Luminous Landscape Forum

Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Paulo Bizarro on January 29, 2015, 02:25:59 am

Title: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on January 29, 2015, 02:25:59 am
Thanks for a very interesting article, with practical exemples and very good photos. One is really transported into the action, as the result of being close to it, and shooting with wide angles.

I also found interesting that this article goes against the dogma, so to speak, that says you can only shoot street with a small camera, preferably a Leica... Here we have great photos, shot with a DSLR and slow zooms, for Heaven´s sake! So, thanks for that.

One nit I have with some of the images is the perspective distortion on peoples heads, due to the wide angle lenses. I know it is unavoidable, and in no way detracts from the flow of the story being told, but stretched heads look strange.

Again, thanks for sharing.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: dmpbyrdwatcher on January 29, 2015, 11:07:58 am
I also enjoyed the article and the photos.  

However, I was most interested to read at the end that the author now uses his XZ-1 extensively.  All the photos in the article were made with a Canon DSLR, but I would love to see some work with the XZ-1.  Is there a website available with XZ-1 photos?

Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Jim Pascoe on February 02, 2015, 04:54:24 am
I concur with the above points about it being an interesting article and I do like the close-in style of shooting.

But.  As soon as I saw the first pictures and long before I reached the final section on post-production I just thought "Silver Efex Pro".  It is a great piece of software and I do use it sparingly - but in general it's over-use masks any personal style a photographer has in my opinion.  Maybe it's because as well as being a working photographer I'm also very involved with a local photography club and also do a lot of club-level judging.  The amateur world is filled with Silver Efex pictures - and they are mostly fairly indistinguishable.  Sometimes I quite like the effect but usually the treatment overpowers the original picture.

If the pictures in this article were the first I had seen to use the software I would possibly think wow!  But I think that to successfully use software of this kind (likewise HDR) its use has to be so subtle as to be almost invisible.

So - good pictures - I just think they are overpowered by the post production.  Or am I just being boring?

Jim
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: brianrybolt on February 02, 2015, 07:37:34 am
You're right wether you're boring or not.  The use of the software takes over the image.

Brian
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: stamper on February 02, 2015, 10:36:26 am
You're right wether you're boring or not.  The use of the software takes over the image.

Brian

But it can also MAKE an image.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Jim Pascoe on February 02, 2015, 10:39:59 am
But it can also MAKE an image.

It can - but my point really is that it then looks like everybody else's image.  It's difficult enough as it is in photography to be original, or even just distinctive.

Jim
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 02, 2015, 11:31:40 am
... The use of the software takes over the image.

+1

Although the meaning of the above should be taken in the context of the previous posts, for those who take things literally, here is an amended version (or two):

The (over)use of the software takes over the image

The use of special-effects software takes over the image
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: stamper on February 02, 2015, 11:40:42 am
It can - but my point really is that it then looks like everybody else's image.  It's difficult enough as it is in photography to be original, or even just distinctive.

Jim

Your Reply#2 was a salient point but it was also subjective. Few people will see as many images as yourself so for most photographers there isn't an overload of images that look the same. I know that there is at least a dozen ways to convert. I use Silver eFex to convert an image but always dodge and burn in PS afterwards which should mean a difference?
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Jim Pascoe on February 03, 2015, 07:27:52 am
Your Reply#2 was a salient point but it was also subjective. Few people will see as many images as yourself so for most photographers there isn't an overload of images that look the same. I know that there is at least a dozen ways to convert. I use Silver eFex to convert an image but always dodge and burn in PS afterwards which should mean a difference?

Yes, in a way the appreciation of photography is all subjective.  But I think my point was quite objective in that the overuse of plug-ins does reduce the individuality of photographers.  It may be harder to get an image right in camera, and slow to adjust in Lightroom and Photoshop, but all that means the picture has a chance of conveying something of the photographer in it - rather than conveying the vision of the software.  It's odd that even though their are dozens of presets in Silver Efex, it's use is almost always visible unless done very judiciously.  When I try it myself I almost always prefer the look to what I can do myself - but like a drug I try not to over-indulge.  None of my most successful mono pictures have been edited in Silver Efex - and I dare not try them in case I prefer the look!

