Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Chris Calohan on August 13, 2013, 01:59:55 pm
-
More curious on this image as to overall tonal and color balance as well as how well the selective sharpening went. I am a work in progress. No image pixels were harmed in this production.
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2827/9501954279_395c9feaaf_o.jpg)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54965930@N07/9501954279/sizes/o/in/photostream/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/54965930@N07/9501954279/sizes/o/in/photostream/)
Detail of image
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5330/9502022047_a04b2a3724_o.jpg)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54965930@N07/9502022047/sizes/o/in/photostream/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/54965930@N07/9502022047/sizes/o/in/photostream/)
-
So, nothing? Sheese.
-
So, nothing? Sheese.
Isn't it a pity how brutal life can be?
Nobody deserves utter silence but I fear that I can't cheer you up. For me it isn't the best of your oeuvre to say it diplomatically.
Harald
-
Chris, They're nice tourist snaps.
-
Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
-
Nice long vista shot --- good exposure with the backlight situation ;)
-
Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
I'll buy you a beer this winter, Chris.
-
I'll need two. This is a hard crowd.
-
Chris,
How about trying Rob's Hasselfake crop of the upper portion and blocking up the lower tones so that the rocks are silhouettes and all remaining is blue and tan ?
Frank
-
Hey CHRIS Very :: Morley /Brett B&W view ~!!
Sorry for taking liberties :o
-
So, nothing? Sheese.
I only comment if I have something positive to say or a critique that I feel might be of use. So... nothing! :P
Mike.
-
Hey CHRIS Very :: Morley /Brett B&W view ~!!
Sorry for taking liberties :o
Liberties are always fine. The only objection I've had to any of the comments was from Russ that it was a nice tourist shot...as I didn't make the shot as would the average tourist even though I was touring. I understand his POV but it is a rare moment when I put the camera to eye and just snip one off. But each of us will always see things differently, both through the lens and through our eyes.
-
Hey CHRIS Very :: Morley /Brett B&W view ~!!
I'm not familiar with this reference. Can someone share to what/who this is referring, or is it a LULA inside joke?
I've Googled, and I get a kid in North Carolina, a milliner in Australia, and a lawyer in New Zealand.
-
Chris, a thought here. I think most people understand the phrase "nice tourist shot" to be a euphemism for just an average shot. Your shot is not a great one and that is what the phrase was referring to I imagine....although Joe's B/W take on it was interesting.
-
There is the possibility - though not in this instance - that some members will be less "praiseworthy" because they may have had "difficulties" with other members in the past and take an "opportunity" to deride an image that is in reality worthy of praise. This may sound paranoid but is a distinct possibility? :(
-
I'll need two. This is a hard crowd.
You've got it. Me too.
-
I'm not familiar with this reference. Can someone share to what/who this is referring...
My guess -- Morley Baer (http://www.photographywest.com/pages/baer_photos.html), Brett Weston (http://www.brettwestonarchive.com/brettweston).
-
I think most people understand the phrase "nice tourist shot" to be a euphemism for just an average shot.
I understand it to be self-satisfied damning with faint praise when it's too much effort to think of something useful to say ;-)
-
(http://i.ebayimg.com/t/BRETT-WESTON-GARRAPATA-BEACH-Original-Gelatin-Silver-Photograph-Signed-/00/s/NzY4WDEwMjQ=/$(KGrHqR,!iwE6H!--w+LBOtz70Uqow~~60_35.JPG)
My guess -- Morley Baer (http://www.photographywest.com/pages/baer_photos.html), Brett Weston (http://www.brettwestonarchive.com/brettweston).
Correcto !! Mundo ~!!
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTR7LheU5-400z19vOVpxuxmif1UnDMLleW9xLP9eCFKizJP588Og)
-
I understand it to be self-satisfied damning with faint praise when it's too much effort to think of something useful to say ;-)
Or it could be construed as a put down, not worthy of being in the category of a fine art image?
