Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 16, 2013, 04:47:56 pm

Title: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 16, 2013, 04:47:56 pm
Have not posted my favorite subject, landscapes, in a while:
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: muntanela on February 16, 2013, 07:15:31 pm
Very "adsurgens".
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 16, 2013, 07:18:47 pm
Hmmm... not sure I understand that reference?
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on February 16, 2013, 08:46:11 pm
OMG! Devil's Tower!

And I just watched "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" for the first time a few nights ago. Did you crop out the flying saucers and aliens, SB?
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 16, 2013, 11:49:56 pm
... Did you crop out the flying saucers and aliens, SB?

And you thought that halo at the top is from sharpening? ;)
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: amolitor on February 17, 2013, 06:39:51 am
I find the very low cloudline with the very clear sky above quite disconcerting. It's not your fault, of course, that's where the clouds were. I can't help but read it as something else, though. It *feels* like an enormous pile of cotton fluff in the distance, not clouds, because of the positioning. It does make for a nice placement of masses in the frame.

The light on the rocks is wonderful. Does it actually look like that, or did you pop the colors a bit?
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: stamper on February 17, 2013, 07:49:56 am
I find the juxtaposition of the clouds and the rock unusual and very pleasing. Quite original compared with the "normal" landscapes posted for critique. The rendering does look a little in your face but I like it. This proves you can take good images as well as commenting on them. :)
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RSL on February 17, 2013, 08:26:52 am
It's a fine shot, Slobodan. The cloud bank is a real catch and of course the light is perfect. Very nice.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 09:13:37 am
Have not posted my favorite subject, landscapes, in a while:
This is difficult to write in a few brief words - which seems the preference here. I'll do both a short and a long version, because in fact this can't be done in a few words with any justice to photography. The short version, for those who want to move on quickly, is: a beautiful photograph of "nature plasticized." It's pretty and makes nice prints! It caught my eye for a moment, then I moved on.

The longer version has to explain "plasticized" in relation to photography. This would be the critique part. I've seen a lot of pictures of Devil Mountain. Almost as many as Half Dome. A very good photographer and dear friend once told me this story. They were driving through Yosemite and at the moment where the road turns just so, he said to all those in his car full of fellow photographers, "Ok, we're getting near Half Dome, put your cameras away." I assume that doesn't need explanation.

The difference between the graphic arts and photography might be summarized as this:

Truth<------------------------------------->Ideal

Where photographs tell truth, graphic designs explain the ideal. Look at how postage stamps are done. They have highly skilled engravers make an image of say, Jefferson or Elvis. They don't show a bottle of pills next to Elvis, right? They outline and fill in the ideal Elvis. What would generate more interest: An edition of original engravings of Elvis, or an edition of backstage photographs? That doesn't mean one is better than another, it simply explains the difference.

In this photograph, we see the idealized mountain, even down the exact required ingredients: cloud, tree, mountain, sky, check, check. And each item appears to have been scrubbed down to its bare outline, removed, cleaned, polished, repainted and set back into its proper place and adjusted for perfect alignment. And somewhere along the way, the nature of mountains and the feeling of trees got scrubbed away. There's none of nature's imperfections or weird deviations in here. Errant branches don't even seem to exist any more in this Super World of Super Clean Plastic (like an animator's world).


The question I always ask is what is this telling me about Devil Mountain? Ok, it's tall, it's reddish and so on. Is that what I want to know? Is that very interesting? For me not too much. It is a very pretty image in the way some photographic fashion models are very pretty. But their made-up face doesn't say much about them, does it? Aren't they looking as empty as they possibly can?  I don't even get a sense of the space in which this mountain exists. It is framed so tightly -  maybe to even remove more of the imperfections around it? I don't know.

So, for all of it, this picture is much more like a graphics arts creation. Find the shape, put it here, find the right color to fill in, make it bright and shiny. And on this very superficial level (really I mean "surface level") the picture is beautiful and well done, and I know it takes a lot of skill to do it. I don't think however that it takes any advantage of the powers of photography.

NOTE: This might be too harsh sounding without enough praise for the technical work here (which is superb). However, I happen to know in this case that the photographer is extremely experienced, and not a beginner for whom this would be very inappropriate. In other words, he's a big boy and doesn't want hand holding.

Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: stamper on February 17, 2013, 09:40:06 am
Redwood....you seem to have an innate ability to over analyse an image and "see" things that others don't see. You obviously see this as an attribute but I am not sure that others agree?
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 09:53:22 am
Redwood....you seem to have an innate ability to over analyse an image and "see" things that others don't see. You obviously see this as an attribute but I am not sure that others agree?
Which others are you speaking for?
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: stamper on February 17, 2013, 10:02:03 am
The ones that disagree with your analysis.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 10:13:22 am
The ones that disagree with your analysis.
I am not sure I have seen any disagreement with my analysis. I've seen some other opinions before mine - is that what you mean?

Well, which ever you meant, I can answer it here. First, why should all the opinions be the same? I don't know of any universal standards that apply to art. If you can cite them, I will appreciate the reference. So, I consider the purpose of critique to be an analysis of the enterprise, not a mere thumbs up or thumbs down. That would be called a vote. I have no reason to vote unless one is provided. If I am going to analyze something, I have to provide enough reasoning to have it make sense to someone reading it. If it doesn't make sense, there are two possibilities, right? First, I may be unable to communicate the idea, second the reader may be incapable of understanding it.

If the photographers here want a simple thumbs up or thumbs down on every image, I would advise them to simply skip over my comments with their mice. And they can tally up the thumbs rather quickly, can't they?

Or, maybe the group wants to change the title of the forum and remove the word "critique" - which requires analysis - and replace it with something more benign like, "Photo Voting." Then, only a check box would be needed. That's out of my hands.

Since you are the apparent spokesman for all the others, why not tell me what you'd like to see in my comments, and maybe I can do that?

Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on February 17, 2013, 10:16:58 am
Now I understand that the "clouds" are simply exhaust from the exiting flying saucers.

Nice photo, SB.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 10:17:33 am
I want to quickly suggest that this thread NOT become about me, or my personality. Let's stick to the photograph at hand PLEASE. It is a fascinating subject of photography that deserves discussion. If you want to complain about "me as a person" send it to me privately where it can properly be ignored.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: sdwilsonsct on February 17, 2013, 10:20:36 am
Four strong elements, some where they're expected, others not. Nice!

The colours are little rich for my taste. Maybe because I just got in from shooting a bunch of pines which look more black than green today.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 10:37:38 am
This is a very popular style of photography. That's why we see a lot of it. I wanted to suggest how this came about and why. Because it bears on the whole art of photography.

The progenitor of this style is fashion photography. In fashion photography as it evolved, the female was stripped of actual sexuality, which would be too provocative, and cleaned up into idealized or imaginary sexuality. The female was first reduced down to a stick figure of a rather standard set of dimensions, and then the face was hidden with a thick mask of painted on color to assure that the model underneath was prevented from accidentally expressing anything but vacuous non-intention. Thus, all personality, which is the real source of sexuality, could be scrubbed clean from the resulting photograph. This began way before the days of image coloring softwares.

The projected image then was always clean. No one could say, hey, that's too sexy for a public magazine. And yet they didn't really want clean, they of course wanted to project sex. So this was a Barbie doll kind of idealized sex, as it was created for example by the toy manufacturers. Now then, does a man find himself in love with a Barbie doll, or in fact is he driven to utter madness by the odd imperfections, weird hip shapes, expressive eyes, peculiar facial expressions, just so calves, this and that kind of breast, thus and so kind of arms, and all the rest that comprises a "real woman?" I think we know the answer.

So, the purpose of fashion photography was to say, "Hey out there - we want you thinking about sex, sex, sex when you see this idealized, cartoonized imitation of a sexy woman." And, on a very "surface level" it kinda works - almost - on some people. It's the best they could do. And let's be blunt - fortunes were made all over the place by everyone involved. It works!

Then along comes image manipulation softwares so cheap everyone with a camera can have it on their computers. It's great stuff. It is an amazing invention, and it is a great addition to the world of photography. But.....just as a chainsaw can be useful in one way, and deadly in another, so can this new invention. If idealized woman are money makers, maybe idealized mountains can be too? And off we go............

To be clear for those ready to pounce, I am not saying fashion photographers of women or mountains are bad people. Far from it. I am only talking about the product presented. PRODUCT not PERSON - ok?  I find the fashion photography of nature to be exactly like the fashion photography of women - - unreal, sanitized, devoid of interest, sugary sweet with no nutrition.



Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Chris Calohan on February 17, 2013, 10:45:05 am
The ones that disagree with your analysis.

It's not that I disagree with all RG's analyses...there is some merit to each. It's far more the over-abundance of palaver in the analysis. I'm a pretty much cut to the chase kind of guy: What's good, what don't I like and on some occasions perhaps a visual edit comment. But geeze, he just goes on and on and one with all his philosophical baloney of "how does it make you feel, and what were you trying to convey, and why did you put the camera to your eye," when by the posting of the image itself, most of this is pretty well stated. Duh-uh. As to what the image means to the artist, well, to me that is a personal thing. It's kind of like religion or politics. You know what you believe and what you don't and the rest just goes down the toliet where 90% of RG's stuff goes when I read his philosophical bullsh*t.

Why can't he just post some work, let everyone who wishes to participate have a go at his images and comment thusly to theirs?

Sorry RG, but having spent most of my life it education and listened to far more crap than I thought possible, I find your comments repetitively boring, disinteresting and frankly, when I post, I hope you omit me from your comment list. Please!
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 10:50:32 am
It's not that I disagree with all RG's analyses...there is some merit to each. It's far more the over-abundance of palaver in the analysis. I'm a pretty much cut to the chase kind of guy: What's good, what don't I like and on some occasions perhaps a visual edit comment. But geeze, he just goes on and on and one with all his philosophical baloney of "how does it make you feel, and what were you trying to convey, and why did you put the camera to your eye," when by the posting of the image itself, most of this is pretty well stated. Duh-uh. As to what the image means to the artist, well, to me that is a personal thing. It's kind of like religion or politics. You know what you believe and what you don't and the rest just goes down the toliet where 90% of RG's stuff goes when I read his philosophical bullsh*t.

Why can't he just post some work, let everyone who wishes to participate have a go at his images and comment thusly to theirs?

Sorry RG, but having spent most of my life it education and listened to far more crap than I thought possible, I find your comments repetitively boring, disinteresting and frankly, when I post, I hope you omit me from your comment list. Please!

