The Merfolk

@juggler Not at all, no, you're not hijacking the thread... if anything, adding to it. Seen that shot before quite a few times. I was going to go to an event with her.. maybe even the same one you shot that at? Was that in a windowed pool? Not really appropriate for what I'm doing but it's a fabulous shot. I'd love to have a go one day perhaps... but time with the subjects is so short I don't really wanna waste it on something that wouldn't be used right now. I've made some good friends doing this though, so I'm sure I'll get a chance once I've got all the photography for this out of the way.
Click to expand...

Thanks! Yes, it was in a tank - Merlesque organise regular group photoshoots there for paying photographers. It was probably one of them you shot in the aquarium. I was lucky to have a little while alone with them to set up some strobes rather than working with what was available for the group.
 
I'm sorry David. But I think these are a very disappointing set. The documentary style shots really leave me with no insight as to them, the lives you describe or their personalities. The more posed photos seem quite blandly lit and unimaginitive on the posing. The overiding impression I get is its somebody following their mates around on a Sunday afternoon while they engage in a bit of cosplay.

That leaves the underwater/splashshot. Its nice, its backlit OK, but it would be nice to see some more details. You can telll it was shot from a glass tunnel rather then in the water. For a shot thats so obviously set up why not get in the water with them and maybe light it as well
 
Solo man said:
It's good perhaps that we see things differently...
When I looked at that guy with the hoody on and his back to us... I didn't think it added 'nothing', I saw him as perhaps how all of us feel sometimes, like an outsider looking in...although clearly he isn't an outsider, as he's in other photos, helping etc... but maybe he is a part of the group, just not wanting to be one of the 'Merfolk'... so to me it made no difference how the photo was taken, it all said the same to me...
Click to expand...

I agree with you on the concept of the image, however this is still a snapshot for lots of reasons. A slightly different angle would have still shown the hoody guy looking in on the scene, however using even a simple rule of thirds approach and shooting from about 3 or steps to the right hoody guy could have been left whilst the mermaid plus mum and child could have been right, and even perhaps caught the side of the hoody guys face looking in to the scene which would have shown engagement from outside of the scene to in. Using this approach the hoody guys back which is under by a stop or two contrasted with the background almost blown out would have been negated as I'm sure his face would have been lit from the front more in balance with the scene. This is basic stuff when completing documentary type photography, you still capture the scene without staging it, but make the most of light and composition to hand, plus capture an engaging picture.
 
The guys reminds me of a plump Jedward twin!

I had the misfortune to see them on TV last week in "Pointless" .......... fortunately they were knocked out in the first round
 
Marcus Geezer said:
I agree with you on the concept of the image, however this is still a snapshot for lots of reasons. A slightly different angle would have still shown the hoody guy looking in on the scene, however using even a simple rule of thirds approach and shooting from about 3 or steps to the right hoody guy could have been left whilst the mermaid plus mum and child could have been right, and even perhaps caught the side of the hoody guys face looking in to the scene which would have shown engagement from outside of the scene to in. Using this approach the hoody guys back which is under by a stop or two contrasted with the background almost blown out would have been negated as I'm sure his face would have been lit from the front more in balance with the scene. This is basic stuff when completing documentary type photography, you still capture the scene without staging it, but make the most of light and composition to hand, plus capture an engaging picture.
Click to expand...

Well, we could debate the merits, or not, of any particular image.... but, for all we know it may not even end up in 'the book'....
As well I think it's difficult to 'critique' images if we don't even know the accompanying text, if there is one ... which may well go some way towards explaining why the image was taken that way...
 
Solo man said:
Well, we could debate the merits, or not, of any particular image.... but, for all we know it may not even end up in 'the book'....
As well I think it's difficult to 'critique' images if we don't even know the accompanying text, if there is one ... which may well go some way towards explaining why the image was taken that way...
Click to expand...


Its not hard to critique images at all........accompanying text or not ;)
 
Marcus Geezer said:
I agree with you on the concept of the image, however this is still a snapshot for lots of reasons. A slightly different angle would have still shown the hoody guy looking in on the scene, however using even a simple rule of thirds approach and shooting from about 3 or steps to the right hoody guy could have been left whilst the mermaid plus mum and child could have been right, and even perhaps caught the side of the hoody guys face looking in to the scene which would have shown engagement from outside of the scene to in. Using this approach the hoody guys back which is under by a stop or two contrasted with the background almost blown out would have been negated as I'm sure his face would have been lit from the front more in balance with the scene. This is basic stuff when completing documentary type photography, you still capture the scene without staging it, but make the most of light and composition to hand, plus capture an engaging picture.
Click to expand...