Jim
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: stamper on February 03, 2015, 08:02:14 am
Silver eFex is extremely flexible imo. About 2 dozen presets on the left and the individual controls on the right means that it is possible to get something "individual". If someone processes an image to suit their vision, posts it on Flickr then they have no way of knowing if someone else has processed an image in a similar way? I think the problem is that photographers are encouraged to have heroes, such as Ansel Adams and then they consciously or unconsciously mimic them. In this weeks Amateur Photographer B&W photographer Billy Currie - a fine photographer - is featured despite him being featured a few months ago. Some will endeavour to copy him. Personally I have no heroes, hence I don't consciously copy anyone. To sum up, don't blame Silver eFex but the individual who copies others. :)
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Seth Honeyman on February 03, 2015, 10:13:55 am
Back when we all shot film, we used different emulsions for the same reasons people now use software. Kodachrome, Velvia, Pan-X, Tri-X, and Agfapan all had distinct looks and uses.  The difference today is that we can incorporate all those looks in a single shooting session or, indeed, in variations on the same image. Back in 1970, I had to have several preloaded Hassie backs to get even a smidge of that shooting flexibility.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Jim Pascoe on February 04, 2015, 06:53:20 am
Hey Stamper - back in the 1980's when I first became familiar with Ansel Adams he was the one I tried to emulate - in a pale imitation sort of way I have to admit.  The best I could afford was a Mamiya 645J but I had my own darkroom and loved shooting landscape.  But because of no access to an Ansel Adams plug-in I had no chance of my pictures looking like his - they were distinctly mine.......
I sort of agree with your comments about Silver efex - but the problem is many photographers do not understand the concept of restraint when it comes to software!  The more basic the tool the more scope for creating something personal.

Jim
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: stamper on February 04, 2015, 07:55:22 am
I think we are both in agreement about Silver eFex. When I use it I pick a preset on the left but always try out the filters on the right as well as the white and black adjustment and sometimes the film types. As stated dodging and burning in PS follows so I don't as a member suggests elsewhere choose a "canned" version. :)
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 04, 2015, 09:58:16 am
I usually add parsley, salt, and a few extra spices to a soup I created with a can opener. I swear it then tastes just like a home-made soup ;)
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Jim Pascoe on February 05, 2015, 11:51:09 am
I usually add parsley, salt, and a few extra spices to a soup I created with a can opener. I swear it then tastes just like a home-made soup ;)

Unlikely to fool my wife.......  she has an uncanny knack of spotting short-cuts in cooking!  It would probably work on me though.

Jim
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: speedyk on February 15, 2015, 07:13:33 pm
An image might defy my usual workflow, it teaches me something new. Then subsequent images are different, my eye is changed.

Those canned soups start with too much salt, makes it easy for wives to tell about cheating. Something needs to be less instead of more.

I prefer constructive crits because we all like good soup. I liked what he did, not because I would do it, but because it gave me a new way to see.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Petrus on February 17, 2015, 01:21:57 am
Bit later here, hello!? Had problems with login…

I find the B&W conversions almost ugly. Too much Silver Effex "wet rock". Or similar. They are not on par with LL standards. Or maybe they are, remembering some over processed and unnaturally saturated landscape samples and tutorials in the past.

It is possible to adjust the strength of effect within the plugin, but also to first make a natural B&W layer as background, then another with stronger manipulation like "wet rock", and adjust to taste in PS with opacity slider.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: stamper on February 17, 2015, 03:41:05 am
It is possible to adjust the strength of effect within the plugin, but also to first make a natural B&W layer as background, then another with stronger manipulation like "wet rock", and adjust to taste in PS with opacity slider.

What you are proposing can be done in eFFex without a"natural B&W layer" Simply choose another preset on the left and use the sliders on the right to fine tune. Your remark about being "ugly" is subjective and was obviously the poster's preferred rendering to make the image different from everyone else, if that is possible? I think at the end of the day you either like what you see, or don't. "Telling" the poster how to manipulate the image in a way that doesn't suit him won't fly? ::)
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Petrus on February 17, 2015, 05:50:32 am
Your remark about being "ugly" is subjective and was obviously the poster's preferred rendering to make the image different from everyone else, if that is possible? I think at the end of the day you either like what you see, or don't. "Telling" the poster how to manipulate the image in a way that doesn't suit him won't fly? ::)

This thread is about a critique of the article, including the pictures. Opinions are subjective, in this case I find the post processing downright ugly, strong opinion and wording, maybe, but I said it.

What is wrong in a critique to suggest ways to "improve" the image? The author might consider it, or not.

Also, at least for me there are also other ways of reacting to a picture besides the binary "like" and "not like". There are also "quite good", "fine", "ok", "ok, but", "well…" etc. Besides total ignorance also if the image is not worth any reaction to either direction.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: stamper on February 18, 2015, 04:19:41 am
In Reply#16 you stated .... natural B&W layer..... What is that? I think there is a difference between critiquing and imposing a vision that the critic has but not what the author of the image had in mind. It is obvious the author of the image had a certain style or vision in mind when he shot and processed the image. What you are stating is that he was "wrong" in doing so which imo goes beyond critiquing?  :(
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Petrus on February 18, 2015, 04:52:32 am
From my viewpoint the processing is wrong, as the result is ugly. The author might think, and apparently does, that they are good and processing was fine. There is no critique without a difference in opinion.