-
Any critique or comment (and this is the critiques and comments part of the forum) made with honest intent helps the OP in one fashion or another. I don't think Russ meant anything in a malicious way and nor did I construe my retort as a way of admonishing his opinion; it was merely one person's opinion vs another's. I did like that cjogo was able to make the connection to Baer and Weston and though there was no overt attempt to emulate them, their style of photography given my own background in photography will always have an influence. My challenge is to be able to get down to the same level where they shot in a much narrower time frame.
I realized the moment I began to download my images, I had to go back and spend a week, likely on that beach or others like it to really become immersed in getting "that" shot. And in Russ's sense, it was indeed a tourist shot as it was shot from high and not down on the beach where it needed proper attention.
I guess my only complaint and I would think this will hold true with other members is being ignored. There isn't a photo on this forum that isn't worthy of something positive and more than a few that could stand a slap or two (and usually don't get one). For instance, I posted a shot in the "Clouds" section yesterday which is really an outstanding shot and as good as many others posted in that section...yet no comments at all. In some ways it really makes posters reluctant to post. With few exceptions, there aren't five people on this forum who consistently produce outstanding images, yet, for the most part, they are fawned over like they were some kind of photographic gods. You may not think of me as a fine art photographer, but I didn't post this in the fine art section; I posted it where I thought I might get some constructive criticism. I cannot improve, grow or get better in PP without feedback. I think Isaac's comment was exceptionally rude but in my eye, until he posts shots of his own, his opinion is pretty much baseless. And so it goes.
-
I understand it to be self-satisfied damning with faint praise when it's too much effort to think of something useful to say ;-)
Astonishing!
Suppose I were to say that Gene Smith's picture of Doctor Ceriani with a cigarette and coffee, staring off into space after losing a patient is a nice tourist snap? Would anyone on LuLa accept that evaluation as straight criticism? I'm beginning to wonder.
No, Chris's shots of the Northern Cal coastline aren't in the same class as that Gene Smith classic, but they're obviously not tourist snaps either.
Maybe I'd better start using those kindergarten-level "emoticons." From Chris's "poke in the eye" comeback I'd guess he's not one of the people needing an emoticon to "get it." Calling something "a nice tourist snap" is a legitimate critique when the picture is a nice tourist snap. These pictures, very obviously, aren't.
-
I guess my only complaint and I would think this will hold true with other members is being ignored. There isn't a photo on this forum that isn't worthy of something positive and more than a few that could stand a slap or two (and usually don't get one). ... With few exceptions, there aren't five people on this forum who consistently produce outstanding images, yet, for the most part, they are fawned over like they were some kind of photographic gods.
otoh I agree.
otoh Useful critique is time-consuming hard work, and that makes it too much to expect.
-
Oh, come on, Isaac. How many pictures have you seen on here that would require "time-consuming hard work" to critique? Either the picture's good or it's not good. These pictures of Chris's have very good composition, good exposure and excellent post-processing. What can you say other than, "Good work, Chris?"
The usual "time-consuming" criticism is to suggest cropping off a chunk from the top or the bottom, or maybe moving the camera to the right or the left (a bit late for that), or bringing up shadows or killing blowouts, or waiting for different light. Is this kind of BS "hard work?"
A work of art has to stand on its own, but when a photograph that gets posted on here doesn't stand on its own, how often does somebody point that out? Honest criticism isn't hard work, but it does take cojones. So if something gets posted that requires real criticism: "it stinks," or "back to the drafting board," most of us hang back and simply let it glide on down and off the main page. It's always painful to puncture somebody's balloon because you know it hurts. In most cases people don't post pictures on here because they want a critique. What they want is a pat on the back, and in the majority of cases I've seen, that's appropriate.
How about posting some of your own work Isaac, so we can exert some "time-consuming hard work" tearing it to shreds.
-
Oh, come on, Isaac. How many pictures have you seen on here that would require "time-consuming hard work" to critique? Either the picture's good or it's not good. These pictures of Chris's have very good composition, good exposure and excellent post-processing. What can you say other than, "good work, Chris?"
The usual "time-consuming" criticism is to suggest cropping off a chunk from the top or the bottom, or maybe moving the camera to the right or the left (a bit late for that), or bringing up shadows or killing blowouts, or waiting for different light. Is this kind of BS "hard work?"
