Furrowed Field 4

[Donald]

I've really enjoyed making this mini series that comprises fields that have been prepared into furrows and sown. This is the 4th image in a series of 5. Those that I have already posted are copied below for ease of viewing.

Working on this series has allowed me to explore making images that have not been in a style that I would normally make. There is no doubt that my participation in the BS (Honours) in Photography course is making me think about my photography in different ways and is pointing me towards a much more contemporary approach than has been the case with my work up to now. Learning is always exciting.

You comment and critique on Study 4 and of the series so far will, of course, be welcomed.




Study 3





Study 2





Study 1

[Mike Buckley]

It's a really nice series for reasons that are so obvious that I won't take the time to mention them. I look forward to viewing the fifth one partly because the first one, which I assume would be called Study 4, seems not to fit in with the other three. Perhaps with the fifth one added to the group the fourth one will be a better fit.

[Donald]

I look forward to viewing the fifth one partly because the first one, which I assume would be called Study 4, seems not to fit in with the other three. Perhaps with the fifth one added to the group the fourth one will be a better fit.

I was very conscious of moving to another field and that style of furrowing in the field was different (probably for a different crop). I felt that because the theme was the same, this one could form part of the set. But maybe it is too different.

[Mike Buckley]

It's the perspective, field of view and light, not the style of furrowing, that is so different from the other three images that sets it apart for me. As an example, the viewing order for me would be Study 2, Study 3 and then Study 1 or the exact opposite order. When I view them that way, Study 4 is a change that doesn't seem to fit with the other three.

[flashback]

I see it this way:
Study 1, furrows leading to sky and elements on the horizon
Study 3, furrows leading to decreasing sky, single element on the horizon
Study 2, no sky, no horizon, only furrows
Study 4, a broad view of a multitude of furrows - with that bit of rolling ground upper image lends it a bit of an optical illusion, as I view this image the furrows appear to be undulating in my peripheral vision.

To me all 4 images work well together (in the order I've indicated) and allows for #4 to flow into an altogether different view (or a prequel to Study 1, or some lateral involvement). I suppose there could be rules that says all images must have matching lighting, contrast or whatever but it seems kind of anal to lock oneself into a box. I'm curious to see Study 5.

[Mike Buckley]

as I view this image the furrows appear to be undulating in my peripheral vision.

They seem to be undulating even when I look at it directly. That's a very appealing characteristic.

[Mike Buckley]

Notice that Jack and I came up with the same order of viewing Studies 1 through 3.

[Donald]

Notice that Jack and I came up with the same order of viewing Studies 1 through 3.

This has been noted. And I don't think #5 will come fifth. Working on that later today.

[John 2]

..................................

Working on this series has allowed me to explore making images that have not been in a style that I would normally make. There is no doubt that my participation in the BS (Honours) in Photography course is making me think about my photography in different ways and is pointing me towards a much more contemporary approach than has been the case with my work up to now.

.....But please don't lose sight of your original style Donald. I enjoy your approach to mono and for that reason, given that these work well as a set, my preferred singular image is "Study 1" because to my eye, it leans towards your original style.

[Shadowman]

Nice series.

[Geoff F]

For me, Donald, Study 1 works OK because there is an 'end point' to the furrows; a horizon line and sky beyond.

Study 2 has the same nice contrasting shadows but somehow those furrows aren't leading anywhere.

Study 3 has furrows ending with a bit of sky plus a nice touch with that undulation ripple.

I prefer 4 to 2 because there is a bit more variation in the furrows, but #1 and #3 get my vote.

[Mike Buckley]

I'm noticing more and more, but only because I have recently become conscious of it, that a lot of the critique including mine really has to do more with the viewer's likes and dislikes of particular styles of photography, as opposed to critique of the photographer's success in trying to accomplish their goals. The critique of this series of photos understandably falls into the former category, as it would be difficult to come up with viable suggestions that would take a particular image toward greater effectiveness in the same direction (without veering in a completely different direction and, thus, a different set of goals).

[Donald]

I'm noticing more and more, but only because I have recently become conscious of it, that a lot of the critique including mine really has to do more with the viewer's likes and dislikes of particular styles of photography, as opposed to critique of the photographer's success in trying to accomplish their goals.

