Down in SoCal

[RedwoodGuy]

Attached

[Jeremy Roussak]

Attached

Worth looking at. Correct-length explanation as well.

Jeremy

[RedwoodGuy]

Worth looking at. Correct-length explanation as well.

Jeremy

Correct as you imagine the length to be, it holds zero value to me as the photographer. But thanks for typing.

[RedwoodGuy]

I think I will pontificate.

The fella above assumed he was making a useful comment about this photograph. He even proudly proclaimed it was the right length of comment. He's a fan of brevity. But what purpose is brevity when it is an empty gesture? Do photographers and artists come here to see if there photograph is "worth looking at?" Possibly some. I doubt if that is the goal of most.

I think most want to know how to improve their photography, or their art. "How" - is quite a difficult thing for anyone to wrestle with. Can it be said in 3 or 4 words? Maybe, but I have yet to see it done as such. It may not even be possible in 1,000 words. But why are we counting the words?

I don't know why anyone, especially a photographer, would take the time to type out "worth looking at" as a critique of a photograph. And how do you determine that something is "not worth looking at" without first looking at it?

[Photo Op]

I think I will pontificate.

Like you haven't in just about every thread you comment on...........wait, wait...here it comes!

[amolitor]

This seems to fall in an uncomfortable no-man's land between vernacular photography and landscape.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Correct as you imagine the length to be, it holds zero value to me as the photographer. But thanks for typing.

Ahmmm.... Jeremy is referring to your own explanation ("attached"), not to his own commentary.

[RedwoodGuy]

Ahmmm.... Jeremy is referring to your own explanation ("attached"), not to his own commentary.

Thanks for the correction. Man, you really got me there.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Not bad at all. I see it is a rather decent landscape shot. If there is anything "vernacular" about it, it would be that it might be suitable for an article illustration, given the amount of available space for text.

On a side note, can someone help this non-native speaker with the meaning of the term "vernacular," especially how it relates to photography? Mundane, banal, everyday, utilitarian (ooops, another big word)? Yes, I checked the dictionary, but there it is more like "jargon."

It doesn't look like a snapshot, given the intensive blue sky, most likely polarized, post-processed or perhaps Velvia (although I would expect Velvia to have a slight magenta tint to it)? On the saturation note, I would scale it down a bit (I know, sounds strange coming from me, right?).

The composition is classical, close to the thirds. There is a foreground interest, middle-ground, and leading lines. The colors are generally harmonious (once the sky is altered a bit).

[RedwoodGuy]

Worth looking at. Correct-length explanation as well.

Jeremy

Now that Slobodan has explained the meaning of the second sentence. I find it a fitting place to make a comment about titles and explanations.
When one puts a title on a photograph, it is often intended to bias the viewer towards a line of thought. "God's Majesty" and "Hand of the Devil" are examples of pretentious titling. "Forest Pines" - - sure, why not, if you like doing titles.

As for explanations, this is a critique forum. Why would I want to pre-load the critique with my explanation? Why does it matter? The photograph has to do the work. I don't want to put crutches under it before people comment. If they ask questions, then fine, I can explain. But I don't want to lead or mislead the viewer who is going to comment about the photo.

What you are doing in your comments above is pretty much what you always do. You find a sly way that you can work in an insult and still have people believe you are cultured in some way, or "sophisticated," because you don't use the word "bullsh*t," like the teachers do. Why not settle for just being honest?   

[amolitor]

This is precisely the kind of palaver that's irritating the members of this forum.

The regular posters here are a pretty sophisticated bunch, and most of us have thought the through the issue of titles pretty thoroughly by now. Some of the members probably sorted out all that stuff 50 years ago (not me, but I have thought through titles pretty thoroughly). When you write one of these little lectures, it comes across as somewhere between condescending and insulting. This isn't a forum of 20-somethings who have just gotten their first DSLR for christmas, although those forums do exist. Your lecture is fine and correct, it's just out of place.

Nobody likes to be talked down to, not even children. And we're not children.

