Wilson's Asian night market article

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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:

"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:

“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:

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.

[AreBee]

Slobodan,

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?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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.

[AreBee]

Slobodan,

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".

[stamper]

"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.

[stamper]

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?

[stamper]

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.

[Jim Pascoe]

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

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Well said, Jim.

[Isaac]

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.

[stamper]

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.

[jjj]

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.

[Iluvmycam]

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. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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

[Isaac]

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.

[stamper]

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.

[Jim Pascoe]

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

[stamper]

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. 

[AreBee]

Jim,

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.