Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: shaunkeng on January 05, 2007, 03:27:16 am
-
This shot was taken a couple of years ago during a blizzard in NYC. It was so cold my hands were freezing even though I had gloves on. I noticed 2 guys walking towards this church and hastily took this shot. One of only 2 I took. High ISO since night shot and hand held so lots of grain but I think it adds to the atmosphere of the shot. Comments encouraged
-
Nice shot, but there are some things that might be improved:
the church seems to be falling away and the central spot is occupied by a trafic light - it's the sharpest and clearest object in the shot.
Try to crop away the right part of the image (with all the lights) and straighten perspective.
Waiting till there are no people in front of the the building would have also helped.
Allan
-
Hmm: I'm in two minds about this one.
First: the atmosphere is just fantastic. If this was a grab shot I'd done, I'd be pretty pleased!
What I'm not sure about is whether the intrusions of modern life (cars, traffic lights, window lights on high) into a Gothick scene (the men and the church) is an interesting observation on the layers of time one can find in a modern city, or an unwelcome distraction.
I disagree that the figures should not be there: they really add to the scale and feeling of the image, as does the dizzying perspective distortion.
-
Absolutely fantastic shot. It's wonderful how night and storm can turn the comfortable, pedestrian world upside down and inside out. The cathedral looms like an intrusion from an alternate reality. The traffic light becomes a foreboding Borg-like menace. The street lights become dark suns. The penthouse lighting at the top of the sky-scraper becomes a bolt of lightning between the twin towers of the cathedral. And the dark mist of the snow-filled sky ties it all together into a surreal dreamscape heavy with half-comprehended symbolism.
I wouldn't change a thing except to remove the USM haloing around the men in black. (One approach: carefully clone it out with a small brush with about 50% opacity.) Hard to say about the grain/noise from a reduced JPEG, but at this scale it seems to enhance the image to me.
-
I generally quite like this shot - perfect for BW.
grain adds to the mood
people add context
probably doesn't need the intruding branches and flag fragment on the rhs.
as per a previous post - did the auto focus catch the streetlight or the church?
-
The penthouse lighting at the top of the sky-scraper becomes a bolt of lightning between the twin towers of the cathedral.
Exactly what I thought when I looked at it. I love everything about this picture except the spurious branches and the half flag. (Should be easy to clone out.)
-
This shot was taken a couple of years ago during a blizzard in NYC. It was so cold my hands were freezing even though I had gloves on. I noticed 2 guys walking towards this church and hastily took this shot. One of only 2 I took. High ISO since night shot and hand held so lots of grain but I think it adds to the atmosphere of the shot. Comments encouraged
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93812\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Leave the image alone. Don't crop it. Don't "clone-out" anything. Don't try to correct the perspective of the church (St. Patricks?).
The image is not an architectural record about the church. It's not about the people, either. It's about the other-worldliness of the whole scene imposed by such severe weather. Whether or not that was your intention (sounds like "not exactly") that's the real value of this image as it stands.
Leave it alone. Don't pick it and it will look better to you over time. It looks pretty good to me already.
-
Thanks for all the comments!!
This shot was taken in a blizzard where it was maybe 10 degrees outside with nearly no visibility from the blowing snow. The picture doesn't do justice to this fact. As a matter of fact, what made me look up was the cab closest to the center was skidding out, that's why it is not parallel to the street. The shot was taken with my old Sony F828 (hence all the added grain beyond what should be there)
I don't want to get rid of the perspective distortion, I think without it the picture would lose that foreboding and gothic feel. Which ties into why I left the street lights in (after much deliberation). It seems if all the lights are reaching down into the scene, imposing its will on the storm to guide those foolish enough to be out there. Its that juxtaposition of modern elements with the church that I like. As the one poster mentioned, this is not a architectual picture of the church, its all about the mood. And in this case I think it serves the picture in capturing that mood.
This is what I'm most afraid people won't get and the reason I posted the picture. I'm afraid people will think it needs to be "fixed" when I believe this is one case it shouldn't.
Also I believe the 2 people are needed to give scale to the church, they also add to the lonely, cold feeling as they both look down to shield their eyes, hands in pockets as the walk (as one poster mentioned - context).
Yes its St. Patricks cathedral.
