Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: shutterpup on May 10, 2010, 05:53:19 pm
-
First let me make it abundantly clear that this is, in no way, meant to flame.
I posted my photo for critique. It took many posts by me in my own thread to get at what different members were saying in what I considered veiled ways.
JMR was the first to point me in a decent direction. After digging into Mike's and DarkPenguin's comments, I was able to walk away with something I could use on future photos. And the last poster was most helpful I felt in addressing my desire to link what I feel with a resulting photograph.
Look folks. I'm not looking for recipes, as one person suggested, nor am I looking to edit the heck out of the submitted photograph. I'm looking for honest comments that I can understand. Telling me that you don't like the foreground or that the photo is not spectacular does me no good. I want more concise, thoughtful answers; and when I got them, I was satisfied. Why do you not like the foreground; what did you see that led you to say that? What about the photo makes you conclude immediately that it is lacking; how so? It was a revelation when one person commented that the photo was busy when I was trying to achieve a sense of calm. That made sense to me.
I have no interest in being combative here. I have a desire to improve my skills and the type of feedback that I finally got was exactly what I was looking for. If you look at my submission and decline comment on it, I wish you would reconsider. Even an "I don't like it" and then saying why you don't helps me. It requires a different mindset than it would if I asked for an editing opinion on the current photograph at hand. Tell me what you've found works or doesn't work in similar photographs.
The good thing was that my recent thread and the helpful comments I finally got sent me hunting for answers to some questions that I had as a result of the conversation. And that, in my mind, is what it's all about.
Thank you to everyone who took the time, the thought, and the effort to respond to my thread.
-
I can not recommend strongly enough that you should never ask for critiques of photographs where the value and meaning of the image to you is dependent on personal emotional feelings not clearly evident in the photograph alone.
Yes it's a nice view to have outside one's door, but as a photograph alone it only invokes the feeling of yet another snapshot. If you could rephotograph the scene in a way that visually contained the idea of "the view from my house, how cool is that" then maybe you would have something that would appeal to others. Yes titles help a little, but in the end a photo wishing to be art needs to stand on its visual content alone.
OTOH, that pic would be a good illustration for a "hey look where my new house is" post in the Coffee Corner.
The reticence and evasions in your original responses came mostly out of politeness. With a few exceptions the critics here like to spare the boot.
Sorry, I'm feeling a little too blunt this afternoon. Here's a happy face.
-
I can not recommend strongly enough that you should never ask for critiques of photographs where the value and meaning of the image to you is dependent on personal emotional feelings not clearly evident in the photograph alone.
That’s the rub. It’s hard to see things in our own work that is clear to others.
BTW the work by yer friend Ted Orland is great. He has a fine sense of “don’t take things too seriously” and his panos are unique and entirely cool!
-
I can not recommend strongly enough that you should never ask for critiques of photographs where the value and meaning of the image to you is dependent on personal emotional feelings not clearly evident in the photograph alone.
Yes it's a nice view to have outside one's door, but as a photograph alone it only invokes the feeling of yet another snapshot. If you could rephotograph the scene in a way that visually contained the idea of "the view from my house, how cool is that" then maybe you would have something that would appeal to others. Yes titles help a little, but in the end a photo wishing to be art needs to stand on its visual content alone.
OTOH, that pic would be a good illustration for a "hey look where my new house is" post in the Coffee Corner.
The reticence and evasions in your original responses came mostly out of politeness. With a few exceptions the critics here like to spare the boot.
Sorry, I'm feeling a little too blunt this afternoon. Here's a happy face.
But see Bill, you are not being too blunt. It is comments like yours that make me pause and think seriously about what I've posted.
-
That’s the rub. It’s hard to see things in our own work that is clear to others.
BTW the work by yer friend Ted Orland is great. He has a fine sense of “don’t take things too seriously” and his panos are unique and entirely cool!
And the fact that it's hard to see things in my own work that is clear to others is exactly why I ask for the more thought-provoking answers here.
Now I want to know who Ted Orland is.
-
I have a desire to improve my skills...
IMO, if you started out with something like the above in the post with your photo, you might have gotten more constructive feedback.
Even though you posted in the correct (critique) forum, it is difficult to know what the poster REALLY wants from other forum members. This is probably unfair, but in my experience many people who post just a picture WITHOUT adding verbage are looking for praise. And in fact get angry if others offer any constructive critiques.
But in your case, that is not true; the exception that proves the rule
So how to get more feedback? Ask for it. Even something as simple as, "I like this photo but want to know how I can make it better." Specific questions (exposure, composition, lens choice, etc) even better.