By "natural B&W layer" I meant, in lack of better terminology, a straight luminance conversion, or at least something that looks unprocessed. Which could be blended to taste with the heavily processed version. Apparently there are also more elegant ways of doing the same, like adjusting the effect straight in NIK (or what ever).
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: stamper on February 18, 2015, 05:07:42 am
Channel blending would work if you like the layer approach. I use Effex but don't see the need for a conversion before hand. I have a couple of books on Effex and the approach you use isn't recommended. As to "wrong". If I stated your approach to the use of Effex was "wrong" would you take umbrage? It isn't "wrong" for you to include a natural B&W layer just as it isn't "wrong" the way the author of the images processed his images. They were different to your tastes, not "wrong"?
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Petrus on February 18, 2015, 06:13:01 am
Channel blending would work if you like the layer approach. I use Effex but don't see the need for a conversion before hand. I have a couple of books on Effex and the approach you use isn't recommended. As to "wrong". If I stated your approach to the use of Effex was "wrong" would you take umbrage? It isn't "wrong" for you to include a natural B&W layer just as it isn't "wrong" the way the author of the images processed his images. They were different to your tastes, not "wrong"?

Actually I am happy to hear that my method if blending "natural" and "processed" layer is wrong, as then there must be a better way I am not aware of. Learning is beneficial, yes?

I just have been doing it because I do not need to commit myself to the process by pressing OK, but can easily see the effect and make the final decision by using the opacity slider. If this is "wrong" and there is a better way to get the same result I am happy to be put straight!
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: stamper on February 18, 2015, 07:40:31 am
There are at least a dozen basic conversion methods that I have seen and a lot of variations within those conversions. It doesn't really matter how you you convert and process an image as long as you like the output AND you enjoy using a particular workflow.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 18, 2015, 08:41:30 am
The pictures are ugly due to a canned, cliche post processing, at least for some of us. Therefore, for some of us, the process used was wrong. Some others find it pleasing, thus the process right. The "right" and "wrong" should be understood in that context, not as absolutes. It that sense, there is nothing wrong with saying the process was wrong.

Btw, Stamper, you seem to imply that, when "artist" presents its work, that's how he likes it and wants it to be, thus who are we to say otherwise? In other words, in your view, there is no room and no need for any critique? Just accolades, unless one wants to be subjected to "didn't your momma teach you to shut up if you have nothing nice to say?"
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: stamper on February 18, 2015, 11:34:59 am
Slobodan Alain Briot had a very good essay a while back published on critique. Do a search for it and you may learn something. The gist of what he said is that......there is a difference between critiquing an image and imposing your vision on it. The latter part is what some on the forum are guilty of... imo. They tell the poster if they had captured the image posted then they would have done it in a completely different way from the poster. The article will explain it better than me.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 18, 2015, 12:21:57 pm
Slobodan Alain Briot had a very good essay a while back published on critique... there is a difference between critiquing an image and imposing your vision on it...

Just because AB said something, it ain't making it so.That distinction presupposes there is "objective" critique, "right" critique, "constructive" critique, etc., (i.e., my critique) and, by the same token, "wrong" critique (i.e., your critique). Critique is critique. It has been my long-standing view that any critique is a good critique, you just need to understand it properly. It can be elaborate or it can be brief (+1, nice!, I like it, etc.). But neither elaborate nor brief makes it inherently good or bad. It is just one piece of the puzzle.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: jjj on February 18, 2015, 12:31:27 pm
I also found interesting that this article goes against the dogma, so to speak, that says you can only shoot street with a small camera, preferably a Leica... Here we have great photos, shot with a DSLR and slow zooms, for Heaven´s sake! So, thanks for that.
People who like to speak dogmatically, usually only tend to illustrate how little they in fact know.

One of the great things about art is that if you are talented, you can use the 'wrong' tool in an interesting way. Those lacking talent like to impose rules about how things should be done.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: stamper on February 19, 2015, 05:59:21 am
Just because AB said something, it ain't making it so.That distinction presupposes there is "objective" critique, "right" critique, "constructive" critique, etc., (i.e., my critique) and, by the same token, "wrong" critique (i.e., your critique). Critique is critique. It has been my long-standing view that any critique is a good critique, you just need to understand it properly. It can be elaborate or it can be brief (+1, nice!, I like it, etc.). But neither elaborate nor brief makes it inherently good or bad. It is just one piece of the puzzle.

