Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Down in SoCal  (Read 4617 times)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9406
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Down in SoCal
« Reply #20 on: February 17, 2013, 06:38:48 PM »

They have online dictionaries now where you can find the meaning of a word you are actually looking for. I think my use of 'value' will be contained in there.

Now you've outdone yourself, however impossible that might be. That was a sincere, genuine question I asked, no implied insult, ridicule or whatever.

And what did you do? Your response is:

a) patronizing and condescending

b) not answering my direct question (ie, "What type of value, advice or help are you actually looking for?")

RedwoodGuy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
Re: Down in SoCal
« Reply #21 on: February 17, 2013, 08:34:04 PM »

Now you've outdone yourself, however impossible that might be. That was a sincere, genuine question I asked, no implied insult, ridicule or whatever.

And what did you do? Your response is:

a) patronizing and condescending

b) not answering my direct question (ie, "What type of value, advice or help are you actually looking for?")
Your specialty here seems to be word games then? Value is not a hard word to understand. I answered it very clearly that my use of the word "value" is found within any standard definition of value. Here's an idea for you....let's talk about photography. What do you say? My interest in your word games is ZERO. 
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9406
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Down in SoCal
« Reply #22 on: February 17, 2013, 09:20:31 PM »

Your specialty here seems to be word games then? Value is not a hard word to understand. I answered it very clearly that my use of the word "value" is found within any standard definition of value. Here's an idea for you....let's talk about photography. What do you say? My interest in your word games is ZERO. 


I am all for it. So, lets do it. Please answer the following question, related to your OP photograph:

What type of value, advice or help are you actually looking for (when receiving critique)?

Looking into dictionary is not going to help me determine what type, nor what you are looking for, hence the direct question to you, related to photography.

RedwoodGuy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
Re: Down in SoCal
« Reply #23 on: February 17, 2013, 10:04:12 PM »

I am all for it. So, lets do it. Please answer the following question, related to your OP photograph:

What type of value, advice or help are you actually looking for (when receiving critique)?

Looking into dictionary is not going to help me determine what type, nor what you are looking for, hence the direct question to you, related to photography.
You guys really spend your time doing this, don't you? I have never seen so little photographic discussion in a photographic forum. Are you guys simply afraid to talk seriously about photography? I mean, based on some of the nonsensical talk here, I am coming to the conclusion quickly that photography is the LAST thing anyone here wants to face.

My dictionary contains this common use:
relative worth, utility, or importance.

When I said there was "zero value" in the other guy's comment, I meant it had no worth, no utility, and no importance. Since it had NONE of any of those things by his choice, I can't hardly tell you which thing of value he might of offered, can I? But in general, opinions related to photographic principles have some worth, suggestions for improving a photograph might have some utility, and seeing a flaw I didn't see in the photograph might have some importance.

I'm expecting you to now ask what is worth, or utility or importance, right? And the game can go on endlessly. I think I get it though. I am seeing - through you and Chris  - why I am such an irritant. What this forum comprises is basically computer jockeys. You capture something on the card. You load it into the computer and then spend countless hours sliding the levers until some insanely colorful image appears on the screen. Then you post it here, and talk about the sliders - like this:
QUOTE
In this particular instance, after isolating just the sky, I used SEP2 to create a B&W layer (full dynamic, smooth). I changed the blend to Luminosity and lowered the opactiy to 67%. To counter some of the grain created by SEP2, I did a noise reduction using "despeckle" only. Next, on a copy of the  B&W sky layer I used a blend mode of "screen" at 17%, flattened and it was finished. I am using CS6 but I think all these are available in LR4. If you don't have SEP/SEP2, make a copy of the original, use the B&W conversion adjustment and use that for your blend layer. I tend to add a bit more contrast when doing it by that method, but in the end, it's pretty close to the same.
END QUOTE

And that's what at least some of you think is photography. Talk about making my head explode. So, yes, I start asking photographic questions, or commenting on the art or the artist, and you attack me as though I was from Mars. Even down to scrubbing my posts for the meaning of a single word, or the guy who enjoys scrubbing them fro grammar. Anything at all to stop this "photography talk."