Paul
-
First let me make it abundantly clear that this is, in no way, meant to flame.
I posted my photo for critique. It took many posts by me in my own thread to get at what different members were saying in what I considered veiled ways.
JMR was the first to point me in a decent direction. After digging into Mike's and DarkPenguin's comments, I was able to walk away with something I could use on future photos. And the last poster was most helpful I felt in addressing my desire to link what I feel with a resulting photograph.
Look folks. I'm not looking for recipes, as one person suggested, nor am I looking to edit the heck out of the submitted photograph. I'm looking for honest comments that I can understand. Telling me that you don't like the foreground or that the photo is not spectacular does me no good. I want more concise, thoughtful answers; and when I got them, I was satisfied. Why do you not like the foreground; what did you see that led you to say that? What about the photo makes you conclude immediately that it is lacking; how so? It was a revelation when one person commented that the photo was busy when I was trying to achieve a sense of calm. That made sense to me.
I have no interest in being combative here. I have a desire to improve my skills and the type of feedback that I finally got was exactly what I was looking for. If you look at my submission and decline comment on it, I wish you would reconsider. Even an "I don't like it" and then saying why you don't helps me. It requires a different mindset than it would if I asked for an editing opinion on the current photograph at hand. Tell me what you've found works or doesn't work in similar photographs.
The good thing was that my recent thread and the helpful comments I finally got sent me hunting for answers to some questions that I had as a result of the conversation. And that, in my mind, is what it's all about.
Thank you to everyone who took the time, the thought, and the effort to respond to my thread.
Maybe you should be grateful that you got any useful comments rather than complaining that some comments were not useful.
-
How long did that take to write? Most people just call us a bunch of useless fucks and head off to photosig.
From here on out I will simply cite relevant scenes from The Trojan Women for my critiques.
-
I don't shoot professionally, but my understanding of even photographers like Joe McNally for example (not to pick on Joe but he has shot for Life, NG, etc.) is that there can be a difference between what the photographer shoots and what the client (magazine editor in this case) wants. It may be the photographer's favourite image, but if the client doesn't like it, it's not going to get used.
Now if you're not shooting for a client, then the client in effect is you. And here we open a whole other can of worms, because everyone gets an opinion on what they like and what they don't like. Therefore it's difficult for me to say what's a good shot and what isn't, only what I think is a good image and what isn't. Your opinion may be entirely different. There's a saying, "I tried to teach you to be yourself but find that I cannot. I can only teach you to be me, for I am the only model that I have."
Generally speaking, if someone posts an image that I don't like I don't say anything, because to the next person it may be great. Conversely, if I like an image, I'll usually let the person know. Really, though, all I'm saying is that I either agree with your vision of a particular scene or I don't. The first reaction happens at a visceral level, and from there I can probably extrapolate what it is about the image that works or doesn't work for me. Sometimes I'll see something else in an image than what's presented, and in those cases I'll often offer a suggestion such as, "If it was my image, I'd..."
The hard part for me as a photographer (and others have expressed similar sentiments) is separating myself from my images. If it's an image that is important to me because of the story that went into making it, other people may or may not see that story reflected in the image itself. In my opinion every image has to stand on its own two feet, so to speak, without background, title, etc. It may be useful to have a context to associate with an image, but that to me is secondary. The image either makes it on its own or it doesn't.
Some of the 'more experienced' photographers here have shot from the perspective of having eight exposures on a roll of film, or using single large format plates, and with that background I think we tend to be more critical of a scene before making an image. I shoot many, many more images now with digital than I ever did with film, but I still try to be ruthless with my own work. And sometimes I fail! IIRC, photographer Dewitt Jones was asked once about his 'keeper' rate, and his response was essentially that it doesn't matter how many images you make or how many images you keep. All that really matters is, did you get the image you wanted?
My 2¢
Mike.
-
I think Mike is right: we are all biased in favour of our own vision of what's right.
That's why I have mentioned several times that I believe this criticism business is a mistake - you have got to be yourself, make your own plays and become totally convinced of your own values. If you do otherwise, you will only manage to follow. Is that what anyone really wants?
The best you can hope for in any 'community' of photographers is for technical help - and here you get it. Look beyond that and you are looking for what isn't attainable: magic formulae.
Most posters on this site are polite and even when being bellicose manage to have some right on their side - expecting somebody to put on the crown of emperor and tell another photographer what to do goes way beyond that and can't help, desìte claims to the contrary that, to me, reflect an inability to accept the hard fact that it's all up to you, that you stand alone. That's really all there is to it.