What is the purpose of a critique in art?
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: stamper on February 17, 2013, 10:59:32 am
Redwood post # 16 reinforces my opinion about over analysing everything. Like Chris I prefer to cut to the chase and rationalise my thoughts. Most of my ideas about an image boils down to a feeling if I like or dislike something. Too many words from you. This isn't personal BTW only a comment.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 11:04:03 am
Redwood post # 16 reinforces my opinion about over analysing everything. Like Chris I prefer to cut to the chase and rationalise my thoughts. Most of my ideas about an image boils down to a feeling if I like or dislike something. Too many words from you. This isn't personal BTW only a comment.
But why do you feel compelled to read them? Why not just skip on by to the thumb comments? Or better yet, just view the image and move on? I don't mind that you don't like my comments, why would I? But I kind of DO mind that you insist on the right to say I can't or shouldn't make them. See the difference?  S'pose I don't like B&W photographs. Should I complain to the guy posting them, "Hey, I don't like those B&W photos - please stop posting them!"

What's wrong with you just moving past my comments?

I have gotten "thanks" from many other photographers here for my comments about their photographs. Do they get a voice, or just you?
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RSL on February 17, 2013, 11:15:00 am
They're off and running.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 11:34:43 am
It's not that I disagree with all RG's analyses...there is some merit to each. It's far more the over-abundance of palaver in the analysis. I'm a pretty much cut to the chase kind of guy: What's good, what don't I like and on some occasions perhaps a visual edit comment. But geeze, he just goes on and on and one with all his philosophical baloney of "how does it make you feel, and what were you trying to convey, and why did you put the camera to your eye," when by the posting of the image itself, most of this is pretty well stated. Duh-uh. As to what the image means to the artist, well, to me that is a personal thing. It's kind of like religion or politics. You know what you believe and what you don't and the rest just goes down the toliet where 90% of RG's stuff goes when I read his philosophical bullsh*t.

Why can't he just post some work, let everyone who wishes to participate have a go at his images and comment thusly to theirs?

Sorry RG, but having spent most of my life it education and listened to far more crap than I thought possible, I find your comments repetitively boring, disinteresting and frankly, when I post, I hope you omit me from your comment list. Please!

I think your complaint is easy to understand. You want conformity on my part, and you don't want me to comment on your photographs. The latter is easy to do - - - you are now on that mental list. The former isn't, and I see no reason for anyone here to expect that kind of conformity. Teachers can and do use that authority to command conformity, and maybe you impulsively expect that power in all venues you participate in, I don't know. But, for now, my reading of this forum and it's purpose allows me to express my own thoughts quite independently, and as long as I am civil and not malicious, I think I am within my bounds here to call it as I see it. As I said to the other fella earlier, can't you use your mouse to slide on by my comments? I slide by lots of things I have no interest in. Why can't you?
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: amolitor on February 17, 2013, 11:44:51 am
Anyone who thinks this forum particularly values conformity simply cannot or will not read what people write. The amount of dissent here is startling, the only thing more startling is how civil the dissent normally is.

That it is now so un-civil suggests to me that SOMETHING has changed, but I cannot quite put my finger on what.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 12:05:42 pm
Anyone who thinks this forum particularly values conformity simply cannot or will not read what people write. The amount of dissent here is startling, the only thing more startling is how civil the dissent normally is.

That it is now so un-civil suggests to me that SOMETHING has changed, but I cannot quite put my finger on what.

What I think changed is that I make longer comments. Is that what you think changed by hinting "SOMETHING" above?

If I have said anything uncivil, will you please point it out for me?
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 12:15:55 pm

That it is now so un-civil suggests to me that SOMETHING has changed, but I cannot quite put my finger on what.

May I ask you, do you think the following comment from a couple minutes ago is civil or uncivil?

QUOTE
But geeze, he just goes on and on and one with all his philosophical baloney of "how does it make you feel, and what were you trying to convey, and why did you put the camera to your eye," when by the posting of the image itself, most of this is pretty well stated. Duh-uh. As to what the image means to the artist, well, to me that is a personal thing. It's kind of like religion or politics. You know what you believe and what you don't and the rest just goes down the toliet where 90% of RG's stuff goes when I read his philosophical bullsh*t.
END QUOTE
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: David Eckels on February 17, 2013, 12:26:04 pm
Have not posted my favorite subject, landscapes, in a while:
I like it. It's difficult to get a unique shot of an icon. I think you succeeded SB, one doesn't need the entire rock to recognize it. I too was disturbed by the cloud, but upon reflection, to me, there's an ominous feeling to the building thunderhead that matches the mood of Devil's Tower when I first saw it. The colors work for me, too. But is that a hint ot halo I see around the rock ;) Sorry, couldn't resist trying to be funny :D
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: amolitor on February 17, 2013, 12:58:21 pm
RG, nobody's saying that you haven't the right to post whatever you like. By all means, post whatever you like!

What they're saying is that you're an idiot. I'm pretty sure we have a right to a) hold that opinion and b) state it from time to time, as appropriate.

But just to be quite clear: Your right to post whatever you want to say is pretty much absolute. Subject, of course, the site policy and the moderators, but most certainly NOT subject to the whims and desires of us, the posting rabble. Carry on!

Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 01:05:02 pm
RG, nobody's saying that you haven't the right to post whatever you like. By all means, post whatever you like!

What they're saying is that you're an idiot. I'm pretty sure we have a right to a) hold that opinion and b) state it from time to time, as appropriate.

But just to be quite clear: Your right to post whatever you want to say is pretty much absolute. Subject, of course, the site policy and the moderators, but most certainly NOT subject to the whims and desires of us, the posting rabble. Carry on!


I'll take this then, as the approved standard for what is civil, and what is un-civil in this forum unless I hear different from moderators. That of course is not my business, it is theirs. What's more important about your standard setting here is just what it says about you. As I said yesterday after the barrage of your un-civil comments, you are what you post.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Chris Calohan on February 17, 2013, 01:25:41 pm
I think your complaint is easy to understand. You want conformity on my part, and you don't want me to comment on your photographs. The latter is easy to do - - - you are now on that mental list. The former isn't, and I see no reason for anyone here to expect that kind of conformity. Teachers can and do use that authority to command conformity, and maybe you impulsively expect that power in all venues you participate in, I don't know. But, for now, my reading of this forum and it's purpose allows me to express my own thoughts quite independently, and as long as I am civil and not malicious, I think I am within my bounds here to call it as I see it. As I said to the other fella earlier, can't you use your mouse to slide on by my comments? I slide by lots of things I have no interest in. Why can't you?

I didn't ask for conformity; I simply suggested you cut out 99% of the bullsh*t and participate rather than pontificate.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on February 17, 2013, 01:41:10 pm
You want conformity on my part

Not conformity. Brevity.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on February 17, 2013, 01:42:20 pm
It's a fine shot, Slobodan. It's simple, the parts work well, the colours are lovely and there's plenty of space at the top left for the text ( ;)).

Jeremy
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 01:42:45 pm
I didn't ask for conformity; I simply suggested you cut out 99% of the bullsh*t and participate rather than pontificate.
That's a self-contained contradiction. When you say cut out 99% of what you call the "bullsh*t", that means you want my comments to look like everyone else - a simple thumbs up, or "good capture" or "+1" or "crap shot," and so on. I'll ask you once more, since you keep coming after me, WHAT IS THE MEANING OF A PHOTOGRAPHIC CRITIQUE?
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 17, 2013, 02:04:38 pm
Truth<------------------------------------->Ideal

Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 02:12:08 pm
I was referring to the truth of Devil Mountain, of course. Not the truth of the other image you posted on the left.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 17, 2013, 02:27:55 pm
I was referring to the truth of Devil Mountain, of course. Not the truth of the other image you posted on the left.

I am sorry, my bad. In my quest for brevity, I snipped your quote to tightly, it should read (bold mine):

The difference between the graphic arts and photography might be summarized as this:

Truth<------------------------------------->Ideal

In which case it would be clear that you were not referring to the "mountain truth" (whatever that might be, if at all), but to "photographic truth" vs. "graphic arts ideal."

In any case, it is rather irrelevant whether you simply misspoke or I simply misunderstood, as I readily admit that my photograph is, as many of my other photographs are, closer to the "ideal" on your scale, and deliberately so.

If I were interested in the "mountain truth," I would become a climber, if I were interested in the "photographic truth," I would become a photojournalist, or, even better, forensic photographer.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 02:34:45 pm
I am sorry, my bad. In my quest for brevity, I snipped your quote to tightly, it should read (bold mine):

In which case it would be clear that you were not referring to the "mountain truth" (whatever that might be, if at all), but to "photographic truth" vs. "graphic arts ideal."

In any case, it is rather irrelevant whether you simply misspoke or I simply misunderstood, as I readily admit that my photograph is, as many of my other photographs are, closer to the "ideal" on your scale, and deliberately so.

Then my critique was accurate. It is a kind of graphics arts project. And it appears that what you want to know from the viewers is: "Do you think I moved all the levers and knobs and brushes the right way here?"

So, knowing what you are after, I'll briefly say this: I count four very colorful masses in that graphic!
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on February 17, 2013, 03:50:36 pm
What's more important about your standard setting here is just what it says about you.
I think that is pretty much true about all posts by all of us (certainly including me). Posts tend to say more about the poster than about the subject. Often the posts are entertaining. Sometimes they are even informative.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 17, 2013, 04:40:47 pm
... And each item appears to have been scrubbed down to its bare outline, removed, cleaned, polished, repainted and set back into its proper place and adjusted for perfect alignment. And somewhere along the way, the nature of mountains and the feeling of trees got scrubbed away. There's none of nature's imperfections or weird deviations in here. Errant branches don't even seem to exist any more in this Super World of Super Clean Plastic (like an animator's world).

Just to be perfectly clear: as much as I often resort to aggressive post-processing, I do not, and I repeat, I do not engage, nor condone significant cloning in or out of natural landscapes.

Nothing in this image has been "removed, cleaned, polished," no natural imperfections were "improved," no "errant branches" removed.

That is my way of sticking to the "truth" in photography, whatever that might be.

What was "improved" was not "natural imperfections" but rather sensor imperfections/limitations. Was that cloud really that white or was it sensor's idea of a correct white balance. Were those trees indeed so black/dark in nature, or was it sensor's/camera's preview inability to record simultaneously highlights and shadows properly? Was the sky that muted blue, or was it sensor's attempt to both white balance it and keep everything else in the capture "happy," by compressing excessive highlights and shadows, with mid-tones sometimes suffering as well?

Did I just correct for sensor's deficiencies, or did I go a step (or two) further to satisfy my own "deficiencies," my own idea of how I would like to remember the Devil's Tower? Perhaps.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 06:11:51 pm
Just to be perfectly clear: as much as I often resort to aggressive post-processing, I do not, and I repeat, I do not engage, nor condone significant cloning in or out of natural landscapes.

Nothing in this image has been "removed, cleaned, polished," no natural imperfections were "improved," no "errant branches" removed.

That is my way of sticking to the "truth" in photography, whatever that might be.

What was "improved" was not "natural imperfections" but rather sensor imperfections/limitations. Was that cloud really that white or was it sensor's idea of a correct white balance. Were those trees indeed so black/dark in nature, or was it sensor's/camera's preview inability to record simultaneously highlights and shadows properly? Was the sky that muted blue, or was it sensor's attempt to both white balance it and keep everything else in the capture "happy," by compressing excessive highlights and shadows, with mid-tones sometimes suffering as well?

