Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Riaan van Wyk on August 25, 2011, 03:27:13 pm
-
Your thoughts please?
-
Very nice.
Classical composition, calming, muted colors, good use of foreground, good balance between shadows and highlights (i.e., shadows not opened too much).
-
Thank you Slobodan.
-
Howzit Boet,
Not too keen on the buildings in the pic. Maybe flatten them with a bulldozer or just clone them out with photoshop. ;D
-
Hello Heinz
Yeah, I would love to flatten those buildings..them and the huge power lines towards the left makes compositions difficult from this spot.
-
Howzit Boet,
Not too keen on the buildings in the pic. Maybe flatten them with a bulldozer or just clone them out with photoshop. ;D
Hand of Man?
The composition reminds me of a Timo Lofgren picture, so that would make it a compliment!
William
-
Exactly! The hand of man always is what makes good landscape.
-
Exactly! The hand of man always is what makes good landscape.
I guess that makes the majority of Ansel Adams' landscapes crap.
-
You said that, Pop, not me. But I do think a lot of Ansel's stuff would have been better with the hand of man included. If you want to do great landscape you can do worse than to learn from Turner and Constable.
-
Exactly! The hand of man always is what makes good landscape.
::)
-
Exactly! The hand of man always is what makes good landscape.
You know, Russ, I was about to comment about your comment, but then I realized that you and Eric are now closely watching what I post and measure it against your newly instituted snide-o-meter... so I'll pass ;D
-
Watch it, Slobodan. Michael's likely to lock the thread if you talk like that.
-
You know, Russ, I was about to comment about your comment, but then I realized that you and Eric are now closely watching what I post and measure it against your newly instituted snide-o-meter... so I'll pass ;D
Slobodan, I consider Russ's latest comment about "the hand of man" to be an excellent example of a snide comment (unlike this one).
Eric
__________ <= (space for inserting your own choice of smiley)
-
Riaan,
First, let me apologize for taking your thread off topic.
Next, let me say I like your photo. The grasses are very sensuous and the human artifacts are small enough that they don't bother me (but if it were my image, I would probably remove them, especially if I were planning to show it to Russ).
Eric
-
Riaan,
Eric, always looking for a fight, he became a mad man, so I am with you. Lets fight back ;D
-
Riaan,
First, let me apologize for taking your thread off topic.
Eric
Not to worry Eric, it's what makes LuLa special for me- the stables here are full of horses called " Tangent"
-
Well, since everyone seems to be pussy-footing around making any snide remarks here, allow me to take the bait:
Exactly! The hand of man always is what makes good landscape.
Rubbish. The truth is, any evidence of man in a landscape ruins it. The only tolerable evidence of man would be in a cityscape ... where buildings, skyscrapers, city lights, etc. are the main focus ... or perhaps a farmscape where the "peaceful farm" is the story. Those are totally different genres IMO.
But in a straight landscape shot (note the word "land"), any evidence of man is an automatic delete of the file (unless it is minor enough to where it can be "healed" out of the final image).
__________________________
__________________________
I guess that makes the majority of Ansel Adams' landscapes crap.
You said that, Pop, not me. But I do think a lot of Ansel's stuff would have been better with the hand of man included. If you want to do great landscape you can do worse than to learn from Turner and Constable.
Correction: that's exactly what you said, Russ (well, you implied it, technically). In fact, you went on to confirm your implication by stating how Ansel's work would have been better with "the hand of man" in there, as if you're in a position to judge one of the great masters of the genre. No disrespect, Russ, but judging by your last effort (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=56276.0) at a landscape, I seriously doubt your qualifications to judge anyone's landscape work, let alone that of Ansel Adams.
Stick to street stuff, Russ, because you're very good at that ;)
Jack
.
-
Rubbish. The truth is, any evidence of man in a landscape ruins it. The only tolerable evidence of man would be in a cityscape ... where buildings, skyscrapers, city lights, etc. are the main focus ... or perhaps a farmscape where the "peaceful farm" is the story. Those are totally different genres IMO.
Well! Here we go!