[RedwoodGuy]

Not bad at all. I see it is a rather decent landscape shot. If there is anything "vernacular" about it, it would be that it might be suitable for an article illustration, given the amount of available space for text.

On a side note, can someone help this non-native speaker with the meaning of the term "vernacular," especially how it relates to photography? Mundane, banal, everyday, utilitarian (ooops, another big word)? Yes, I checked the dictionary, but there it is more like "jargon."

It doesn't look like a snapshot, given the intensive blue sky, most likely polarized, post-processed or perhaps Velvia (although I would expect Velvia to have a slight magenta tint to it)? On the saturation note, I would scale it down a bit (I know, sounds strange coming from me, right?).

The composition is classical, close to the thirds. There is a foreground interest, middle-ground, and leading lines. The colors are generally harmonious (once the sky is altered a bit).

This kind of traditional landscape** photography is not my primary interest. I take my hand at it from time to time. It's a genre with it's own unique difficulties and I haven't had enough sustained interest to spend lots of time working with those difficulties. This photo has some LR adjustments made to the the raw file, of course. The saturation was adjusted for JPG on screen, which is not my normal adjustment. I use LR to adjust for prints (my main interest). To post this, I quickly changed the saturation.

I certainly do not consider this vernacular photography. I posted "Vending Stand" as an example of what I loosely call vernacular photography. Even then, I am not a strict taxonomist. I don't have any concern here what category anyone else wants to apply to it.

--------------
** I do enjoy landscape photography in a much looser style that includes the man-made content along with the natural content.

[amolitor]

Slobodan, vernacular photography is, as I understand it, essentially "snapshots" with the dismissive connotation removed. It is snapshots considered seriously as, well, whatever they are. Art? Documentation of life? Frozen moments of time?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... it holds zero value to me as the photographer...

By value, you mean "advice," "help," or similar? What type of value, advice or help are you actually looking for?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... ** I do enjoy landscape photography in a much looser style that includes the man-made content along with the natural content.

Than you and Russ (RSL) have much more in common than you are willing to admit

[RSL]

Slobodan, vernacular photography is, as I understand it, essentially "snapshots" with the dismissive connotation removed. It is snapshots considered seriously as, well, whatever they are. Art? Documentation of life? Frozen moments of time?

That's my understanding of the term too Andrew. If we're right then my "Closing Time" is a fair example.

[RedwoodGuy]

This is precisely the kind of palaver that's irritating the members of this forum.

The regular posters here are a pretty sophisticated bunch, and most of us have thought the through the issue of titles pretty thoroughly by now. Some of the members probably sorted out all that stuff 50 years ago (not me, but I have thought through titles pretty thoroughly). When you write one of these little lectures, it comes across as somewhere between condescending and insulting. This isn't a forum of 20-somethings who have just gotten their first DSLR for christmas, although those forums do exist. Your lecture is fine and correct, it's just out of place.

Nobody likes to be talked down to, not even children. And we're not children.

If the fella commenting about "attached" didn't want to be lectured, perhaps he ought to have left his petty joke unspoken. Ever consider it that way? And further more, why do you think it is your role to come into every thread involving me and begin lecturing me? Surely you see the irony at least a little?

Did anyone every say, "mind your own business" to you?

And as far as a "sophisticated bunch," I'll have to disagree in the strongest terms possible. For my evidence, I'll refer anyone interested to the "sophisticated" comments in the thread of two days ago which I closed. People running about yelling "bullsh*t" to everything, and unable to answer the most rudimentary questions about photography are not my idea of "sophisticated." But you know, they were also claimed to be "heavy weights" too, so go ahead and puff it up all you like.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

How's this for sophisticated:

[amolitor]

It's so interesting trying to converse with you, RG.

You always ignore the main thrust of what is said, pick up on some phrase or side issue, mis-read it, and then reply furiously based on that. It really makes it impossible to have any sort of coherent dialog with you.

[RedwoodGuy]

By value, you mean "advice," "help," or similar? What type of value, advice or help are you actually looking for?

They have online dictionaries now where you can find the meaning of a word you are actually looking for. I think my use of 'value' will be contained in there.