My website

[Vuurtoren]

Ok folks, maybe kijkers/viewers might like to comment on my gallery entitled: "The Tone Poet".  I'll say no more at the moment except that I appreciate honest thoughts, if you do not like it please say so, obviously if you do that would help as well.

www.beeld-spraak.com

Thanks folks.

[wolfnowl]

Some nice work, Chris.  Are you familiar with Andy Ilachinski's blog? http://tao-of-digital-photography.blogspot.com/

Mike.

[RSL]

+1. It's a nicely done site, Chris, and there's some excellent photography on it. Well done.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

+2. Lovely work.

Eric

[Vuurtoren]

Thanks for the comments.  That blog site is massive, I will be going through it over the next few weeks - slowly, but thanks for the link.

Ok, what does +2 mean?  is that 2 out of 2 or 2 out of 10?

I'll come back later.

[Michael LS]

"The Tone Poet" collection had a lot of great iconic shapes and textures,
and an impressionist feel. You took some creative risks, and the images
work really well, (for me, anyway). I enjoyed them, as I did the rest of
your work.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Ok, what does +2 mean?  is that 2 out of 2 or 2 out of 10?

I use "+2" when someone else has already used a "+1."
"+1" generally means "the poster before me said just what I wanted to say, and I'm raising him/her one."
Then "+2" means "the poster before me already used +1, so I'll raise her/him another one, making two."

I was agreeing with Russ, who was agreeing with Mike.

Eric

[Vuurtoren]

Oh, now I get it.  It's like IMHO which I have been seeing for the last two years now and again and do you all want a laugh, i have no idea what it means.  AKA is another one??

Anyway well I appreciate more that you took the time.  But where are the harsh critics among you?  Someone else said impressionism once, that was interesting.  But there has to be at least one mean person out there who will annoy me yet make me think.

But don't think that I don't appreciate you nice guys out there because I do.

[Vuurtoren]

"The Tone Poet" collection had a lot of great iconic shapes and textures,
and an impressionist feel. You took some creative risks, and the images
work really well, (for me, anyway). I enjoyed them, as I did the rest of
your work.

Hi how's it going?
Iconic?  Are you by any chance referring to the myriad of milky water type photography or the long shutter speed blur the wave hitting the rock photography? 

[JohnKoerner]

Well, since you asked for criticism, Chris, I'll offer you some ... but first let me give you praise

I really do like your site and I really do think you have some excellent work. I think the presentation of your site is very simple, very straightforward, and very professional. I was especially moved by the section "What They Left Behind." I myself would have never bothered to photograph such things, and yet you made something quite beautiful out of it, which prompted me to raise my own creative vision in how I perceive the commonplace things I see. Very well done IMO. Also, I normally don't much care for B&W, but I did enjoy most of yours, Conflict and Harmony in particular.

My only two criticisms are these: (1) the "Environmental Portraitures" all look like they were taken on the same day, of the same group of people, at more or less the same spot. Not saying they were, but for the most part that was the feeling I got. [My own "Landscape" page suffers from the same thing, just not enough truly fresh material of enough truly unique places.] IMO, "less is more" would apply to this section of your site, and so I would personally trim some of the fat out of this presentation---until I could add new, fresh faces taken in much different settings. (2) My second criticism would be of the "Tone Poet" section which, while creative and interesting to view at first, eventually began to suffer from the same monotony of similarity of place and subject matter. I think either limiting the number of shots presented in this section, or replacing them with shots taken with this theme in mind, but of vastly different places, would keep the overall feeling of freshness for the viewer.

Those would be my only criticisms, Chris, and I offer them only because you solicited them. My overall honest impression was that your work, and your website, are very nice indeed!

Jack




.

[Vuurtoren]

Hi Jack, thankyou.  It is of course important to me how others perceive my work.  If I do not convey what I really want to convey then I have failed.  The environmental portraiture is something that I am moving away from, It's not really me anymore.  But just for info, yes the portraitures were taken over a 6 month period in one geographical area but in different places of course.  The tone poet, well I suppose on the one hand your observations are something I will want to keep in mind.  In fact it is this very point that keeps me on guard and repetition is not something I will want.  On the other hand when these images are seen in a very big space in a room, set some distance apart I believe you might adjust your perspective here.  Unfortunately flicking through a web section gallery with these images is extremely unhelpful and falls far short of their impact in a gallery showroom.  Their individuality is appreciated in this environment.  I have been very careful to avoid this point that you mention and still am on guard against it.  Unfortunately the Tone poet is going to consist of lots of images of sea and water, the shoreline, and the impact that I want to make is "The same subject over and over again But Unique in every way".  It is this portion of my site that needs to be re-done and possible seperated into a seperate website I think so as to present it in a way that avoids this "appearance" of repetitiveness.

thankyou for the honesty.  And to the others who also have taken the time to have a look.