Jack, have you ever gone to a museum and stood in front of one of Turner's masterpiece landscapes? Try it some time. It may change your attitude toward landscape. If you can't find a Turner, try a Constable or a Thomas Cole, or an Albert Bierstadt. These guys understood what landscape should be. Ansel's all-time greatest photograph was "Woman Behind Screen Door, Independence, California." Bet you've never seen it.
-
See? I don't need to make snide remarks. I can count on my serfs and minions to make them for me.
Thank you, Jack!
Eric
-
Rubbish. The truth is, any evidence of man in a landscape ruins it. The only tolerable evidence of man would be in a cityscape ... where buildings, skyscrapers, city lights, etc. are the main focus ... or perhaps a farmscape where the "peaceful farm" is the story. Those are totally different genres IMO.
Since you start pithily (not snidely), Jack, so will I: drivel.
Don't try to ply the trade in England, if that's what you believe, or France or Italy or any other moderately densely populated country where the landscape has been formed, over hundreds of years, by man. Are you seriously suggesting that, for example, Michael's wonderful photos of the Palouse are not "landscape" because they show crop fields?
To suggest that only virgin landscapes such as the American south west are the only places where landscape photographers can take photographs makes no sense at all.
Jeremy
-
Rubbish. The truth is, any evidence of man in a landscape ruins it. ... any evidence of man is an automatic delete of the file .
Phew Jack! Just as well you did'nt take this shot... ;D
WIlliam
-
I'm not much of a photographer (yet, hopefully) but I've been a painter for years so don't totally discredit my input here. In my opinion what matters is not whether there is the hand of man in a picture, but whether the hand of man is appropriate to the piece. If you want to portray the wild on the verge of cracker-box suburbia, then the houses are essential. If, on the other hand, your goal was to capture the unspoiled wild, then the houses are an issue.
-
I'm not much of a photographer (yet, hopefully) but I've been a painter for years so don't totally discredit my input here. In my opinion what matters is not whether there is the hand of man in a picture, but whether the hand of man is appropriate to the piece. If you want to portray the wild on the verge of cracker-box suburbia, then the houses are essential. If, on the other hand, your goal was to capture the unspoiled wild, then the houses are an issue.
Leave it to the newbie to speak some sense. Thank you, eclectix.
-
Okay, all you rocks and stones and trees guys, here's a landscape without the hand of man. I've even Anseled it in Photoshop. How can you beat that? You inspired me to go out to Garden of the Gods this afternoonh and shoot it. Great, isn't it?
-
Nice one, Russ! A little bit too much Clarity applied (white halos) and the sky a bit to crunchy for me, though.
But I think you posted it in the wrong thread.. this (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=24136.0) one would be more appropriate. ;)
-
It's absolutely ridiculous to advocated in general, either for or against showing man-made objects. That's doing nothing more than arguing narrowly defined personal preferences and completely ignores the existence of the photographer's vision and intent. As someone who almost always includes man's influence in landscapes, I would in no way insinuate it being a requirement for a worthy photo.
Can anyone argue that the work of the New Topographics photographers would have been better without houses? Would Clyde Butcher's everglades images be better if they included cars or power poles? The answer to both is a certain NO. Why? Because the decision to include, or exclude, certain objects to support their message is entirely their call. You folks don't get a vote on their vision.
-
Well! Here we go!
Jack, have you ever gone to a museum and stood in front of one of Turner's masterpiece landscapes? Try it some time. It may change your attitude toward landscape. If you can't find a Turner, try a Constable or a Thomas Cole, or an Albert Bierstadt. These guys understood what landscape should be. Ansel's all-time greatest photograph was "Woman Behind Screen Door, Independence, California." Bet you've never seen it.
Oh, admit it, this type of "reaction" is what you wanted by your opening statement ;)
But, um, a woman behind a screen door is not a "landscape," is it Russ?
Sorry ...
________________
________________
See? I don't need to make snide remarks. I can count on my serfs and minions to make them for me.
Thank you, Jack!
Eric
Minion? Serf?
Not to you, or to anyone, Eric.
No matter how much I think of the person :)
________________
________________
Since you start pithily (not snidely), Jack, so will I: drivel.