-
This is what I'm most afraid people won't get and the reason I posted the picture. I'm afraid people will think it needs to be "fixed" when I believe this is one case it shouldn't.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93907\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So what kind of comments were you wanting?
-
I'm not saying that comments are not wanted, of course any comment is welcome. I'm just stating that I think people won't get what I see. And I'm torn whether to "fix" the picture or leave it as I like it.
I just want as many opinions as possible to decide whether I do in fact need to edit it beyond normal clean up.
-
I'm not saying that comments are not wanted, of course any comment is welcome. I'm just stating that I think people won't get what I see. And I'm torn whether to "fix" the picture or leave it as I like it.
I just want as many opinions as possible to decide whether I do in fact need to edit it beyond normal clean up.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93915\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't like any of the "fixes" that have been suggested, but I like the picture as it is. Of course, what I see in it is probably different from what you see in it (but much of what you describe comes across to me too.)
That being said, I urge you to "leave it as you like it," but not because I like it that way; rather because you are your most important audience. If someone suggests a fix that strengthens your feeling, go for it. Otherwise, keep it as it is.
Just my 2 cents.
-
Here's my 2 cents worth.
Without an explantion (perhaps impossibe to make) of what the photographer was thinking (feeling) when he took the image, it is pretty much a crap shoot for anyone else to figure that out.
The phorographer is seldom present to provide such explanations, leaving the image to stand alone. The viewer is on his own.
Therefore, the photographer ceases to "own" the image when he dispalys it. I say it matters not one bit that the photographer's fingers were cold even though he had on wool gloves, the wind was blowing, it was 10 degrees and the taxi was skidding in the snow. (Would you think anything different if the photographer had on super gloves and his hands were warm(er), it was really 14 degrees and the taxi was making a U-trun?) The only thing that matters is what the audience members think of the image.
So, the photographer can offer up an image for comments if he wants. Listen to those comments if he wants or cares. Change the image anyway he wants or leave it as-is. But he shouldn't explain why the comments are not what he had in mind. All he is doing is confirming the viewer failed to guess what he was thinking or feeling at the time of exposure.
That may have been 3 cents worth.
-
What you have is good, but I think a vertical shot would have been better, especially if you moved to the left just a litte. You'd get fewer distracting branch intrusions on the right edge, and the spires of the church not chopped off. I realize the possibility of a reshoot may be remote, but I'd go back there the next time a blizzard or a good nighttime fog hits if possible. I like the figures, and the up-angled perspective is a good thing. IMO it's silly to make every building shot look like an architectural catalog.
-
thanks for the comments, much appreciated.
-
Here's my 2 cents worth.
So, the photographer can offer up an image for comments if he wants. Listen to those comments if he wants or cares. Change the image anyway he wants or leave it as-is. But he shouldn't explain why the comments are not what he had in mind. All he is doing is confirming the viewer failed to guess what he was thinking or feeling at the time of exposure.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93938\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's actually not my intent. I'm talking about my internal debate as to whether the image would be better served with a different composition. I'm asking for comments for my education and offering my view for counterpoints. I believe this is the point of posting the pictures here. Without 2 way dialog from the artist I'm not sure why he/she would need to post here.
With that said, I did get some very helpful comments that I will use going foward.
Thanks again to everyone.
Shaun
-
The image is not an architectural record about the church. It's not about the people, either. It's about the other-worldliness of the whole scene imposed by such severe weather. Whether or not that was your intention (sounds like "not exactly") that's the real value of this image as it stands.
I'd agree with Ken... there are other options as to what 'could have been done' with this location at the time, but unless you can grab on to the hands of the clock and rewind, that isn't possible. This shot I would leave as is.
Mike.
-
That's actually not my intent. I'm talking about my internal debate as to whether the image would be better served with a different composition. I'm asking for comments for my education and offering my view for counterpoints. I believe this is the point of posting the pictures here. Without 2 way dialog from the artist I'm not sure why he/she would need to post here.
With that said, I did get some very helpful comments that I will use going foward.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93967\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The view offered is just my view. I understand your "internal debate." I have them frequently. My view is if the debate is in deed internal, keep it that way. Comments on prints for critique can be a very powerful education tool. I guess it's the counterpoint that I don't care about. Not in any egotistical manner. I don't attend critiques to get explanations from the photographer about why I am wrong. (And I may well be from the photographer's point.)