A work of art has to stand on its own, but when a photograph that gets posted on here doesn't stand on its own, how often does somebody point that out? Honest criticism isn't hard work, but it does take cojones. So if something gets posted that requires real criticism: "it stinks," or "back to the drafting board," most of us hang back and simply let it glide on down and off the main page. It's always painful to puncture somebody's balloon because you know it hurts. In most cases people don't post pictures on here because they want a critique. What they want is a pat on the back, and in the majority of cases I've seen, that's appropriate.
How about posting some of your own work Isaac, so we can exert some "time-consuming hard work" tearing it to shreds.
Here-here! +1
-
A lot depends on high the personal bar is set when critiquing an image. If someone expects the images to be as good as some of the "old masters" then nobody is going to pass muster. The vast majority of posters are "happy amateurs" who want a benchmark for what they are producing. I don't think that any professionals will post here because they are confident they are producing good work because it sells, though personally speaking I think that is a subjective appraisal based on monetary returns rather than taste? After a while, if you post images, you get a good idea of how good a critic is by what they say and if they themselves post work and are prepared to accept sensible criticism of what they post. Last but not least some of the critics seem to have personal agendas when making a critique which means they see a chance to give somebody a "kicking". :(
-
I'm not sure I agree, Stamper. Who are the "old masters?" Didn't know we had such a thing in photography. If we do have such a thing they're photographers like HCB and Gene Smith who concentrated on people and their environment. In the landscape department I've seen pictures here that can hold their own against most of Ansel's work. As far as professionals posting here is concerned, seems to me several of our posters claim that job title. (By the way, the fact that you're "selling" doesn't necessarily mean you're producing good work.)
But I do agree with your method of assessing critics. If somebody's going to pass himself off as a critic, the first thing I want to see is his work. There's that old saw: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." But there's another saw I think should become well-known: "Those who can photograph, photograph. Those who can't photograph get degrees in art appreciation and become critics of those who can."
And yes, every forum has its quota of trolls and cranks. There's always a danger that they'll take over. I can even think of an example where they did.
-
"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."
I've always taken great offense to this statement being a former teacher. If we didn't teach, where would the learning come from? This is true in art, engineering or just about any discipline, but I do understand it in the context of this usage.
It's not just that these critics become critics by choice and not by an earned "right," but that because they do not shoot, their opinions can't hold up to the scrutiny of those who do, amateur or professional.
A blowhard with a key board is just that. Show me through example, Isaac or cease to tell me anything.
I know I am an amateur and it doesn't rankle me in the least. I also know that I've probably earned as much doing effing weddings (a long time ago) as anyone on this forum has in any other form of photography, art or commercial. It was the purist form of whore photography as existed, but the pay was insane. ;D The point is that I am working toward an end. Show me you're doing the same thing and I'll shut my mug.
-
Oh, come on, Isaac. How many pictures have you seen on here that would require "time-consuming hard work" to critique? Either the picture's good or it's not good. These pictures of Chris's have very good composition, good exposure and excellent post-processing. What can you say other than, "Good work, Chris?"
The usual "time-consuming" criticism is to suggest cropping off a chunk from the top or the bottom, or maybe moving the camera to the right or the left (a bit late for that), or bringing up shadows or killing blowouts, or waiting for different light. Is this kind of BS "hard work?"
A work of art has to stand on its own, but when a photograph that gets posted on here doesn't stand on its own, how often does somebody point that out? Honest criticism isn't hard work, but it does take cojones. So if something gets posted that requires real criticism: "it stinks," or "back to the drafting board," most of us hang back and simply let it glide on down and off the main page. It's always painful to puncture somebody's balloon because you know it hurts. In most cases people don't post pictures on here because they want a critique. What they want is a pat on the back, and in the majority of cases I've seen, that's appropriate.
How about posting some of your own work Isaac, so we can exert some "time-consuming hard work" tearing it to shreds.
Well played, RSL. I agree that its normally about the pat on the back or at most a gentle tip. Most of what I've seen here clearly merits that level of attention, IMHO. I don't post my work, (although I have in the past) because I'm trying to develop my own sensibilities and while the occasional pat on the back certainly feels good, I'm not sure it helps me very much.