Don't try to ply the trade in England, if that's what you believe, or France or Italy or any other moderately densely populated country where the landscape has been formed, over hundreds of years, by man. Are you seriously suggesting that, for example, Michael's wonderful photos of the Palouse are not "landscape" because they show crop fields?
To suggest that only virgin landscapes such as the American south west are the only places where landscape photographers can take photographs makes no sense at all.
Jeremy
Perhaps you should have read my post a little more closely, eh Jeremy?
________________
________________
I'm not much of a photographer (yet, hopefully) but I've been a painter for years so don't totally discredit my input here. In my opinion what matters is not whether there is the hand of man in a picture, but whether the hand of man is appropriate to the piece. If you want to portray the wild on the verge of cracker-box suburbia, then the houses are essential. If, on the other hand, your goal was to capture the unspoiled wild, then the houses are an issue.
Wow, that was really well said.
________________
________________
Okay, all you rocks and stones and trees guys, here's a landscape without the hand of man. I've even Anseled it in Photoshop. How can you beat that? You inspired me to go out to Garden of the Gods this afternoonh and shoot it. Great, isn't it?
I actually like it alot Russ. Powerful. Well done.
A helluva lot better than that other one :)
Jack
.
-
Nice one, Russ! A little bit too much Clarity applied (white halos) and the sky a bit to crunchy for me, though.
But I think you posted it in the wrong thread.. this (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=24136.0) one would be more appropriate. ;)
Thanks, Slobodan. Actually it wasn't the clarity slider, it was a bit too much structure -- deliberately -- in Sliver Efex. I was trying to make a point. I think the thing approximates some of Ansel's stuff -- not to knock Ansel's stuff -- but I carried the whole effect beyond where Ansel probably (hopefully) would have stopped. The sky wasn't really threatening, just a sky with some rain clouds in it, and the rock isn't really that stark. But you've probably read about the difference between the bland negative for Ansel's "Moonrise Over Hernandez," (the score) and the dramatic print (the performance). I've seen a print of it several times, even had a poster copy of it on the wall in my office for a decade or so, but I've never seen the negative. Ansel did something with his negative similar to what I did with this rather bland raw color file of Balanced Rock in Garden of the Gods. When I saw the rain clouds this morning, and knew most of the tourists were gone, I decided to do a demonstration. Usually the slanting rocks in this picture are covered with tourists -- plus a kid over there holding up balanced rock while his dad takes his picture, etc., etc.
So this is how you make a silk purse out of sow's ear. It's not bad, but it's the kind of thing I'd concede doesn't need the hand of man.
-
But, um, a woman behind a screen door is not a "landscape," is it Russ?
Sorry ...
That was exactly the point, Jack. So why are you sorry? Actually, Ansel was a quite flexible photographer, but all most people know about him is that he shot landscapes.
I actually like it alot Russ. Powerful. Well done.
A helluva lot better than that other one :)
Thanks, Jack. Actually I meant it as a lark, but it's growing on me. By the way, "that other one" was sort of a joke, but maybe I didn't make the point clearly enough. I pulled off near the top of Wolf Creek pass to get something out of the back seat -- don't even remember what it was, lifted the camera that was on the seat next to me and made the shot.
If you check my web you'll see several landscapes, but, if I remember right, all of them include the hand of man, which, to us humans, is always more interesting than rocks and stones and trees. Check the one titled "American Eagles Overlook." It's fifth from the last in the In Passing collection. Just to the left of that is "Ruxton Avenue," a valley in Manitou Springs in the fall. A little above is "Crystal River Nuke" the nuke at Crystal River, Florida. Etc., etc.
-
In my camera club days whenever a landscape image of hills and mountains was shown the usual joke about " where is the man in the red jacket/anorak" was repeated. Some judges were serious about having someone walk into the scene. If you did have an image without someone then marks could be lost. It proves you can't please all of the people all of the time. :-\
-
Popcorn anyone ;D
-
As someone who almost always includes man's influence in landscapes, I would in no way insinuate it being a requirement for a worthy photo.