Did I just correct for sensor's deficiencies, or did I go a step (or two) further to satisfy my own "deficiencies," my own idea of how I would like to remember the Devil's Tower? Perhaps.
I want to acknowledge you right now for actually having the concern (or interest) to even make this post. For that, in spite of anything else that has transpired, I say,  good on you.

I said in my critique that it APPEARED things were removed, polished and so on. It's a way of describing what the image is saying to me. This is a critique, not a fan club. I must offer some analysis of how it doesn't work, in order for it to mean something. The image doesn't convey much about nature or mountains to me. Sorry, it is too obviously perfect and subtracted from its environment. It is four areas colored in prettily. I used the analogy previously of the painted up fashion model. They don't demonstrate anything to me about women, because all they are is paint. If this analogy honestly doesn't work for you, then simply ignore all this and treat it as, what does Chris always say, "bullsh*t."

A photograph that moves me intellectually or emotionally has to convey some information beyond the color and shape of a few masses. I'll use the analogy again: which moves people - a B&W portrait by Lange, or the average commercial fashion portrait for lipstick? Many people will say the latter, but for me it is the former. I am just one person here making my critique, so I make it about what I think photographs might be able to do. Others can make it about their values and so on. Isn't that the general idea?

Photographs which turn into just a graphic arts piece don't interest me much because graphics artists and painters do all that kind of idealization far better than photography does. Why bother with photography when you can do all that kind of work in Illustrator? Or with brush and paper? My opinion is that it isn't taking advantage of the powers that specifically make photography different (and better) than the plastic arts. Great - you disagree with that. Ok, we do not need to agree. But we should strive to understand each other.

And I ought to say, my objection is not simply the coloring and all that, it's that when you framed this photograph, your choice didn't really allow much room for anyone's imagination about mountains generally, or that one specifically. For me, it's a bit like photographing someone's nose.  It isn't going to tell me much.

Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Chris Calohan on February 17, 2013, 06:17:06 pm
That's a self-contained contradiction. When you say cut out 99% of what you call the "bullsh*t", that means you want my comments to look like everyone else - a simple thumbs up, or "good capture" or "+1" or "crap shot," and so on. I'll ask you once more, since you keep coming after me, WHAT IS THE MEANING OF A PHOTOGRAPHIC CRITIQUE?

My last words. You can choose to read or ignore. If it was coming from you, I'd ignore.

Your question is not what I responded to; your question demands a counter expression from me as to what parameters constitute a critique. I never have a problem with critique in any form except when it is laced with more personal opinion and less needful things to say. For instance:

I get nice feelings of exploration, expansiveness, adventure and the western vibe all around. No dark effects or dissonant bells for me.

This is not a critique; this is nice talk. It is no different that +1

For consideration: I question whether it is more color than in life. Not that there is any right amount of color saturation - but whether this puts the viewer in a suspicious mind set about reality. I think there is a fine line in photographs, landscapes in particular, between the photographer's truth in the image, and a "for bookstore calendars only" kind of plastic-coated aesthetic. Be sure - I am not calling a right and wrong here, it's a matter of taste. I am questioning aloud my own interpretation. I do know there would be a point (and I have found it in my own photographs first) where an over-amped reality doesn't work at all for me.

So, in reality, you are calling his work over-saturated, though veiling it by calling out your own ineptitude at times.
After all, that's what photography does best is truth telling.


Besides being a poorly constructed sentence, it is strictly your opinion and therefore does not reflect anything else.

I don't bring this up as a criticism so much as just raising the question for the photographer to consider. My best analogy at hand is that women's faces can range from totally natural, to slightly enhanced with make-up, to that point where everyone says, "Oh goodness - did you see her make-up!" And at that point, people begin to lose sight of what's underneath - which may be very valuable. In other words, you don't want a false surface to bury the gold that lies beneath.

Analogy or not, you are beguiling him again for over-saturating his colors.

I fear I may have misled you about the saturation comments. It wasn't intended to say I thought it was "too much." It was intended to say, "think about this aspect of it."

Good backtracking but I think everyone on the forum saw it for what it was, or wasn’t.

For me there is a line where photos are so over-decorated on their surface ("make-up") that the underlying photograph - the bones underneath - is lost. Those photos don't work for me because they give up too much of the truth telling that sets photography apart from all other arts.

And who are you or for that matter, who on this forum is going to quantify or qualify what is art? Come on, really?

You don't have to decorate over the surface, like a painter. If you want to paint, get a brush and canvas. This is one reason that many B&W photographs work so well. They are like x-rays seeing down to the bone of the subject. Of course it is philosophical. Art is visual philosophy.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. Maybe art is a personal translation with little or no regard to anything philosophical. I rarely try to make a connection with God, the universe, Mother Nature, love, sin or greed, etc when I put the viewfinder to eye; nay, I am making a connection to a line, a shape, color tone, or other element of compositional design.

Everyone viewing your photograph is bringing their own background and interests and prejudices and internal workings.

Duh!

It would be impossible for a photograph to appeal to everyone.
 
Double duh!

Try to stay true as you can to your own interests and your integrity will show through in the final photograph.

What? This is highly opinionated. Technique, skill and artistry may show through. Integrity – how?

I always like to look for the photographer in the photograph. What is he/she revealing of themselves?

Weird…I don’t give three hoots and a holler what they reveal of themselves. I do give a hoot as to whether there is something in the image which makes me smile.

The more they reveal, the more powerful the photo will be.

Horsepuckey! Baloney, Pshaaw!

(NOTE: photos taken expressly for sale to the general public (like calendars and such) are an entirely different matter all together, and I am not referring to those here. Totally different subject.)

I am going to guess anyone on here who sells their images is going to take offense to this bit of malarkey. If I sell an image to someone and they use it is a calendar…hey, no beef from me as long as I get my due and a check.

I would like to ask the photographer, David: What was your intention in the photograph? What kinds of feelings or thoughts were you wanting to pass along?

You are looking at the image. More important or germane to this is what response did you get? Why are you continually asking everyone what they were thinking. I’d say about half the shots I make I see, have ten to fifteen seconds to respond and take the shot. Sometimes I spend a lot of time planning a shot, sometimes it is as much whim as “gut” feeling. Sometimes, I just like the image. It'spretty; it makes me smile.

For instance - - There are but two main elements in the photo. Each has a powerful, and yet very different influence on the communication. Is it about what the ground is saying, or is it about what the sky is saying? Which is dominant, if any? What's the intended relationship?

Give me an opinion as to what they are doing for you and then let it go. It’s all the extra palaver that gets people’s ire up.

Be assured that such sincere discussion of photography is never BS.

The sincerity in your case often becomes obfuscated by your opinion spoken as widely held truths.
 
First, as to specific adjustments of knobs and levers, I can't say.

Then how in the heck do you post process? Do you just guess or are we seeing SOOC? Doubtful.

That's not my concern. I am happy enough to know that you will get them adjusted to suit you.

I’m so glad you’re happy. Whoopee!

My main concern was that you are getting your self into the photograph. Your values, your ideals, your feelings or whatever makes you pick up a camera. If you get a lot of YOU into it, it will all be fine in the end. That's what we all want to see - - the photographer's ideal! We have all seen the mountain, now we want to see YOU through the mountain.

Again, there is no critique in this. This is some mamby-pamby stroking at best, crap at best.

Your explanation was excellent. We all have to "reconstruct" like that from time to time, so have no worry about that. And I got it very clearly. So now it's just to get that feeling expressed in the photo. Here's a thought. The rocks don't move, the sky does. We all
 
Pet peeve – we who and all how?

might have seen that rock, but have any of us seen that sky? I don't mean a sky like it, I mean THAT sky. No, we haven't. So, you are going to show us how THAT sky worked against the land to give you THAT feeling. In this sense (being used as an example), maybe the rocks can be "under emphasized" subtly as the sky is over emphasized? This is more a feel than any specific advice to move a lever this way or that. You will know when you have it. I would have no way to know, because the truth of the moment is in you.

Again, there is no critique in this. This is some mamby-pamby stroking at best, crap at best.

I wonder---do you print these (variations) out to look at as photographs, or do you only look at them on screen? This may not apply to you at all, but I HAVE to print the variations out to truly see them. I don't mean the final size if you intended it large. But to have a stack of photographs in hand that you can sit with, ponder, examine, critique AWAY from the computer can be very valuable. I print a lot of stuff at about 5 x 7, which is just right for sitting in my easy chair and thinking about them for a few days.

Thanks again for revealing your intention so clearly. It's a fun process and you have a wonderful photograph to play with.


Variation on “Again, there is no critique in this. This is some mamby-pamby stroking at best, crap at best.”

Slob,
Nobody without a cloaked reason would make that mistake.

One of the things that often happens when people read for the purpose of finding an insult to make, instead of reading for the purpose of trying to get the writer's point, is that they make a fool of themselves for not having read carefully. When you swing for the fences, you kind of have to hit the ball, in other words.

This is where you lost me. I was tolerating you up to this point, though only barely. Teachers don’t use the word bullsh*t unless it is applicable.

You aren't about the photography, you are about the hounding of people to show you are some kind of "heavy weight" I think it was called. So, I have been generally ignoring you and Hef's and Grumpy's persistent attempts at diverting the forum into your locker room. I find it pathetic in general. I can only imagine it is about being starved for attention, in which case my prescription is, post some photographs, or in some way contribute something about photography.

Let’s look at his credentials, and then at yours. I’ve seen his.


So let's be clear now.

Oh, please, let's do.

Do you see your important role here as being the one to pour over texts looking for some word to quibble about in an amazing "gotcha" moment?

Well this new version is very different. How do you feel about it? Does it get to more of what you wanted?

To me, it’s none of your frickin’ business how I feel. I put up an image for a response. I can choose to like the response, or go on my merry way and still be happy. I don’t need to vindicate myself or my feeling to you or anyone else.

Good move. Sometimes you have to step back and relax a bit to regain your idea behind it. FYI, they both work for me, but they tell different stories, have different feelings to them. Go with your gut.

That’s what I do. Try it sometime.

   



   



   


Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 06:29:11 pm
My last words. You can choose to read or ignore. If it was coming from you, I'd ignore.

Your question is not what I responded to; your question demands a counter expression from me as to what parameters constitute a critique. I never have a problem with critique in any form except when it is laced with more personal opinion and less needful things to say. For instance:

       

Well then you simply have no use for critique, because there is no factual standard for composition or meaning or saturation in photography - there are only opinions, and you have ruled that out as an element of critique.

What you might have said, where it would have some meaning is: "I don't enjoy your critiques." That's both sensible for you to say, and it can be logical. But to say you like all forms of critique except the ones with personal opinion, is simply illogical and frankly, meaningless "bullsh*t" if I may borrow from your lexicon.