With respect to the red lined text then Alain is a far better and knowledgable photographer than you Slobodan therefore commands greater respect than yourself. Did you bother to look for and read the essay before dismissing Alain's thoughts? If not here it is.

http://luminous-landscape.com/vision-11-critiquing-photographs/

Please read and tell what you don't like about it. The pertinent part is.

Personally, I see a difference between critiquing and criticizing a photograph, or any work of art for that matter. For me critiquing means looking at the work for the purpose of finding out the strong and weak points of the work.  On the other hand criticizing means taking a critical look at the work for the purpose of expressing a personal opinion.  While there is a gray area between the two, I view the former as constructive and the later as destructive.

That's what I was alluding to and what a lot of photographers don't understand when critiquing an image. I don't pretend to be a good at critique
but I try not to be destructive. In my camera club days I listened to judges who can dissect an image without being hurtful in their musings. I suspect that many on here are trying to put across their "superiority" rather than helping the author of a posted image.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: jjj on February 19, 2015, 08:05:25 am
With respect to the red lined text then Alain is a far better and knowledgable photographer than you Slobodan therefore commands greater respect than yourself. Did you bother to look for and read the essay before dismissing Alain's thoughts? If not here it is.

http://luminous-landscape.com/vision-11-critiquing-photographs/

Please read and tell what you don't like about it. The pertinent part is.

Personally, I see a difference between critiquing and criticizing a photograph, or any work of art for that matter. For me critiquing means looking at the work for the purpose of finding out the strong and weak points of the work.  On the other hand criticizing means taking a critical look at the work for the purpose of expressing a personal opinion.  While there is a gray area between the two, I view the former as constructive and the later as destructive.


That's what I was alluding to and what a lot of photographers don't understand when critiquing an image. I don't pretend to be a good at critique
but I try not to be destructive. In my camera club days I listened to judges who can dissect an image without being hurtful in their musings. I suspect that many on here are trying to put across their "superiority" rather than helping the author of a posted image.
'Critiquing' is simply a pompous way of saying 'constructive criticism and like the term 'giclee print' being used as a substitute for 'inkjet print', it is more informative about the person using it than anything else.
Also sometimes bluntly telling someone they haven't made the grade can be far, far more constructive than being all polite and nice. It all depends on the person you are talking to. Some people if given polite feedback only hear the positive spin and ignore the useful feedback, so it's basically a waste of time. Others will take any little bit of criticism to heart and not hear the positive aspects being mentioned. You have to pitch teaching/criticism/feedback to the individuals involved. For example I had a jiu jitsu student who wasn't making progress he should. Because he knew me too well and I wasn't 'scary' enough because I teach in a positive manner, I had another instructor to tell him that he was rubbish and if he didn't buck up he wouldn't get the next grade or progress any further. The trick worked and after that he did really well.


Usually I only pass judgement on other people's photos if directly asked, it is germane to a discussion or I can be practically helpful in some way. Why you like/dislike something is usually personal taste, so if something isn't to one's taste, then one's opinion is often valueless.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 19, 2015, 12:43:34 pm
...Alain is a far better and knowledgable photographer than you Slobodan therefore commands greater respect than yourself....

I try not to be destructive. In my camera club days I listened to judges who can dissect an image without being hurtful in their musings...

Ouch, Stamper!

You just hurt my feelings. :'( I thought you learned something from those judges?
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 19, 2015, 01:45:06 pm
... critiquing means looking at the work for the purpose of finding out the strong and weak points of the work.  On the other hand criticizing means taking a critical look at the work for the purpose of expressing a personal opinion...

And how do you find "the strong and weak points" without involving a personal opinion of what constitutes "strong" and "weak"!?

Once again, a stance like that, coming from an expert or not, promulgates the fallacy that there is objective critique and subjective criticism. All critique/criticism is subjective. However, when we like it or agree with it, it is "objective" and "constructive" critique. When we don't, it then becomes subjective and "destructive" criticism.

Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: stamper on February 20, 2015, 03:51:39 am
And how do you find "the strong and weak points" without involving a personal opinion of what constitutes "strong" and "weak"!?

Once again, a stance like that, coming from an expert or not, promulgates the fallacy that there is objective critique and subjective criticism. All critique/criticism is subjective. However, when we like it or agree with it, it is "objective" and "constructive" critique. When we don't, it then becomes subjective and "destructive" criticism.