But crit time is the time for the print to take responsibility for what it is. At some point, the photograph will be on its own - no friend to defend or explain it. It will just hang there on its own merits, people will view it and move on. (Could be in a book, a magazine, on the web, almost anywhere.)
I don't think that for educational purposes, the photographer needs to participate, unless the critique is also intended to educate the critic about this photographer's work. The photographer can put up an image for critique, get comments, and do what needs to be done without explaining why the image is as it is. The critic can see what it is.
My question to you would be - did your explanations to the people offering comments educate you? Or were they intended to educate the person offering a differing opinion?
My point still is, I look at a landscape and form an opinion, alone with the image. I really don't care that the image is blurred because it was 10 degrees, the wind was blowing 50 mph, and the photographer didn't use a tripod becasue it broke yesterday. I either like the image as-is (blurry) or not. I may appreciate the effort put into the piece, but it doesn't change the result.
Comment: "Should have used a good tripod."
Response: "I have one, usually use it, but it broke."
Who cares? The image is blurry. Now the photographer may still like the image because it reminds him of some moment, but the viewer cannot (may not even want to) join him. The piece may even evoke a memory in me of the time when ..., but again, who besides me cares? ("The blur reminds me of the time my tripod broke.") The image is still hanging there alone and blurry.
Comment: "The image isn't sharp and the contrast is low."
Response: "I used a home-made pinhole camera."
Do I then say, "Oh, in that case, I love it." or "The image isn't sharp and the contrast is low."?
This is just my opinion, and not necessarily that of LL or anyone else. I hope you feel free to offer prints for crit, and participate if you wish. I have the freedon to skip any parts of the crit I don't want to attend.
-
The view offered is just my view. I understand your "internal debate." I have them frequently. My view is if the debate is in deed internal, keep it that way. Comments on prints for critique can be a very powerful education tool. I guess it's the counterpoint that I don't care about. Not in any egotistical manner. I don't attend critiques to get explanations from the photographer about why I am wrong. (And I may well be from the photographer's point.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94071\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Interesting point of view. I thought this was a forum. My mistake.
-
Interesting point of view. I thought this was a forum. My mistake.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94088\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is a forum. No mistake.
I was merely offering a point of view on this forum, and certainly not a rule for participating.
-
The view offered is just my view. I understand your "internal debate." I have them frequently. My view is if the debate is in deed internal, keep it that way. Comments on prints for critique can be a very powerful education tool. I guess it's the counterpoint that I don't care about. Not in any egotistical manner. I don't attend critiques to get explanations from the photographer about why I am wrong. (And I may well be from the photographer's point.)
But crit time is the time for the print to take responsibility for what it is. At some point, the photograph will be on its own - no friend to defend or explain it. It will just hang there on its own merits, people will view it and move on. (Could be in a book, a magazine, on the web, almost anywhere.)
I don't think that for educational purposes, the photographer needs to participate, unless the critique is also intended to educate the critic about this photographer's work. The photographer can put up an image for critique, get comments, and do what needs to be done without explaining why the image is as it is. The critic can see what it is.
My question to you would be - did your explanations to the people offering comments educate you? Or were they intended to educate the person offering a differing opinion?
My point still is, I look at a landscape and form an opinion, alone with the image. I really don't care that the image is blurred because it was 10 degrees, the wind was blowing 50 mph, and the photographer didn't use a tripod becasue it broke yesterday. I either like the image as-is (blurry) or not. I may appreciate the effort put into the piece, but it doesn't change the result.
Comment: "Should have used a good tripod."
Response: "I have one, usually use it, but it broke."
Who cares? The image is blurry. Now the photographer may still like the image because it reminds him of some moment, but the viewer cannot (may not even want to) join him. The piece may even evoke a memory in me of the time when ..., but again, who besides me cares? ("The blur reminds me of the time my tripod broke.") The image is still hanging there alone and blurry.
Comment: "The image isn't sharp and the contrast is low."
Response: "I used a home-made pinhole camera."
Do I then say, "Oh, in that case, I love it." or "The image isn't sharp and the contrast is low."?
This is just my opinion, and not necessarily that of LL or anyone else. I hope you feel free to offer prints for crit, and participate if you wish. I have the freedon to skip any parts of the crit I don't want to attend.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=94071\")
Very well said.
