I am unable to engage with this image. Overall, I find there is little for me to like, yet the only thing I can find to dislike, is my own inability to understand what the author is trying to convey.

ps. this load of tosh has taken me over two hours of solid effort.

[chrisc]

Well, I appreciate your load of tosh. It is always odd (mostly in a good way) how others see your work and to what type of comments they make as opposed to what I really meant. Now, I'm not even sure I had a message other than trying to convey the whirling swirling of a squall. I think next time, i will try adding a polaraizer (maybe two) plus the filters to see if I can really get to a 3 or 4 second exposure.