Of course not, Chuck, but, insinuations aside, that's what you do. I'd guess you're pretty familiar with the great landscape painters, and that's one reason you usually include man's influence in your landscapes, just as they did -- not always, but damn close to always. Which is one of the reasons they're called "great," and one of the reasons your landscapes are so good.
You folks don't get a vote on their vision.
You'd better believe I get a vote if they're for sale, or if I'm deciding where to spend my time in an exhibit.
-
IMHO, the only people who have made positive contributions to this thread so far are, in posting order, Riaan, Slobodan, Janette, eclectix, and Chuck Kimmerle.
As John Cage put it, "All the rest is noise" (including my posts).
Eric
-
I wanted to add a couple of comments about “the hand of man” as a compositional tool.
First, because no image could possibly be brought to our attention without someone creating or capturing it, it would not be possible to exclude the hand of man or woman from any image. It’s simply built into the process.
As far as the value of showing something of culture in an image, the argument presented in this thread is known as a polemical argument. This is one where one-sided or either/or reasoning is used in an attempt to make a predictably weak point.
Showing humanity as a compositional tool works when it serves the purposes of the images. Think of story plots, for comparison. There are said to be 3 main kinds of plots. These are summarized as man vs man, man vs nature, man vs self. Each of these has numerous variants and if they’re all added up, it amounts to I think it was 34 possible types of plots.
Visual story telling employs many of the same goals. Therefore if something of humanity in front of the camera adds a useful or relevant element, why not use it?
In the photo above we have a largely scalped landscape, which implies that the harvester was here recently, and in the background we get our confirmation that this land has been altered to serve humanity. It’s a natural combination of elements.
-
I wanted to add a couple of comments about “the hand of man” as a compositional tool.
First, because no image could possibly be brought to our attention without someone creating or capturing it, it would not be possible to exclude the hand of man or woman from any image. It’s simply built into the process.
I am sorry, but this is flawed logic Justan: Just because the hand of man (or woman) captures an image on the backside of the camera, does not mean that mankind must be in any way a part of what's being captured in front of the camera.
As far as the value of showing something of culture in an image, the argument presented in this thread is known as a polemical argument. This is one where one-sided or either/or reasoning is used in an attempt to make a predictably weak point.
I am sorry but this is wrong again. A person can make a very strong argument that, in most contexts, showing "evidence of man" ruins an otherwise good nature image. The only exception to this would be to show the negative influence of man in nature. I just took such a photo of a river where the local degenerates have been washing their clothes, dishes, etc. ... and the entire area is littered and the water has turned milky. While a sad image, and perhaps a powerful image, it certainly is neither a beautiful nor a fine "nature" shot ...
Showing humanity as a compositional tool works when it serves the purposes of the images. Think of story plots, for comparison. There are said to be 3 main kinds of plots. These are summarized as man vs man, man vs nature, man vs self. Each of these has numerous variants and if they’re all added up, it amounts to I think it was 34 possible types of plots.
Sorry Justan, but your thinking on "only 3 kinds of plot" is so simplistic and blind to the whole picture as to be almost tragic. The simple fact is not every story has anything to do with man at all. In fact most stories do not even involve man. If you can pull your face away from the anthropomorpic "tree of man" ... you would realize that in the whole jungle there are billions of "stories" all over the place ... from smaller than the eye can see, to several-times larger than any human ... running the gamut from the sumptuous beauty of a butterfly emerging from the chrysalis to fly ... to the life-and-death struggle for survival over food, territory in Africa, etc. ... that have nothing whatsoever to do with man ... but rather involve the billions of other organisms on this planet.
If anything, the only part "man" plays in any of these other stories is in man's utter ruination of their natural ecosystems, the decimation of natural populations, all because of man's own overpopulation and thoughtless short-sighted practices.
This is why I, and others, prefer to see natural landscapes without any evidence of man ... so that we may enjoy them while we still have them.
Visual story telling employs many of the same goals. Therefore if something of humanity in front of the camera adds a useful or relevant element, why not use it?
In the photo above we have a largely scalped landscape, which implies that the harvester was here recently, and in the background we get our confirmation that this land has been altered to serve humanity. It’s a natural combination of elements.