I think it's important to take into the sequencing of that particular scene (and the medium in which it will be presented). The guy is wearing a hoody saying 'Mertender' and you see figures crouching ahead of him. You wonder what's happening. It shows enough to pique an interest, but it's purposefully obscure. Then the next page is the merperson in her tank. Suddenly it all makes sense. The figures in the background are/were interacting with what was previously obscured. Turning the page, moving your eye from spread to spread 'unfolds' that scene as if you were walking past it in person - something that I feel gets lost on a single forum page. Now encapsulating that scene in a single frame would be the traditional documentary approach but it runs the risk of being a bit one liner-y. It's not as fun as a sequence.
 
I reckon David would be his own worst critic (paraphrasing from Grape Innovations!).
They're an interesting set of pics telling an interesting tale. Looking at them again, I like pic7 with the water splash the most.
 
Solo man said:
Well, we could debate the merits, or not, of any particular image.... but, for all we know it may not even end up in 'the book'....
As well I think it's difficult to 'critique' images if we don't even know the accompanying text, if there is one ... which may well go some way towards explaining why the image was taken that way...
Click to expand...

FruitFlakes said:
I think it's important to take into the sequencing of that particular scene (and the medium in which it will be presented). The guy is wearing a hoody saying 'Mertender' and you see figures crouching ahead of him. You wonder what's happening. It shows enough to pique an interest, but it's purposefully obscure. Then the next page is the merperson in her tank. Suddenly it all makes sense. The figures in the background are/were interacting with what was previously obscured. Turning the page, moving your eye from spread to spread 'unfolds' that scene as if you were walking past it in person - something that I feel gets lost on a single forum page. Now encapsulating that scene in a single frame would be the traditional documentary approach but it runs the risk of being a bit one liner-y. It's not as fun as a sequence.
Click to expand...

Sorry I'm a bit lost here. I believe the purpose of this area of the forum is to post up images for critique and comment, with a view of taking them on board for improvement and such forth. Yes sometimes photo's shown on their own may be out of context and not mean much, I have experience of this from working as a professional photographer in the commercial, corporate and wedding sector and could pick out a large number of these type of images from my own work, however each of these images will stand in their own right as meeting a self imposed standard which I believe the clients expect from me. I would not consider the shot being discussed as anywhere near the standard a professional photographer would be expected to produce for reasons explained, whether it is in or out of context. This is my opinion.
 
Marcus Geezer said:
Sorry I'm a bit lost here. I believe the purpose of this area of the forum is to post up images for critique and comment, with a view of taking them on board for improvement and such forth. Yes sometimes photo's shown on their own may be out of context and not mean much, I have experience of this from working as a professional photographer in the commercial, corporate and wedding sector and could pick out a large number of these type of images from my own work, however each of these images will stand in their own right as meeting a self imposed standard which I believe the clients expect from me. I would not consider the shot being discussed as anywhere near the standard a professional photographer would be expected to produce for reasons explained, whether it is in or out of context. This is my opinion.
Click to expand...

I have to commpletely agree with Marcus. The set, and some of the comments strike me as very Emperor's New Clothes
 
Last edited:
Marcus Geezer said:
Sorry I'm a bit lost here. I believe the purpose of this area of the forum is to post up images for critique and comment, with a view of taking them on board for improvement and such forth. Yes sometimes photo's shown on their own may be out of context and not mean much, I have experience of this from working as a professional photographer in the commercial, corporate and wedding sector and could pick out a large number of these type of images from my own work, however each of these images will stand in their own right as meeting a self imposed standard which I believe the clients expect from me. I would not consider the shot being discussed as anywhere near the standard a professional photographer would be expected to produce for reasons explained, whether it is in or out of context. This is my opinion.
Click to expand...
I was neither disagreeing nor agreeing with you... I just didn't think it was a big deal... :)
 
Marcus Geezer said:
Sorry I'm a bit lost here. I believe the purpose of this area of the forum is to post up images for critique and comment, with a view of taking them on board for improvement and such forth. Yes sometimes photo's shown on their own may be out of context and not mean much, I have experience of this from working as a professional photographer in the commercial, corporate and wedding sector and could pick out a large number of these type of images from my own work, however each of these images will stand in their own right as meeting a self imposed standard which I believe the clients expect from me. I would not consider the shot being discussed as anywhere near the standard a professional photographer would be expected to produce for reasons explained, whether it is in or out of context. This is my opinion.
Click to expand...

