Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: RedwoodGuy on February 06, 2013, 01:38:48 pm
-
Front door.
-
I like it! Is that location, by any chance, on US163 near Mexican Hat, Utah?
Later,
Johnny
-
Hi Johnny,
It's the Painted Hills near John Day, Oregon. Thank you.
-
Eastern Sierra
-
Point Reyes
-
Sundial Bridge
-
Point Reyes
That's one of the better shots of Inverness's famous beached boat that I've seen.
-
The first one has an idea, of sorts. I kind of dig it, I kind of don't. The next two are a bit of a mystery. A sharp trailer with soft mountains in the background? Not sure what you're going for here, but it does nothing for me. Is it a bad snapshot, or some sort of commentary on bad snapshots? I can't tell. That damned boat at Pt Reyes gets explored on flickr pretty much every time somebody makes a photograph of it, which is a couple times a day. There are subtle differences in framing, but your photograph has been made so often that I am pretty sure there's only one place you can really shoot the thing from.
The last one is a bit startling, amongst the rest of the work you've posted here. The cyclist on the bridge displays a very nice grasp of geometry and timing. It's well done, very graphical. It does not strike me as having much to offer beyond the very strong geometry, but perhaps that's enough. It's a lot, at any rate.
-
That's one of the better shots of Inverness's famous beached boat that I've seen.
Thanks. I have an attraction to derelicts and lost causes of all sorts. Maybe empathy. When I execute my SNAPSHOTS I like to imagine breathing a bit of new life into it - that I can look at later.
-
SNAPSHOT of food cart.
-
If you don't want critique, just say so.
-
If you don't want critique, just say so.
I enjoy all critiques to no end! I am getting a very special pleasure from yours. Please continue at your pleasure, or leisure.
-
So I shouldn't take your use of the word SNAPSHOT in all caps as a sign of offense?
Very well.
The food cart has pretty much nothing going for it except the amusement of the signage about cold and frozen things on what appears to be quite a cool day, which I assume is the point. As such it's not a bad document of a mildly amusing scene. It suffers from a bit of a split personality, there's an apparent subject placed at a crossing of 1/3 lines in the approved fashion with the guy standing at the service window. Since the dude does not seem to be part of the joke, there's a bit of a conflict between ideas going on here.
The color palette feels too popped and warm for the day, and conflicts with the cold day/cold drinks joke.
-
The Mayor.
Another travel snapshot. This of "Jimmy the Mayor".
-
Interesting looking dude. If you redid it without crushing the lower tones down to black, you'd open up his hat, and the shirt might calm down enough to not completely overwhelm the guy's face, and then you might have a pleasing street portrait kind of thing.
-
So I shouldn't take your use of the word SNAPSHOT in all caps as a sign of offense?
Very well.
The food cart has pretty much nothing going for it except the amusement of the signage about cold and frozen things on what appears to be quite a cool day, which I assume is the point. As such it's not a bad document of a mildly amusing scene. It suffers from a bit of a split personality, there's an apparent subject placed at a crossing of 1/3 lines in the approved fashion with the guy standing at the service window. Since the dude does not seem to be part of the joke, there's a bit of a conflict between ideas going on here.
The color palette feels too popped and warm for the day, and conflicts with the cold day/cold drinks joke.
Not to be impolite here, but you seem to have far more interest in engaging in some antagonism and confrontation instead of critique. When I critique, I critique the photo. I don't invent left-handed insults to work into the copy. Do you know how old the "snapshot" putdown is in photographic circles? I mean really, I almost spit my coffee out my nose on that one. I am new here, so I am having to learn where the peacocks are and the exact pecking order. I think I just found it.
Please assume if you like that anything I post is a "snapshot" and spare yourself having to continually repeat at least THAT stale old joke. I love taking snapshots - thank you for noticing.
Here's how I critique:
- I look for intellectual, emotional or visual interest. And how much there is of each.
- I look for signs of the photographer revealing themselves in the photograph.
- I look for technical elements which might be limiting the expressive power of the photograph as shot.
- I try to measure if I want to know more by having seen the photograph, or not.
-I try to suggest ways to improve the photograph keeping in mind the circumstances as I might know them
I avoid four things: Telling people to go to a library and learn photography; telling people they are ignorant of various subjects; name dropping famous photographers in an effort to associate my self with their work; and inserting insults, jokes or demeaning remarks about the photographer's ideas or intent. I have found over the years that this engenders the most respect from the artist.