Rob C
-
I find this section quite interesting.
Of course, there is and will always be the useless cortesy diplomatics "whaos", but what I personally find here is: going out of myself (judgments).
I may like or not like a picture, but others comments are sometimes very usefull, specially when different of mine.
I enjoy reading why a particular picture is moving someone, but that does not drive me to do the same at all. In the technical critics, I found here some very wised comments that force me to see other points of view than mine, or remind me an important detail that escaped to my vision, or simply bringing more knowledge about perception in general.
This section actually is indeed, with all its traps and abuses like in any other, a good place to improve what I call the outer world.
I look inside from time to time.
Now, I do not put any images of my main work here. I'll have my website for that purpose in a close future, but I sometimes put some images that I'm interested on other's comments for a particular reason, or simply a funny pic, or whatever the reason is, and I listen very carrefully with many respect the people who take their time to comments.
For example, I find the Russ comments in general very interesting. The fact is that Russ is transmiting passion about art critic, he is experienced and his vision many time helpfull. Why I underlined Russ as an example here? Simply because he is very active in this section. I have a particular respect and natural listening towards the older people, because they have many more living than I do and generally they do not need any more to play with their Egos, or whatever demostration attempt.
But I do not use this section to feel confident about my work and see if people like it, for the reasons that Wolfnowl and Rob mentionned. That would be completly stupid. It is sharing some ideas, feelings and knowledge.
-
I think a factor which is often not made clear at all, or perhaps not even considered by the photographer, is the intended purpose and history of an image. As others have said, a great photograph will stand alone - but this perhaps might be better qualified with "sometimes". An awful lot of great photographs actually do depend on their context for their appeal. Would 'Hoisting the Flag' have the same resonance if you did not know that the soldiers were USA, that it was WW II and that it was Iwo Jima? Would 'Migrant Mother' be quite so moving if you had just discovered the print in a drawer and did not know where and when it was? And how about all the images of tragic celebrities such as Marilyn Monroe which would perhaps be pretty ordinary shots if you were not aware of her name, history and fate?
The photograph with truly universal appeal, which speaks across cultural divides and communicates without a defining sub-text, is a rare thing indeed.
John
-
I think Mike is right: we are all biased in favour of our own vision of what's right.
That's why I have mentioned several times that I believe this criticism business is a mistake - you have got to be yourself, make your own plays and become totally convinced of your own values. If you do otherwise, you will only manage to follow. Is that what anyone really wants?
I don't think I agree with that. By paying attention to constructive criticism, a photographer's vision can be expanded. The wider your vision of what's possible, the more tools you have to develop your own personal vision or style. For example, suppose I post a color photo for comments, and someone suggests it would be better in B&W. I had never even considered converting to B&W but I try it and like the results. In the future, I will always be tuned into this possibility. Simplistic example, perhaps, but true.
-
Now I want to know who Ted Orland is.
Google is a friend
-
Pup, I'm really sorry I missed out on this thread until now. I've been on the road for a week, packing before that, and unpacking now, but I'm beginning to get back to normal.
I think Mike made the pertinent point: it's hard to separate yourself from your images. Here's a rule for when you want to put something out for critique: Never, never, never ask for criticism on a picture younger than a month or two. I wrote poetry for many years and had a lot of it published and I had the same problem with poetry that I have with photography -- the thing you just did always is the best thing you've done so far... Until a month or two in the future when you can look at it more objectively. Then you begin to see it in context -- not only in context with your own work but in context with the work of others. You obviously live in a place where you have a beautiful view. But your beautiful view has the same problem most landscape photographs have: unless it holds something absolutely spectacular, like Ansel's favorite, Half Dome in unusual light, it's just another beautiful view. That's what Walker Evans meant when he looked at his student's picture of a sunset and said, "It's a beautiful sunset. So what?" All that is why I much prefer to shoot people. I live in the Rocky Mountains and I have spectacular views all around me, but I don't think I can improve on what a literal horde of landscape photographers have done before me. The same views are always there and they've been photographed over and over. It's almost impossible to avoid cliche in landscape. You didn't avoid it in your picture.
-
Russ - hence the phrase: another rock, another tree.
It is also why though I have doubts about 'street' photography and its purposes, even morality, I have no doubts that the human element is the only one worth the time.
Rob C
-
I can not recommend strongly enough that you should never ask for critiques of photographs where the value and meaning of the image to you is dependent on personal emotional feelings not clearly evident in the photograph alone.
