|
|
Critique By:
Chris Gillis (K:90)
2/16/2003 9:58:05 PM
This image does now "comment on today's society and what it has become." It is just a image of three people stajndign around. The exposure, composition are weak and could be stronger. Beyond the blowwn out highlights ont eh left and the distracting white bag, the relationships within the image are not clear. In other wrds, there is no message here "comment on today's society and what it has become." This could have been much beter if you stepped back from the voyeuristisc gaze you have here and got an image that betrayed the outward positions of three drunks of varying social standing and put it in some sort fo larger, more meaningful context. The question is how to do this? The first part is to spend more time and move beyond the grab shot. Doing this will get you a whole host of shots from which to edit and the ability to see what the realtionship are here, and work out the compositional and expsoure issues.
|
| Photo By: ryan bailey
(K:61)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Chris Gillis (K:90)
11/23/2002 5:40:57 PM
The only beef I have with this image is the hot spot in the lower left pulls my eye too much. Once that is corrected the room above their heads and to the right might become a bit much. Overall, I thinkt he composition is a bit unbablanced compared to the viuals on the left versus the right. Fixing the hot spot might prove that right or wrong. As for the expressions, they are just fine. This is a great protrait.
|
| Photo By: Wallace Rollins
(K:149)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Chris Gillis (K:90)
11/17/2002 6:34:27 PM
This begs a balanced critique. Although "[t]his is the kind of work, I would expect to see in an exhibition" that does not mean it is worth acclaim wide and far. This image as a series of images lacks something to bind them together into the one above in a meaningful way. There is no subject matter, form, pattern, or other elements (or combinations thereof) to unite a majority of the images. Although the contact can be effective in showing the photographer's process or relative situation to the subject, these don't get at any meaningful message in my eye. That said, there are soem interesting elements, such as the mirror and the processing boo-boos add some intrigue, but nothing that works with the other disjointed frames.
|
| Photo By: Schism Kunststobeschichte
(K:16)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Chris Gillis (K:90)
9/18/2002 5:33:26 PM
This does not work as a powerful image in any sense. Sorry, gotta call it as it lay. As a teacher in the field, you should know that exploration does not mean a lack of technique, composition, or even meaning. This image lacks on all three accounts.
You name dropped Mary Ellen Mark, and I am not sure if you are equating her style with this, but this is not a MEM style at all. I can see the style you are after (I call it voyeuristic and condescending, and cynical), but this does not meet the criteria of moving beyond the contact sheet, or light table. If you are going for something 'up-close and personal ranging to the confrontational' Look at Martin Parr's work.
Although I don't care for it as a cultural critique, there *is* a cultural critique there. He has some meaning to his work. Along with that they are technically excellent and well composed. This image could benefit from all three of those.
|
| Photo By: Quinn Jacobson
(K:199)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Chris Gillis (K:90)
5/29/2002 8:06:25 PM
Bill, this is the found veiw--no messing or moving!
|
| Photo By: Chris Gillis
(K:90)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Chris Gillis (K:90)
3/6/2001 12:10:09 PM
THis is a fine image. It has the cute that nature images need, but still has a good deal of actually behavior thrown in to make it something beyond the ordinary. My only beef would be for a tighter crop, but that is neither here nor there post-exposure.
|
| Photo By: Glen Gaffney
(K:71)
|
|
