Critique fodder

2nd piece 

Mike Schwing from Md.

>

Re: Critique fodder

JL

>Critique on critique fodder #1. I like the general shape of the "vase" form. The transition into the foot - why so "sharp"? Why not a more rounded transition? (And why did you side-light it?)

Re: 2nd piece

Jorge Castaneda ~ Downeast Maine

>Mike,

I really have nothing to say about the shapes, the mapamundi seems to dissolve into its own shadow and the flowerpot is trying to escape the shadow but did not made it, in other words, I cannot see the piece really, can you try a different lighting scheme? a good fill in and or a backlight to separate the piece, you could also shoot the vase with a light background.

dos centavos

jorge

Re: 2nd piece

Mike Schwing from Md.

>Jorge, both of these pieces are long gone, and they were both done an eon ago in my turning lifespan. A lot has changed since then, and I figured they were far enough in the past that I feel detached from them, so it is almost like critiquing another person.

Photography is fair game for critique, too.

Re: Critique fodder

Wally Dickerman in Az.

>Mike, I like the second piece. The form looks a bit familiar. What did you do ensure that the bark stays solid during the years.

The first piece is nice form, and a dovetail foot works well because it allows the curve to continue furthur. You haven't done that here. In other words the foot is too wide. The 1/3rd rule applies to the widest part of a foot.

Wally

Re: Critique fodder

Raymond Overman in SC

>Interesting post Mike. The WC critique usually does fall short in that you don't want to make the Internet gods angry by hurting someone you've never met feelings. I like the idea of getting a critique based on a skill level. For instance, in my case, I'm an amateur with a few years experience and I'm doing considerable work on form and tool control. I'm aware my finishing needs improvement and my patience with sandpaper is short. I take the parts of the critique and focus on one or two elements, kind of like improving your golf swing.

Now for the first piece:

For the professional turner looking for the growth perspective, though I like the shape of the upper portion of the vase and even the thickness of the rim, the transition to the base is too abrupt. It could be improved by removing the foot altogether. There is also a definitive break about 2/3 the way up the side of the piece that would be more eye pleasing if it were an even curve. The orientation of the wood and use of the contrasting sap wood and heartwood were good choices and give the vase interest.

For the hobbyist woodturner that is making something for the guy who gives him wood, That's a very nice vase. It looks like you did a good job on the sanding and finishing. They'll like that a lot.

For the photography group, you need to have more diffused light and less shadow. You also need to filter the orange. If you get a $30 light bulb and some grey construction paper that will probably help.

For me, that's pretty.

Re: 2nd piece

Eduardo Sarmiento Hall-Lima Peru

>Well done I really like the shape ,well done

Re: Critique fodder

Ed in No.VA

>first item: I would prefer it without the bead at the rim. That is probably because it would be a very familiar shape. The shape of grain morters in Senegal where I lived for three years. There might be a slight break in the curve about half way up or that may just be the lighting. I like the sharp break to the foot but again this is just like the morter. Interestingly the morters were not turned but carved with a small hand adz.

Item 2: Does this have a small foot? I am trying to understand why this feels slightly top heavy to me. If the collar were just a smige bigger that might feel better to my eye.

Off Topic: It seems contrasting collars have become a traditional necessity on hollowforms. How did this come about?

Re: Critique fodder

Bill Hale / The Wood Spinner

>Love the second piece. It is up to your standard of work. The first piece is another thing. It is very basic in form but lacks flow. I think the top would have looked better with a bead and the foot is to large and wide. The form needs to narrow on the bottom and the foot could also have been a small bead under the form.

I do like its color.

Good turning and be safe

Bill in Casa Grande, AZ.

Re: Critique fodder

JamieDonaldson

>Raymond- what is a $30 light bulb? A $10 Q/H work light is all that most turner/photogs would ever need.

Re: Critique fodder

JamieDonaldson

>I'm trying to count how many photo sins you have committed here!! (1)Background same color as subject(2)Strong cross lighting sucks(3)Deep shadows with no detail on L side(4)Is that enough to get your attention? I'm glad your photo AND turning skills have shown SIGNIFICANT improvement since this example!

Re: Critique fodder

JamieDonaldson

>Photo #1 is like a before and #2 is an after example! You've come a long way Baby!!!

Re: Critique fodder

Raymond Overman in SC

>Sorry Jamie, obviously my sense of exagerating for effect didn't translate to the Internet. However, one photographer that I discussed small object photography with did suggest I needed some specialized light bulb. It's been some time but I believe I priced one at somewhere around $30-40. I don't remember the specifics and I ignored his advice.

Re: Critique fodder

JamieDonaldson

>There are replacement Q/H bulbs that cost that much and more, and I have never found a need for them, especially with digital capture and manipulation ability we have these days.

Re: Critique fodder

Keith Tompkins

>My Critique: Mike,this piece works well to display the contrast between the sapwood and the heartwood. That should be the main visual element of this piece. The treatment around the rim forms another visual, and is distractive to the overall effect. In this case simpler may be better. Sloping the rim slightly inward would create an invitation to peek inside.....

The foot does not really fit the overall form, the sharp angle breaks up an otherwise flowing form. Eliminating it will also allow a smaller,better balanced footprint.

The most important aspect of this piece is the form. It is obvious that you have a good sense of proportion and balance. The overall ratio of height to width is pleasing, the finish is well done as well. You should be proud of this piece!

The important thing about this piece

Thanks for playing

Mike Schwing from Md.

>Here's my critique of the vase, done as if I didn't know the turner.

The vase form looks nice. There appears to be a break in the profile about 2/3 up that would perhaps be more pleasing if it were smoother. I don't really like the rim treatment, it looks very bold to me and there is nothing on the rest of the piece to tie it in.

The curve down towards the base is nice and smooth but it could be tighter to produce a smaller foot, and then the dovetail foot would be a better fit if it were correspondingly smaller. There should be some detail on the lower part/base that compliments the detail on the rim.

The photography sucks other than it is nice and clear. Get rid of the matching background, the quarter, and build a small photo tent.

The hollow form:

Nice work! I love forms that look as if they're about to explode. Reminds me of a Wally, and thats high praise. I love the tiny little collar, and would like to know how you kept the bark in place. Assume there is no foot other than a slight dimple? Good choice. Photo is a bit too "2D" but pretty good, still. There really isn't a thing I'd change about this.