A photograph is a means of visual communication. A (good) photographer captures an image with an intent of communication something, at least to himself. A lot more than just because the image "caught his eyes". It is internal. When he shows an image to others, he will fall into one of two categories. Some photogs hope that others will interpretate the image like he did, and some leave the interpretation entirely up to the viewers. To these ends, some photogs will disclose their own intents and interpretations (like in the artist statements), and some will provide no clue. I think that either case is fine. Personally I don't feel offended if others' interpretations are drastically different from my own. I do value them as important feedbacks though.
Two examples to illustrate this. The first is my rather sarcastic interpretation of Ray's Thailand image here:
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=12393&st=40]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....pic=12393&st=40[/url]
The second is my interpretation of this image, before I read the photographer's comments. The image conveys the separation of the old from the modern in a harsh enviroment. The church is old, huge, dark, blurred by the snow/dof, lacking in contrast and in the background. It signals the passage of time and culture. The traffic light in the foreground and the lights at the right, though smaller in scale, are new, prominent, contrasty and in focus. They represent the modern world we live in. The tiny figures adds scale to the image, and are the poor souls caught in the middle a changing world, especially in harsh times as implied by the storm.
Photography forums are typically dominated by discussions of gears and techniques. When it comes to critiques, it is no different. It would be nice if there are more discussions on interpretations.
-
Photography forums are typically dominated by discussions of gears and techniques. When it comes to critiques, it is no different. It would be nice if there are more discussions on interpretations.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94093\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree Chris.
I think in a forum, criticism and debate including intent and interpretation should be welcome from all including the artist. I believe its the best way to learn.
-
I agree Chris.
I think in a forum, criticism and debate including intent and interpretation should be welcome from all including the artist. I believe its the best way to learn.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You may be correct, and may be for you.
The image, while apparently what you wanted ("I'm afraid people will think it needs to be "fixed" when I believe this is one case it shouldn't."), failed to give the message you wanted to give. I offer the "fix" comments.
Explaining the image may actually hender the learning process. With the explanation (not normally or usually available to viewers), the viewer may "get it." But the photographer then thinks the image conveys his message as-is, but it doesn't.
But, given this is a forum and not your or my forum, we are all entitled to our opinions.
-
Shaunkeng wrote:
This is what I'm most afraid people won't get and the reason I posted the picture. I'm afraid people will think it needs to be "fixed" when I believe this is one case it shouldn't.
My guess is that most people will indeed not "get" your picture without prompting. I find it heartening that several posters here did "get it". By "get it" I mean simply to find some way of seeing this picture such that all the elements present in it work together. The default interpretation is that the artist is amateurish or incompetent and therefore unable to see the supposed incongruity between old church and modern buildings, traffic light, etc.
The most common way of dealing with the "get it" issue is to give the picture a title that provides some hint as to the necessary mindset. A title such as "Church in Blizzard" provides no such hint (and was therefore highly appropriate to start off this thread); but a title along the lines of "Looming presences" points the way. It's a form of cheating from one perspective, but for someone trying to live off his or her art, it beats the heck out of bad press from reviewers of questionable competence. A hinting title may not fend off all bad press, but it at least helps to force the reviewer to invent a more intelligent argument with which to express his or her malice. ;)
-
Shaunkeng wrote:
My guess is that most people will indeed not "get" your picture without prompting. I find it heartening that several posters here did "get it". By "get it" I mean simply to find some way of seeing this picture such that all the elements present in it work together. The default interpretation is that the artist is amateurish or incompetent and therefore unable to see the supposed incongruity between old church and modern buildings, traffic light, etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94161\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you for your comments Dale, I like the titling trick.
This picture was taken a couple of years ago and I just recently placed it on another site for rating because I was curious to the response since I liked the moody atmosphere of the image. Its been a very polarized response with those who like it slightly higher than those who don't. Also those who like it, very much liked it and those who didn't really disliking it. This prompted me to put the picture here for hopes of getting better feedback beyond simple ratings. I now have a very good idea why that is and therefore appreciate all the comments received.
Shaun
-
I agree Chris.