I agree with the first two sentences, but feel the remainder was pure speculation.
Again, there are many great and powerful images of cityscapes, farmscapes, etc. to be enjoyed for their intended purpose. I agree with you there. But I again reiterate that, for me, a nature shot should have absolutely no evidence of man in it whatsoever, or else it is ruined.
Others may feel differently,
Jack
.
-
If anything, the only part "man" plays in any of these other stories is in man's utter ruination of their natural ecosystems, the decimation of natural populations, all because of man's own overpopulation and thoughtless short-sighted practices.
Wow! Man's really a bad guy, eh Jack? ... "Utter?"
This is why I, and others, prefer to see natural landscapes without any evidence of man ... so that we may enjoy them while we still have them.
Jack, remember, we've been all over this before. As I pointed out a long time ago, and Slobodan and others helped to make clear, it's only been recently that humans have seen much beauty in your "natural" landscapes. You, and others like you forget, or aren't willing to admit the obvious: man, and the hand of man, is a part of nature.
Others may feel differently...
Really? Is that allowed?
-
Wow! Man's really a bad guy, eh Jack? ... "Utter?"
For the most part, yes.
Man has caused the extinction of more species of plant and animal, and caused the desecration of more delicate ecosystems, than all of the animals that have ever existed in the history of our planet, bar none.
Denial of this fact isn't rebuttal; it is only denial.
Jack, remember, we've been all over this before. As I pointed out a long time ago, and Slobodan and others helped to make clear, it's only been recently that humans have seen much beauty in your "natural" landscapes.
I don't take too many landscape shots Russ--macrophotography is more my bag. If you're trying to insult my macrophotography, Russ, that's up to you. I have only been taking macro shots with a DSLR for 3 years now, and yet I have already secured a book deal based on my recent work, so I'd say I'm a pretty quick learner. But if it makes you feel more secure about yourself to insult my efforts, then I guess I will have to learn to live without your approval (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
I would also be willing to compare my macro shots with yours any time ;)
You, and others like you forget, or aren't willing to admit the obvious: man, and the hand of man, is a part of nature.
Subject-verb agreement, Russ: "Man, and the hand of man, are a part of nature." ;)
If I decide to go ahead and concede your point about man as a part of nature, then in my opinion (with but few exceptions) man comprises the ugliest and most destructive part of nature overall. Honestly, it is getting to the point in my hikes and expeditions that I cannot walk 15 paces without seeing a discarded beer bottle, a piece of paper, or some other form of litter ... all thanks to man. It's pretty depressing, really.
Really? Is that allowed?
Yes, of course, you are free to "feel" anything you want to feel, whether your feelings are in harmony with the truth or not.
Jack
.
-
Man has caused the extinction of more species of plant and animal, and caused the desecration of more delicate ecosystems, than all of the animals that have ever existed in the history of our planet, bar none.
Denial of this fact isn't rebuttal; it is only denial.
So you're saying that even though this is a crock, it can't be denied.
If you're trying to insult my macrophotography, Russ, that's up to you. ..I would also be willing to compare my macro shots with yours any time ;)
I'd hardly be in a position to insult your macro shots, Jack, because my interest in macrophotography is immeasurable. (And that word doesn't imply that it's too large to measure.) For the same reason, we won't be able to compare macro shots.
Subject-verb agreement, Russ: "Man, and the hand of man, are a part of nature." ;)
Quite right, Jack. I thought about that while I was walking around town doing street photography and it bothered me a lot.
If I decide to go ahead and concede your point about man as a part of nature, then in my opinion (with but few exceptions) man comprises the ugliest and most destructive part of nature overall. Honestly, it is getting to the point in my hikes and expeditions that I cannot walk 15 paces without seeing a discarded beer bottle, a piece of paper, or some other form of litter ... all thanks to man. It's pretty depressing, really.
Look out for the bear poop, Jack.
-
So you're saying that even though this is a crock, it can't be denied.
No, that is not what I said, that was your dishonest spin on what I said.
