Since I am in the municipal water business, I was accustom to the big steel but not the old equipment. So what I felt was a respect for the legacy and antique equipment.
Dave
I see! Well that explains your repeating the display of this type of image. If some people find it interesting, fair enough! It would be interested to know why they find it interesting..Or alternatively they simply have different taste from you.
I would never hang such a picture on my wall. However, I can imagine if someone had worked in such an environment, he might be interested in hanging such a picture on his wall so he could boast to people, "Do you know I used to work in that place!", thus creating a lot of sympathy and/or amazement that anyone could tolerate such an environment. ;D
If taken seriously then your message to Kevin can not be taken seriously. If the "smileys" aren't serious then why are they there? Are you trying to mitigate your criticism by including them?
David
Or alternatively they simply have different taste from you.
Imagine how boring the world would be if we all had the same taste.
The beauty of a piece of art very rarely has anything to do with a innate beauty of a subject. Making the simple profound is the artist's task of a lifetime...
Peter
Like them or not is a viewers prerogative, but I continually like to challenge myself, no matter what landscape I shoot and to present my work for others to enjoy (or not).
Last week I spent the week shooting with William Neill and he showed me how to see the landscape in the landscape. Wonder what kind of feedback I'll get when I start showing images from that week of photography.
You get it........
The beauty of a piece of art very rarely has anything to do with a innate beauty of a subject. Making the simple profound is the artist's task of a lifetime.
Ray ...if you knew me you would know I don't fly into rages.
Bottom line is I experienced a magnificent afternoon of shooting in an amazing place and then many evenings working on the series of images both from the Water Works and Silo City. (not to mention a few glasses of very nice wine).
Kevin in future if you decide to post images then you should ask Ray if he's happy with your subjects and only post what he thinks are "appropriate". This post smacks of censorship and possibly elitism. When I first viewed them I was jealous of the fact that you had the opportunity to access this type of photography. Well done. 8)
I received two email overnight. One from someone who railed against our site design, calling it an abomination.
The other, from some who picked up an email discussion that ended 7 years ago. He then added, "What a dumbass. Why the hell do you even open your stupid mouth? People like you make me sick. You're ignorant and full of shit.
Clearly someone gone off their meds. 7 years, and then this!
I mention these for no other reason than to point out that summer holiday weekends seem to leave some people adrift, and the opportunity to rail against someone or something apparently brings some solace to them.
Me, I'm going for a swim before breakfast, and then will do my best to enjoy this lovely summer holiday weekend. Oh yes, and in the Zen manner, I will do my best to think kind thoughts about others.
Michael
Of course. It's understood that people have different tastes. I'm under no delusion about that. Even identical twins can have different tastes.Well, you just answered your own question. Because we have different tastes.
What I find useful is trying to understand why one either likes, dislikes, or is indifferent to, a particular photo.
So often we just get comments like 'Nice shot!' or 'Great shot!'. I think probably the main reason I find beauty in landscape photos in general, is because they depict a naturalness and harmony which is so lacking in modern cities and industrialized situations.You can post rationalise your taste as much as you want, but ultimately your reason for liking something or not is down to your taste. All you are doing with the rationalising is describing what your tastes are, not explaining why they are.
From that perspective, I find Heavy Metal the antithesis of what I would describe as beautiful.
Ray ...if you knew me you would know I don't fly into rages. Actually I am very content happy and hardly ever angry. I have been taking images all my life and enjoy trying to shoot and illustrate something out of my comfort zone which for the most part over the last 20 years is landscapes. I hide nothing and my blog and galleries are out there for all to see and share. To me heavy metal is all about this remarkable building we got to visit in Buffalo and how it made me feel. The lighting, printing and such accomplishes what I wanted to covey. Too bad you can't see the prints at my gallery.Indeed. If you are a photographer and get upset because someone doesn't like your work, you better not show it to anyone.
Personally, I was astonished that anyone could react as Ray did to Kevin's pictures (except, perhaps, for the degree of processing in some cases).
No-one on this thread has yet mentioned what I find most interesting about this image--to me it tells a story about industry in America, the rise and eventual fall of industrial design based upon the coal age and the rise of American steel, and the ability and skills of American labor to fabricate, move and assemble gigantic works using rivers and trains and horses and sheer muscle and guts. The aesthetic of that design type is the same as the aesthetic of the Titanic, big and powerful and possible over-complicated with an incomplete understanding of the forces involved. When I look at the picture, I see all of those nuts and bolts and the thickness of the structural supports rising up on either side of the pressure tank. I see the ghosts of strong men laboring with winches in what was likely dangerous work to lever these monstrous pieces into place, others with gigantic wrenches painstakingly torquing each of the hundreds of bolts into place, men who probably took a streetcar to work or walked there and went home proud at the end of the day, able to point to a monumental work that was also vital for the public health.