What you haven't done at all here, after all that cutting and pasting, is answer the question I asked: WHAT IS THE MEANING OF A PHOTOGRAPHIC CRITIQUE?
Since you posted your last words, I guess it will have to go unanswered from you. What a shame, seems no one wants to take a stab at that.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 17, 2013, 06:31:55 pm
Can we please refrain from QUOTING longs posts in their entirety, as it serves no purpose whatsoever?
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: amolitor on February 17, 2013, 07:58:12 pm
Well then you simply have no use for critique, because there is no factual standard for composition or meaning or saturation in photography - there are only opinions, and you have ruled that out as an element of critique.

Oh, but he didn't rule it out as an element of critique. Once again, your inability to read correctly has led you down the wrong path.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 08:44:36 pm
Oh, but he didn't rule it out as an element of critique. Once again, your inability to read correctly has led you down the wrong path.

I never said he ruled anything out. I said he "had no use for it." You keep trying this "can't read, won't read" thing, and it bounces back in your face every time. Why you are butting in here again mystifies me. Can you explain it? Here's an idea for you....let's talk about photography? Can you do that?
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: James Clark on February 17, 2013, 08:51:36 pm
At risk of getting this thread back to Slobodon's image, I quite like it as a graphical, almost abstract study in color and texture. 
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 08:54:04 pm
At risk of getting this thread back to Slobodon's image, I quite like it as a graphical, almost abstract study in color and texture. 
Amazing. Someone that is interested in talking about the photography.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Chris Calohan on February 17, 2013, 08:56:16 pm
Very "adsurgens".

I wondered about this as well and looked up adsurgens which is basically a "wildflower," related to the flox family of wildflowers. Please explain your response using this word. It is interesting but perplexing at the same time.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 17, 2013, 09:46:31 pm
From Chris' complaint:

RedwoodGuy:I always like to look for the photographer in the photograph. What is he/she revealing of themselves?

Chris: Weird…I don’t give three hoots and a holler what they reveal of themselves. I do give a hoot as to whether there is something in the image which makes me smile.

You make quite a big deal out of this, as though what I am saying above is some kind of insane drivel. Let me present this quote directly related:

“You don't make a photograph just with a camera. You bring to the act of photography all the pictures you have seen, the books you have read, the music you have heard, the people you have loved.” - Ansel Adams
 
You don't seem to possess any of the fundamental knowledge about photography. Maybe you should stop complaining about what I say to other people?
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 17, 2013, 10:01:42 pm
... “You don't make a photograph just with a camera. You bring to the act of photography all the pictures you have seen, the books you have read, the music you have heard, the people you have loved.” - Ansel Adams...

Fair enough.

Soooooo... looking at my OP photograph, what can you tell me, what books have I read, and what music have I listened to (I'll let you off the hook in guessing who my lovers have been)?

It is correct that all the things AA mentioned contribute to our development as photographers. It is much less clear they are ultimately visible or discernible in our photographs. And even if so, people like Chris have every right not to give a damn about it, but to find in a photograph whatever pleases them (or not).
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: William Walker on February 18, 2013, 01:22:52 am
I find no difficulty in reading, skip-reading or ignoring RG's comments -- I don't need to change his behaviour because I can so easily change mine.

Come on guys! Surely this makes sense to all of you?
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 18, 2013, 01:44:28 am
Fair enough.

Soooooo... looking at my OP photograph, what can you tell me, what books have I read, and what music have I listened to (I'll let you off the hook in guessing who my lovers have been)?

It is correct that all the things AA mentioned contribute to our development as photographers. It is much less clear they are ultimately visible or discernible in our photographs. And even if so, people like Chris have every right not to give a damn about it, but to find in a photograph whatever pleases them (or not).
Since so many people are insisting I not talk about photography here, I'll let you decide if you really want some answers to this. Just let me know.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: William Walker on February 18, 2013, 02:26:50 am
Since so many people are insisting I not talk about photography here, I'll let you decide if you really want some answers to this. Just let me know.

Can I make a suggestion? I speak only for myself here.

As you know, I am not at all put off by your posts, and, frankly, I have not enjoyed these "exchanges" at all.

It is clear that you have rubbed some people up the wrong way, as they have you. Why don't you all agree to disagree and avoid each other's posts?

I think you have made your position quite clear regarding where you stand, what you stand for and what you will not stand for. No need to repeat that. Just do what you enjoy doing, and what I enjoy reading. I don't necessarily have to agree with everything you say, but you certainly have caused me to look at things from a different angle. Your comments on this particular post achieved that. Which is more than "+1" accomplishes.

A last suggestion, what about changing your name to "Red-rag-guy"? ;)

Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Tony Jay on February 18, 2013, 03:54:02 am
A last suggestion, what about changing your name to "Red-rag-guy"? ;)

Maybe his real name is Rod - short for lightning-rod.  ;D

Tony Jay
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: amolitor on February 18, 2013, 08:34:26 am
I never said he ruled anything out. I said he "had no use for it." You keep trying this "can't read, won't read" thing, and it bounces back in your face every time. Why you are butting in here again mystifies me. Can you explain it? Here's an idea for you....let's talk about photography? Can you do that?

But you did. It's right there in the text I quoted " ... and you have ruled that out as an element of critique."

You can't even read your own words. I am happy to talk about photography, but only to people who will make an attempt to listen.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 18, 2013, 02:57:56 pm
This is difficult to write in a few brief words - which seems the preference here. I'll do both a short and a long version, because in fact this can't be done in a few words with any justice to photography. The short version, for those who want to move on quickly, is: a beautiful photograph of "nature plasticized." It's pretty and makes nice prints! It caught my eye for a moment, then I moved on...

Thank you for the "executive summary." It told me all I needed to know. There is a compliment ("beautiful" - thank you) and there is criticism ("plasticized" - thank you again). And I agree with both.

Quote
... The longer version has to explain "plasticized" in relation to photography...

Well, not to me... the moment you used the word, I got it. There might be some who would hear it for the first time and benefit from your explanation though. Thanks on their behalf.

Quote
... I've seen a lot of pictures of Devil Mountain. Almost as many as Half Dome. A very good photographer and dear friend once told me this story. They were driving through Yosemite and at the moment where the road turns just so, he said to all those in his car full of fellow photographers, "Ok, we're getting near Half Dome, put your cameras away." I assume that doesn't need explanation...

No, it does not. It is, however, an old debate, rehashed on this very forum numerous times, ie, cliches, icons, landmarks, done-to-death subjects, etc. Lines have been drawn, people took sides long ago. Then again, there might be newcomers who would benefit from your view, so thanks again on their behalf.

I personally belong to the school that says: "Yes, it's been done to death, but not by me." Had I passed by the Half Dome for the n-th time, maybe I wouldn't bother lifting my camera either (I would probably look for a different perspective though). Coming from Europe, these icons were new, jaw-dropping and awe-inspiring. And I had a chance to see them only once, for a day or two each. They are more than just a natural phenomenon, they are cultural as well. Monument Valley and John Wayne, Devil's Tower and extraterrestrials...

Quote
... The difference between the graphic arts and photography might be summarized as this:

Truth<------------------------------------->Ideal

Where photographs tell truth, graphic designs explain the ideal...

Again, true but nothing new. We had those debates here ad nauseum about "true" vs. photoshopped, over-processed vs. "how it really looked," between photography and digital illustration (or graphic arts). Again, lines have been drawn, people took sides long ago. I didn't wander into the graphic territory by mistake, I chose it.

My view of graphics (as a photography genre) is based, partially, on Socrates:

"I will try to speak of the beauty of shapes... straight lines and curves and the shapes made of them... They are not beautiful for any particular reason or purpose, as other things are, but are eternally, and by their very nature, beautiful, and give a pleasure of their own quite free from the itch of desire: and in this way colors can give a similar pleasure..."

So, while you seem to prefer the pursuit of truth, I choose to pursue beauty. You want truth in nature, I want beauty in shapes, forms and colors in nature.

Quote
... In this photograph, we see the idealized mountain, even down the exact required ingredients: cloud, tree, mountain, sky, check, check. And each item appears to have been scrubbed down to its bare outline, removed, cleaned, polished, repainted and set back into its proper place and adjusted for perfect alignment. And somewhere along the way, the nature of mountains and the feeling of trees got scrubbed away. There's none of nature's imperfections or weird deviations in here. Errant branches don't even seem to exist any more in this Super World of Super Clean Plastic (like an animator's world)....

I already explained in a separate reply that I did not alter anything, so no need to repeat it here (reply #38).

Sometimes, the nature is simply perfect and that is actually what I am after, those "decisive moments" in nature. I have enough "imperfections or weird deviations" in my own life, enough ugliness and banalities, to replicate them in my photography, thank you very much. If people find the meaning of life in vending machines, cans of Campbell soups or 99c stores, more power to them. Not my cup of tea, though.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 18, 2013, 04:02:39 pm
One point needs to be clarified.

"Again, true but nothing new. We had those debates here ad nauseum about "true" vs. photoshopped, over-processed vs. "how it really looked," between photography and digital illustration (or graphic arts). Again, lines have been drawn, people took sides long ago. I didn't wander into the graphic territory by mistake, I chose it."

When I spoke of truth vs. ideal, it doesn't mean "original image vs. photoshoped." That was always a pointless argument.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RobbieV on February 18, 2013, 04:04:43 pm
Jesus, you guys. If you don't like RedwoodGuy's comments, just bloody ignore them. At the least, he's a better contributor than the usual people who come and go in here. And, like everyone else (including me), if he posts a picture you don't like, don't comment. I think some of you like to argue on here for the sake of it. I know I'm going to regret posting this, as it's me getting involved, but there are worse forum-ites for fodder than RG.

Slo, the tight framing really works with this. The clouds, sky and rocks all form large pieces of the composition that work very well. I always like seeing your work, and it has reminded me to take a poke through your Flickr again. Thanks for posting.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: amolitor on February 18, 2013, 04:08:28 pm
Jesus, you guys. If you don't like RedwoodGuy's comments, just bloody ignore them. At the least, he's a better contributor than the usual people who come and go in here. And, like everyone else (including me), if he posts a picture you don't like, don't comment. I think some of you like to argue on here for the sake of it. I know I'm going to regret posting this, as it's me getting involved, but there are worse forum-ites for fodder than RG.

With all due respect, and I do take your point, this is much easier to say when he hasn't read some imagined insult into something you said, and spent a paragraph or two ranting at you.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: amolitor on February 18, 2013, 04:30:35 pm
Slobodan, and you in a rut?

There are some rather strong similarities with this one: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=70451.0
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 18, 2013, 05:11:16 pm
Slobodan, and you in a rut?

There are some rather strong similarities with this one: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=70451.0


Maybe I just found my style? :)
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: amolitor on February 18, 2013, 05:28:45 pm
Congratulations!
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: rogerxnz on February 20, 2013, 12:44:35 pm
". . . Like Chris I prefer to cut to the chase and rationalise my thoughts. Most of my ideas about an image boils down to a feeling if I like or dislike something. Too many words from you. . . .