I'd hardly be in a position to insult your macro shots, Jack, because my interest in macrophotography is immeasurable. (And that word doesn't imply that it's too large to measure.) For the same reason, we won't be able to compare macro shots.
I understand that your dimensions in this skill-set are immeasurable (in the small sense, ironically enough), which is why you crawfished your way out of any sort of comparison.
Quite right, Jack. I thought about that while I was walking around town doing street photography and it bothered me a lot.
I am sure you lack any sort of awareness, or sense of duty, toward our natural world at all ... which (thanks to a multitude of people just like you) is precisely why our natural world is in such a state of peril.
Look out for the bear poop, Jack.
First things first Russ: I am having a hell of a time trying to navigate my way around your own.
Jack
.
-
Why does every endeavor to have an intellectual discourse seem to sooner or later end up in... poop (bear or otherwise)?
-
Sorry, Slobodan. It wasn't my idea.
-
Why does every endeavor to have an intellectual discourse seem to sooner or later end up in... poop (bear or otherwise)?
Possibly because you are dealing with an articulated troll?
-
Subject-verb agreement, Russ: "Man, and the hand of man, are a part of nature." ;)
Quite right, Jack. I thought about that while I was walking around town doing street photography and it bothered me a lot.
I think not, Russ: Jack's wrong and you were right first time.
Your use of commas around "and the hand of man" generated a subordinate clause; it was therefore appropriate for the verb to match the subject of the main clause, Man, and to remain in the singular. If you had omitted the commas (or even used a single Oxford comma before the "and"), a plural verb would have been correct; but you didn't.
Jeremy (in pedant mode)
-
Thanks for the analysis, Jeremy. You're right, of course. It felt right when I wrote it, but I didn't stop to analyze it. In grade school I was an expert at diagramming sentences but I haven't done that for at least half a long lifetime and I think I've almost forgotten how. But my mother was a high school English teacher who'd brook no sloppiness, so, with a few exceptions, my instincts are pretty dependable.
-
I think not, Russ: Jack's wrong and you were right first time.
Your use of commas around "and the hand of man" generated a subordinate clause; it was therefore appropriate for the verb to match the subject of the main clause, Man, and to remain in the singular. If you had omitted the commas (or even used a single Oxford comma before the "and"), a plural verb would have been correct; but you didn't.
Jeremy (in pedant mode)
But "and the hand of man" is not a clause at all.
Eric M. (in hyper-pedant mode) :D
-
But "and the hand of man" is not a clause at all.
Eric M. (in hyper-pedant mode) :D
I stand corrected: "phrase".
Now if only stamper's idea (I think it was his) had been put into practice, I could revise my original comment and delete yours, rewriting history and making myself look good.
Jeremy
-
Why does every endeavor to have an intellectual discourse seem to sooner or later end up in... poop (bear or otherwise)?
Ask Russ.
___________________
___________________
Sorry, Slobodan. It wasn't my idea.
Are you in the habit of lying to yourself like this all the time, Russ?
I call your attention to Page 2, Post #37, of this thread topic wherein you led this discussion directly "there" by saying (and I quote): "Look out for the bear poop, Jack."
Is there anything you are willing to be forthright about (or that you can get right)?
___________________
___________________
I stand corrected: "phrase".
Now if only stamper's idea (I think it was his) had been put into practice, I could revise my original comment and delete yours, rewriting history and making myself look good.
Jeremy
Thanks for the laugh watching you and Russ flip-flop (Russ twice).
Nice try Jeremy; have a seat (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
Hope you all have a great weekend,
Jack
.
-
{angry, space-wasting, defensive, argumentative drivel}
Don't you get tired of being "against" people all the time? Aren't you tired of arguing about nothing with everyone?
Didn't you get banned for a while? What's up, man? Can't you just chill out?
-
I am sorry, but this is flawed logic Justan: Just because the hand of man (or woman) captures an image on the backside of the camera, does not mean that mankind must be in any way a part of what's being captured in front of the camera.
Evidently when Jack wants a nature picture he sends out a robot with camera in hand.
-
Thanks for the laugh watching you and Russ flip-flop (Russ twice).