That's a very significant point. We should all dwell upon it. It happens so frequently that there's a hidden emotional impact to a photo that is only apparent to the person who took the photo, and perhaps the people featured in the photo. When the person gazes upon the photo he/she took, there may be all sorts of emotional associations with the subject that are not apparent in any way to a complete stranger.
The purpose of art is to express and communicate that hidden feeling and emotion to a complete stranger, that motivated one to take the shot.
That's not easy. It requires skill. And just as an aside, my favourite definition of art is 'skill'.
I also tend not to comment on images that are not interesting to me. Why create angst and upset people. Do I want to be even more unpopular than I already am? Do I want to be the 'bad boy'?
-
Pup, I'm really sorry I missed out on this thread until now. I've been on the road for a week, packing before that, and unpacking now, but I'm beginning to get back to normal.
[...] But your beautiful view has the same problem most landscape photographs have: unless it holds something absolutely spectacular, like Ansel's favorite, Half Dome in unusual light, it's just another beautiful view. That's what Walker Evans meant when he looked at his student's picture of a sunset and said, "It's a beautiful sunset. So what?" All that is why I much prefer to shoot people. I live in the Rocky Mountains and I have spectacular views all around me, but I don't think I can improve on what a literal horde of landscape photographers have done before me. The same views are always there and they've been photographed over and over. It's almost impossible to avoid cliche in landscape. You didn't avoid it in your picture.
Russ, I think this a rather jaded and narrow view of photography. I can assure you that most of the people photos I have seen, especially portraits and three quarter views, even good ones, don't look any different than photos in clothing and fashion ads for big department stores. And they constitute the majority of what most of us see every day. What should I conclude from this? That people photos are not that interesting? And after reviewing many of the so-called people photos on this and other sites, I see something more akin to voyeurism rather than people photography. Often people with a furtive eye on the photographer, obviously wondering why they are being photographed. Of course, this does not mean that I don't like people photography. The human condition is foremost in our culture, especially in the last one hundred years since photography started, so our photographs reflect that. Only in this overall sense is your view valid. Whether people, nature, landscape, or whatever genre one cares to name, it is what is conveyed that counts. This is true of all art, including landscape paintings. Landscapes can have a character or texture, or be a metaphor, just like any face. If a photo of any genre moves viewers, that is what counts. But then I am sure you have heard this view expressed many times, especially on a site called "Luminous Landscape." There is room for everything and everybody. I don't think your view is critique, more a point of view about what kinds of photography most interests you. I have attended many seminars where professional photographers have provided critiques and not one said, "its a fence, its a field, its a farm, it's a horse, so what?" Good critique is about breaking down the elements of the picture and trying to show the maker why it may or may not work, or what can be done to make it better. And sometimes concluding that an image may convey something more than its parts. This applies to people photography as well.
Unfortunately, we see so many images, we just tend to say whether we like an image or not, and not bother with proper critique. This will not change, we are bombarded on a daily basis. I think Slobodan's critique was on the money.
JMR
-
You may find these comments interesting, from an older thread (and more are available in the archive).
About the importance of "WHY" in critiques:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....40661&st=10 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=40661&st=10)
About interpreting an image's intent:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....40661&st=11 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=40661&st=11)
-
I can assure you that most of the people photos I have seen, especially portraits and three quarter views, even good ones, don't look any different than photos in clothing and fashion ads for big department stores.
John, I certainly can't disagree about that. All I have to do is walk down the street and look into the display windows of the local pros to see cliches about weddings etc., that are as blatant as most landscape cliches.
And they constitute the majority of what most of us see every day.
Depends on what you look at every day. In the evening I tend to settle into an easy chair with a perfect Manhattan and a book of photographs by Walker Evans, Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, Steve McCurry... etc."
What should I conclude from this? That people photos are not that interesting?
No. Just that the particular people photographs you're looking at are not that interesting.
I have attended many seminars where professional photographers have provided critiques and not one said, "its a fence, its a field, its a farm, it's a horse, so what?"
I have no problem believing that. Walker Evans was not a generic "professional photographer." He was an artist.
Unfortunately, we see so many images, we just tend to say whether we like an image or not, and not bother with proper critique. This will not change, we are bombarded on a daily basis. I think Slobodan's critique was on the money.
John, Somehow I missed Slobodan's critique in this thread. Maybe he deleted it?
-
John, I certainly can't disagree about that. All I have to do is walk down the street and look into the display windows of the local pros to see cliches about weddings etc., that are as blatant as most landscape cliches.