I would have thought that RG was doing just the same as you do—rationalising his thoughts—but he has the ability to express his thoughts in words for us to read. Not every one can do this and I suggest you read his comments rather than count the words used.

Many of us can only say "Nice picture" or "I like the colours" but that is not a critique IMHO. RG is going deeper than that and I find his comments very insightful and more useful than "Great shot".

Looking at the image, it seems to me that every element has been coloured and polished to perfection, as I think RG and others have said, and, comparing the submitted image with the original that Slobodan has posted, it is clear that this is what Slobodan has done. To me, this makes every element compete with the others so it is a very pretty-looking picture (great for a postage stamp or a tourist poster) but devoid of emotion or personal response.

Viewers who are at the stage of "pretty" pictures will like it and will praise Slobodan. Those who are trying to get beyond the level of "chocolate box" photos and produce pictures which do more than record a scene, will question the image more. RG should be congratulated for trying to do this.

My comments on the image are not criticisms of Slobodan. I come across beautiful vistas all the time in my country (New Zealand) and I have the same problem—how to get beyond a record shot that anyone could take. Do I only capture part of the scene to intrigue viewers as to what has been left out (as I suspect Slobodan has done). Do I wait for a storm to add interest in the sky at the risk of turning the image into one about a stormy sky?

I don't have the answers but I am keen to keep trying and I appreciate people like RG who spend a lot of time writing up their thoughts for us to read to help us see how we can get more thought and emotion in our images.

I am not criticsing those who want to take pretty pictures. That is their choice and those images have a place (on stamps, posters and chocolate boxes, for example). I would have thought that the majority of posters here are keen to get beyond pretty pictures. It's great to feel the emotion of knowing you have captured something special! I get the feeling from time to time—see my image under "House of Horrors" (excuse my bragging)—and I will keep searching for more such images.
Roger
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 20, 2013, 01:08:46 pm
... it is a very pretty-looking picture (great for a postage stamp or a tourist poster) but devoid of emotion or personal response...

Thanks for the comments, Roger. However, these ARE my emotions and that IS my personal response. I do acknowledge that my not correlate with your or RedwoodGuy's emotions and how you would personally respond to the scene, however.

I do not mind shooting for postage stamps, posters, magazine covers, etc. I enjoy it.

In that sense, a critique that is delivered from the high horse of lofty intellectual disdain for anything but High Art and the "meaning of life" is condescending and irritating. Just as is the shrink-couch staple: "how do you feel about it?"
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: amolitor on February 20, 2013, 01:12:50 pm
Viewers who are at the stage of "pretty" pictures will like it and will praise Slobodan. Those who are trying to get beyond the level of "chocolate box" photos and produce pictures which do more than record a scene, will question the image more. RG should be congratulated for trying to do this.

There is a planted axiom in here, which is that people who admire "pretty pictures" are less advanced, in some fashion, than people admire pictures that do more than "record a scene". Whilst many on here do aspire to do something other than make pretty pictures, asserting that pretty pictures are somehow lesser is cliched, simplistic, and kind of snobbish. There are several regular contributors here who make extremely pretty pictures, and seem to have no aspirations whatsoever to comment on man's inhumanity to man and whatnot. More power to 'em.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: David Eckels on February 20, 2013, 01:15:17 pm
I don't have the answers but I am keen to keep trying and I appreciate people like RG who spend a lot of time writing up their thoughts for us to read to help us see how we can get more thought and emotion in our images.
I must say I agree with Roger. I am learning a lot from the comments and being forced to think about things in new ways, which I need. I am also somewhat learning from the contentious tone of the comments from obviously passionate people. Best regards to all! Peace on earth, goodwill towards men ;)
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 20, 2013, 01:54:57 pm
... I am learning a lot from the comments...

Out of curiosity: like what?
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RSL on February 20, 2013, 02:06:33 pm
Roger that, Slobodan, to coin another non sequitur. I'd be interested to know too. All I've seen so far is fluff.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Dave (Isle of Skye) on February 20, 2013, 02:26:22 pm
There is a planted axiom in here, which is that people who admire "pretty pictures" are less advanced, in some fashion, than people admire pictures that do more than "record a scene". Whilst many on here do aspire to do something other than make pretty pictures, asserting that pretty pictures are somehow lesser is cliched, simplistic, and kind of snobbish. There are several regular contributors here who make extremely pretty pictures, and seem to have no aspirations whatsoever to comment on man's inhumanity to man and whatnot. More power to 'em.


Here here Andrew - if people don't like pretty pictures (a definition of what 'pretty' in this context actually means would really help here - anyone want to have a go?), then I would advise people to stop travelling to pretty places with their camera and using it.

It's the end of photo-tourism as we know it Jim!

 ;D

Dave
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: amolitor on February 20, 2013, 02:28:48 pm
Aww, c'mon. He makes you think a bit, anyways, at least when he's not talking down to you. Which, let's be honest, isn't all the time, and hardly at all lately. There was an interval, which I am fully prepared to forget about.

I've said that Susan Sontag's real value isn't that she's right about everything, it's the work you have to do to sort through what's right, what's wrong, and what's gibberish. But that's real value, right there. Sometimes you've thought that particular stuff all through long ago, so, less value. Never hurts to whip over it again real quick, sometimes ideas change over a couple decades.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: William Walker on February 20, 2013, 03:18:42 pm
Out of curiosity: like what?

Slo, the idea of the picture being "plasticized" is something I found interesting, especially when Red spoke about the fashion industry. I understood what he was saying about your picture and found it to be an interesting observation. Now here is the important part: that thought had never occurred to me! I looked at something with new eyes and understood what he was getting at. If you already were aware of that, or don't agree with that, great. It also does not necessarily mean I agree ( or have to agree). It is simply interesting to see how other people might view things.

There is something you guys who have a beef with Redwoodguy are missing, that is this: there have been a few voices here, including mine, who have mentioned that we do find some/much of what he has to say interesting or useful. Most of those voices have been ignored until now with your question to David.

There is no question that you have succeeded in your efforts to silence him or whatever it was you wanted, because he has already altered his style. Stuff those who think differently to you!

I think your constant sniping is selfish and the level of intolerance is not something I expected to find amongst a group of people whose photography and opinions I have come to respect over the time I have been here.

William
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: amolitor on February 20, 2013, 03:40:41 pm
I think your constant sniping is selfish and the level of intolerance is not something I expected to find amongst a group of people whose photography and opinions I have come to respect over the time I have been here.

Let me repeat a remark I made earlier in response to a similar post. I do take your point, and it's a good one worth taking. It is, however, a lot easier to say when you haven't been targeted by a multi-paragraph rant. When he's not raging about some perceived insult, he's a little pompous but generally an ok dude. I think his recent commentary has been great. Right, wrong, or gibberish: it's thought provoking.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RSL on February 20, 2013, 03:53:38 pm
Walter, I have to agree with what you're saying. It doesn't bother me that he's insulting. I've been insulted by far sharper wits than his. What bothers me is that in order to get to something in one of his extended critiques that makes sense you have to slog through all the other stuff that doesn't make sense. I think of the old saw about monkeys writing the Bible given enough time on the typewriter. But imagine the pile of random stuff in between. That's pretty much what I see. Yes, there's an occasional gem in there but a bit of brevity would be refreshing. With brevity he might be a valuable contributor.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: David Eckels on February 20, 2013, 04:33:37 pm
Out of curiosity: like what?
SB-that's a fair question. I don't want to get ripped for a longish answer, and I will try to be brief ;) but to me, your question goes to what I was looking for when I joined Lu-La. The User Critiques forum looked to me to be promising venue for critiques, critical evaluation of my work, which I had not experienced much of and, frankly, approached with some trepidation. It goes beyond trying to find an audience that thinks my work is worth looking at, or "do they like it?" Certainly, if someone, especially here, liked what I put up, that would be great, but I want to learn more and criticism probably especially negative criticism, I hate to say, is more likely to help me grow as a photographer, or as an enthusiast to give a nod to RSL's taxonomy, I think. Positive criticism is helpful to me only insofar as it tells me why someone would like a particular photo. There is one important caveat: From what I've seen, some of you, even most, are terrific photographers and I frankly admire your work enviously; if you like it, that is enough and a +1 or an "I like it" I find very encouraging. I have no formal art training although I do read a lot. I grew up a biomedical scientist and only recently returned to photography seriously in the last four years or so, almost like rediscovering a long lost love. I am passionate about it, but my craft must be honed. Some of you are long term, even life long photographers and I find the experience and perspective shared in your images inspiring and when you consider amplifying in words, to me that is worth thoughtful consideration even when it is a terse comment about my work or someone else's. Are you getting tired yet? You asked for it ;) So what have I been learning the last few weeks?

From RG, I have been asked to think about my photographs from the standpoint of what am I trying to accomplish with a given image. I get his opinion as to whether I succeeded, or not. Now that's a very subjective view, but I also learned that even if he didn't care for a photo, he could appreciate that I had a rationale for why I took it and presented it just so. I also have come to appreciate as I observe the dialogue re his posts, that there are varying esthetics regarding not only specific images, but also in how different photographers approach them. Hard to explain, but I was thinking (naively) that there might have been some external esthetic standard that I could somehow come to appreciate; I am now thinking how silly that is. Part of what I do, must be done because I like it, maybe for only that reason. But now I am gobbledygooking!

SB, since you asked the question, I should address it specifically. I wish I could do some of the shots that you do; it's a style (if you will) of photography that I admire. In my limited exposure, you seem to lead or teach by example: You show an image and await comments. That's fine, I can learn that way. Can you teach more explicitly? I can live with the former, but if you had more explicit thoughts to share about a given photograph, I would enjoy that just as much. I am learning, what I can't tell yet, from some of the interchanges you have with different posters; I will continue to follow.

Chrisc, you shared with me some important technical insight (wait for it, you'll laugh) regarding the use of B/W layers in luminosity mode to enhance tonal range and whatnot. Here's the silly: I thought I'd discovered that myself! :D I have been enraptured by the technological power of Photoshop, but this teaches to get back to focussing (sic) on taking good photographs! I also appreciate your honesty when you said you'd been to the same spot I had and "missed" the shot or whatever. It said to me the photo was worth taking to at least one other photographer. My wife likes it, but that doesn't count LOL.

Amolitor and RSL, you have taken a look at the few photos I've posted and obviously thought about them. What's going on with the light? Does it match the EXIF data? What are those details in the background? I appreciate any positive comments, but you are also helping me to try and get out of my own head and see things from the viewer's point of view, which is a new experience for me. Maybe sounds dumb, but it's true. I think RG said it's partly like the proofreader problem in writing; I certainly understand that from my scientific publication struggles, but had never thought of it from the standpoint of photography. I need to put myself in the mind (eye?) of the viewer. Duh, you say. Well, that's why I am hanging around!