-
Who are the "old masters?" Didn't know we had such a thing in photography.
I've seen vaunted pictures by said 'old masters' that are crap IMHO, except when one disclaims "groundbreaking", or great "for the time period". As in "Well, its great if you consider that nobody was taking pictures like this before", or "Well, its great if you consider the limits of the technology of the time."
Maybe its not so great after all.
-
I've always taken great offense to this statement being a former teacher.
Yeah, I was afraid of that, Chris, but in mitigation please take into account that for several years I taught nuclear effects while I was in the Air Force and, for a while, after I retired, I taught computer science at Colorado Tech. I always loved teaching, and I've always believed that old saying is wrong. A lot of teachers not only teach, they do. When I was teaching computer science I also was doing software engineering. I only quit teaching because I was losing too much money for every hour I was preparing lectures, grading papers, and in the classroom instead of in front of my computer designing software. I always loved teaching. Oh. . . and my parents and most of my grandparents, aunts and uncles were teachers, some temporarily and some permanently.
-
In most cases people don't post pictures on here because they want a critique. What they want is a pat on the back, and in the majority of cases I've seen, that's appropriate.
As you say this forum is praise and put-downs, not critique.
As I said, useful critique is too much to expect.
These pictures of Chris's have very good composition, good exposure and excellent post-processing. What can you say other than, "Good work, Chris?"
You can say what in particular you've noticed that makes it a "nice tourist snap" rather than something more.
-
If somebody's going to pass himself off as a critic, the first thing I want to see is his work.
If someone is a critic, their critique is their work.
-
Good, but a quite lame try. This is a photography forum. People post pictures for critique by their PEERS.
-
Let's see some pictures, Isaac. All I've seen so far is airy talk.
-
Good, but a quite lame try. This is a photography forum. People post pictures for critique by their PEERS.
Firstly as Russ said, "In most cases people don't post pictures on here because they want a critique. What they want is a pat on the back, ..."
Secondly, there's no "but a quite lame try" -- it's just what the words mean. If we care about the quality of critique we examine the person's critique not their photographs (but as Russ said...)
Note: I haven't suggested there's anything wrong, or even slightly unusual about seeking approval.
-
More airy talk, Isaac. Sounds as if you're embarrassed to post your pictures. Or do you even make photographs. . ?
-
I'll rephrase - a lame attempt at an explanation for critiquing when there critic has no obvious background in what he/she is critiquing. It would be like me critiquing a surgeon's method of stitching, yet never having actually stitched up anyone myself. It's a ridiculous assumption that anyone can critique a subject they do not practice. You can like or dislike, express your displeasure as to the use of colors, something being too dark or light, but by no means can you express a technique you don't practice...so, once again, until you can show, don't blow!
-
... It would be like me critiquing a surgeon's method of stitching, yet never having actually stitched up anyone myself. ...
I slightly disagree. If I'd wake up after a surgery and look at tattered zig-zag-going stitches on my belly I wouldn't mind a second to blame the doctor. And in general I don't believe that you have to be an artist to criticize art in a properly manner - more than that: A decent discussion on someone else's work is an art as well.
Harald
-
There may be exceptions, Harald, but I think you'll find that most art critics who discuss paintings paint. They may not be very good at it but at least they have some familiarity with the techniques and the practice of painting.
I'd expect the same thing to be true with photography. But there's a difference between the two media. A painter often distorts reality in order to produce a feeling. Except in very unusual situations a photographer isn't able to do that. A classic example is Albert Bierstadt's "Among the Sierra Nevadas," where Bierstadt has distorted linear perspective to give the mountains the feeling of height they have when you're among them. But to a camera, linear perspective is linear perspective. You can't distort it. Oh, you can use a long lens to capture a small part of a scene and make the mountains appear higher, but you'll be squishing everything between you and those high mountains, and the result won't have the feeling Bierstadt was able to capture. What you get won't be believable.
When it comes to criticism I couldn't care less about cameras, lenses, sensors, film, post-processing, or any of the mechanical things we often hear about in critiques. If somebody's going to critique a photograph I want to know how that person sees when he has a camera in his hands. I can't learn that from airy talk. I can only learn it from his work.
