Jason Hahn
12-28-2007, 07:57 AM
Hi all,
The lighthouse shot I posted in the Landscapes forum got me to thinking about our perspectives when we make critiques. So I figured I would start the day of with a "stir up debate and get thinkin' about our thought processes behind making image critiques" post:).
So the question I have for the group here is, when you critique, do you look at it from a "hang it on the living room wall" fine art perspective, from an editorial or stock perspective, or a blend of various perspectives?
Using the lighthouse shot as an example, this is one of those shots that definitely has some compositional "issues", but it sells very well from a stock photo standpoint. From a fine art "hang it on your living room wall" perspective, I definitely agree with the placement suggestions and bottom crop, these were very well made points by the group. But using this image as a case study, the large negative spaces and the particular placement of the lighthouse in the frame are the same things that make the image a good seller for stock. The black area is a natural place to lay in text or graphics, as is the sky on the left, and the comp lends itself to all sorts of layouts. It works for a two page spread, with the lighthouse falling just left of the crease, it can be cropped to the more fine art look as you all have suggested, or it can be cropped vertically for a one page or cover, with room above the lighthouse for a masthead. As an example one sale was for a greeting card line, the final layout used the black area for the greeting card text. On the flip side in art sales I have only sold it once as an 8x10 print in my local galleries, and it sells okay as part of my notecard series.
Cruising the net, most sites out there seem to lean heavily towards the fine art side in their critique perspectives. While that is certainly a great way to learn composition theory do we risk having photographers bury good saleable images on their hard drives if they receive critiques based only in this one perspective?
Hope that was all vaguely coherent, haven't had my coffee yet this AM
Jason
The lighthouse shot I posted in the Landscapes forum got me to thinking about our perspectives when we make critiques. So I figured I would start the day of with a "stir up debate and get thinkin' about our thought processes behind making image critiques" post:).
So the question I have for the group here is, when you critique, do you look at it from a "hang it on the living room wall" fine art perspective, from an editorial or stock perspective, or a blend of various perspectives?
Using the lighthouse shot as an example, this is one of those shots that definitely has some compositional "issues", but it sells very well from a stock photo standpoint. From a fine art "hang it on your living room wall" perspective, I definitely agree with the placement suggestions and bottom crop, these were very well made points by the group. But using this image as a case study, the large negative spaces and the particular placement of the lighthouse in the frame are the same things that make the image a good seller for stock. The black area is a natural place to lay in text or graphics, as is the sky on the left, and the comp lends itself to all sorts of layouts. It works for a two page spread, with the lighthouse falling just left of the crease, it can be cropped to the more fine art look as you all have suggested, or it can be cropped vertically for a one page or cover, with room above the lighthouse for a masthead. As an example one sale was for a greeting card line, the final layout used the black area for the greeting card text. On the flip side in art sales I have only sold it once as an 8x10 print in my local galleries, and it sells okay as part of my notecard series.
Cruising the net, most sites out there seem to lean heavily towards the fine art side in their critique perspectives. While that is certainly a great way to learn composition theory do we risk having photographers bury good saleable images on their hard drives if they receive critiques based only in this one perspective?
Hope that was all vaguely coherent, haven't had my coffee yet this AM
Jason