And you're perfectly entitled to your opinion. I'm also of the belief that as soon as you share your work you should expect critique. But equally you should expect your critique to be challenged, or for alternate views to be presented - it is a forum after all. I'm pointing out how I see the images play out in context of each other - note that I didn't say they were brilliant or bad, just that I could see a narrative being formed due their proximity to each other, and I could understand why a shot like that would be included. The medium in which these images will be viewed will matter a lot too. You're framing it in the context of a paid job where you need to deliver polished images that stand on their own when it's a personal project that will have its own rhythm and pace based on what @Pookeyhead feels works for him. Very different applications of photography.
 
Perhaps David should have explained what sort of feedback he was hoping for - critique as individual pics or as a set, thoughts on the subject matter, or what? Any project like this can only really be evaluated as a whole IMO, and one 'poor' shot (technically or otherwise) can make others work better in that context.

As a work in progress the only comment I can make from the pictures posted is that the project is interesting and I'd like to see more of it - but with not so many smiles.
 
FruitFlakes said:
And you're perfectly entitled to your opinion. I'm also of the belief that as soon as you share your work you should expect critique. But equally you should expect your critique to be challenged, or for alternate views to be presented - it is a forum after all. I'm pointing out how I see the images play out in context of each other - note that I didn't say they were brilliant or bad, just that I could see a narrative being formed due their proximity to each other, and I could understand why a shot like that would be included. The medium in which these images will be viewed will matter a lot too. You're framing it in the context of a paid job where you need to deliver polished images that stand on their own when it's a personal project that will have its own rhythm and pace based on what @Pookeyhead feels works for him. Very different applications of photography.
Click to expand...

No and No. Good quality photography is good quality photography regardless of context. Ok yes a lot of it is subjective, it's the nature of being creative but there are still limits. I produce personal project work in various forms and if anything because I'm shooting something I really really really want to shoot I find the images generally come out far far better than when I'm paid/told to shoot. Whether its a family trip, paid commercial work for a blue chip, posh wedding, personal project, charity shoot, I attempt to maintain a high standard because when I display it whether on my own or business area (such as social media) it is all an extension of me behind the camera whatever the different application of the photography.

I don't mind others critiquing my critique as this is a part of the development path, however taking for example the hoody shot, this is a snapshot with a lot that could have been done at the time of taking it to improve. Otherwise this is a shot that should have been culled. I stand by this unless someone wants to talk 'art' to me, but otherwise I maintain the fact that better would normally be expected of someone of David's standard.
 
Marcus Geezer said:
No and No. Good quality photography is good quality photography regardless of context. Ok yes a lot of it is subjective, it's the nature of being creative but there are still limits.
Click to expand...

I personally don't think there are limits. By adhering to such limits you close yourself off to so much. And yes, context is important. It applies for pretty much every form of art. For example, I wasn't really a fan of Rothko's paintings until I saw one in person (they have so many subtleties that a jpeg doesn't capture). I have friends that weren't fans of Shakespeare until I took them to a show at the Globe. I also know people that didn't really like Interstellar but they watched it on their phone instead of a 70mm IMAX print.

I produce personal project work in various forms and if anything because I'm shooting something I really really really want to shoot I find the images generally come out far far better than when I'm paid/told to shoot. Whether its a family trip, paid commercial work for a blue chip, posh wedding, personal project, charity shoot, I attempt to maintain a high standard because when I display it whether on my own or business area (such as social media) it is all an extension of me behind the camera whatever the different application of the photography.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you there, the personal should inform the commercial side.

I don't mind others critiquing my critique as this is a part of the development path, however taking for example the hoody shot, this is a snapshot with a lot that could have been done at the time of taking it to improve. Otherwise this is a shot that should have been culled. I stand by this unless someone wants to talk 'art' to me, but otherwise I maintain the fact that better would normally be expected of someone of David's standard.
Click to expand...

Yes, it doesn't work as a single image. But it works as a pairing, it has a narrative that I imagine will be enforced in a physical book.
 