I think this is fascinating topic, into which I'm not going to delve at the moment given that it's 9:30pm on a Saturday evening in the UK and I've just enjoyed the best part of a bottle of Burgundy (from the Fixin appelation), which Mike, for one, will understand.

But it is a great topic for discussion - learning how to both give and receive criticism. The key point for me is that learning how to do this can improve your own work immeasurably.

But I shall return here tomorrow. For now, there is still more Fixin to drink.

[Saorsa]

I'm noticing more and more, but only because I have recently become conscious of it, that a lot of the critique including mine really has to do more with the viewer's likes and dislikes of particular styles of photography, as opposed to critique of the photographer's success in trying to accomplish their goals. The critique of this series of photos understandably falls into the former category, as it would be difficult to come up with viable suggestions that would take a particular image toward greater effectiveness in the same direction (without veering in a completely different direction and, thus, a different set of goals).

It's really hard not to do that unless you know the original intent of the photographer. When you ask someone what they think they will tend to tell you or just say 'nice shot'. I try to limit that myself but still might say 'nice shot' or 'well captured' just to encourage someone to continue.

If the artist says through a title or explanation that they are trying to accomplish something in particular it is easier to comment on whether they have met their goal or perhaps discuss how they might better achieve it.

[Donald]

If the artist says through a title or explanation that they are trying to accomplish something in particular it is easier to comment on whether they have met their goal or perhaps discuss how they might better achieve it.

I think that's right and I always try to say something about my intent when posting images. I think if we are going to learn from each other, then we have to give colleagues information about what we were trying to do, so that they can gibe helpful feedback. I tend not to comment when members just post up an image with no, or little accompanying text explaining what they were trying to do.

Nevertheless, I think we can still express a view as to whether we think that what is presented has any artistic merit. As Ansel Adams said, "You either get it or you don't. There's nothing on the back of the print telling you what you're meant to get."

In other words, without any written information from the artist, we can still say whether the image is one that appeals to us or not, and why.

[FootLoose]

Study 4 doesn't have the same impact for me as the 3 earlier shots. Taken from a higher pov, I find it lacks the contrast values of the earlier work and therefore the lines are not so as strongly defined, particularly in the foreground. I think you need to make more of the undulations in this composition to add more interest to this composition.

I find Study 3 the most compelling. The furrows occupy the majority of the frame and the higher contrast defines the lines and textures more emphatically. The leading lines lead to a comparatively 'bland' horizon which contrasts and accentuates the textures in the furrows, and the round tree on the right is a nice counterpoint. But where this composition really differs from Study 1 is the distant furrows lying on the horizon. Because they are more visible in this shot, they give the impression of leading on forever, especially as they advance into the (almost) blank canvas of the bland sky.

[TonyW]

It is interesting that the last image in the series can be regarded as the simplest in that it contains the least number of distinct features and the composition has the most subtlety in its composition, by which I suppose I am mainly referring to the undulations.

The context of these is also important. What would we have thought if number 4 had been presented by itself with no reference to the others? Or if we had never seen any of Donald's other images?

[NorthernFocus]

The higher POV emphasizes the expanse rather than detail/texture. IMO including the horizon would help in this one even more than no.2.

[Mike Buckley]

I've just enjoyed the best part of a bottle of Burgundy (from the Fixin appelation), which Mike, for one, will understand.

Actually, no, I don't understand. The best part of a bottle of Burgundy or any wine is not the part you've drunk; it's the part you are about to drink.

[Donald]

Actually, no, I don't understand.

The reason I hesitated at post #13 above was that I wanted to find a series of articles that I read about understanding criticism.

I have referenced the writings of US-based French photographer Alain Briot in the past. He wrote 3 articles that were posted on the 'Nature Photographers website'. I found them immensely helpful in thinking about and in developing my abilities regarding giving and receiving criticism. I would heartily recommend them.

If you go to the URL - http://www.naturephotographers.net/farchives.html and then scroll down to April 2011, you will find the first of these. The other two are under May 2011 and June 2011.