I think it boils down to what is a persons motives for saying what they say. Is it to be genuinely helpful and to get a positive response from the person whose image is being critiqued. Or is it, in some cases, for someone to try and prove they know better by criticising the image and then making suggestions that makes that person look more knowledgable? Or is it to be deliberately hurtful. I once posted an image that a now departed member said was .... a waste of computer time. How would you describe that remark? Subjective or objective or just plain mean. Getting back to the original point. Do you regard the words ugly and wrong justified, especially when the image received universal praise from others? What about the member who looked at an image, didn't like the sky and stated he didn't look at the rest of the image before dismissing it? Destructive imo  possibly means being jealous of what is seen and then nitpick the smallest distractions to dismiss the image. There are a lot of nitpickers on the forum. I have just looked at an image that one member nitpicked at what he thought was tyre marks on a beach scene only to be told it was propeller marks and a car would have sunk if it had been there. We obviously agree to disagree on this subject. :(
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: stamper on February 20, 2015, 03:55:20 am
Ouch, Stamper!

You just hurt my feelings. :'( I thought you learned something from those judges?

You were very dismissive of someone who is held in high regard in the site. Your prerogative but I don't see any articles published on the site from your good self. ;)
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: AreBee on February 20, 2015, 04:12:56 am
Slobodan,

Quote
...the fallacy that there is objective critique and subjective criticism. All critique/criticism is subjective. However, when we like it or agree with it, it is "objective" and "constructive" critique. When we don't, it then becomes subjective and "destructive" criticism.

How do you explain the case whereby a viewer considers a compositon to be strong but does not personally like it?
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 20, 2015, 10:09:53 am
Slobodan,

How do you explain the case whereby a viewer considers a compositon to be strong but does not personally like it?

You mean like someone saying "Yes, I have an opinion on the matter, but I disagree with it"? I'd say that would require explanation from a different kind of professional  ;)
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: AreBee on February 20, 2015, 10:16:46 am
Slobodan,

Thank you.

p.s. Rob says thank you too.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 20, 2015, 01:25:26 pm
...Do you regard the words ugly and wrong justified, especially when the image received universal praise from others?..

I do regard them justified, in the context I explained in my post #24.

As for "universal praise"... Only the first two posters (of 11 in total) said something nice about the images. Four of us were critical, some mildly, others harshly. The remaining five, including yourself, did not express any opinion about the images, but rather discussed the use of plug-ins or the philosophy of critique.

Two out of 11?  Hardly a "universal praise."

However, even if the first two hundred or two thousand or whatever were showering it with praise, it does not deny the right or diminish the validity of the next critic to be negative. I hope we agree on that one? Unless, of course, we live in a society where a Central Committee determined in advance what is "right" and "wrong," or what is worth the praise?
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Isaac on February 20, 2015, 03:24:24 pm
What about the member who looked at an image, didn't like the sky and stated he didn't look at the rest of the image before dismissing it?

"didn't like the sky" -- False: I said nothing of liking or disliking.
"didn't look at the rest of the image" -- False: you changed the tense to change the meaning of my words.

You disrupted normal commentary about Arlen's photo.
Show some consideration for forum users: don't disrupt discussions about their photos.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 20, 2015, 04:54:34 pm
Slobodan,

Thank you.

p.s. Rob says thank you too.

Ha! Nice one! I appreciate your sense of humor (and sarcasm).

But in all seriousness, saying things like "strong" and "weak" in the context of a photographic critique is a value judgment (in a different context, say if you are comparing me to Mike Tyson, saying his is "strong" and I am "weak" is not a value judgment, but a simple, easily observable fact)

Hence, saying "strong composition" is a positive value judgment, and it doesn't make much sense to accompany it simultaneously with a negative value judgment ("but I do not like it"). Unless you have a split personality, that is ;)

What would make sense, however, is to say, for instance: "This is a classical rule-of-thirds composition, but I still do not like the image." In this case we have an objective observation (rule of thirds) and a personal, subjective, value judgment. That would make sense.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 20, 2015, 05:21:38 pm
You were very dismissive of someone who is held in high regard in the site...

Not dismissive, just scientific (in the sense of behavioral psychology and cognitive biases).

I've been following Alain Briot for years before he started contributing to LuLa. I like some of his photographs a lot, some not so much. I even bought one of his books (on marketing Fine Art) when I was preparing for my first art fair. I read it carefully, as he certainly has more experience in the area than I do. I followed some of his advice, as it made sense to me, and didn't if it didn't make sense to me.

Just in case you think I have something against AB in particular, would it be more acceptable to you if I used a more generic term:

"Just because an expert said something, it ain't making it so."

How about if I used an even more universally beloved authority, like Albert Einstein, and said:

"Just because Einstein said something, it ain't making it so."

Would you agree with that?

But before you answer, take into account what Einstein said in 1932:

Quote
"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will."

Or Charlie Chaplin in 1916:

Quote
“The cinema is little more than a fad. It’s canned drama. What audiences really want to see is flesh and blood on the stage”.

Or Irving Fisher in 1929, which some of his peers described as ""the greatest economist the United States has ever produced," just before the Wall Street crashed:

Quote
The stock market had reached "a permanently high plateau."