Of course, how others critique is their own business and not mine. But as I enjoy critiquing photographs, and I see some awful critique methods here, I don't want anyone to confuse my intentions with some of these critique styles I've seen.
Now, it isn't my intention to keep engaging in this kind of talk. I am interested in photographs and critiques.
-
What on earth do you think I am doing? I am critiquing your photographs. Yes, yes, I know that in that other thread you have some notion that I underhandedly insulted you. I didn't, you simply chose to read an insult into my words. I could laboriously explain why it wasn't an insult, but I'm very unlikely to change your mind on that point so I will simply assert that the insult is in your mind, not in mine.
If you don't like my critique, that's fine. The fact is, the work you're posting here is extremely mixed. A few items are quite good, a few items could be quite good with a lighter touch, and lot of it is pretty mediocre. It's fairly plain that you don't like being told that your work is mediocre. Not many people do like being told that. In fact, you'd have to be a pretty strange person to enjoy it. On the other hand, if you're going to post work FOR critique, getting mad when someone opines that your work isn't very good is neither productive nor particularly mature.
Are you mad right now? I don't know for sure, but there are signs that suggest you are.
ETA: Could you point out the part in the text of mine that you quoted where I am NOT critiquing the photo, or where I AM engaged in antagonism and confrontation?
-
"Front Door"
Oh, I do like that! Of course, there's the framing element that gives just enough context. Perhaps it is that I have had that same glimpse through the RV door so to speak that reminds me of travel in days past.
-
Amoliter - - If you feel like critiquing, forge ahead. If not, don't. I'm just not interested in chewing the rag with you over stale , 25 year old photography putdowns. I measure the value of critiques by their content, just as I hope everyone else does.
-
I wasn't the guy chewing the rag. I was the guy writing the critiques.
-
"Front Door"
Oh, I do like that! Of course, there's the framing element that gives just enough context. Perhaps it is that I have had that same glimpse through the RV door so to speak that reminds me of travel in days past.
Thanks David. I found the painted hills hard to grasp photographically in a way that spoke to me. Once you have the pano shot, well, then what? What would make a memory for me? And of course, the RV door does precisely that. It gave me a "road trip" feel.
-
Lobby.
-
SNAPSHOT of food cart.
I see you made it to Seaside...quaint little place.
-
I see you made it to Seaside...quaint little place.
Yes Chris. It was on a recent road trip. First time in Seaside. Sadly for us, we had terrible rainy cold weather for our short visit to the area. I was so looking forward to lolling in the sun there.
-
Arizona
-
Redwood, I like the photo of the cyclist on the bridge: it's well seen, it has strong lines and it's memorable. I'm struggling to work out why you've posted any of the others in this thread, though, save perhaps for the first.
Jeremy
-
Another view of the Seaside Airstream vendors.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8296/7792175498_3648050e82_o.jpg)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8428/7794924800_3f65176882_o.jpg)
-
I'm struggling to work out why you've posted any of the others in this thread, though, save perhaps for the first.
Jeremy
Keep working at it. It might come to you suddenly. Or it may not. You never know. Photographs are by definition "self explanatory" and "self contained." They require no written explanations (in fact when photographers begin explaining their photographs it's best to run for the hills). Whatever they have to say to a viewer is within the borders of the frame. I used to like to use this analogy with people who didn't get a particular photo: "Do you know what "F=ma" means?" Some would know, and of course, some wouldn't. And then it was easy to explore why that was so: They had different backgrounds!
Now, I thought every person here posted photographs for the exact same reason. What would make you think my reason is different than anyone else here?
-
Another view of the Seaside Airstream vendors.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8296/7792175498_3648050e82_o.jpg)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8428/7794924800_3f65176882_o.jpg)
The second photograph has a nice feel immediately associated with travel and the vintage trailers. It is direct in that way, and well framed. I don't however understand the color and tone. I don't recognize this as either color or B&W. It has an odd tonality that I can't identify. I don't think it is helping the photograph though. I think this would be improved by a presentation in either conventional color or B&W without the effect that is on this one.
-
... I'm struggling to work out why you've posted any of the others in this thread...
To prove, once again, that those who can, do, and those who can not, teach (ie, lecture about it)?
-
To prove, once again, that those who can, do, and those who can not, teach (ie, lecture about it)?
A false and condescending aphorism, as any teacher will attest.
-
A false and condescending aphorism, as any teacher will attest.
Works in this case.
Besides, teachers protesting it does not say much, does it? Btw, I happen to be a teacher, among other things.
