How good is the X100S?

Started Apr 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Ron Gee Regular Member • Posts: 434
Re: How good is the X100S?

Fogsville wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

Fogsville wrote:

Constructive criticism:

I don't know what to look at in the images.  My eye wanders all over the place and I'm not sure what the author's intent is here.  What does he/she want to be seeing with these images?  There's nothing for the mind's eye to latch onto.  The author might want to consider framing them (or editing by cropping) so that the viewer is drawn towards  something specific within the frame.  As photographers using a recording device (camera) all we end up with to depict the world is a two dimensional surface contained within a four sided frame.  One needs to make what's within that frame be of paramount importance to the viewer (and the viewer in turn will add from their own mind's repertoire what they think may exist outside those frames.)  Otherwise it appears to be taken by a machine with its eyes closed.  It's fine to depict an overview of urban life with a multitude of various elements within the frame, but the mind's eye needs to be drawn to some sort of focus point and then go from there.

The camera is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's a Fuji X100 or X100s.  Or a 4x5 view camera or a cellphone.  All cameras are capable of making compelling images.  It's up to the author to design the elements within the boundaries of the frame to make them compelling and to be worth an audience's attention.

I was trying to make the pictures look "rough", but thanks - do you apply this to all of them or to some? Is this solely related to the three here or to the ones on the linked post too? Just asking, I won't bite your head off.

I don't know what you mean by "rough."  Even images that appear to have originated spontaneously are actually quite calculated (and also after the fact through editing), such as the work by photographers such as Winogrand and Frank.

But in all of their images the viewer has something to latch onto.  Something that draws them to the image in the first place.  The images that you have placed before us (and it's all we have to work with) are just too chaotic (for the lack of a better term) to anchor our mind's eye.  I honestly don't know why I'm looking at these images and why I should be looking at them.  What am I supposed to be looking at here?  And I mean this in the literal sense.  My mind's eye gets bewildered.  And my mind's eye tells me it's not about chaos itself because there clearly has been an attempted to try to make me look at something, but I don't know what exactly it is supposed to be.  It's like someone trying to speak a language that they don't quite know and it's coming out garbled to the listener.

You'll never bite my head off, don't worry.  I hold the MFA degree and teach at a university art department. I've been through decades of formal critiques both as a student and later as a mentor.  You learn to be tough skinned but it also makes you work hard to improve your craft.

Sometimes I love little pizzing matches that pop up around here and other forums and other times they make me sick.  I personally rarely post images because on occasion if an image was posted for proposes of some technical illustration suddenly people start chiming in with all the reasons the image is wrong, how it could be improved, what mistakes were made at capture/during post/whatever.  Nobody asked for a critique of the subject matter but by god the masters out there are going to interject.

The only people who's opinions matter to me are my own, and my clients.  If I am happy with my images and they are happy...I'm good.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow