Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Last Rays on Devil's Tower  (Read 13381 times)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9365
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
« Reply #80 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)

James Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 418
Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
« Reply #81 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?  :) 
Logged

RedwoodGuy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
« Reply #82 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.
 
Logged

James Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 418
Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
« Reply #83 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.
Logged

dmerger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 680
Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
« Reply #84 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”.   :-*
Logged
Dean Erger

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9365
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
« Reply #85 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

rogerxnz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 431
    • Hayman Lawyers
Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
« Reply #86 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
Logged
Roger Hayman
Wellington, New Zealand

RedwoodGuy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
« Reply #87 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.
Logged

William Walker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 692
    • William Walker Landscapes
Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
« Reply #88 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

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4770
Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
« Reply #89 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.

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4770
Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
« Reply #90 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?

William Walker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 692
    • William Walker Landscapes
Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
« Reply #91 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

William Walker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 692
    • William Walker Landscapes
Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
« Reply #93 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

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
« Reply #95 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.

Logged

RedwoodGuy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
« Reply #96 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.

 



Logged

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4770
Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
« Reply #97 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? ::)

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
« Reply #98 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.
Logged

RedwoodGuy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
Re: Last Rays on Devil's Tower
« Reply #99 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Up