-
Sometimes, those who can, also teach. The ones who cannot are faced with the choice of teaching, or of not doing it at all. Some of THOSE choose to teach, and some of THOSE in turn are outstanding teachers.
-
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8386/8471565613_dc74de6a55_o.jpg)
Oh, and if those of us who teach, didn't, there would be fewer of you out there eating tonight.
-
Oh, phleaaaaseee!
My post was not about teachers, for god's sake, but about the pompous, pseudo-intelectual lecturing by someone whose own photography can be described as mediocre at best and excruciatingly boring at worst.
-
Sorry, Slobodan. I read that incorrectly...and I knew you were also a teacher. Bad me.
-
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8386/8471565613_dc74de6a55_o.jpg)
Oh, and if those of us who teach, didn't, there would be fewer of you out there eating tonight.
The color version looks much better than the previous version.
-
Works in this case.
Besides, teachers protesting it does not say much, does it? Btw, I happen to be a teacher, among other things.
Do you take any photographs? I haven't seen any posted. Oddly, I also haven't seen any user critiques you've written.
-
Works in this case.
Now, where have I seen this before? Oh yes! Here it is...!
From John R Smith, back in May 2012, ( here is the link to the thread: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=67324.msg533040#msg533040 )
"Very OOF subject in foreground? Really?
Very boring background . . .
I don't understand you at all. Your critiques of other's pictures are literate, discerning, and mostly well-judged. But the pictures you post yourself seem calculated to provoke a negative response. On this one it looks as if you accidentally fired the shutter when you were walking along.
Why?
John"
Andrew, could it be that you feel threatened by "Redwoodguy" -it looks like he is right in the middle of "your" territory here? Stop this "dick-measuring competition"...Surely there is place for everyone here? I find your critiques just as helpful as "Redwoodguys". You both take time and thought with your opinions, stop wasting your useful energy on this silliness.
William
-
Do you take any photographs? I haven't seen any posted. Oddly, I also haven't seen any user critiques you've written.
Then you've not been paying attention.
Jeremy
-
Oh, phleaaaaseee!
My post was not about teachers, for god's sake, but about the pompous, pseudo-intellectual lecturing by someone whose own photography can be described as mediocre at best and excruciatingly boring at worst.
Quite.
Jeremy
-
Slobodan, I've strayed here by mistake (no, that's a little fib: from boredom) and I have to tell you: you are wasting your time. Anyone who has been here with LuLa a while is familar with your pretty damned good shots, so rise not to the occassion, but simply let the holiday snaps from some others just flow; that's democracy, after all. Neither of us has to look!
As for curators, milkers of others' talents, gurus and general hangers-on, you already know my feelings on the topic.
Rob C
-
As for curators, milkers of others' talents, gurus and general hangers-on, you already know my feelings on the topic.
Rob C
That is our loss Rob...there is so much that you could contribute. I look at your website often, so I know... (the tap with the dripping water is my favourite).
William
-
Andrew, could it be that you feel threatened by "Redwoodguy" -it looks like he is right in the middle of "your" territory here? Stop this "dick-measuring competition"...Surely there is place for everyone here? I find your critiques just as helpful as "Redwoodguys". You both take time and thought with your opinions, stop wasting your useful energy on this silliness.
Mmm, it's possible! I have made the same observations, and inspected my motivations with a bit of care and I don't think so. That said, self-delusion is truly one of the things man does best. I've decided to step away a bit, mainly because it's not good for anyone to be squabbling. Also, whatever point I might have had to make is surely made by now.
-
That is our loss Rob...there is so much that you could contribute. I look at your website often, so I know... (the tap with the dripping water is my favourite).
William
Thank you, William.
The problem is, I simply don't believe in photography as teachable art. I do believe in photography (the art of) as something you really can teach yourself right to the limit of your personal capability. And for me and, I suspect, many of my era, that was done by looking at, buying, begging or borrowing books and magazines and really studying them and discovering why some things caught one's eye where others did nothing for one at all... Then, the best break of all was finally getting into an industrial photo-unit where I really, really learned how to print. There's a world of difference between makiing an overly dark landscape print because you think you like it, and making a print in either colour of b/white that exactly captures the tonality of, say, a broken turbine blade off a jet engine.
What I do think can be taught is function: how to work cameras, lenses and, today very importantly, Photoshop. Those too can be 'picked up', but as they aren't natural, teaching saves lots of time and effort and gets you there faster and probably better equipped with shortcuts etc. that you might never learn by yourself. I base that on my own rudimentary knowledge of digital manipulation. It would have been very nice to have had a place available where I could have paid a few bucks and had lessons.