I think that Kevin has caught the vitality of those workers efforts and the picture is a great testimony of an an era when it was thought necessary to build monumental things rather than efficient clever things, a rougher era that was a transition to our more technological time. What is shown in the picture could have been designed by a 17th century scientist, but the constituent industries necessary did not exist. But the concept of steam power and the industrial age came from that era. Now we are in a different era and the machinery appears primitive to our eyes, but the benefits of American industry based on that 17th century scientific concept of the world allowed America to prosper, to educate, to research and move into realms of production and manufacturing that would appear almost as magic to those of earlier times.
That is what that photo communicates to me. Thought provoking at the least, and to those old enough to know those who labored in the first half of the twentieth century, poignant. Well done, Kevin.
My personal tastes run to images that don't make you think of the processing. Nantucket is saturated enough, it doesn't need any help from me. And for our documentary work, I'm very careful not to overly edit the scene. I usually add a little contrast/clarity and noise reduction and brighten as needed to clearly see. At the same time, we try to use our artistic sensibilities.
But I don't find online criticism to be particularly helpful. As David said, it tends to want to make the photograph into one the critic would have taken. If you read critique forums, the same advice is offered over and over - look like the herd. I prefer to observe first hand when I am receiving criticism. I can see the person's expression, hear their tone of voice, watch what they really react to and what leaves them cold. To say that to post my work online means I have to receive random criticism from anonymous people, to open my heart to that negativity, I say no thanks. I don't think Kevin or Michael should have to endure it either. I don't think they owe anybody that.
I think the culture of distant criticism the internet has produced is not good for artists.
Sharon
So far, from the comments in this thread, I'm getting the impression that many of those who like Kevin's image, Heavy Metal, do so because they have some past, pleasant association with heavy, industrialized equipment, and have perhaps once worked, or continue to work, in a comfortable office in a water-works complex, nuclear reactor, or other environment with heavy machinery.What you really need to try and appreciate is that just because you view and rationalise the world in a particular way, it may have absolutely no bearing on how others enjoy or dislike things.
For me, the associations that Heavy Metal invoke are of a Dickensian, child slavery environment, an ear-damaging, constant clatter of machinery, and a drab, mind-numbing decor.
I'm with Sharon on this one. Online critique is typically little more than a thinly veiled proclamation of one's own creative or æsthetic superiority. Good and useful critique IMO involves trying to get into the head, or at least in tune with the sensibility, of the person whose work you're critiquing.Indeed.
Simply saying that one likes something or dislikes it tells others nothing about the object being critiqued. What it does do is tell us more than a little about the person making the critique.
Michael
Always! A truth all artists need to keep in mind. Another way to think of it as " consider the source".
Peter
Simply saying that one likes something or dislikes it tells others nothing about the object being critiqued. What it does do is tell us more than a little about the person making the critique.
Michael
I don't usually post negative comments about images, but Kevin has now posted a number of similar images on the home page depicting industrial scenes. No-one has commented on them, as far as I'm aware, yet he continues to post them.
I don't like them, Kevin. They're awful. I can only presume that you've never encountered such scenes in real life before, and perhaps find them fascinating because they appear so unusual to you. Is this correct? Alternatively, perhaps in the past you have worked in such an environment, and have emotional memories that these images inspire. Which is correct?
Sorry to be so negative. :)
Michael
Could you amplify on that concept. We frequently get comments about photos, such as 'Great shot', 'Nice shot', 'I like that', 'Well done!' etc.
Would you infer from such comments that the people making the comments have good taste? Or would you infer that such people are sometimes trying to please and curry favour, or make friends. In other words, basically being hypocritical.
My own view is that any comment is only useful if it's an honest comment, without bias and favour. It's even more useful if it's accompanied with some rational reason supporting the opinion.
Would you infer from such comments that…
So far, from the comments in this thread, I'm getting the impression that many of those who like Kevin's image, Heavy Metal, do so because they have some past, pleasant association with heavy, industrialized equipment, and have perhaps once worked, or continue to work, in a comfortable office in a water-works complex, nuclear reactor, or other environment with heavy machinery.
Saying "Nice shot" or similar is no different than saying "I hate it." Frankly, why should I, or anyone for that matter care what you think?
Michael
If one wants to provide useful criticism that makes me care then starting a discussion about the nature of the subject, the composition, the presentation and so forth has value. The creator of the image and others are still just left with what you think, but at least they have an indication of your thought process, which may be of interest or value.