Depends on what you look at every day. In the evening I tend to settle into an easy chair with a perfect Manhattan and a book of photographs by Walker Evans, Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, Steve McCurry... etc."
No. Just that the particular people photographs you're looking at are not that interesting.
I have no problem believing that. Walker Evans was not a generic "professional photographer." He was an artist.
John, Somehow I missed Slobodan's critique in this thread. Maybe he deleted it?
No, it's not on this thread, it's in the original thread with Shutterpup's photo. I referenced it because that is what we were really talking about in the first place: critiquing. I am not here to be argumentative, just to make my point. The photographer I mentioned is also an artist and has many honours from Canada and around the world. Look him up; his name is Freeman Patterson. But it is silly to suggest that others are not artists, just because you or I don't like certain photos or photographers' style of work. I don't think suggesting that Walker Evan's is an "artist" and implying that those who do not photograph mainly people, or utter advice like "so what," are somehow less of an artist if they don't utilize Mr. Evan's methods. It is not helpful, particularly on a site where many people are at different levels. If the point is that when we discuss an image and it is flat and mundane and the subject matter presented is uninteresting, and we want to express that to someone learning or wishing a critique, then we can do so in many ways and without claiming that your way or genre of photography is superior. Because it sure comes across that way.
JMR
-
John R,
IMHO, Russ has made a substantial number of valuable and insightful posts on LL and I have come to respect his viewpoint a lot.
However, I am 100% with you in your comments on this thread. I thank you for presenting such a clear and eloquent case for a broader view.
Eric
-
Okay. Let's cut to the chase. I didn't say I don't like landscape photography. I said I prefer street photography. That's not the same thing.
The point Walker was making was that the student's sunset was a cliche. I'll go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of landscape photographs are cliches. I'll also throw in the vast majority of wedding photographs and the vast majority of portraits by "professional photographers." But what else would you expect? The photographs that sell well in most galleries are landscape cliches bought by "designers." That's because those are the photographs people understand. They're pretty. The photographs that make a professional wedding photographer's reputation are cliches -- because those cliches are what most brides and their mothers understand. Heaven forfend that your daughter should look different from other brides. The portraits that make a professional photographer's reputation are cliches -- images that the portraitees want people to associate with them. As I said in another thread: how many people out there would hang Gene Smith's picture of the insane Haitian woman on their wall? And yet, that picture is an astonishing work of art -- clearly not a cliche.
Certainly there's a place for cliches -- since there's a market for cliches. But it's a mistake to confuse a cliche with a work of art.
-
In one corner:
...I have no doubts that the human element is the only one worth the time.
And in the other corner:
... Whether people, nature, landscape, or whatever genre one cares to name, it is what is conveyed that counts. This is true of all art, including landscape paintings. Landscapes can have a character or texture, or be a metaphor, just like any face. If a photo of any genre moves viewers, that is what counts... (John R)
While I align 100% with John, Rob's and Russ' view has a much longer history on their side: landscape is much, much younger genre than people. Landscape as art is mainly a 19th century creation. Before that, e.g., in 12th century, nature was viewed, due to the prevailing religious views, as sinful at worst, or hard work and dangerous at best.
Which goes to say that Rob and Russ must be Renaissance men
-
fwiw, in western art, landscapes became an accepted art form in the 16th century. In eastern art it was about 800 years earlier.
Now with billions of consumers, most anything is considered art.
-
One thing I forgot to mention on the subject of portraiture is the difference between formal portraiture and informal portraiture. As an example of the latter, check Cartier-Bresson's portrait of Ezra Pound. According to Henri's recollection he went to shoot Pound and the two of them sat there without saying a word to each other for about twenty minutes. During that period Henri shot a picture that fits Pound and his poetry exactly. It's truly fine art. Based on that picture and some of Henri's other informal portraits: Camus, Sartre, the Curies, etc. I'd be tempted to say that Henri's kind of informal portraiture is far more revealing than formal portraiture -- and it usually is. But then there's Karsh, who shoots holes in that idea as a general theory.
-
I think Slobodan's critique was on the money.
John, I finally got time to go back to the other thread and read Slobodan's comments and critique. I agree absolutely not only with the critique but with what he called his "humble opinion." For those who might have missed those comments, here they are again:
This sounds (to me at least) as if you are blaming us for not having the answer how you could have made it a spectacular photograph? It also sounds like you are presupposing there are "secret recipes of spectacular photography", but we just do not know them that well.