The history is littered with erroneous statements by experts. If you follow blindly every expert's advice, you might end up drinking their Kool-Aid or selling all your earthly possessions in anticipations of doomsday. Little independent, critical and skeptical thinking on your own goes a long way.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: AreBee on February 20, 2015, 05:40:11 pm
Slobodan,

Quote
What would make sense, however, is to say, for instance: "This is a classical rule-of-thirds composition, but I still do not like the image." In this case we have an objective observation (rule of thirds) and a personal, subjective, value judgment. That would make sense.

Do you accept the principle that the so-called rule of thirds tends to strengthen a composition?



Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 20, 2015, 05:50:55 pm
Slobodan,

Do you accept the principle that the so-called rule of thirds tends to strengthen a composition?

No, not necessarily. It would have to be in harmony with other elements  of the image.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: AreBee on February 20, 2015, 05:59:05 pm
Slobodan,

Quote
No, not necessarily. It would have to be in harmony with other elements  of the image.

I did write "tend". No matter.

Please define "in harmony".
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: stamper on February 21, 2015, 04:15:41 am
"didn't like the sky" -- False: I said nothing of liking or disliking.
"didn't look at the rest of the image" -- False: you changed the tense to change the meaning of my words.

You disrupted normal commentary about Arlen's photo.
Show some consideration for forum users: don't disrupt discussions about their photos.

Isaac here is what you posted.

fwiw I find the strips of cloud completely distracting and don't look at the rest of the picture.

I think saying it is distracting is the equivalent to not liking and I did indeed change the tense because you used the wrong one in the first place?

With regards to disrupting discussions then you are a past master in doing so and it seems it is the only thing you do well because your photographic input - with respect to posting images - is zero. ;D
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: stamper on February 21, 2015, 04:34:36 am
Slobodan in Reply#40 you continue to dodge the point of what I stated about Alain Briot

Personally, I see a difference between critiquing and criticizing a photograph, or any work of art for that matter. For me critiquing means looking at the work for the purpose of finding out the strong and weak points of the work.  On the other hand criticizing means taking a critical look at the work for the purpose of expressing a personal opinion.  While there is a gray area between the two, I view the former as constructive and the later as destructive.


Are you dismissing Alain's assertion? Personally I think he is correct and that is why I highlighted it. Quoting Several well known people and their failed statements was pointless in the context of this discussion and an obvious red herring. Nobody is perfect and I am sure if I looked hard enough through you posts I will find statements that you have made that were wrong?
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: stamper on February 21, 2015, 05:00:02 am
I do regard them justified, in the context I explained in my post #24.

As for "universal praise"... Only the first two posters (of 11 in total) said something nice about the images. Four of us were critical, some mildly, others harshly. The remaining five, including yourself, did not express any opinion about the images, but rather discussed the use of plug-ins or the philosophy of critique.

Two out of 11?  Hardly a "universal praise."

However, even if the first two hundred or two thousand or whatever were showering it with praise, it does not deny the right or diminish the validity of the next critic to be negative. I hope we agree on that one? Unless, of course, we live in a society where a Central Committee determined in advance what is "right" and "wrong," or what is worth the praise?

There was more than two praising the images. Some who did bring up negative points also made positive ones. I think that everyone is entitled to a point of view BUT it is how you phrase it is what matters. Harsh phrasing says more about the person making the statement than the person being targeted. You aren't shy in highlighting faults in other member's statements, in fact you relish it. BTW I don't think Isaac was too happy with being twinned with you in a post a few days ago when your reaction was huh. ;)
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Jim Pascoe on February 21, 2015, 09:12:03 am
Well as the third person to post and the first to say I didn't like the processing/presentation of the images, I am interested to see the thread come back to life!

I quickly had another look at the pictures and my opinion hasn't changed.  Personally I find the processing is so stylised it overpowers the pictures.  That is only my opinion.  And on the subject of critiquing pictures or whatever you want to call it, I think it perfectly valid to express strong opinions about pictures when they are presented by an experienced photographer and published on a site like this.  I would moderate my language and views considerably if I were being asked by a beginner or improving photographer to look at their pictures.

The photographer in the article is obviously very confident about his approach to presenting his work and there is absolutely nothing wrong with us giving opinions about it.  I would never be rude or for one moment think that my opinion is any more valid than his or anyone else's.  In fact I do not often comment on pictures shown on LL because I don't want to just say 'Nice Picture' - especially when it's by somebody who's been shooting longer than I've been alive.  The picture usually are what they are - nobody wants to hear me say I think it's rubbish.  Some of them are excellent.