If no-one cares whether his image is liked or disliked, or cares what anyone thinks about it, then why show it?
What's the problem?
I don't like them, Kevin. They're awful. I can only presume that you've never encountered such scenes in real life before, and perhaps find them fascinating because they appear so unusual to you. Is this correct? Alternatively, perhaps in the past you have worked in such an environment, and have emotional memories that these images inspire. Which is correct?
... I did. I initially described a dislike for the image, and I later described why I disliked it, in post #28...
... I don't like them...They're awful...
The problem is that your personal dislike of the picture content isn't sufficient to support a discussion.True. Except for the fact that the discussion is now 4 pages long.
This is an oldie but still so true - http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.htmlEven better was when someone posted a bunch of photos by similar 'old masters' for open critique. May also have been from TOP, but cannot recall off hand.
There is nothing more fun than to sit down and discuss photographs. I enjoy this a lot when shooting too. As anyone who has shot with me can attest I verbalize what I am seeing. So, anytime any of you are in Indianapolis let me know, stop by and we can discuss photography to our hearts content and maybe even enjoy a glass of wine. Or, come to one of the workshops that we do and we'll enjoy great discussions on numerous topics. We might even have a laugh or two.
Kevin
This is an oldie but still so true - http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html
I was reading through this long thread and couldn't believe my eyes. In my view Kevin has made a beautiful picture and in this case I like his post processing and I think the presentation fits the subject very well. I would have been proud to have taken this picture.
Hi Hans,
Nice to hear…
My take is that we photographers have different approaches. Photography is much about perception and interpretation. Kevin's interpretations are often a bit excessive to me, but I feel it is an artistic freedom that everyone has.
Regarding the recent home page pictures here on LuLa I generally liked them, they were not over the edge to my mind.
By the way, this is my interpretation of a subject from your recent workshop:
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Dolomites2014/i-9XZc3DZ/0/XL/20140605-_DSC4388-XL.jpg)
Thanks for taking us to great places. Now, about the 2015 workshop, I really want to take part…
Best regards
Erik
... I continually like to challenge myself, no matter what landscape I shoot and to present my work for others to enjoy (or not)...Hooray for this! If you don't go outside your comfort zone you don't grow. I once had an art teacher who challenged us to go find the most boring subject we could imagine and then use it to create a painting/drawing/photo that was truly exciting. As an example he took us all outside and asked for suggestions. Someone pointed to a crack in the sidewalk and he promptly set up a chair and went to work. An hour later he had produced a beautiful watercolor. I'll never forget that. It's often occurred to me that a painting of an inane object can be perceived in a much more accepting light than a photo, no matter how well done.
Someone pointed to a crack in the sidewalk…
Have you seen these photos by Ernst Haas (http://www.ernst-haas.com/colorGallery01.html)?
I have to wonder what's the point of compering 19th century technology with 21st one?
Did you read the post?
Although this is a condescending question, I will answer it: yes, I did. A question like this presupposes that I either
- post carelessly and mindlessly, without reading first what I am posting about, or
- I did read, but wasn't capable of grasping the point that you so obviously stated
So, once again, the question is: what is the point of of compering 19th century technology with 21st one? To show the superiority (in terms of its human aspect) of the latter? Well, duh! That Japanese managerial and engineering philosophy of the 20th and 21st century is superior to their (and our) 19th century one? Well, duh!
The beauty and significance of the 19th and early 20th century engineering is to be seen within their respective centuries' ethos, not today standards. Compared with 18th century and earlier, it was a magnificent progress for the humanity, even with its child labor and 16-hour workdays. It was a historic step that enabled us to have the politically correct engineering of today.
So, yes, depending whether you see a glass as half-full or half-empty, you can see such machinery as a symbol of child labor or a symbol of humanity's historic progress. Or both, as most sensible people do, depending on context.
Not to mention that, with a keen and discerning eye, you can see beauty in almost anything.
What is it that you see in industrial imagery?
I do not assume later works are better than earlier works. A lot of the best architecture we have was prior to modern engineering.TRANSLATION:A lot of the architecture I like was prior to modern engineering.
Many towns in Europe have houses that have stood for centuries. It is very unlikely a typical house engineered today will last more than 50 years.I've lived in numerous old [European] houses and they may be still standing, but they certainly were not necessarily well built.
Please! The Coffee Corner. (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?board=33.0)Really? Are you the Forum Police now, deciding what gets posted in threads? Also you a bit late with your daft comment as mine was simply following on from someone else's previous digression, if it was even that.