-
My, my, you've all been busy while I've been away!
Back to the OP: I was quite curious about your trip through NorCal and up into Washington, Chris. I will have to scan for other posts. I just returned to start perusing the forums and landed here. I think the composition of the OP is not great and cannot see a way to make it better to my eye (ie, cropping or shifting as Russ mentioned). But I do like the attempt at backlighting although there seems to be too much detail lost in shadowed areas, at least on my work monitor. You specifically asked about the color toning and that is the part that I felt was most compelling. I like the blue gray tones contrasted with the sharpness of the rocks; I'd probably work the scene a lot more to find what it was that captured your interest. I cannot see the selective sharpening you reference. I agree with you that a lower perspective would be more interesting. I particularly like the B/W references by cjogo and think that works better when the light (angle, quality, etc) is just not good. JMHO, but I think it helped me with some desert shots I did awhile back.
FWIW, I think there have been many good and critical critiques (and "critiquers") here and I have learned a lot, not just with respect to my own work, but also to watch what is said about other postings.
-
It would be like me critiquing a surgeon's method of stitching, yet never having actually stitched up anyone myself.
In your analogy, wouldn't the point of critique be the stitching (whether it splits apart, whether it scars), not the method of stitching?
Here wouldn't the point of critique be the photograph, not the method of photographing?
-
Perhaps, but only if I had any faith in the critic understanding what he was critiquing based on similar experiences behind the lens...and in this instance I have no faith whatsoever.
-
Perhaps, but only if I had any faith in the critic understanding what he was critiquing based on similar experiences behind the lens...
What does cjogo's "Morley / Brett B&W" remark have to do with experience behind the lens? It has to do with how the images we've seen influence how we see your picture -- the images we've seen, not the images we've made.
-
But the images we've made tell other people what, if anything, we've learned from the images we've seen, Isaac.
You can see a fairly complete list of the books in my photo library in the bibliography at http://www.russ-lewis.com/Bib/Bib.html. But knowing what images I've seen doesn't tell you a damned thing about whether or not I've learned anything. Only my photographs can tell you that. Unless you're convinced I've actually learned something, rattling my head about somebody else's work is meaningless.
-
But knowing what images I've seen doesn't tell you a damned thing about whether or not I've learned anything. Only my photographs can tell you that.
Your focus is on your photography and what you've learned, shouldn't it be on the other person's photograph and what they've learned?
-
Why should I pay any attention at all to criticism from somebody who hasn't learned anything? Before someone's criticism means anything to me I need to know what they've learned. I'll never learn that from what they say, only from pictures they've made.
Why do you fight the idea of posting your pictures, Isaac? Does your self-criticism tell you they're no good? You seem to have a lot to say but nothing to show.
-
It's not really about Isaac showing or not showing, nor is it about Russ having an interesting and enviable library. What it is really about is the utter futility of the exercise known as 'critique', a miserable, pretentious word that doesn't even have the attraction of sounding right.
Nobody has the ability to understand at any deep level what the artist whose work is under the searchlight truly feels or seeks. This precludes meaningful comment on the success or otherwise of the image. Worse, one can never escape the reality that some can do 'art' and some never will have that pleasure, however good a mechanic they learn to be. And that's about it: if it clicks with the viewer it's cool, and if not then it's not.
You can instantly see the problem, can't you? One has introduced the self. That's a filter that no external input can manage without contamination or, at the very least, distortion. So, in the end, critque isn't about the image under the glare of the kliegs, it's about the critic, poor sod.
Some claim to have been helped by the process; better help would come from looking at collected works, at websites and almost any medium other than a chat show like this particular section has to be. Though I never post in this area, I do look and read; I have to say, I learn nothing about photography here, in this specific slot, but lots about people. Not the same thing, though possibly an elephant.
Rob C
-
Chris seems to have mostly been interested in some technical details, here, which technical details I don't really have an opinion on.