Perhaps in this specific case my problem is that I regularly see aspiring photographers think that using pronounced software effects to be the short-cut to pictures with impact, instead of realising it's mostly about light, content and mood.  And I just get bored with pictures that are clones of stuff I've seen a hundred times. The pictures in the article have had the mood SilverEFX-d out of them in my opinion.

But please remember that back in Post Number 3 I did say that I enjoyed the article and liked the Close-in style of shooting.

Jim
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 21, 2015, 10:16:31 am
Slobodan in Reply#40 you continue to dodge the point of what I stated about Alain Briot...

Are you dismissing Alain's assertion? ...

How am I dodging it!? I made it perfectly clear in several posts that I disagree with that type of opinion (which, by the way, isn't AB's invention).
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 21, 2015, 10:19:01 am
Well said, Jim.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Isaac on February 21, 2015, 05:40:33 pm
I think saying it is distracting is the equivalent to not liking and I did indeed change the tense because you used the wrong one in the first place?

1) If I had meant dislike I would have written dislike.
2) I did not use the wrong tense.

With regards to disrupting discussions then you are a past master in doing so…

If that were true, it would not excuse the lack of consideration that you continue to show towards other forum users.
Show some consideration for forum users: don't disrupt discussions about their photos.

…because your photographic input - with respect to posting images - is zero.

Not true.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: stamper on February 22, 2015, 05:15:54 am
1) If I had meant dislike I would have written dislike.
2) I did not use the wrong tense.

If that were true, it would not excuse the lack of consideration that you continue to show towards other forum users.
Show some consideration for forum users: don't disrupt discussions about their photos.

Not true.

Isaac you have been asked politely by many posters to show examples of your photographic output which you have so far declined. You say that it isn't true that you haven't posted images. If that is so then prove it or the members will be doubting your claim of Not true.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: jjj on February 22, 2015, 09:44:59 am
1) If I had meant dislike I would have written dislike.
I'm with you there.
A pet peeve of mine is people incorrectly assuming ones means dislike when you say you do not like something.
Like, not like and dislike have three distinct meanings. One is positive, one is neutral, one is negative. Annoyingly, many people use or conflate the latter two to be a negative criticism.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Iluvmycam on February 22, 2015, 09:53:52 am
I prefer up close with superwides.

One online critic had this to say about my work...

"I think somebody should tell you: your shots are very boring, nothing is happening there, just very normal snapshots, and you are trying to make them look interesting by shooting with a wide angle and HDR...they are all trash."

Beside superwides I want a small footprint cam. Definitely not a dslr. Of course a photog can use whatever they like. I read about one photog using an 8 x 10 cm for street shots of Occupy in NY. 
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 22, 2015, 10:01:08 am
Isaac you have been asked politely by many posters to show examples of your photographic output which you have so far declined. You say that it isn't true that you haven't posted images. If that is so then prove it or the members will be doubting your claim of Not true.

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=62949.msg507145#msg507145
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Isaac on February 22, 2015, 01:52:15 pm
Isaac you have been asked politely by many posters to show examples of your photographic output which you have so far declined. You say that it isn't true that you haven't posted images. If that is so then prove it or the members will be doubting your claim of Not true.

I won't hold my breath waiting for your apology.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: stamper on February 23, 2015, 04:05:52 am
No apology forthcoming. Why? Because these images - assuming these are yours - were posted two years ago and ever since then you have ignored pleas from various members to post some. Why didn't you own up to posting images instead of Slobodan having to provide a link?

Isaac you have been asked politely by many posters to show examples of your photographic output which you have so far declined. You say that it isn't true that you haven't posted images. If that is so then prove it or the members will be doubting your claim of Not true.

Therefore my question is still perfectly valid. Show us some examples of your photographic output, instead of relying on someone else. ;D
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Jim Pascoe on February 23, 2015, 06:12:14 am
I won't hold my breath waiting for your apology.

Isaac - to be frank your (almost) only contribution to pictures on this site cannot be real evidence that you are an active photographer any more than somebody quoting only one sentence from their unpublished novel could be considered a novelist.
You may take photographs or you may not - I'm not overly concerned.  But if you do it seems only reasonable to post them sometimes or give a link to them.  Your posts are still perfectly valid without you needing to contribute photographically, but you have to appreciate that they will be very undervalued by anybody who actually is a photographer.  Perhaps you have dug yourself into a deep hole about this over the years and you now find it impossible to post pictures in case they are overtly criticised.  If that is the case - I wouldn't worry - some of the best, most knowledgable posters on the forum are average to mediocre photographers - in my opinion.