It's humorous.
Logged

David Eckels

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1399
  • Paris sidewalk cafe
    • DavidEckelsPhotography.com
Re: Down in SoCal
« Reply #24 on: February 19, 2013, 01:26:28 PM »

This is an image with which I can connect, but I am trying to hone my analytical skills so I have to try to explain (to myself perhaps) why. First, is the complementarity of the intense blue and yellow. Second, the rounded shapes of the boulders that repeat off into the distance forming leading lines taking me into the depths of the photograph. I like the three dimensionality. It is curious from your earlier comment that you seem somewhat indifferent to it; maybe this is not an accurate interpretation. I would be proud of this image.

RedwoodGuy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
Re: Down in SoCal
« Reply #25 on: February 19, 2013, 01:52:15 PM »

This is an image with which I can connect, but I am trying to hone my analytical skills so I have to try to explain (to myself perhaps) why. First, is the complementarity of the intense blue and yellow. Second, the rounded shapes of the boulders that repeat off into the distance forming leading lines taking me into the depths of the photograph. I like the three dimensionality. It is curious from your earlier comment that you seem somewhat indifferent to it; maybe this is not an accurate interpretation. I would be proud of this image.
Maybe ambivalent is more accurate than indifferent? I like the photograph, but I usually don't find as much meaning (fulfillment) in this kind of photography as I do in my more typical photographic pursuits. For me, the greatest moment in photography is the instant of pressing the shutter release. THAT is photography for me, the inspirational rush of the chase process. Shooting in these hills had a more slow, analytic feel to me - more like engineering, or surveying. Not my usual process. I "knew with certainty" I could put a decent photograph down. I guess it was less suspenseful for me. I am glad you like it to some extent though - thank you.
Logged

Mjollnir

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 514
Re: Down in SoCal
« Reply #26 on: February 20, 2013, 10:58:06 AM »

You guys really spend your time doing this, don't you? I have never seen so little photographic discussion in a photographic forum. Are you guys simply afraid to talk seriously about photography? I mean, based on some of the nonsensical talk here, I am coming to the conclusion quickly that photography is the LAST thing anyone here wants to face.

My dictionary contains this common use:
relative worth, utility, or importance.

When I said there was "zero value" in the other guy's comment, I meant it had no worth, no utility, and no importance. Since it had NONE of any of those things by his choice, I can't hardly tell you which thing of value he might of offered, can I? But in general, opinions related to photographic principles have some worth, suggestions for improving a photograph might have some utility, and seeing a flaw I didn't see in the photograph might have some importance.

I'm expecting you to now ask what is worth, or utility or importance, right? And the game can go on endlessly. I think I get it though. I am seeing - through you and Chris  - why I am such an irritant. What this forum comprises is basically computer jockeys. You capture something on the card. You load it into the computer and then spend countless hours sliding the levers until some insanely colorful image appears on the screen. Then you post it here, and talk about the sliders - like this:
QUOTE
In this particular instance, after isolating just the sky, I used SEP2 to create a B&W layer (full dynamic, smooth). I changed the blend to Luminosity and lowered the opactiy to 67%. To counter some of the grain created by SEP2, I did a noise reduction using "despeckle" only. Next, on a copy of the  B&W sky layer I used a blend mode of "screen" at 17%, flattened and it was finished. I am using CS6 but I think all these are available in LR4. If you don't have SEP/SEP2, make a copy of the original, use the B&W conversion adjustment and use that for your blend layer. I tend to add a bit more contrast when doing it by that method, but in the end, it's pretty close to the same.
END QUOTE

And that's what at least some of you think is photography. Talk about making my head explode. So, yes, I start asking photographic questions, or commenting on the art or the artist, and you attack me as though I was from Mars. Even down to scrubbing my posts for the meaning of a single word, or the guy who enjoys scrubbing them fro grammar. Anything at all to stop this "photography talk."

It's humorous.

No, not really.

I think it more likely that you're an irritant because you respond like someone retaking a Photography 101 class at a community college for the 3rd time and and have utterly inflated sense of worth of your own rather pedantic comments.

That, coupled with baseless, borderline delusional suspicions about who frequents this board, isn't exactly a formula for being taken seriously.