On the subject of critique:
- you don't have to be a great photographer to be a great critic, but it probably helps your criticism if you can find your way around a camera
- I am a much better critic than I am a photographer
- of course criticism is both possible and useful, Rob C notwithstanding
I can tell you my reaction to a picture, and if you put my reaction together with a dozen others, you've learned something about how people tend to react to your picture. That's useful if you're making pictures for other people to look at.
I can ALSO take your picture apart a bit in terms of one theory or another of how pictures can be constructed, which may or may not serve to explain why people tend to react to your picture one way or another.
This one, for instance, feels touristy mainly because there's too much excess junk in the frame and the framing itself is haphazard and feels opportunistic. There's a potentially interesting line of rocks, which cannot decide if it's vertical or diagonal in the frame (problem #1), the point of view feels like it's from a highway pullover which makes one suspect WHY the line of rocks is not very fortuituous and clear (problem #2) and there's a bunch of extraneous junk in the frame that takes attention away from the main elements of visual interest (problem #3 -- see also problem #2).
Chris knows perfectly well this shot ain't all that and I think he even knows why.
Sorry I can't help on the selective sharpening business, it's stuff I don't much care about, so I just cannot bear to look closely enough and to try to form an opinion.
-
Well done Andrew, and thanks!
Q.E.D.
Rob C
-
Why should I pay any attention at all to criticism from somebody who hasn't learned anything?
Because they see what the things you've learned prevent you from seeing.
Why do you fight the idea of posting your pictures, Isaac?
Because I have no interest in your "pat on the back" and to deny your bullying is its own reward.
-
At the risk of being banned, BS!
-
Isaac isn't the first poster to make claims of bullying here, and probably won't be the last.
I've never actually seen any actual bullying, though.
-
Depends on how thin your skin is, Andrew. If asking to see some pictures is bullying then I confess.
-
I do not post regularly on this forum, but if you are looking for an honest and unbiased critique, here goes:
I find the colour balance is off, the sand looks way too blue. Although the overall composition is not bad I feel that it really could have been great if a bit more time had been spent on it. The rocks seem small and insignificant, shooting them from a lower angle would have been better. There is too much being cut off at the edges of the frame - the little rock on the left hand side and the boulder on the right hand side. On the lower right hand corner, there is too much garbage, detracts from the picture itself. The scene seems squeezed, for me there is just not enough space around the frame.
I also feel the same way as a few of the other members have mentioned at other times, what is the point of posting a picture and wanting a critique if all you want is a pat on the back. Sometimes a member deserves a pat on the back for a great shot, but when a shot is just mediocre, is honesty what is important or not? There are plenty of sites out there that will just say Great Shot to anything that is posted. 500px used to be a great site, but now it is just as bad as most of the other sites. I was hoping that this forum would be different but I am not so sure right now.
-
...what is the point of posting a picture and wanting a critique if all you want is a pat on the back. Sometimes a member deserves a pat on the back for a great shot, but when a shot is just mediocre, is honesty what is important or not?
+1
-
It was never about getting a nice pat on the back for a bad shot, it was a response to a critic who doesn't post his own work. I'll take a good hit any day of the week and feel I learn from most of them. My complaint and it will stand regardless of the artistic merit, anytime someone posts an image on this forum, it deserves at least a comment or two. Nobody learns squat from silence except that a group as a whole doesn't like the work...the why left to speculation. I don't comment on every image3 unless there hasn't been a response to one in which case I feel a responsibility to provide some kind of feedback. Mostly I try to be good, but there are some images like this one which just fall short of niceties..that's fine, but as many have including yourself, why is a great help.
-
I do not post regularly on this forum, but if you are looking for an honest and unbiased critique, here goes:
I find the colour balance is off, the sand looks way too blue. Although the overall composition is not bad I feel that it really could have been great if a bit more time had been spent on it. The rocks seem small and insignificant, shooting them from a lower angle would have been better. There is too much being cut off at the edges of the frame - the little rock on the left hand side and the boulder on the right hand side. On the lower right hand corner, there is too much garbage, detracts from the picture itself. The scene seems squeezed, for me there is just not enough space around the frame.