For some of you others, maybe newbies, I encourage you to keep posting, be involved, and know that I will be learning as I watch your experiences unfold. The comparison of photography with a journey is such a cliche, but it's a cliche because it really is true. I appreciate being able to walk along with all of you.

Well, blither, blather, blah, blah, blah! SB, I thought your question serious and I have attempted to give you a serious answer. Thanks for giving me opportunity to expound ;) and sorry for the length, guys! I see that I did not succeed in my attempt to be brief LOL. Teach me more! Just as a disclaimer, I do have a website and I do have things for sale, but that's so I can deduct my equipment ;)

Best regards to all.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 20, 2013, 07:04:40 pm
... There is something you guys who have a beef with Redwoodguy are missing, that is this: there have been a few voices here, including mine, who have mentioned that we do find some/much of what he has to say interesting or useful. Most of those voices have been ignored until now...

William, I am not sure that is entirely true. For instance, a few posts above, I said (and even thanked him on your behalf): "There might be some who would hear it for the first time and benefit from your explanation though. Thanks on their behalf."

Quote
... There is no question that you have succeeded in your efforts to silence him...

I doubt.

Quote
I think your constant sniping is selfish..

I am sorry you feel that way about my contribution. My "sniping" is a rhetorical style, the substance of which is, in its intention, to help. My intention is not to "stuff those who think differently to you!" -- that would be contrary to my own motto, under my avatar. At the same time, tolerating different opinion clearly does not mean accepting it without a dialog (or, sometimes, a rhetorical fight).

Why his posts and pontificating style is irritating for some of us, I think I, as well as several others, elaborated enough in the previous posts.

There is, however, something else that seems to provoke me into "intolerance" you mentioned. I can't quite put my finger on it, and I do not think the subject deserves a dissertation, so it is rather a gut feeling at the moment, but I feel there is something dangerous in his preachings. The vary fact there are some who hear it for the first time, makes them a gullible, this ideal target for manipulation. There is something Kool-Aid-ish about it. The constant peddling of his ideas of photography as high art, truth, "higher" purpose, etc., and contrasting it with the lowly uses for "chocolate boxes," is snobbish, elitist, condescending and patronizing. It is especially damaging for the newcomers to photography, who are immediately put down in their initial enthusiasm for "pretty" photography. I have no disregard for fine art photography, as a matter of fact I quite like some of it (eg, Andreas Gursky works). But I like my sandbox just as well. To each his own. Putting down my chosen style of photography just because he prefers another is like coming to a church mass to sell sex toys. Or, to put the metaphor more in line with my "plasticized" photography, like coming to a sex-toy store to preach ;)

Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: James Clark on February 20, 2013, 07:14:24 pm

Looking at the image, it seems to me that every element has been coloured and polished to perfection, as I think RG and others have said, and, comparing the submitted image with the original that Slobodan has posted, it is clear that this is what Slobodan has done. To me, this makes every element compete with the others so it is a very pretty-looking picture (great for a postage stamp or a tourist poster) but devoid of emotion or personal response.

Viewers who are at the stage of "pretty" pictures will like it and will praise Slobodan. Those who are trying to get beyond the level of "chocolate box" photos and produce pictures which do more than record a scene, will question the image more. RG should be congratulated for trying to do this.



I have to take exception to this.  There seems to be this idea, in certain circles, that the light and the beauty in the world are somehow of less value or of less import than the flawed or, as some like to phrase it, "the real,"  because apparently the good and the light is merely illusory ;)

I say this from the POV of one who really doesn't have a problem with RG's style of critique.  I don't mind a little reading, and, actually, I find it ironic that some participants here in LuLa would chastise another poster for being too wordy in what is primarily a text-based medium, and particularly in a subforum that is supposedly dedicated to just that - the communication of ideas and opnions on specific photographs.  Hard to do that without words, IMO.  

I think the problem is (was?) not that RG is trying to get beyond platitudes, but a)that the delivery of said critique was sometimes done from an assumed position of superiority, not one of collegiality (is that a word?), and b) was laden with the idea that something like what Slobodon posted in this thread could not be "serious" art.  Heck, I'm not even sure I buy the distinction in many, many cases, (though I do think our reactions to some performance art tells us Serious and Important things about ourselves), but I'll simply end with the thought that Georgia O'Keefe was once dismissed as nothing more than a painter of pretty pictures.   I'd be thrilled to be in that company, personally.



Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 20, 2013, 07:32:16 pm
... I wish I could do some of the shots that you do; it's a style (if you will) of photography that I admire. In my limited exposure, you seem to lead or teach by example: You show an image and await comments. That's fine, I can learn that way. Can you teach more explicitly? I can live with the former, but if you had more explicit thoughts to share about a given photograph, I would enjoy that just as much. I am learning, what I can't tell yet, from some of the interchanges you have with different posters; I will continue to follow...

David, I hope I will be able to respond to your whole post soon, but in the meantime, I just want to point out that "showing an image and awaiting comments" is rather an exception than a rule. For how I prefer to "teach," you can see, for example, in this post (reply #6):

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=70974.msg563841#msg563841

I used to do that type of comments much more in the past, but along with thanks came resistance, as some perceived it as an attack on their ego, or patronizing. These days I restrict it mostly for those I know are already accomplished photographers, whose work I admire, more as a friendly hint than critique. And even in those cases I ask for permission in a PM first (as I did in David's case).

Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: amolitor on February 20, 2013, 07:42:07 pm
I have always appreciated anything you had to say about my work, Slobodan, and I hope I never gave you the impression of resistance or bruised ego!
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 20, 2013, 08:26:12 pm
No, but I wouldn't point fingers either ;)
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower—need to resolve different purposes
Post by: rogerxnz on February 20, 2013, 08:27:54 pm
There is nothing wrong with people making pretty pictures just as there is nothing wrong with people making what they perceive as more thought-provoking (you know what I mean) pictures. What is wrong is people thinking that one group is superior in some way than the other. That is snobbery or elitism. Each group is entitled to be happy and proud of what they produce.

For the purpose of this discussion, I will refer to the first group as the "less intense picture makers" and the other group as the "intense picture makers". I have tried to select terms that are emotionally neutral but I am sure to have offended some already. Let me know what terms you prefer.

The comparison that comes to mind is that of marathon runners and those who only enter 10km runs ("fun runs").  Many think marathon runners are better and more dedicated than fun runners but many fun runners just like running for fun and think marathon runners are nuts. Then there are the ultra distance runners who are another breed again!

All runners, whether they are ultra/marathon/fun runners, put effort into their running and enjoy what they do. No one has the right to put any group on a pedestal or rank them. The groups are just different.

I think what is happening in this forum is that some less intense picture makers regard critiques from intense picture makers as "fluff", too verbose, and so on. There is a mismatch of purposes and the less intense picture maker feels he is being talked down to by someone who thinks he is superior. It's like a marathon runner telling a fun runner he/she is not running far enough. The marathon runner's comment is ridiculous because the fun runner does not want to run any further, no matter what.

If you accept there is a mismatch between the two groups (and the groups in between), is there a solution? Each group is perfectly valid and entitled to critiques.

I suggest that the starting point should be that all images are posted for serious critiques of any length. Then posters can say or indicate if they do not want intense critiques. They could say "this is a snap I took recently" or "please don't give involved critiques" or "I have posted this image just to show what I'm up to" or "I've posted this image because I like the colours".

It shouldn't be hard to indicate the kind of critique you want.

What do you reckon? How can we keep the intense picture makers "(IPM") from ruining the pleasure of the less intense picture makers ("LIPM")and from seeming superior to the LIPM?

Maybe LIPM should just skim over replies that exceed whatever line count they find acceptable for their efforts? Likewise, IPM can skim over comments which have fewer lines than they want.

Please note I have used "critique" throughout to match the purpose of this forum and not "criticism" which has an entirely different (and negative) meaning.
Roger
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 20, 2013, 08:36:47 pm
Roger, I like your runners analogy very much.

However, you labeled my type of photography as something LESS (less intense)... I am offended!  >:( >:( >:(



P.S. Just kidding (about being offended, not the analogy)
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: James Clark on February 20, 2013, 09:41:21 pm
Roger,

I agree with almost everything you posted, but, as fate would have it, it was the very first part of your post that gave me pause.   ;D

But perhaps a small clarification could be requested - when you refer to "less intense picture makers" and "more intense picture makers,"  are you referring to people who make less intense pictures vs. those who make more intense pictures, or are you referring to those who make *any* pictures more, or less intensely?  That is to say, is your separation a question of the pictures/art itself, or is it a question of the attitude various people take in creating their art?

Does this make any sense?  :) 
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 20, 2013, 10:07:03 pm
What isn't being said here is that Slobodan early on agreed with my short "executive summary" of this photograph. Here he says, "Thank you for the "executive summary." It told me all I needed to know. There is a compliment ("beautiful" - thank you) and there is criticism ("plasticized" - thank you again). And I agree with both." He has repeated his agreement more than once. I gave him his due straight away before moving on to any in-depth comments. And, that due was positive.

There's an irony in all this whining about elitism now. The first few photographs I posted, had several of the 'gang' here waiting to salt their comments with "snapshot" - the oldest, and most pretentious put-down possible.  Every comment had to have "snapshot" worked in. Now, as I refer to this photograph as a pretty picture, the outrage is full-throated, and the indignant accusations of elitism are non-stop.

Here was the arrogant, and simply crude RSL on his very first comment to me, "Guy, Sorry, but what I see is one high-school type snapshot and two environmental portraits -- no street photography. You need to go to a library or bookstore, pick up a book of Cartier-Bresson's photographs, and study it."

And a few days later the chief complainer here, Slobodan said of my photograph, "The lesser the photograph, the more bloated the justification?"

Now, they are all indignant that I didn't fawn over this uninteresting photograph. I am an elitist. This is a classic double-standard. I'd suggest reading what I wrote for the many other photographs that I have critiqued here. Dozens, I think.

I have a well considered set of criteria for what I think makes an interesting photograph. Others have theirs. And just as we get to post whatever kind of photograph we want here, I think we can also post whatever kind of critique we want here. There are no objective standards for either.
 
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: James Clark on February 20, 2013, 10:36:01 pm

Now, they are all indignant that I didn't fawn over this uninteresting photograph. I am an elitist. This is a classic double-standard. I'd suggest reading what I wrote for the many other photographs that I have critiqued here. Dozens, I think.

I don't see any indignation at the fact that you (or anyone) didn't "fawn over" This particular Slobodon photograph.  I can only speak for myself, but my reaction isn't that this particular photo is amazingly good and any opinion to the contrary is elitist, it's rather the question of what constitues a serious photograph. Put another way, good or bad technically, why is this Slobodon photo not "good art?"   What is it about your square B&W harbor shot, for example, that warrants more serious consideration (or less dismissal) than this Slobodon photo, understanding that I have no issue whatsoever with your square harbor shot, but I would take exception to it being labeled as obviously more "serious" art than is the subject of this thread.