Glad I could clear that up for you.
Logged

RedwoodGuy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
Re: Down in SoCal
« Reply #27 on: February 20, 2013, 11:28:20 AM »

No, not really.

I think it more likely that you're an irritant because you respond like someone retaking a Photography 101 class at a community college for the 3rd time and and have utterly inflated sense of worth of your own rather pedantic comments.

That, coupled with baseless, borderline delusional suspicions about who frequents this board, isn't exactly a formula for being taken seriously.

Glad I could clear that up for you.
This is a "User Critique" forum. I feel I must inform you that the meaning isn't to critique the users, it is for users to critique the photographs. Your bitter and filthy personal thoughts about the character of others don't fit into this forum purpose.
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8356
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Down in SoCal
« Reply #28 on: February 20, 2013, 11:50:39 AM »

You guys really spend your time doing this, don't you? I have never seen so little photographic discussion in a photographic forum. Are you guys simply afraid to talk seriously about photography? I mean, based on some of the nonsensical talk here, I am coming to the conclusion quickly that photography is the LAST thing anyone here wants to face.

My dictionary contains this common use:
relative worth, utility, or importance.

When I said there was "zero value" in the other guy's comment, I meant it had no worth, no utility, and no importance. Since it had NONE of any of those things by his choice, I can't hardly tell you which thing of value he might of offered, can I? But in general, opinions related to photographic principles have some worth, suggestions for improving a photograph might have some utility, and seeing a flaw I didn't see in the photograph might have some importance.

I'm expecting you to now ask what is worth, or utility or importance, right? And the game can go on endlessly. I think I get it though. I am seeing - through you and Chris  - why I am such an irritant. What this forum comprises is basically computer jockeys. You capture something on the card. You load it into the computer and then spend countless hours sliding the levers until some insanely colorful image appears on the screen. Then you post it here, and talk about the sliders - like this:
QUOTE
In this particular instance, after isolating just the sky, I used SEP2 to create a B&W layer (full dynamic, smooth). I changed the blend to Luminosity and lowered the opactiy to 67%. To counter some of the grain created by SEP2, I did a noise reduction using "despeckle" only. Next, on a copy of the  B&W sky layer I used a blend mode of "screen" at 17%, flattened and it was finished. I am using CS6 but I think all these are available in LR4. If you don't have SEP/SEP2, make a copy of the original, use the B&W conversion adjustment and use that for your blend layer. I tend to add a bit more contrast when doing it by that method, but in the end, it's pretty close to the same.
END QUOTE

And that's what at least some of you think is photography. Talk about making my head explode. So, yes, I start asking photographic questions, or commenting on the art or the artist, and you attack me as though I was from Mars. Even down to scrubbing my posts for the meaning of a single word, or the guy who enjoys scrubbing them fro grammar. Anything at all to stop this "photography talk."

It's humorous.

Yes, the stuff you write certainly is humorous, I'll give you that. Do you make a lot of money writing artists' statements?

Frankly, kidding aside, before I can take your extended writings seriously I need to see some of your serious work; not the occasional junk you've been posting. Do you have a web site? Please tell us about your awards and /or the publications in which your work has appeared. If you're going to go to such lengths to expose our photographic flaws, and if we're to take the junk you write seriously it seems to me we ought to know something of your background and qualifications.

RedwoodGuy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
Re: Down in SoCal
« Reply #29 on: February 20, 2013, 11:54:10 AM »

Yes, the stuff you write certainly is humorous, I'll give you that. Do you make a lot of money writing artists' statements?

Frankly, kidding aside, before I can take your extended writings seriously I need to see some of your serious work; not the occasional junk you've been posting. Do you have a web site? Please tell us about your awards and /or the publications in which your work has appeared. If you're going to go to such lengths to expose our photographic flaws, and if we're to take the junk you write seriously it seems to me we ought to know something of your background and qualifications.


What are the qualifications to post here then?
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8356
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Down in SoCal
« Reply #30 on: February 20, 2013, 11:58:55 AM »

No qualifications. You can post to your heart's content and write to your heart's content, but if we're to take what you write seriously we need to have at least some idea where all this extended ability to criticize comes from. Telling us your art background might help, though it's easy to make up stories about that kind of thing. But if you can show us a body of work that demonstrates you know what you're talking about posters might take you more seriously. Right now, the stuff you've been writing comes off as just plain funny.