I also feel the same way as a few of the other members have mentioned at other times, what is the point of posting a picture and wanting a critique if all you want is a pat on the back. Sometimes a member deserves a pat on the back for a great shot, but when a shot is just mediocre, is honesty what is important or not? There are plenty of sites out there that will just say Great Shot to anything that is posted. 500px used to be a great site, but now it is just as bad as most of the other sites. I was hoping that this forum would be different but I am not so sure right now.
If you post something interesting but technically imperfect you'll get plenty of criticism. If you post something that's basically a technically perfect snapshot one of two things will happen: (1) Somebody may give you a pat on the back, just to avoid saying "nice tourist shot" or (2) You'll watch the picture descend and disappear from the main page without comment.
Nobody wants to inflict pain, and there's nothing wrong with a pat on the back when something gets posted that calls for a pat on the back but not serious congratulations. But you'll find that most critiques have to do with crops, color changes, sharpening, and other insignificant technical points. If that doesn't bother you then you're on the right forum.
-
If you post something interesting but technically imperfect you'll get plenty of criticism. If you post something that's basically a technically perfect snapshot one of two things will happen: (1) Somebody may give you a pat on the back, just to avoid saying "nice tourist shot" or (2) You'll watch the picture descend and disappear from the main page without comment.
Nobody wants to inflict pain, and there's nothing wrong with a pat on the back when something gets posted that calls for a pat on the back but not serious congratulations. But you'll find that most critiques have to do with crops, color changes, sharpening, and other insignificant technical points. It that doesn't bother you then you're on the right forum.
+1
-
This IS the only forum I have run across where you've got a fair shot at critique that goes beyond the photographically technical. You might get some feedback on composition and the structure of the frame, you're pretty likely to get simple "this is how I react" feedback.
Most people here seem to assume that the technical details are all deliberate, thankfully, so they're not constantly telling you that your choices are wrong. You might get some feedback to the effect that your choices have such and such an effect.
It's nice!
-
This IS the only forum I have run across where you've got a fair shot at critique that goes beyond the photographically technical. You might get some feedback on composition and the structure of the frame, you're pretty likely to get simple "this is how I react" feedback.
Most people here seem to assume that the technical details are all deliberate, thankfully, so they're not constantly telling you that your choices are wrong. You might get some feedback to the effect that your choices have such and such an effect.
It's nice!
+1
-
It's the best there is, Andrew, but, like all things human, it's sometimes flawed. On balance it's first-class stuff.
-
It's the best there is, Andrew, but, like all things human, it's sometimes flawed. On balance it's first-class stuff.
FWIW, this has been my experience.
-
Agreed, even with my whining and shots at fair play and all that, I'm still here and have been for quite some time. You know, stick your foot in the water, then determine if it's "just fine." I think you'll find it a bit cool at times, a bit hot on other occasions but rarely tepid and unrewarding.
-
Isaac isn't the first poster to make claims of bullying here, and probably won't be the last.
I've never actually seen any actual bullying, though.
Do those others still add their voice?
-
Heysoos, Isaac, your reply #50 must run as one of the wimpiest I've come across on this site.
Okay, I visit no other sites of the 'chat' type anymore (apart from a private, little one), so perhaps I'm just out of tune with the zeitgeist, but even at the various schools I attended, where some of the kids were often expert beyond their years at torture of the mind, bullying took on an obvious and visible form. Your accusation seems, to me, to be founded on cloud, or on a concept of bullying so esoteric as to pass me completely by.
There are no rules here about any obligation to reply with faux critique to every image that finds itself hung out to dry in the public gaze, a gaze which can be as rapturous as totally indifferent. The very idea of an obligation makes the whole experience even less appealing than it might otherwise be. I come here and look at pictures, not to pull them to bits nor to stroke ego - either that of the snapper or of myself as either snapper or writer; I come here to enjoy what I see and, often, read. I've mentioned before that I think critique pointless, but that's just my opinion; however, wouldn't it then be a bit rich for me suddenly to start to tell someone else how they should do their own stuff? And that's all you can expect here - what else did you imagine - a leather couch and a tape recorder as an alternative offer of help? What's New, Pussycat did that rather well and became my favourite comedy of all time. I love that sense of hysteria; it soothes me.