Anyway, thank you again for looking at the website more than once!
;-)
Rob C
-
Do you take any photographs? I haven't seen any posted. Oddly, I also haven't seen any user critiques you've written.
I asked a Paraguayan woman. She gave me a hat.
(http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo102/tanngrisnir3/WTF%20absurdist/anantennaswell.jpg)
-
Then you've not been paying attention.
Jeremy
Actually, I have. And nope, haven't seen any photographs from the fella. Lots of little posts, no photographs. If anyone wants to point out one I missed, that would be fine.
-
Thank you, William.
The problem is, I simply don't believe in photography as teachable art. I do believe in photography (the art of) as something you really can teach yourself right to the limit of your personal capability. And for me and, I suspect, many of my era, that was done by looking at, buying, begging or borrowing books and magazines and really studying them and discovering why some things caught one's eye where others did nothing for one at all... Then, the best break of all was finally getting into an industrial photo-unit where I really, really learned how to print. There's a world of difference between makiing an overly dark landscape print because you think you like it, and making a print in either colour of b/white that exactly captures the tonality of, say, a broken turbine blade off a jet engine.
What I do think can be taught is function: how to work cameras, lenses and, today very importantly, Photoshop. Those too can be 'picked up', but as they aren't natural, teaching saves lots of time and effort and gets you there faster and probably better equipped with shortcuts etc. that you might never learn by yourself. I base that on my own rudimentary knowledge of digital manipulation. It would have been very nice to have had a place available where I could have paid a few bucks and had lessons.
Anyway, thank you again for looking at the website more than once!
;-)
Rob C
Having spent the better part of 12 years in a classroom teaching drawing, painting, ceramics, sculpture and printmaking and another 20 teaching photography, I can attest to Rob's ascertation to teaching someone to be an artist. Natural talent rears up constantly in a classroom and there are times when a good boot in the intellectual and artistic butt can open one's eyes to possibilities they can build upon drawing from a natural talent. All the instruction in the world, whether electronic or analog is of no value if the lamp's not plugged in, and the switched turned on. And many times, both occurances can take place but the light never hits full capacity. What I always strived to accomplish was to get the best out of anyone at their highest capacity. Sometimes the light flashed brillance. Sometimes the light merely flickered.
For the student who had the spatial and atmospheric persepective already embedded by some genetic seed, teaching art was truly a joy. They were few and far between. Sadly, many of my academically correct, but artistically challenged students now have websites, blogs and cameras calling themsleves professionals...and oh, it grieves me so. However, that in itself is an art - selling crap to the uneducated public. Long live P. T. Barnum.
-
Slobodan, I've strayed here by mistake (no, that's a little fib: from boredom) and I have to tell you: you are wasting your time. Anyone who has been here with LuLa a while is familar with your pretty damned good shots, so rise not to the occassion, but simply let the holiday snaps from some others just flow; that's democracy, after all. Neither of us has to look!
As for curators, milkers of others' talents, gurus and general hangers-on, you already know my feelings on the topic.
Rob C
So, this forum is only for a group who "has been here a while?" Others should get out of your private world? Is that about the point here? The horrors of democracy!
-
I suggest sorting the User Critiques forum by the Started By column (click on the "Started By" phrase in the top of the table). Now you have 122 pages of stuff to sift through, ugh.
However, if you look at the mess in the address bar, you will see than a number appears in that mess. 26.0 or 26.2000 or 26.3650 or whatever. The part after the dot is a starting post number. By editing this number you can display any section of the list of several thousand threads. Leave the "sort=starter" part alone.
With a little hacking around you can quickly zero in on any given name pretty quickly.
It's not as nice as the usual "find threads started by so and so" one finds on other forums, but it works, for the curious. Slobodan also has a flickr site indicated on his profile. As for my photographs, "amolitor" is one of the least google-proof names around. Feel free to search a bit.
-
Works in this case.
Besides, teachers protesting it does not say much, does it? Btw, I happen to be a teacher, among other things.
Probably I should have written "as any good teacher will attest"
I've done many difficult jobs and teaching ranks right up there as among the most difficult.
I still say it's a false statement, usually (but not always ;D ) made by those who have never taught.
-
Thanks for the tips about searching the past. Actually, I was hoping to see some current work, that might go along with the current running commentary of the fella. His running commentary (well, the posts that aren't about testicles) would give any reader quite an expectation about his photographs. The self promotion is most impressive, and now the build up has been expanded by some of the other fellas, so you can see why someone new would be delighted to see this work. I am all about the photography and the critique here, and long discussions about one's testicles are no substitute for one's photographs.