RedwoodGuy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
Re: Down in SoCal
« Reply #31 on: February 20, 2013, 12:06:54 PM »

No qualifications. You can post to your heart's content and write to your heart's content, but if we're to take what you write seriously we need to have at least some idea where all this extended ability to criticize comes from. Telling us your art background might help, though it's easy to make up stories about that kind of thing. But if you can show us a body of work that demonstrates you know what you're talking about posters might take you more seriously. Right now, the stuff you've been writing comes off as just plain funny.

Correct. No qualifications are necessary. And no one is under any obligation to take my posts seriously, and more than I take theirs seriously. Where did that come from? Here's how it works: People post what they like, read what they like, view what they like, critique how they like, and are free to roam, skip, ignore, respond, accept, reject, or complain about what anyone else does, except to the extent it becomes uncivil, which here seems to be unbounded.

As far as I am aware, you are not an authority here which can demand anything from me including bodies of work, my income sources, my education, my art background or my blood type. I can't say I have seen a more pompous request since I have been here. Learn to use your mouse. That's the best answer I can afford you.
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8356
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Down in SoCal
« Reply #32 on: February 20, 2013, 12:15:00 PM »

You're right, my friend. You don't have to show us any serious work and you don't have to explain your background. But we don't have to take you seriously either. From what I'm seeing it looks as if almost nobody is taking you seriously, so you might at least try to abbreviate your comments to save space on the threads.

RedwoodGuy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
Re: Down in SoCal
« Reply #33 on: February 20, 2013, 01:51:38 PM »

You're right, my friend. You don't have to show us any serious work and you don't have to explain your background. But we don't have to take you seriously either. From what I'm seeing it looks as if almost nobody is taking you seriously, so you might at least try to abbreviate your comments to save space on the threads.
I don't consider you an authority on any matters here either photographic, or procedural, and so I will continue to do what I am here to do, in the manner I see fit. No one here is obligated to take anyone else seriously. Maybe you have this confused with a private club you operate somewhere? 

Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8356
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Down in SoCal
« Reply #34 on: February 20, 2013, 01:58:25 PM »

No sweat, RG. Your posts are hilarious.

RedwoodGuy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
Re: Down in SoCal
« Reply #35 on: February 20, 2013, 02:04:58 PM »

No sweat, RG. Your posts are hilarious.
As was you comparing yourself to Lee Friedlander. As if being the next Cartier-Bresson wasn't enough?
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8356
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Down in SoCal
« Reply #36 on: February 20, 2013, 02:07:41 PM »

As I said, you're a funny guy -- inadvertently I'm sure.

l_d_allan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 208
    • Berean photos
Re: Down in SoCal
« Reply #37 on: March 03, 2013, 04:46:32 PM »

Excellent image. My first reaction was "too bad there wasn't an interesting sky", but then I came around to feeling that the cloudless sky contributed to the starkness of the scene.
  • There appears to be a cause-way at the near horizon on the right. This mildly detracts from the impression that the OP took this "in the middle of nowhere" or in some other-worldly location. Was this scene along the aquaduct?
  • The dark diagonal "something" (stick? footprint?) in the lower right is mildly distracting, at least to me.

Correct-length explanation as well.

Actually, the word "attached" doesn't really add anything. If anything, it is one word too long. Obviously, the thumbnail refers to an attachment. But am I being snarky to excess?

« Last Edit: March 03, 2013, 06:03:56 PM by l_d_allan »
Logged
retired in Colorado Springs, CO, USA ... hobby'ist with mostly Canon gear

Johnny_Johnson

  • Guest
Re: Down in SoCal
« Reply #38 on: March 03, 2013, 05:57:33 PM »

Actually, the word "attached" doesn't really add anything. If anything, it is one word too long. Obviously, the thumbnail refers to an attachment. But am I being snarky to excess?

Yes, join the crowd.

Cya,
Johnny
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9406
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Down in SoCal
« Reply #39 on: March 03, 2013, 06:24:27 PM »

... am I being snarky to excess?

No, just late to the party ;)
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up