Someone mentioned critique by peers; so who are the peers? Are they bright enough to carry respect? Do you want the blind to lead the blind, the deaf teach the dumb to sing? (I'd be happy to have anyone teach me to sing, but that's actually irrelevant, which is why I hide it in brackets.)
Why can't we just look at the pictures and stop trying to tell the world how bloody clever we think we are, how much smarter and gifted than the poor sap we have under the glass?
Rob C
-
There are no rules here about any obligation to reply with faux critique to every image...
You seem to be answering Chris Calohan.
out of tune with the zeitgeist
Perhaps you find the phrase - boorish nagging - more appropriate.
-
Isaac some members find you a bit boorish with respect to criticising and not posting. Surely you have at least ONE decent image you could post and the members will be able to see how good a photographer you are. :) ???
-
(I'd be happy to have anyone teach me to sing, but that's actually irrelevant, which is why I hide it in brackets.)
Have you ever seen a movie called "Flawless"? I can totally visualize you in the de Niro role. And I mean that in a positive way -- that character has some really negative traits, but those are not the traits I am thinking of.
-
Seems as if we're beating the proverbial dead horse to death. Isaac isn't going to post but will continue to offer unfounded profundities based on something or the other...so be it. Let's put this thread to bed. Personally, once I discovered the Block this Person feature...hey, made my life a lot easier.
-
Have you ever seen a movie called "Flawless"? I can totally visualize you in the de Niro role. And I mean that in a positive way -- that character has some really negative traits, but those are not the traits I am thinking of.
No, I haven't had the pleasure yet. But I always preferred the other Italian, the one in Serpico - got it: Al Pacino! I, of course, have no negative traits at all: a model of positive optimism, despite too many years of living many of the opposite experiences. Some say that might mean I'm an idiot, but hell, a small price to pay for a sunny disposition!
I did enjoy Angel Heart, though.
;-)
Rob C
-
Isaac some members find you a bit boorish with respect to criticising and not posting.
People just won't do what we want them to!
Lets see some of the stuff you shoot.
If I was going to post photos, I would have done so by now.
-
People just won't do what we want them to!
If I was going to post photos, I would have done so by now.
Why not?
-
Asked and answered -- Because I have no interest in Russ Lewis's "pat on the back".
-
There's actually people here who are not Russ.
Some of us make a pretty serious effort to be useful, albeit somewhat sporadically.
For the record, anyone who wants to hear specifically from me is more than welcome to send a PM to point me at a specific picture. I'm always happy to gather my thoughts as best I can, but I don't always look at every single thing posted all that closely, and often it appears to me that wiser heads than mine have already made the important remarks.
-
A kind offer.
One way, to make more of that effort to be useful, might be to concentrate on the pictures that wiser heads have ignored over the preceding weeks.
-
Sorry, my critique is what it is. It would certainly be a nice thing for me to do, but I simply don't work well that way. I'm not an organized "start at one end and work my way to the other" guy, I'm a "ok, who wants me to do what now?" guy.
But anyways. The point is this is not the Russ Lewis forum, he's just one of several contributors here. Several of us like and value him, but doing so is not a requirement.
-
A kind offer.
There are a number of really good photo review and critique forums, and several are cyber homes to many practicing professionals. Use Mr. Google and search for “landscape photography forum” (without quotes) or whatever genre you may have an interest in. Sift through some offerings until you find a place that has works and contributors you like.
Publishing works for review and/or critique is a good way to get useful feedback about a lot of stuff, and it really makes a positive difference if people at the forums you frequent do the same or similar kinds of work as you’re interested in.
-
Isaac post an image for the rest of the forum to look at. If you agree then they can arrange for Russ not to comment on it and the rest of us can enjoy your efforts. ;) :)
-
. . .they can arrange for Russ not to comment on it.
In your dreams, Stamper.
-
Russ you missed the point. You could have agreed and when - if - he posted you could have changed your mind and let rip. Now you have scared him off for good and nobody will ever know how good/bad he really is? ;) ;D
-
Well, he seems to have decided, independently, that his photography is too lousy to be subjected to critique. How can I argue with that?