-
Given that my "current running commentary" is about testicles, are you absolutely sure you would like to see my "current work, that might go along with" it?
-
To prove, once again, that those who can, do, and those who can not, teach (ie, lecture about it)?
Since you brought it up....
This old saw is taken in most circles at face value without more than a simple "I object! I'm a dedicated teacher!" But a reasoned reply would go much further than simple objection because one is a teacher and doesn't want to be referred to as a talentless buffoon. I waited to see what kind of reply would come from teachers before commenting on this. They seem to have had their say.
What does it mean, and why is it used so often? It's a rant against knowledge in favor of the practical applications - or "applied knowledge." Our society is built on materialism at its core, and therefore a serious bias is in place for the producers of that material. e.g. More photo pinup calendars please, and less discussion of art. It's a vote for the value of production at the expense of just knowledge (all that pseudo-intellectual claptrap). There stands the teacher in his tweed coat and box lunch while I'm out here lifting the heavy weights and bringing home the bacon! Plumbers and bakers and candlestick makers are the most often sources of this outdated putdown about knowledge. The gusto with which it is hurled at others is usually proportional to how much money one is making in their trade, because everyone understands that academics don't make much compared to say, Hollywood movie directors.
But knowledge is the more essential quest, and it is after all the tip of the spear of civilization's progress. Putting aside the rare inventor who operates on nothing but intuition, mechanics and engineers and a good many artists are trained by those with the fundamental knowledge. That they so readily turn and spit on their teachers with disdain is a reflection on the culture's new dynamics.
-
I've noticed that a lot of people don't give enough time let character and personality come through on this forum. Especially the ones who begin life here with some sore spots.
When someone responds on a forum, it should be taken in context. You can't tell a lot about someone on a forum by looking at a a couple dozen of their posts. Face-value is never accurate on an Internet forum. Searching and reading someone's posts from the past without reading the context they were made in.
It takes a while to develop a good sense of someone's personality over the Internet, especially if it involves satire and wit (as much of Slobodan's posts contain). I remember reading in my earlier post academic studies that relationships over the Internet can take up to 9 times as long to develop when compared to face to face interaction.
I think the best advice is to go back and read old threads and see how things work around here. I don't mean this as a warning, but as a welcome. I'm not the best person to offer this advice as I'm relatively new here, but this is what has worked for me.
After re-reading one of Michael's old reviews, a quote came up that could be altered to use as a reminder for this forum.
"It's the image, stupid!"
:P
-
I've noticed that a lot of people don't give enough time let character and personality come through on this forum. Especially the ones who begin life here with some sore spots.
When someone responds on a forum, it should be taken in context. You can't tell a lot about someone on a forum by looking at a a couple dozen of their posts. Face-value is never accurate on an Internet forum. Searching and reading someone's posts from the past without reading the context they were made in.
It takes a while to develop a good sense of someone's personality over the Internet, especially if it involves satire and wit (as much of Slobodan's posts contain). I remember reading in my earlier post academic studies that relationships over the Internet can take up to 9 times as long to develop when compared to face to face interaction.
I think the best advice is to go back and read old threads and see how things work around here. I don't mean this as a warning, but as a welcome. I'm not the best person to offer this advice as I'm relatively new here, but this is what has worked for me.
After re-reading one of Michael's old reviews, a quote came up that could be altered to use as a reminder for this forum.
"It's the image, stupid!"
:P
Robbie,
I am not sure...but I think your post was directed at least partially to me. If not, ignore my response below!
1. First impressions are most reliable impressions - rarely fails.
2. I don't believe in hazing.
3. My interest is photography and art, not forum cliques, locker room towel snapping, and long-winding threads on testicles
4. I always attempt to start from a positive position when critiquing photos. I fail from time to time to do that, but it is my intention.
5. I understood this to be a public, not private forum. I don't feel any obligation to performing a 'psychological history and profiling' of everyone who chooses to post here. I am perfectly comfortable with taking people on what they post, as they post.
-
Hi Redwoodguy,
Quickest way I know to find image posts by members is to go to critiques, click on the "started by" header which puts them in alphabetical order, you can then quickly step through 3 pages at a time,
Slobodan's posts are here;
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?board=26.3240;sort=starter
If you go to his sites in his sig you'll see he is a good photographer.
Your critiques are good as well as they make me think.
My cred is currently zero as I've not posted an image yet!
-
Nope, Mr Redwood, you missed your shot.
Two guys go to art school. Both get their degrees at the end of it.
One continues in academia, teaching art in schools; the other goes out into the world and sometimes makes his millions. Education isn't exclusive of either.
It's about choice, sometimes cojones, desire and also about the ability to put what you learned into productive practice.
Regarding the throwaway jibe about pinup calendars: I suggest you dig a little bit and go discover who was behind some of the classics of the last fifty years; you'd be surprised. Or not, depending on how hard your carapace, or how profound that inability to see further than the end of your prejudice. We already enjoyed your reference to pornography; do pinup calendars such as Pirelli, Mintex, Belaco, Pentax et al. fall within the remit of your mindset on the matter? Of course, you may well be familiar with others more obscure, requiring specialist knowledge to discover them, where your contentions might actually be fact: I don't know those waters - I don't navigate them.
I really smiled at your reference to the guy in tweeds: you were absolutely accurate, but you missed the corduroy trousers,
Several decades ago I happened to find myself in London with time to kill, so I took myself to Hamilton’s Gallery where they were running a show of Mapplethorpe’s brother’s work. As I walked slowly from shot to shot, I became aware that I was being trailed a picture behind by the very man you described (didn’t notice a lunch box) who was giving a running commentary to a woman, explaining the photographs to her as they went along.
It wasn’t difficult to be distracted from the pictures, so I decided to listen in. It was delightfully educational: one shot, of a person standing in front of a white wall covered with very textured paper really made me struggle to supress the mirth. The fact that the wallpaper showed the texture of its fabrication was applauded and pointed out as a wonderful display of photographic pyrotechnics! As a professional photographer, the question would have been: how could you possibly avoid that texture in a side-light situation? I have no idea who the cat in cords was: dealer, boyfriend or ‘uncle’ but his credibility and that of his companion, if she bought into the spiel, lie forever in tatters in my memory.
No doubt, he might fit your definition of savant?
Rob C
-
The problem is, I simply don't believe in photography as teachable art.
Rob, I was not really thinking of it in those terms. Every now and then you do choose to make a (serious) comment - a simple observation, perhaps - and it makes sense! Something is learned.
A few more of those is what I was thinking...
William
-
Hi Redwoodguy,
Quickest way I know to find image posts by members is to go to critiques, click on the "started by" header which puts them in alphabetical order, you can then quickly step through 3 pages at a time,
Slobodan's posts are here;
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?board=26.3240;sort=starter
If you go to his sites in his sig you'll see he is a good photographer.
Your critiques are good as well as they make me think.
My cred is currently zero as I've not posted an image yet!
I don't remember you offending anyone, so maybe your creds a lot higher than some?
;-)
Rob C
-
I don't remember you offending anyone, so maybe your creds a lot higher than some?
;-)
Rob C
Give me time, I'm still in awe of some of the people here! ;D
-
1. I remember reading in my earlier post academic studies that relationships over the Internet can take up to 9 times as long to develop when compared to face to face interaction.
2. "It's the image, stupid!"
:P
1. Accepting statistics like that is a mistake, right from the start. Everything and everyone is an exception, and life should teach you that very quickly.
2. Yep, you're right - or should that be Michael's right? - but the ideal of the almost-silent picture show would also lead to the lowering of the readership figures; nasty things, statistics!
;-)
Rob C
-
Hi Redwoodguy,
Quickest way I know to find image posts by members is to go to critiques, click on the "started by" header which puts them in alphabetical order, you can then quickly step through 3 pages at a time,
Slobodan's posts are here;
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?board=26.3240;sort=starter
If you go to his sites in his sig you'll see he is a good photographer.
Your critiques are good as well as they make me think.
My cred is currently zero as I've not posted an image yet!
Hi Jaffy,
I appreciate the advice. Yes, I assume people have web sites, blogs, and the like. I was more interested in photographs posted for critique during the period I've been here - the period I can compare to. The danger with digging through the old dust is always a question of relevance, and so on. You know, I was told in no uncertain terms that I had entered the world of big-time heavy weights here, so rather than plow through history, I'll just wait for the big iron to hit the floor on a more current basis. I fully expect to be floored by the work, based on the build-up.
And really, thank you for the comments about critiques. I hope you post some of your photographs. I'll be looking.
-
... I was more interested in photographs posted for critique during the period I've been here - the period I can compare to...
Sorry that my posting frequency does not coincide with your attention span.