Nice try Jeremy; have a seat.
Oh dear. I've just listened to an episode of Just A Minute in which Gyles Brandreth acted as you do, Jack, arguing on every occasion that he was right when he clearly wasn't. Of course, he was joking.
I've not "flip-flopped": I merely made a mistake in pointing out your error. We must forgive Russ and let him retract: he allowed himself to be bullied into a Gallilean confession that he was wrong but he remains a better photographer and critic than either of us.
Jeremy
[edit] PS: if anyone (yes Jack, anyone) wants to try this grammar quiz I'll happily let them know how they got on. It's from The Times, published quite recently.
-
[edit] PS: if anyone (yes Jack, anyone) wants to try this grammar quiz I'll happily let them know how they got on. It's from The Times, published quite recently.
I'm skeptical, since #12 (listed under "pronouns") has three errors including a punctuation error.
They are probably considering "whomever" to be in error (as it is), but the preposition "after" at the end of the sequence of words needs an object, most likely "him." In addition, that particular sequence of words does not constitute a sentence since there is no period at the end.
And what does the Times have to say about it, Jeremy?
Eric
P.S. You really should put a comma at the end of the clause ending in "quiz." Am I being sufficiently pedantic? :D
-
Hmmm... now this is a tough one. I can't decide who is overrunning LuLa forums more: geeks or pedants? ;)
-
Hmmm... now this is a tough one. I can't decide who is overrunning LuLa forums more: geeks or pedants? ;)
Please, Sir, can I be in both gangs?
Jeremy
-
Don't you get tired of being "against" people all the time? Aren't you tired of arguing about nothing with everyone?
Didn't you get banned for a while? What's up, man? Can't you just chill out?
Just curious, why are "you" getting so emotional over a debate that has nothing to do with you?
Me personally, I thought I was in a legitimate debate about whether "the hand of man" needed to be in a landscape shot or not, which (thanks to Russ) turned kind of south, but I felt Russ and I were just being mutual "wise-guys" to each other, nothing more. I certainly didn't think anything stated here was something to get upset about, even though I had my photography attacked (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/laugh.gif)
But since I did just receive a personal "warning" from Michael, it seems that some people have gotten their feelings hurt here, so I guess my final post on this subject will put an end to my participation in this digression, as it appears some people can't take what they dish out ...
Thus, in closing, I will say I am sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings bad enough so that they had to tell Michael about it. I personally don't take these internet debates/wise-guy fests that seriously, but apparently individual sensitivities vary.
_____________________
_____________________
Oh dear. I've just listened to an episode of Just A Minute in which Gyles Brandreth acted as you do, Jack, arguing on every occasion that he was right when he clearly wasn't. Of course, he was joking.
I've not "flip-flopped": I merely made a mistake in pointing out your error.
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/laugh.gif)
Gosh, this is just too funny. (If only I hadn't just been warned ;) )
Jeremy#2, I believe you are confusing a parenthetical expression, which (had Russ used parentheses) would have kept the verb tense singular ... with merely using commas, which is what Russ used, and commas do not isolate what's inside them from being included in the verb tense in the same way parentheses do.
As for myself, I am never wrong.
(Well, once I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken.)
We must forgive Russ and let him retract: he allowed himself to be bullied into a Gallilean confession that he was wrong.
I did not bully Russ at all: I merely pointed out an error which he immediately acknowledged. However, since someone felt the need to "tell on me," then maybe I was being a bully without realizing it.
but he remains a better photographer and critic than either of us.
Jeremy
Please speak for yourself Jeremy. I have really enjoyed some of Russ' photos, within his comfortable genre and shooting style, but as a macro shooter I think I would compare favorably with either one of you, and by a pretty wide margin.
That said, I don't think there is much to be gained by spiralling downward and debating who is better than whom here; rather I thought this section of the forum was designed so that we can all enjoy what we each do best ... and help each other on matters where we need work.
Don't you think that would be more positive?
[edit] PS: if anyone (yes Jack, anyone) wants to try this grammar quiz I'll happily let them know how they got on. It's from The Times, published quite recently.
Thanks for the challenge, but this will be my last post on this topic.