In my humble opinion, there are no "recipes", especially not deliverable in a few forum postings. There are however, tools and ingredients (that one can learn over time), but how well you mix them into your own recipe depends either on your talent or on years of honing whatever skills you were born with. You know, "nature vs. nurture" debate.
Now, this is something I consider extremely important when shooting: a feeling for the place and moment. You got that. The next step would be to align what is in your head (or heart) with what is in the final photograph. And, in the case of your photograph, this is where I sense the disconnect between the intention and the result: the photo seems too "busy" to be able to communicate "calmness". Too many things going around, trees, branches, stumps, bushes, surfaces, etc. Perhaps finding an angle that would concentrate on just a few elements of the scene against the monochromatic color of the sky and its reflection would better suit the calmness theme.
Now that's serious, constructive criticism. Bravo Slobodan!
-
Which goes to say that Rob and Russ must be Renaissance men
Can't speak for Russ, of course, but you are pretty on the money with me: I have always tended to be a sort of Renaissance guy, never more so than when I was doing calendars. The last thing I could make myself do was hand out any parts of the projects that I imagined I could handle by myself. I just felt I had to do it all on my own...
Rob C
-
... Walker Evans... looked at his student's picture of a sunset and said, "It's a beautiful sunset. So what?"...
I am afraid that it the future most people might say about any photogaph: "It's a beautiful photo. So what?". With increased abundance typically comes decreased significance... "dime a dozen"... sigh.
-
Back to the OP, if you want more meaningful critiques maybe post a bit more than just a single picture. Tell us what you want to achieve, what you felt, what you like and don't like about it. If you take that effort others will respond to that and you get a much deeper discussion.
Don't get me wrong, but most pictures here are "technically competent and pretty pictures", but if you want to learn something more to achieve your own vision you have to put in some more effort yourself first.
Just my 5 cents.
-
Back to the OP, if you want more meaningful critiques maybe post a bit more than just a single picture. Tell us what you want to achieve, what you felt, what you like and don't like about it. If you take that effort others will respond to that and you get a much deeper discussion.
Don't get me wrong, but most pictures here are "technically competent and pretty pictures", but if you want to learn something more to achieve your own vision you have to put in some more effort yourself first.
Just my 5 cents.
Having done it the way you're describing, and not gotten much feedback, I took the other tack. My mistake obviously. Maybe I need to state flat out that I want a deeper level discussion. I'll certainly try that next time.
Thanks for your 5 cents.
-
Having done it the way you're describing, and not gotten much feedback, I took the other tack. My mistake obviously. Maybe I need to state flat out that I want a deeper level discussion. I'll certainly try that next time.
Thanks for your 5 cents.
What's wrong with the interactive "drill down" approach? You did get useful information from it.
-
What's wrong with the interactive "drill down" approach? You did get useful information from it.
And there I thought you thought that my approach was not effective here:) Seriously, I have gotten very useful feedback on both of my threads. The discussion has been good and I have been given much to consider. The interactive approach, whether between me and other members or between other members themselves, has generated a lot of thoughtful dialogue.
Dark Penguin, I never can quite "read" you here. You are an elusive bird.
-
And there I thought you thought that my approach was not effective here:) Seriously, I have gotten very useful feedback on both of my threads. The discussion has been good and I have been given much to consider. The interactive approach, whether between me and other members or between other members themselves, has generated a lot of thoughtful dialogue.
Dark Penguin, I never can quite "read" you here. You are an elusive bird.
Shutterpup,
Somehow you have managed to generate a lot of valuable discussion in both your threads. Yes, it took a bit of nudging, but you encouraged a number of folks to think about things and offer useful insights.
As for the elusive Dark Penguin, I think his posts served well to throw you off balance in a good way: whenever you seemed to think you had a final answer on some point, he nudged you in a new direction. Perhaps part of his message is that you shouldn't get too comfortable in any of your conclusions in this business: Keep an open mind! Or perhaps that isn't his message at all.
Eric
-
Shutterpup,
Somehow you have managed to generate a lot of valuable discussion in both your threads. Yes, it took a bit of nudging, but you encouraged a number of folks to think about things and offer useful insights.
As for the elusive Dark Penguin, I think his posts served well to throw you off balance in a good way: whenever you seemed to think you had a final answer on some point, he nudged you in a new direction. Perhaps part of his message is that you shouldn't get too comfortable in any of your conclusions in this business: Keep an open mind! Or perhaps that isn't his message at all.
Eric
As I said before, his position is elusive.
I have grown through the discussions here. What more could I ask?