Quote from: RedwoodGuy
I have a well considered set of criteria for what I think makes an interesting photograph. Others have theirs. And just as we get to post whatever kind of photograph we want here, I think we can also post whatever kind of critique we want here. There are no objective standards for either.

I'm down with that.  I fall firmly in the "if you don't want to read 4 paragraphs, skip them" school of thought.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: dmerger on February 20, 2013, 10:45:27 pm
Congratulations, a bunch of grown men have managed to do a great imitation of the movie “Mean Girls”.   :-*
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 20, 2013, 11:05:38 pm
Congratulations, a bunch of grown men have managed to do a great imitation of the movie “Mean Girls”.   :-*

Which one are you then? Which one of the Mean Girls, that is? :P
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: rogerxnz on February 21, 2013, 01:06:41 am
Roger,

I agree with almost everything you posted, but, as fate would have it, it was the very first part of your post that gave me pause.   ;D

But perhaps a small clarification could be requested - when you refer to "less intense picture makers" and "more intense picture makers,"  are you referring to people who make less intense pictures vs. those who make more intense pictures, or are you referring to those who make *any* pictures more, or less intensely?  That is to say, is your separation a question of the pictures/art itself, or is it a question of the attitude various people take in creating their art? 

I am referring to the intenseness of the attitude behind the making of the picture and I agree refinement is required to what I posted before.

I feel that people should not be classified as belonging to one group (intense picture makers or less intense picture makers) or the other and everyone should be free to post intense and less intense images as they wish. The main thing is to avoid getting intense critiques on images which the maker does not require or appreciate. Horses for courses!

So, people posting less intense pictures can avoid grief and "fluff" by indicating either that their image is not an intense one as I described in my previous posting above or saying they only want brief comments.

If posters are pleased to accept any considered critiques, they can carry on before

In my opinion, if someone has spent time expressing a view on your image, it is simply rude to attack the reviewer or the review just because you cannot understand what has been written or you feel the review is too long.

So, please, if you don't appreciate intense reviews, make that clear when you post your picture.
Roger
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 21, 2013, 01:18:30 am
    What is it about your square B&W harbor shot, for example, that warrants more serious consideration (or less dismissal) than this Slobodon photo, understanding that I have no issue whatsoever with your square harbor shot, but I would take exception to it being labeled as obviously more "serious" art than is the subject of this thread.
 
We have to be clear here----
I have never said any photo I posted was more "serious" than some other,  or any other such word. Are you confusing me with some other poster? Not once, not ever, I have made any such claim. Nor would I.

We're over complicating this. If people don't like a photograph, they can why.

As to this photograph in this thread, I said exactly why.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: William Walker on February 21, 2013, 01:29:00 am
So, finally  ;D - all is good in Lula-land...

Red, if I can make one final suggestion? I know you have had a hard time here, but, take a few deep breaths, don't be too defensive, and then please go to the "Valley Of Desolation" thread and tell me what you think of my picture (the second pic posted)!

Hold nothing back, I'm a big boy!

William
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: stamper on February 21, 2013, 04:14:34 am
Walter, I have to agree with what you're saying. It doesn't bother me that he's insulting. I've been insulted by far sharper wits than his. What bothers me is that in order to get to something in one of his extended critiques that makes sense you have to slog through all the other stuff that doesn't make sense. I think of the old saw about monkeys writing the Bible given enough time on the typewriter. But imagine the pile of random stuff in between. That's pretty much what I see. Yes, there's an occasional gem in there but a bit of brevity would be refreshing. With brevity he might be a valuable contributor.
[/color]

This is for me the best summing up of the debate. Not too long or to short. Concise and to the point. Something that a lot of members don't seem to appreciate and could state their point of view in half the amount of words they use.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: stamper on February 21, 2013, 04:16:55 am
So, finally  ;D - all is good in Lula-land...

Red, if I can make one final suggestion? I know you have had a hard time here, but, take a few deep breaths, don't be too defensive, and then please go to the "Valley Of Desolation" thread and tell me what you think of my picture (the second pic posted)!

Hold nothing back, I'm a big boy!

William

It would be better if you started your own thread before inviting a member to comment on it?
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: William Walker on February 21, 2013, 04:27:52 am
It would be better if you started your own thread before inviting a member to comment on it?

Hey Stamp! Were you a policeman in another life?

Go and have a look what I wrote to Heinz, see if that passes the "Stamper Test".  ??? ;D
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: stamper on February 21, 2013, 04:32:55 am
If you agree with me about my post then why the personalisation in the above one?   :(
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: William Walker on February 21, 2013, 04:36:33 am
If you agree with me about my post then why the personalisation in the above one?   :(

You always give me a hard time here...but I still love you anyway! ;D
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: stamper on February 21, 2013, 05:02:41 am
If you think it is hard then you don't really know me.  ;) ;D Cheers.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: amolitor on February 21, 2013, 06:52:12 am
Maybe we do have a double standard, I dunno.

There's definitely a difference between some fellow we do not know showing up and posting a collection of what appears to be vernacular photography, and a long-time contributor posting what is clearly a carefully thought out and made photograph. This is quite apart from whether we like anything in the first collection, and whether we like Slobodan's carefully crafted photograph.

I think we can be justified in approaching the second with more care and thoughtfulness, because of Slobodan's track record of insightful commentary and careful work, AND because of the evident care with which the photograph was made. It may not be nice, it certainly isn't generous, but it's normal and human to be dismissive of a collection of vernacular work. Why should we assume that such a collection was carefully made? There are 100 billion vernacular photographs out there, almost none of them were carefully made. Almost none of them are worth a second look. We would be foolish to assume that a sample of 5 or 6 shown to us effectively at random is anything special, is carefully made, and it worth a second look. It's not generous, but it's efficient.

And, for reference, I think many of us did take a second and third look. I know I did.

Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 21, 2013, 10:47:52 am
Maybe we do have a double standard, I dunno.

There's definitely a difference between some fellow we do not know showing up and posting a collection of what appears to be vernacular photography, and a long-time contributor posting what is clearly a carefully thought out and made photograph. This is quite apart from whether we like anything in the first collection, and whether we like Slobodan's carefully crafted photograph.

 
If only time spent was a measure of quality, right? I see photographs all the time which have undergone 40 hours of photoshop work. They aren't an ounce better than the moment they were captured for all the "careful crafting." You've revealed another of your misunderstands about photography.  If only photoshopping could make great photographs! (I pointed out carefully that this type of work is an example of the graphic arts, but not so much about photography.)

And, this isn't a private club as you attempt to describe above with a nasty interloper showing up to spoil the day. Some fellow we don't know? Honestly. If anything, this began with quite the opposite story, didn't it? A "new" poster shows up, and the rudest and crudest come out to hector him. Not quite how you put it, is it?

Since I've been here Slobodan has posted two photographs, I have posted about two dozen. His two photographs then have to stand on their own as far as my critique goes. Since when does "time spent" add to the quality of a photograph, under any standard? How about the time it takes a guy to hike to the canyon top. Does that count too? A week of hiking automatically makes the photo good? This is an absurd notion now that all one has to do is spend more time. And for that matter, how would you know anything about the time I spend taking a photograph? (And wasn't it you who was just looking up the definition of "vernacular photography" a couple days ago?)

I see the photographer whining petulantly because someone didn't like his photograph, and I see all the faithful dreaming up reason after reason that he has been wronged. Here's what I don't see: I don't see anyone writing a critique of that photograph to justify their opinion of why it is so great. Nor do I see a rebuttal of my own critique. Nor, do I see many photographs that go deeper than a photoshop layer. Photography is one of our highest art forms, and these days it is also one of the most popular crafts because everyone can be a "home photographer". Snag an outline with a camera, run it through photoshop, out comes a nice craft.  I think Roger last night suggested an intense vs. less intense split. I think the more appropriate split is craft vs. art. I always assume photography as an art. If you are posting a craft photo, maybe identify it as such, I will look at it differently.

I did make a mistake when I came to this forum. I did not ask who was an artist. I considered it rude. I assumed everyone posting photographs here was an artist using the photographic medium. And, I based all of my critique on art principles. Now, I am being told there is more of a craft set here. I will adjust to that reality.

 



Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: stamper on February 21, 2013, 10:49:49 am
Quote amolitor

Why should we assume that such a collection was carefully made? There are 100 billion vernacular photographs out there, almost none of them were carefully made.

Unquote

How long does it take to look at a 100 billion vernacular photographs and establish if they were carefully made? ::)
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: amolitor on February 21, 2013, 10:51:03 am
How long does it take to look at a 100 billion vernacular photographs and establish if they were carefully made? ::)

Well, it took me about 2 and half weeks, but I'm pretty quick.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 21, 2013, 10:58:41 am
Quote amolitor

Why should we assume that such a collection was carefully made? There are 100 billion vernacular photographs out there, almost none of them were carefully made.

Unquote

How long does it take to look at a 100 billion vernacular photographs and establish if they were carefully made? ::)
You shouldn't assume anything. You should look at the photograph, not the photographer. Just as I assumed nothing about how many hours of "careful crafting" might have gone into the photograph in this thread.

I asked, "How do you know anything about the time it took me to do a photograph?" To make the point that time is not the point in ANY photograph.  We don't post at the top: "36 hours to photograph + 22 hours of photoshop." The time to make something is meaningless.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: amolitor on February 21, 2013, 10:59:59 am
If only time spent was a [...] there is more of a craft set here. I will adjust to that reality.

Aaand, we just continue to talk right past each other. I wish I could communicate effectively with you, but it appears to be hopeless.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 21, 2013, 12:43:21 pm
I have had no trouble understanding your comments.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: amolitor on February 21, 2013, 12:55:02 pm
I have had no trouble understanding your comments.

I am happy to stipulate that the communication problem is in one direction only. Nonetheless, I am only rarely able to discern any connection between things you write in response to me, and the remarks to which you are putatively responding. Whether the failure is one direction ort two, and in which direction, is moot. Successful conversation requires both.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 21, 2013, 02:00:57 pm
I am happy to stipulate that the communication problem is in one direction only. Nonetheless, I am only rarely able to discern any connection between things you write in response to me, and the remarks to which you are putatively responding. Whether the failure is one direction ort two, and in which direction, is moot. Successful conversation requires both.
When I don't understand what someone said or the meaning of it, I ask for clarification.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: James Clark on February 21, 2013, 03:12:38 pm
We have to be clear here----
I have never said any photo I posted was more "serious" than some other,  or any other such word. Are you confusing me with some other poster? Not once, not ever, I have made any such claim. Nor would I.

We're over complicating this. If people don't like a photograph, they can why.

As to this photograph in this thread, I said exactly why.

