- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 181
- Likes
- 1
-
January Turning Challenge: Thin-Stemmed Something! (click here for details) -
Conversations are now Direct Messages (click here for details) -
Congratulations to Gabriel Hoff for "Spalted Beech Round Bottom Box" being selected as Turning of the Week for January 6, 2024 (click here for details) -
Welcome new registering member. Your username must be your real First and Last name (for example: John Doe). "Screen names" and "handles" are not allowed and your registration will be deleted if you don't use your real name. Also, do not use all caps nor all lower case.
Critique Goblet please
- Thread starter David Wilkins
- Start date
Steve Worcester
Admin Emeritus
As for the photography, it is fairly flat. I would like to see some gradiation in the background to direct my eye, so if it were for a art show entry that would be my critique on that that portion.
The goblet itself, I like all of it, nice proportions, I like the inclusion of the knots and any defects as I think they are a part of life. The only, ONLY, negative I have is the base (foot) is a little too heavy. Maybe if the curve were a little more prominent or deeper, it would work better. Would present it self less "heavy" in the base. But I do like it.
The goblet itself, I like all of it, nice proportions, I like the inclusion of the knots and any defects as I think they are a part of life. The only, ONLY, negative I have is the base (foot) is a little too heavy. Maybe if the curve were a little more prominent or deeper, it would work better. Would present it self less "heavy" in the base. But I do like it.
I agree that the image is "flat"; appears to me to be a depth of field issue. Difficult to manage without a single lens reflex set-up.
Proportions are, IMO, excellent and the defects give the piece an "old world" antique charm that can't be duplicated without some imperfections.
Steve's point about the base, I think, is valid. But working that out wouldn't be difficult at this point. It's always easier to remove a little more than trying to add some back on. ;-}
I wonder if you were working on the base and experienced some doubt as to whether that knot/crack would hold if you turned it further.
That's probably what would have stopped me, even if it meant leaving the base a bit "weighty".
Proportions are, IMO, excellent and the defects give the piece an "old world" antique charm that can't be duplicated without some imperfections.
Steve's point about the base, I think, is valid. But working that out wouldn't be difficult at this point. It's always easier to remove a little more than trying to add some back on. ;-}
I wonder if you were working on the base and experienced some doubt as to whether that knot/crack would hold if you turned it further.
That's probably what would have stopped me, even if it meant leaving the base a bit "weighty".
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 181
- Likes
- 1
Thanks guys, you have affirmed my initial thoughts.
The photography I'm still learning.
The base was my initial concern, but that was once I took it off the lathe. George, I don't worry about pieces falling apart on the lathe, if they do then so be it. No sense in turning bulky ugly stuff because I wouldn't take a chance.
The photography I'm still learning.
The base was my initial concern, but that was once I took it off the lathe. George, I don't worry about pieces falling apart on the lathe, if they do then so be it. No sense in turning bulky ugly stuff because I wouldn't take a chance.
- Joined
- May 16, 2005
- Messages
- 3,540
- Likes
- 19
Dissenting voice. This looks like a real goblet, not a turning exercise. Real goblets have bases as wide or wider than the cup or heavier so they won't tip over. This one looks like it might hold some liquid. If you're trying for both worlds, make a hole and plug for the base and put some weight in to lower the center of gravity.
I presume the "flat" look to be a result of your finishing choice rather than your lighting. Beeswax might glow if buffed, but mineral oil won't.
I presume the "flat" look to be a result of your finishing choice rather than your lighting. Beeswax might glow if buffed, but mineral oil won't.
R
Ron Sardo
Guest
I like the goblet a lot, you did a great job.
The only thing I wold do different is on the side walls of the base. I'd slope them inwards a little so they are not so square.
The only thing I wold do different is on the side walls of the base. I'd slope them inwards a little so they are not so square.
john lucas
AAW Forum Expert
I like the goblet design a lot. I keep thinking the stem is too short. I know there is a tradeoff in a user friendly goblet and one that fits all the artistic venues. I just keep wanting to see the bottom part of the stem continue down to a smaller taper. This would make it weaker however.
Most of the problem with the photo is contrast. I like that it has a light side and dark side. It could be the exposure is just too dark. I like the highlight to be smaller and toward the back of my piece and stronger with harder light but then that gets pretty difficult to do and requires some sophisticated lighting. If you have the ability to increase the contrast in your photo software try that.
Most of the problem with the photo is contrast. I like that it has a light side and dark side. It could be the exposure is just too dark. I like the highlight to be smaller and toward the back of my piece and stronger with harder light but then that gets pretty difficult to do and requires some sophisticated lighting. If you have the ability to increase the contrast in your photo software try that.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2008
- Messages
- 38
- Likes
- 0
Very nicely done. The stem has a more interesting/sophisticated look then most goblets I see on forums. As for proportions, well the goblet itself might be a little large, but is nicely shaped.
A question to the artists/professionals: what proportions should someone be going for in a goblet. The golden rule ? Say 1/3 cup, 2/3 stem+base ? How about decorations on the stem, any "normal" spacing on those ?
A question to the artists/professionals: what proportions should someone be going for in a goblet. The golden rule ? Say 1/3 cup, 2/3 stem+base ? How about decorations on the stem, any "normal" spacing on those ?
I completely agree with Michael; this piece would look at home on a medieval table somewhere. The base to me looks too small, and not bulky enough! This is a wonderful piece, and truly pleasing to my eyes. Dont get me wrong; I enjoy "turning exercise" goblets as well, but each style to me is a different entity altogether. I'm just getting into decent photography myself, and this looks better than my photos for sure, but I do agree about the depth of field comment, though I must admit I don't know how to improve it..
I also like it very much as for the foot i'm not sure what the others are talking about but I prefer to taper off to nothing the diameter is very nice for this piece. The photo looks great to me and i'm looking at it on a 42 inch HD tv looks almost 3D.
I particularly like the oil finish! As MM said, it looks like a real goblet. The base could be a little wider, but not by much. As far as the photography goes, I would use a stronger main light and move it over to the left and raise it a bit so you have a hint of shadow on the lower right. Give that a try and let's see what that looks like.