[Vuurtoren]

Sorry, forgot to mention something.  jack, have a look at www.jonathanchritchley.net/ when you have a moment.  I would be interested to hear what you think.  Although there is variation and consistency, there is also an element of what you have been mentioning about repetition. Especially in a couple of his galleries.  But do you think he has done it right?

[Michael LS]

Hi how's it going?
Iconic?  Are you by any chance referring to the myriad of milky water type photography or the long shutter speed blur the wave hitting the rock photography? 

yes, pretty much...But I think I meant "archetypal" instead of "iconic"...need to sharpen up my intellekshual stuff 

[Vuurtoren]

Ok, an original idea after which similar things are patterned.  Yes I agree, but if there is one thing that I am not much for it is blurred waters and milky waves. 

[Michael LS]

if there is one thing that I am not much for it is blurred waters and milky waves. 

Ah...a milky non sequitur...

[Rob C]

Okay, first things first: that trunk in Living Room and Kitchen. I had its twin from boarding school days in India. I burned it with joy. Dark reddish brown material with light-toned, split-wood reinforcement bands... beautiful flames. Different schools (and that bloody trunk) is all I remember of my youth, and would rather forget. Never be last guy in.

Kettle. Nice shot, but come on, water from the original abandonment would have evaporated years earlier! Must be a leaking roof.

I see you have exhibited already. For websites, my personal feeling is to avoid any taste of gallerist-speak. It just doesn't work outwith a gallery. I once went to Hamilton's in London, when they were showing Maplethorpe's brothers stuff. I have told the tale before. A guy in checked sports jacket was leading a woman around a step behind me, and when we were standing looking at a non-descript shot of somebody with an anaglypta-type wallpaper behind him (or her - it was an unmemorable image), the guy in the checks started to tell her about the extraordinary skill needed to show the details in the wallpaper... dear God - as a pro, it was all I could do not to laugh out loud in his face and get thrown out as a trouble maker. To avoid showing such relief on those papers would have been skill, had he wanted to avoid such! Anyway, stay grounded with the verbals. Hype can turn people right off. (Here, I extrapolate from a base of one.)

But I do like your vision - don't betray it.

Rob C

[Vuurtoren]

traumatic memories from the suitcase...sorry.

No honestly I did not fill the kettle, I just moved the cobweb - seriously, and attached it to the kettle.  the water was original, from 1976 judging by the calendar drooping lop-sided from the damp cracked wall.  Oh, ireland is damp, very damp, so I think the water might well have been 30 years old...

Gallerist-speak?  i am a litlle bewildered by what you are trying to tell me, please clarify.  but the bit about the wallpaper I undertand, however where is the "hype" and "stay grounded with the verbals"  applicable - if I may ask.  It must be with American diction that you speak because you lost me a bit here.

Thanks for your time Rob.

[Rob C]

Hi

Home Page: second paragraph, your description of Tone Poet section.

Tone Poet Gallery: the entire written piece comes over (to me) as rather precious - somewhat affected, a balancing act between trying to speak to the uninitiated and sounding your own horn. That's a very difficult trick to pull off, even in a language one's own, which good as it is, I suspect might not be the case here.

My advice? Simply be factual and leave any hype to somebody a step or two removed from yourself as artist.

However, don't imagine yourself alone with the dilemma; most sites where the photographer is into artistic directions do have difficulty with this specific issue whenever they try to address it, which is why I suggest it is something best avoided.