I think in a forum, criticism and debate including intent and interpretation should be welcome from all including the artist. I believe its the best way to learn.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When I ask for critique of my work, I always do the following:
- Know the critics' background and gauge their comments accordingly. Kind of difficult to do in online forums like this. Browsing through a critic's posting history can help, but rather tedious. A much better way is for a critic to provide some background info about himself.
- Depending on the image/situation, I sometimes disclose the intent of my image, and sometimes do not. In either case, I specifically ask the critics what do *they* think my image is conveying, and how well is the objective achieved.
- If they offer suggestions for technical changes, I will ask them why such changes can improve either their interpretation or my intent.
In summary, I bear the responsibility of asking for the kind of critique I want. I also try to hold the critics responsible to substantiate their comments and suggestions. They don't need to agree with me, or be "correct". But I have found such dialog a tremendous help for me. Comments like, "I like/dislike it." "Crop more/less." "More/less contrast." without correlation to an image's intent or interpretation are irrelevant and better ignored.
-
Thank you for your comments Dale, I like the titling trick.
In addition to an image's title/caption, there are other ways to convey the intent. When I put on an exhibit or an online gallery, I rely upon a group of similar or related images to emphasis the intent or to tell a more complete story.
This picture was taken a couple of years ago and I just recently placed it on another site for rating because I was curious to the response since I liked the moody atmosphere of the image. Its been a very polarized response with those who like it slightly higher than those who don't. Also those who like it, very much liked it and those who didn't really disliking it. This prompted me to put the picture here for hopes of getting better feedback beyond simple ratings. I now have a very good idea why that is and therefore appreciate all the comments received.
Did you know your critics' backgrounds? Are there any correlation between their backgrounds and their comments?
-
Nice little grab shot.
Im with the "don't do a thing crowd"
Resist the temptation to start shaving this thing. You're in a city in a storm and everything in that image speaks to it. The trees on the right being slightly distorted add a sort of panicky element to the storm scene reinforced by the swinging traffic light. Cars that seem to be stuck, couple of people for scale and mood, the nice spotlight over the back of the church...even the way the tip of the steeple is cut off...it brings the eye into the scene.
As Ken said...it's not about the church itself.
Photoshop's presence in the world is both a blessing and a curse. You have to know when to just say no, when to hang up the clone stamp. Damn!! Already to many dolled up images in the world. Let's try to chalk one up for spontaneous action here, the imperfect hand of man and the charm and expression that comes from it is being slicked up at a great rate by the softwares of the world...I'm guilty of it and always trying like hell to find the line that says...this is done.
If the image this thread was born on were my work, the only thing i would be intent on would be delivering a solid black and white print.
This guy's thread has been sidetracked with some semantiquated, sophomoric argument. Sorry, but I have to speak on that...rant is more like it.
Please, Shaukeng, don't fall into the trap of a "meaningbound" name. As you called it, "the name trick". Your image speaks for itself. Yes, you won't be there, standing next to your image explaining it's meaning to everyone who stumbles over for a squint. Thank god, you've got better things to do, right? If they don't get it then let 'em stumble over to the next picture on the wall and see if that will get their jollies all turbulated. Like, a photo of a rock in a stream with some blurred water rushing by it and a perfectly placed tree branch taking up the right side with all the moss photoshopped off of the rock. Oh Yeah...beams of light..beams of light. Then, they can go home saying.."how'd they get that water to look like that, honey?" Or, what was that picture called???..was it..."H2O's Revenge?"
You caint touch all of the people all of the time. There are way to many images floating around with pretentious names that are designed to hold a hand or hoist a pretty picture into meaning something way to deep. When I see that sort of stuff I usually want to either puke or throw up.
As for the critique semantics and rules discussions being tossed around here...so the guy wanted to hear some opinions...and, he disagrees with some of them and explains why. IMO, what he feels about things is backed up in the image. I believe he's correct and commend him for saying so. It's not the artist's role to be quiet during a crit, it's the artists role to say what he meant and to honor each opion with a yay or a nay or a that could be and "I'll think about that".....This happens in crits all the time. I don't think I've ever participated in a crit where it didn't happen...and if it didn't happen it was usually a pretty boring evening.
