These have been set up and run by another Photography level 3 student

Peer critque session 24.2.24

Shared Peer Padlet: https://oca.padlet.org/robert513937/photography-level-3-critique-sessions-feb-24th-2024-1eiusxdj97joi0hf

This was the first time I have engaged in this group. The timing was good for me as I am currently working on SYP assignment 1, and refining my BOW images so that I can share in open calls and portfolio reviews.

As always it was useful to engage with peers, reflecting on others work and sharing ideas. It gives me some perspective to see and understand what others are working on and being close to open calls and portfolio reviews now being in the seat of a critiquer was useful.

We discussed Jonathan, Kevin and Hilary’s work first. Jonathan’s work is in a naure reserve and is along Land Art lines. Kevin is working with family portraits and identity.

Regarding my work, I prepared a padlet for the process where I set out what I was looking for in the critique of my work:   https://oca.padlet.org/nicola514516/syp-image-edits-of-bow-for-final-output-what-lies-beneath-e4h3uylersvjzysh

Summary of my expectations for the peer critique session: I am finalising my images from my BOW assessment for my final SYP output which will be a book. I would welcome any thoughts on my editing process so far, as set out in the ‘editing board’ post on this padlet.

I gave context for my work by sharing the power point I submitted for BOW. Then shared my editing board for SYP: https://oca.padlet.org/nicola514516/niki-south-syp-editing-board-of-bow-final-portfolio-images-34wrm0q8udo7plnr

We looked first at my main BOW images: 1.3302, 2. 3283, 3. 3305, 4. 3273, 5. 5279, 6. 5607, 7.3259,

After some discussion there was a consensus that if I was looking for images to drop, it should be images 5 (as the lighting is different) and possibly 6, as I thought. It was mentioned there could be some benefit in adding an image or two that offers different aspects of the woodland as image 3 does currently.

The group found it hard to decide on which to swap in but eventually agreed that images that showed extra aspects to the woodland other than predominantly trees would be good. So, I have decided for now to add in possibility images 2 and 3. These were the images that the group consensus felt added some extra woodland context to the other tree images.

SYP images: 1. 3302, 2.3283, 3. 5900, 4. 3273, 5. 3305, 6. 5640, 7, 3259.

Then I shared and we discussed my BOW footnote woodland images and my suggested reworded and edited SYP footnote images. The group were complimentary about my SYP images and couldn’t suggest any changes.

I asked if they though they signposted my work too overtly; the response was that they thought they were necessary and add to the story that I am telling.

All in all a useful sessio which focused and then refined my editing process for my SYP images