Rob C

[Vuurtoren]

Hi Rob, I have doubted about what I wrote, and wondered if it were wise.  But it was the sheer volume of photoshop compositing and the ease with which photogaphic images can be manipulated that forced me, a bit reluctantly, to write what I did.  Reason?  Because I studied in the traditional darkroom, colour and black and white, I appreciated something which is difficult for me to put into words.  Many people, both professional and non - but especially those with the knowledge of what is and is not possible - might think:  Oh, just another photoshopped product.  But for me this is a new technique in Camera and a new technique at camera raw stage and involves either just a little aesthetic interpretation or none at all in Photoshop.  Maybe I should just leave it all out?  But maybe there might be those who would appreciate this work more because of this?  In a sense the difference between real grain and the grain of a downloaded actions from a professional site.

Maybe if more people said similar to you I would have to re-consider, I really kind of agree with you, but not enough to change what I wrote.  But I am glad you said all this because if I hear somebody else say it then naturally I would re-consider.

Chris.

[JohnKoerner]

Hi Jack, thankyou.  It is of course important to me how others perceive my work.  If I do not convey what I really want to convey then I have failed.  The environmental portraiture is something that I am moving away from, It's not really me anymore.  But just for info, yes the portraitures were taken over a 6 month period in one geographical area but in different places of course.  The tone poet, well I suppose on the one hand your observations are something I will want to keep in mind.  In fact it is this very point that keeps me on guard and repetition is not something I will want.  On the other hand when these images are seen in a very big space in a room, set some distance apart I believe you might adjust your perspective here.  Unfortunately flicking through a web section gallery with these images is extremely unhelpful and falls far short of their impact in a gallery showroom.  Their individuality is appreciated in this environment.  I have been very careful to avoid this point that you mention and still am on guard against it.  Unfortunately the Tone poet is going to consist of lots of images of sea and water, the shoreline, and the impact that I want to make is "The same subject over and over again But Unique in every way".  It is this portion of my site that needs to be re-done and possible seperated into a seperate website I think so as to present it in a way that avoids this "appearance" of repetitiveness.
thankyou for the honesty.  And to the others who also have taken the time to have a look.

You're welcome Chris, and like I said, the criticism was offered only because it was specifically asked for. The simple truth is I enjoyed both your website and your images.

Sorry, forgot to mention something.  jack, have a look at www.jonathanchritchley.net/ when you have a moment.  I would be interested to hear what you think.  Although there is variation and consistency, there is also an element of what you have been mentioning about repetition. Especially in a couple of his galleries.  But do you think he has done it right?

Well, my impression is this fellow has put together some jaw-dropping images. I do see the repetition you are speaking of, particularly in his gallery, "Blue"; however I was pretty much blown away by the quality of his work and I generally am not too fond of B&W. It is clear he has a single-minded passion about B&W photos of the ocean to the extent he has absolutely mastered this genre. After all, if you read his blog, Zeiss lenses have approached him to test their lenses, so he must be impressing someone with his work.

Hi Rob, I have doubted about what I wrote, and wondered if it were wise.  But it was the sheer volume of photoshop compositing and the ease with which photogaphic images can be manipulated that forced me, a bit reluctantly, to write what I did.  Reason?  Because I studied in the traditional darkroom, colour and black and white, I appreciated something which is difficult for me to put into words.  Many people, both professional and non - but especially those with the knowledge of what is and is not possible - might think:  Oh, just another photoshopped product.  But for me this is a new technique in Camera and a new technique at camera raw stage and involves either just a little aesthetic interpretation or none at all in Photoshop.  Maybe I should just leave it all out?  But maybe there might be those who would appreciate this work more because of this?  In a sense the difference between real grain and the grain of a downloaded actions from a professional site.
Maybe if more people said similar to you I would have to re-consider, I really kind of agree with you, but not enough to change what I wrote.  But I am glad you said all this because if I hear somebody else say it then naturally I would re-consider.
Chris.

Chris, I think you should just be you.

If you feel you have something to say about your work, that sets it apart and is important for you make known, then say it. Your site is all about your art and your views, and I think you would be doing yourself a disservice to try to make it a "please everyone" effort. To quote one famous celebrity: "I can't tell you how to succeed, but I can tell you how to fail, and that is by trying to please everybody." Point being, trying to kiss everyone's butt to the extent you become a dispassionate neutral in your presentation may not ruffle any feathers ... but it also won't capture anyone's heart or admiration either.

Most of the great artists and musicians took a passionate stance, stayed true to themselves, and expressed themselves passionately ... and let their fans (and their critics) fall passionately where they may.

Jack




.