You have to be very careful when you start to listen to what the viewers of your images have to say...especially when they are photgraphers (painters, sculptures) themselves. If you start listening to your audience's criticisms, responses, feelings and opinions on this or that and everything..you run the risk of compromising your vision, that is, if you feel that you have a vision...having those little voices in your head saying...move to the right...look up higher...get rid of that tree, make the verticals vertical, lose the people, give it a name so they'll know what you are trying to SAY, like..."Heavy Metal Hymn", get rid of everything and have some BEAMS OF LIGHT!!!
(If you have a point and shoot in your hand then the tool will lead you to a process...if you have a view camera out in the snow storm then by all means, make the verticals vertical. Photoshop does a half assed job at turning a point and shoot image into a view camera image with extreme movements. You introduce lots of interpolation and you have to start correcting for the stuff that gets squashed while you get those verts verting. It can get to be a mess if you have lots to do)
The good things, the compliments, the oohs and the ahhs can disrupt a body's artistic flow...those things can corrupt. It's very easy to start listening to those nice words and trying to repeat the moves you made that got you to those sweet little moments, easy to lose your edge in these showers and it cuts both ways...
Please, no offense to anyone here...I might be a couple of notches higher on my horse than I expected.
-
I had a couple additional thoughts. First, a photographer shouldn't think everyone will "get it." The audience for a print will not be everyone. I wa watching a Budwieser ad on TV. I thought it was aweful and did nothing to move me to buy a beer, let alone a Bud. Then I thought that I was not the audience. The ad may have been much more popular with the 20-something black person than the 60-something white man.
Second, the photographer can try all the comments he wants. If he likes the effect of a comment, take it. If not, toss it away and keep the original. The photographer does not have to imagine the effects - just try it.
For the print at hand. I am not a dark, cold gothic sort, so why would I like the image, and why should the photographer expect me to or care if I don't? Why should he photographer enter the critique process with a closed mind that the image doesn't need any "fixing?" He can try straighten the building, getting rid of the tree limbs and flag, etc. If he doesn't like the straight church, just go back to the original.
-
For the print at hand. I am not a dark, cold gothic sort, so why would I like the image, and why should the photographer expect me to or care if I don't? Why should he photographer enter the critique process with a closed mind that the image doesn't need any "fixing?" He can try straighten the building, getting rid of the tree limbs and flag, etc. If he doesn't like the straight church, just go back to the original.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94516\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm definitely not closed minded. I believe I stated I had an internal discussion of whether or not to fix the image. Obviously, I believe more so that the image should stay as is and I gave reasons for this, my intent was to hear good reasons why to fix it. You gave contrary reasons, does that mean you are closed minded about what I and others have to say? I don't believe so but you are using that logic with me. I had an opinion and I believe I had the right to express that so that others can use that to shape their comments to me one way or the other. If I hear compelling reasons from experienced voices as to why something should be changed then I'll definitely consider that. That is the reason I placed the image for comments in the first place. I think everyone has given very good reasons one way or the other and as stated before I really do appreciate them since its given me what I was looking for going forward. The only thing I take issue with is someone telling me my opinion shouldn't be expressed. On that we'll agree to disagree.
-
... You gave contrary reasons, does that mean you are closed minded about what I and others have to say? I don't believe so but you are using that logic with me. I had an opinion and I believe I had the right to express that so that others can use that to shape their comments to me one way or the other. ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94608\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I never offered any opinion of your image nor did I ever say anything should be fixed, or left as-is.
Nor did I ever tell you not to express an opinion. I said I don't think photographers should offer explantions of a print (and that includes you), but I never said not to express your explanation. You can express your opinions just as I can express mine.
I am not "using that logic" with you. Didn't you write you were "afraid people [would] think it needs to be 'fixed' when [you] believe this is one case it shouldn't." I interpretted that to mean you think the print is perfect as-is. So my question about what type of comment did you want stands.
So, as you suggest, let's just disagree, but at least understand correctly what we disagree about.
-
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/...n-internet.html (http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html)
-
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/...n-internet.html (http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95045\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for posting that, Pete! That's exactly the piece that came to my mind in looking at this image. It gave me just as hard of a laugh today as it did last summer when Mike first posted it at TOP.
-
Well, this certainly is one of the most interesting shots I've seen in this forum for a while!
I'm mostly with the "don't change a bit" crowd, but I also think that getting rid of the left third or so might strengthen the image.
I like the play of the lights next to the looming facade, and the office lights on the skyscraper between the cathedral's towers remind me of an electric arc. Spiffy!