And I too have to be clear - I was just using your photo as an example (i.e. picking two photos to compare theoretically), and I picked yours and Slobodon's because of the general direction of the thread.  I don't believe you made a relative judgment of that kind and didn't mean to imply that you did.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 21, 2013, 03:27:29 pm
And I too have to be clear - I was just using your photo as an example (i.e. picking two photos to compare theoretically), and I picked yours and Slobodon's because of the general direction of the thread.  I don't believe you made a relative judgment of that kind and didn't mean to imply that you did.
Thank you for clearing up your end! Really, I appreciate it, and now I fully understand your comments.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 21, 2013, 04:25:31 pm
If only time spent was a measure of quality, right? I see photographs all the time which have undergone 40 hours of photoshop work. They aren't an ounce better than the moment they were captured for all the "careful crafting."

I beg to differ. Not all photographs are better after PS, but some certainly are. GIGO principle applies here as well.

Take for example the attached triptych.

- Is the first one, the "moment it was captured," the only true one and the best one (if it can't be made better in PS, then it is already at its best, right?)

- Is the second one, which underwent those 40+ hours of PS, a lie, worse, better, the same?

- Would #1 end up on a cover of a magazine?
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 21, 2013, 05:23:45 pm
I beg to differ. Not all photographs are better after PS, but some certainly are. GIGO principle applies here as well.

Take for example the attached triptych.

- Is the first one, the "moment it was captured," the only true one and the best one (if it can't be made better in PS, then it is already at its best, right?)

- Is the second one, which underwent those 40+ hours of PS, a lie, worse, better, the same?

- Would #1 end up on a cover of a magazine?

You have the perfect right to differ all you like on the photographs you see. My comment was about "many of the photographs I see which have undergone many hours of photoshop." You are commenting on things you see, I am commenting on things I see. I never said a word about "all photographs." Not a word.

To your questions....
The questions are irrelevant to me. It might be relevant to you because of what you are going to do with the picture. To me, a good photograph has not a thing to do with being the backdrop for an advert. I could care less if the advert is for Coke or Nike or whatever. Such a use doesn't imply anything to me about the quality of a photograph intrinsically. It might mean the photograph has utility to an advertiser, but how could I care about that? Under what reasoning here would I care if a photograph was on the cover of a magazine?

And when I say "truth" I don't mean an unretouched negative. I am not referring to physical evidence. I have made no claim that a photograph that has been adjusted is no longer truthful by virtue of just that process. I have said that you can (it is possible) wring the truth out of a photograph using that process. That's not the same thing.

Probably what is happening here is an assumption about values. Selling something to someone means nothing to me. I've seen people open their wallets and give real money to a guy selling black velvet painting of Elvis. Should that imply I must consider that painting good, because someone paid money for it?

Satisfying the needs and requirements of a buyer is a good skill. It can be a profitable skill too. But I don't look at these photos and make my judgement about them based on how many were sold and to whom and for what purpose. 
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 21, 2013, 05:57:19 pm
... I never said... I don't mean... I am not referring... I have made no claim... I don't look...

Then what did you say?

The trouble with your verbose posts is that you say so many things, in so many ways, over so many posts, and in so many threads, that, when cornered with a single specific statement, you always weasel out with "I did not mean that." When asked what did you say, or what did you mean, you resort to another verbose, obfuscating pile of pseudo-intellectual, but ultimately charlatan sentences, good only to fool the gullible. After all, charlatans always find their audience, at least initially, as being seductive and sounding persuasive is exactly part of their toolbox of tricks.

In your posts, you raise so many issues, state so many wrongs, create so many internal inconsistencies, that rebutting it would turn into a full-time job.

Frankly, you are not worth it.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 21, 2013, 08:46:56 pm
Then what did you say?

The trouble with your verbose posts is that you say so many things, in so many ways, over so many posts, and in so many threads, that, when cornered with a single specific statement, you always weasel out with "I did not mean that." When asked what did you say, or what did you mean, you resort to another verbose, obfuscating pile of pseudo-intellectual, but ultimately charlatan sentences, good only to fool the gullible. After all, charlatans always find their audience, at least initially, as being seductive and sounding persuasive is exactly part of their toolbox of tricks.

In your posts, you raise so many issues, state so many wrongs, create so many internal inconsistencies, that rebutting it would turn into a full-time job.

Frankly, you are not worth it.
When you are unable to follow the discussion in detail, it's best not to jump in. You're in way over your head. A discussion like this is not like trading quips about testicles. There's logic to be followed, and specific words really do mean specific things. Uh, "some" and "all" to begin with.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: rogerxnz on February 21, 2013, 09:22:14 pm
Then what did you say?

The trouble with your verbose posts is that you say so many things, in so many ways, over so many posts, and in so many threads, that, when cornered with a single specific statement, you always weasel out with "I did not mean that." When asked what did you say, or what did you mean, you resort to another verbose, obfuscating pile of pseudo-intellectual, but ultimately charlatan sentences, good only to fool the gullible. After all, charlatans always find their audience, at least initially, as being seductive and sounding persuasive is exactly part of their toolbox of tricks.

In your posts, you raise so many issues, state so many wrongs, create so many internal inconsistencies, that rebutting it would turn into a full-time job.


Slobodan, why do you feel you have to argue with RG so much? Why not just appreciate that, even if you disagree with his comments or the length of his posts, he spends significant amounts of time expressing his opinions, which is what this forum is all about. If RG comments about one of your photos, just thank him and move on.

Your whining about not be able to understand what RG says and the number of words he uses does no credit to you and, in my opinion, is childlike behaviour.

Quote
Frankly, you are not worth it.

This behaviour is not acceptable, in my opinion. You are attacking a fellow forum member personally and again is child-like. Fair enough to debate content if you think it is necessary or worthwhile but you seem are out of control. Get a grip—we are only here to discuss photos, not start a world war!

Next, you will be saying that RG started it!

I vote that this discussion on critiques be moved to a new thread.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 21, 2013, 10:46:09 pm
Slobodan, why do you feel you have to argue with RG so much? ...  just thank him and move on...

Some of you argued that he should be allowed to post whatever he wants and at whatever length. Are you now telling me that I can't!?

Quote
... Your whining about not be able to understand what RG says and the number of words he uses does no credit to you and, in my opinion, is childlike behaviour...

Oh, I understand perfectly well what he says... I just said that rebutting it would be a full-time job and thus not worth the effort. And it wasn't whining... more like disgust.

Quote
... This behaviour is not acceptable, in my opinion. You are attacking a fellow forum member personally and again is child-like. Fair enough to debate content if you think it is necessary or worthwhile but you seem are out of control. Get a grip...

Aren't you doing the same?

EDiT: Btw, I am not attacking a "fellow forum member personally," as "he" has not introduced himself... I am referring to his internet persona.

Quote
I vote that this discussion on critiques be moved to a new thread.

You and what army? Feel free to vote on your own thread.

Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: rogerxnz on February 22, 2013, 12:28:33 am
I think Roger last night suggested an intense vs. less intense split. I think the more appropriate split is craft vs. art. I always assume photography as an art. If you are posting a craft photo, maybe identify it as such, I will look at it differently.

I think we can avoid categorising people or images as intense/less intense or craft/art or shades in between. No matter what terms are selected, it always sounds like elitism.

I now consider that the problem is simply that some members do not like in-depth or long critiques or those that deal with feelings and emotions. Previously, members have used derogatory expressions to refer to such critiques as "verbose" and "fluff".

I think we do not need to categorise the posters or the images as intense/less intense or craft/art or whatever. All we need to do is to establish an etiquette that says that if you get a critique which you do not like for any reason, you just ask politely for clarification or you just give thanks and move on.

After all, why would you want to be rude to someone who has spent time and gone to some effort to give their thoughts on your work?

What members should not do is attack the reviewer for any reason. After all, attacking a review or a reviewer because you do not understand their critique only establishes doubt as to your own intelligence.

So, if all members would just politely move past critiques which do not suit their needs, we should have a calmer forum. That is not to say that members cannot ask critiquers for clarification but I would hope they will do so politely.

The above approach hopefully avoids all suggestions of elitism and any need to categorise members or images.
Roger
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 22, 2013, 02:03:35 am
Roger, that lovely scenario you are sugesting sounds awfully like Emperor's New Clothes.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: amolitor on February 22, 2013, 07:53:11 am
Once again, it's very easy to suggest that everyone be calm and nice when you have not been the target of the crazy person's rantings.

RG isn't just a different personality that's rubbing a few of us the wrong way, in my opinion. I don't give a damn how long his posts go on, and his bloviating nonsense is only mildly irritating. The truly offensive behavior is when he attacks based on a mis-reading of a few phrases in a post you've made. He's a guy who isn't interested in what anyone has to say, only what he has to say. He's not a contributor in any meaningful way.

I dare you to find a single instance of a case where he has clearly read a post of more than a couple of lines in length, and made a cogent response to the central remarks made in that post. You won't find one. He writes at length, but won't read much of anything, and becomes wildly angry when he perceives he is being attacked, which he does quite a lot of the time quite independently of whether he's being attacked.

If you like his critiques, and find them helpful, well, that's great. Just don't try to engage him in conversation, it won't go anywhere and it'll probably blow up. You may not care, but me, I like the possibility for conversation and debate that a forum offers.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: dmerger on February 22, 2013, 08:25:58 am
Slobodan, why do you feel you have to argue with RG so much? Why not just appreciate that, even if you disagree with his comments or the length of his posts, he spends significant amounts of time expressing his opinions, which is what this forum is all about. If RG comments about one of your photos, just thank him and move on.

Your whining about not be able to understand what RG says and the number of words he uses does no credit to you and, in my opinion, is childlike behaviour.

This behaviour is not acceptable, in my opinion. You are attacking a fellow forum member personally and again is child-like. Fair enough to debate content if you think it is necessary or worthwhile but you seem are out of control. Get a grip—we are only here to discuss photos, not start a world war!

Roger, I agree with you, but think your comment is also applicable to others, not just Slobodan.  As we've seen, however, your efforts are in vain.  

RG, nobody's saying that you haven't the right to post whatever you like. By all means, post whatever you like!

What they're saying is that you're an idiot. I'm pretty sure we have a right to a) hold that opinion and b) state it from time to time, as appropriate.

Andrew, there is no rational way to justify calling RG an idiot!  You should apologize, and look at your own behavior.  You may not agree with what RG writes, or his writing style, but calling him an idiot is way, way out of bounds.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: amolitor on February 22, 2013, 09:16:58 am
I decline to be lectured to, and stand by my opinion that he is an idiot, although the astute reader will notice that I did NOT call him an idiot. It is arguably implied in my remark, and I certainly think it's true, but the remark doesn't say that.
Title: Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
Post by: Christopher Sanderson on February 22, 2013, 09:26:54 am
Folks, try and restrict your comments to photography and not other Forum members.

Eventually, when we get tired of 'Report to Moderator' messages, the topic gets locked and when the abuse reaches 'idiot' proportions, the offender gets turfed.

Please respect others and acknowledge the fact that the Forum is made up of many very different voices, opinions and abilities.