Wow.. what the hell happened here? LOL Why is everyone arguing over my work?


Ed Sutton said:
Perhaps David should have explained what sort of feedback he was hoping
Click to expand...

I Wasn't really... just thought I'd post some stuff as I've not for a while.

Marcus Geezer said:
Ok I give up. It's a snapshot. End of.
Click to expand...


Correct. And that's inappropriate in this context because? Many of these are literally snapshots, yes. That's a problem because?
 
kendo1 said:
Because it's YOU!
:)
Click to expand...


I'm sorry.... can you explain?

Also...

boyfalldown said:
That leaves the underwater/splashshot. Its nice, its backlit OK, but it would be nice to see some more details. You can telll it was shot from a glass tunnel rather then in the water. For a shot thats so obviously set up why not get in the water with them and maybe light it as well
Click to expand...

Stuff like this I don't get. It's not set up. I was in a tunnel in a public aquarium with around 50 other menbers of the public. It was not set up, and there was no means of communication between myself and Caitlin. Why are you making assumptions about the image?
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I'm sorry.... can you explain?
Click to expand...

You're a celebrity!
On here, anyway.

To be honest, I think a lot of people on here look up to you for your knowledge and experience.
Fair enough you p*** a lot of people off at the same time with some of your comments, but you can't have everything :)
You're kind of likeable, just not cuddly. Like Phil.
 
Last edited:
These people are happy, they are into what they are doing and it is obvious they have overcome any shyness about being different. That is a good place to be and to a large extent, that is shown in Davids pictures. The thing is, there are no titles, or outline of what is intended, no invitation to join in or judge.

I personaly like that.
 
cannot understand why this thread is dragging on

the images are below average technically and composition wise

you are all up your own whatevers ..... verbally diarrhoea .... as usual

please tell me why these images are good from any standpoint ......
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
cannot understand why this thread is dragging on

the images are below average technically and composition wise

you are all up your own whatevers ..... verbally diarrhoea .... as usual
Click to expand...


Technically?
 
yes technically ... poor .... or should I say disappointing

the colours are drab and the composition is obvious

you can do a lot better, I hope
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Stuff like this I don't get. It's not set up. I was in a tunnel in a public aquarium with around 50 other menbers of the public. It was not set up, and there was no means of communication between myself and Caitlin. Why are you making assumptions about the image?
Click to expand...

Defensive much? Seriously David....you don't like crit why post these? It could be a million times better. Don't try and turn it back onto everybody else.
 
BillN_33 said:
yes technically ... poor .... or should I say disappointing

the colours are drab and the composition is obvious

you can do a lot better, I hope
Click to expand...

You already separated composition from technical in post #66.. so technically, what is wrong with them? Drab colours as you put it is merely my processing choice, much as "dull" colours are Bethy's choice in her shots. Why are they poor technically?

boyfalldown said:
Defensive much? Seriously David....you don't like crit why post these? It could be a million times better. Don't try and turn it back onto everybody else.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't say so. I've not even replied to teh vast majority of what you posted. I'm curious as how they are poor technically. I genuinely do not see it. I'm just asking for an explanation. I was expecting a negative response to the aesthetic choices made... I'm neither surprised, not defensive... hence my lack of reply to your many posts.
 
Last edited:
"Why are they poor technically?"

just look at them

post a few images on the bird forum and ask
 
BillN_33 said:
"Why are they poor technically?"

just look at them

post a few images on the bird forum and ask
Click to expand...


I am looking at them. Why are they poor technically?

These are not bird photographs.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I am looking at them. Why are they poor technically?

These are not bird photographs.
Click to expand...

you have flooded the thread with image

Technically - #1 is not even in bloody focus .. I know that you are an "artist" but which part of the image is supposed to be "in focus"

#1 - Maybe the composition is "eclectic" but what is that all about ......
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
you have flooded the thread with image

Technically - #1 is not even in bloody focus .. I know that you are an "artist" but which part of the image is supposed to be "in focus"

#1 - Maybe the composition is "eclectic" but what is that all about ......
Click to expand...


You can check focus from a 800 pixel JPEG?
 
BillN_33 said:
I'll visit specsavers again and close one eye

they are really crap

(I'm a better critic than photographer ..... but)
Click to expand...


How are you checking focus on a 800 pixel image?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top