In closing, I would like to apologize to Riaan for my participation in this group-hijacking of his thread.
Hope everyone had a good weekend!
Jack
.
-
Please speak for yourself Jeremy. I have really enjoyed some of Russ' photos, within his comfortable genre and shooting style, but as a macro shooter I think I would compare favorably with either one of you, and by a pretty wide margin.
You'll never compare favorably with me in microphotography, Jack, because I don't do microphotography. As far as I'm concerned, Microphotography is a commercial job for idiot savants -- people who are good at one thing and nothing else.
Everybody have a good week. I'm off to Taos for a few days.
-
Jeremy#2, I believe you are confusing a parenthetical expression, which (had Russ used parentheses) would have kept the verb tense singular ... with merely using commas, which is what Russ used, and commas do not isolate what's inside them from being included in the verb tense in the same way parentheses do.
Whatever your beliefs, you're a better microphotographer than you are a grammarian. Stick to your strengths.
Jeremy
-
As far as I'm concerned, Microphotography is a commercial job for idiot savants -- people who are good at one thing and nothing else.
Russ,
This is the latest and most strident of a very long series of insults that you have unleashed on this forum. If one was to look, one would find dozens and dozens of people you have insulted. Not only did you start this engagement, but you have done nothing but escalate. I don’t know what your motivation is for this. At one point you were a very congenial and positive influence to this forum, but that time has long since past.
I strongly suggest you take some time and decide if this is truly how you wish to present yourself.
By the way, I reported not just your post above but noted your endless series of argumentative and insulting comments to the forum’s owner.
The type of discourse you in which you’ve chosen to engage has absolutely no place on this forum. Since you clearly have not read it recently, I urge you to note form’s title and guidelines. They are as follows:
“User Critiques”
“A place for reasoned and civilized discussion about user submitted photographs”
You have succeeded in making both this thread and this forum an inflammatory and hostile place. Way to go.
-
Tracy,
The only part I would agree with is that the term "idiot savant" is perhaps too strong for everyone's taste. Everything else in your post is a gross overreaction, including your reporting to the forum owner. Sometimes debates do stray into, say, a macho territory, but most of us can take it... not sure about female sensitivities though.
-
Tracy,
The only part I would agree with is that the term "idiot savant" is perhaps too strong for everyone's taste. Everything else in your post is a gross overreaction, including your reporting to the forum owner. Sometimes debates do stray into, say, a macho territory, but most of us can take it... not sure about female sensitivities though.
Well the problem, Slobodan, is the issue of fairness.
I have a thousand things to say in response, to rip both Russ and Jeremy a new @$$**** each, that would be both factually-accurate as well as hilarious to read, but "I" get singled out and warned by Michael, when in fact it is Russ who is getting more and more insulting. There is nothing "macho" about running your mouth like Russ does, and then complaining to the moderator so that the person you're attacking cannot even respond back without being banned. That is cowardice.
Now then, you know as well as I do that I am game to enjoy wiseguy-fest with anyone, for as long as they want to take it, but when people start tattling like crybabies, but keep running their own mouths, it ceases to be a level playing field, especially with moderator favoritism. Why should one guy's lowdown personal attacks be overlooked, while his opponent gets his privileges threatened if he responds? That is bullship, if you ask me.
I agree with you, Slobodan, that people should be allowed to arm-punch each other as long as they want to, but I think Justan is justified in what he says too, because a person's style of photography should not be attacked. This is more bullship.
It is one thing to debate legitimate points, as well as divergent points of view; it is quite another just to call all practitioners of a particular genre "idiots" for what they do. That ceases to have any legitimate purpose other than to inflame and debase. And certainly there is nothing honorable about talking smack to someone whom you've made sure can't respond back to you. In point of fact, there is nothing weaker or lamer than that.
There is a fine line between having a rowdy discussion with a point to it ... and just getting into a mean-spirited, pointless insult-fest ... and I think Justan is right in calling Russ to task for crossing that line.
Jack
PS: I hope I don't get banned for stating my point of view (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
.
-
Not banned - just bored. Topic Closed.