Jim
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: stamper on February 23, 2015, 06:38:28 am
Jim you are absolutely spot on. Even when he asked for an apology he didn't post any examples. One wonders if Slobodan hadn't posted a link would he have done so. I anticipate that he will once again ask for an apology without posting links.  ::)
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: AreBee on February 23, 2015, 09:12:04 am
Jim,

Quote
Your posts are still perfectly valid without you needing to contribute photographically, but you have to appreciate that they will be very undervalued by anybody who actually is a photographer.

I exclude myself from the above.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Isaac on February 23, 2015, 02:32:10 pm
I exclude myself from the above.

How wonderfully ambiguous, from someone so insistently precise ;-)
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Isaac on February 23, 2015, 03:43:23 pm
Your posts are still perfectly valid without you needing to contribute photographically…

Quite so.

…but you have to appreciate that they will be very undervalued by anybody who actually is a photographer.

Such is prejudice (and this would be prejudice based on ignorance).
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Jim Pascoe on February 24, 2015, 05:14:40 am
Quite so.

Such is prejudice (and this would be prejudice based on ignorance).

Isaac I do apologise - on re-reading my post I should have written "......but you have to appreciate that they MAY be undervalued by anybody who actually is a photographer".

And I don't think that would be my prejudice - I would consider the comments on points of law by a qualified lawyer to have greater weight than those from a layman for example.  I read your posts regularly but when you are talking about photography I have to take your comments in light of your experience level in the medium.  And these comments are not specific to you so this is in no way a personal attack.

Best wishes

Jim
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Isaac on February 24, 2015, 01:35:59 pm
…to have greater weight…

1) I take people's forum comments on their own merit -- sometimes daft, sometimes insightful, sometimes uninformed, sometimes provocative (in a good way), sometimes mean-spirited, sometimes helpful, …


…in light of your experience level in the medium.

I make no pretence of being a professional photographer. I make no pretence of entering international photo contests. I regularly photograph to work-out-issues-with and further-develop previous photographs to my satisfaction.

"When you ask each of these questions while looking at the first drawing of your idea, the answers will show you what the problems are, and how to pursue solving them in your second drawing. And when you ask these questions of your second drawing, the answers will guide your third, and so on. Each drawing will be different and each will open doors of understanding. (http://books.google.com/books?id=KeKJ9NrMN64C&lpg=PA176&ots=QY_gtWR6Zc&dq=%22To%20make%20art%20is%20to%20pursue%20an%20idea%20in%20a%20visual%20way%22&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=%22Each%20drawing%20will%20be%20different%20and%20each%20will%20open%20doors%20of%20understanding.%22&f=false)"

(And see #1)
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: stamper on February 25, 2015, 04:34:19 am
Isaac in a little while there will be a knock on your front door. When you answer it there will be men in white coats asking for you to go with them. Don't struggle because it is for your own good. ;)
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: stamper on February 25, 2015, 04:37:15 am
Quote Isaac.

1) I take people's forum comments on their own merit -- sometimes daft, sometimes insightful, sometimes uninformed, sometimes provocative (in a good way), sometimes mean-spirited, sometimes helpful, …

unquote.

An interesting observation. However you missed out something important, humour.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Jim Pascoe on February 25, 2015, 10:08:47 am
1) I take people's forum comments on their own merit -- sometimes daft, sometimes insightful, sometimes uninformed, sometimes provocative (in a good way), sometimes mean-spirited, sometimes helpful, …


I make no pretence of being a professional photographer. I make no pretence of entering international photo contests. I regularly photograph to work-out-issues-with and further-develop previous photographs to my satisfaction.

"When you ask each of these questions while looking at the first drawing of your idea, the answers will show you what the problems are, and how to pursue solving them in your second drawing. And when you ask these questions of your second drawing, the answers will guide your third, and so on. Each drawing will be different and each will open doors of understanding. (http://books.google.com/books?id=KeKJ9NrMN64C&lpg=PA176&ots=QY_gtWR6Zc&dq=%22To%20make%20art%20is%20to%20pursue%20an%20idea%20in%20a%20visual%20way%22&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=%22Each%20drawing%20will%20be%20different%20and%20each%20will%20open%20doors%20of%20understanding.%22&f=false)"

(And see #1)

Well, I've said my piece.

Jim
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: stamper on February 25, 2015, 10:13:58 am
Well, I've said my piece.

Jim

i think deaf ears will prevail?
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Isaac on February 25, 2015, 12:37:07 pm
However you missed out something important, humour.

Humour is exactly what your snide remarks lack: they are not funny, they are just insulting.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Isaac on February 25, 2015, 04:06:06 pm
Well, I've said my piece.

In doing so you provided an example of civility.
Title: Re: Wilson's Asian night market article
Post by: Christopher Sanderson on February 25, 2015, 06:36:09 pm
I think we are done here folks!...
Topic Locked