Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sunrise B&N  (Read 22084 times)
seberri
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #80 on: September 09, 2005, 09:40:56 AM »
ReplyReply

i agree that's not more constructive than crop the left ... i put time to time fotos and look what comes ...  you are making a kind of paranoia on my comment ...

but what is VERY interesting in your certainly boring life is the time you spend on this topic ... and looking around the net where i am .... do you miss me somehow Howard ?

 I have never said the comment are better on other forum , just that on fredmiranda site  they are really great fotos ...
Logged
howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #81 on: September 10, 2005, 08:53:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Ray,

The "critic has an ego."  It should be checked at the door, right next to the photographer's.  The situation you describe can be partly bypassed if the photogrpaher just listens and doesn't rebut.  More to this situation, or critique the critique. I think the tone of the photographer's rebutals were "I know more about this image than you do and I don't respect you or your suggestions."  In that case, the image should skip crit and go directly to market (whatever that mey be).

"This is why I'm rather skeptical of the 'critique' process. Ultimately, it's saying your attempt does not conform with my standards."

The critique process is nothing new and has worked very well for a long time.  Maybe you are skepical because you have not been exposed adequately to proper and working critiques.  If this is an  example of a proper critique, I would have attended only one and would never have given a comment here.

"Now I can justify my standards by demonstrating I'm very erudite. I can justify my standards by demonstrating my photos have sold. I can justify my standards by exhibiting some of my own photos. If you really like my photos and want to produce the same, then you can sit at my feet and recieive instruction. I become a guru."  Wow, I just want to say this is crap.  Most people I know who have offered "critiques" have never sold more than one or two images, if any.  The critiques were offered by peers, not superiors or gurus.  There is no requirement to even own a camera for being a good and proper critic.

"He's made some comments that he's averse to cropping because, if anything, the image needs greater expanse."  The photographer should be open to any critique or suggestion.  That certainly does not require any action except to listen.  Even if the photogrpaher wants more space, the crop suggestion should still be a learning opportunity as to why the image needs more room.
Logged
howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #82 on: September 07, 2005, 03:32:21 PM »
ReplyReply

"the rest is well where it is... ."  Then why ask for suggestions?  I don't care what you do with my suggestions, just don't ask for them and then tell me you don't need them.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8910


« Reply #83 on: September 08, 2005, 05:00:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Give us the link to the other opinions youv'e received so we can judge how sensible they are. I still get back to my point that the dollar opinion is all that matters, ultimately. Of course, it doesn't matter in all circumstances. Photos can be just memories. No dollar association there.

But art[/i] is a different matter. There's great association of art with money. It's a sort of corruption regrettably.
Logged
howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #84 on: September 08, 2005, 08:19:20 AM »
ReplyReply

seberri, with referfence to your post of Sep. 08 2005,06:21, the quotes you attribute to me are simply not correct, quite misleading, and wisrepresent my comments.  I did not make any comment that someone "must" crop a certain way, or "must" respect the rule of thirds.

seberri, I have read may comments in other forums regarding images.  I find all the "wows", "inspiring," and "greats" less than helpful to me in trying to understand what makes an image "wow."

The issue of posting images has come up here before with respect to my participation.  Posting an image is not the entrance ticket.  Posting is optional.  "Put up or shut up" is not the way here.  I choose not to post for purely personal reasons.  My prints have been reviewed in hundreds of critiques, most with favorable comments, some ravaged.  I no longer seek that photographic process.  Crits were a  powerful learning tool for me, and still would be.  But like other learning situations, like school, I have moved on.  I am certainly not saying schools could be of no value to me, I have plenty more to learn that they could teach me.  But I am not a school student anymore.

What you or anyone else might think of my work should not have any influence on you and what you do with one of my comments.  I might be considered very good or very bad or maybe not even own a camera.  It simply doesn't matter.

Jonathan, perhaps having the photographer participate in his own critique is usual and customary on LL, but it was not allowed in any critiques I have attended.  The reasons given were it limited the photogrpaher's defense of his pwn work, and the photographer is most often not present when his work is in the public eye (sales, magazine articles/covers, etc.)  The critique was more like a final exam for the print and the photogrpaher wasn't permitted to help grade it.  Before the critique, if the photographer wanted help from others, he was of course encouraged to seek it out.  But that was not a critique.  The movie producer isn't on Siskel and Ebert to explain why his movie should get 2 thumbs up or provide him with editing ideas before the movie goes public.  Nor were Siskel and Ebert required to screen one their movies to prove they could make a movie.
Logged
seberri
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #85 on: September 08, 2005, 03:04:45 PM »
ReplyReply

howard that is not what i mean ... and you know it


Jani I did 200 shot the same morning .... your 2 versions are nice but they are somehow for smokers ...  I need more space , oxygen
Logged
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #86 on: September 09, 2005, 11:22:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I have twice directly asked seberri if he edited his posts, and others have stated or suggested that he did so.  Still, seberri has not denied that he edited his posts, but instead made a comment suggesting that he believes hacking is permissable.  Therefore, I feel safe in assuming that seberri did edit his posts and hacked this site.  

In light of seberri's actions, why would any regular participant in this forum give seberri the time of day?  

I second Jonathan's request that seberri go away and not return.
Logged

Dean Erger
howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #87 on: September 15, 2005, 09:43:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Ray, I do not agree with:

"Ultimately, it's saying your attempt does not conform with my standards."

This would seem to put an end to all education.  Even "Dear Abbey" could be viewed as "I am better at managing life than you are.  Responses to technical questions could be construed as "I know more than you do."

Your notion that print salea is the proper measure is also flawed.  It filters out all the negative responses from people who don't like the print (didn't buy it) along with the "LOved it but I'm broke" response.  You end up with only "Wow" responses.

However, in personal messages and a lost post(s), it has been made apparent to me that Neil (site super) does agree with you on suggestions.  He has determined I was the instigator of the downward spiral of this thread.  I apologize to all of you for this offense.  It will not happen again.
Logged
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #88 on: September 15, 2005, 10:28:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Neil, if you did determine that Howard was the instigator, did you make that determination after reading seberri's original, unedited posts?  If not, then you didn't have a proper basis to make your determination.

I'd conclude that seberri fired the first shot.  Howard may have returned fire, however, when discretion may have been the better part of valour.
Logged

Dean Erger
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #89 on: September 15, 2005, 10:42:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Neil, if you did determine that Howard was the instigator, did you make that determination after reading seberri's original, unedited posts?  If not, then you didn't have a proper basis to make your determination.

I'd conclude that seberri fired the first shot.  Howard may have returned fire, however, when discretion may have been the better part of valour.
I have nothing to add, except that I share dmerger's impression.
Logged

Jan
seberri
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #90 on: September 15, 2005, 10:55:34 AM »
ReplyReply

I have no idea at all how to hack a forum , it was never in my mind ...

dmerger you are from far the most funny in that thread
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6983


WWW
« Reply #91 on: September 15, 2005, 04:00:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Amazing discussion thread. There seems to be four themes running through it:

1) The merits of Seberri's photograph;
2) Whether Seberri wants praise or objective comment;
3) Whether Seberri hacked the site;
4) What makes useful comment and whether the photographer is allowed to respond.

Whew - quite a witches' brew.

Re (2), Who cares. By now Seberri and anyone else who reads this stuff knows - if you post something on L-L, at least the "Regulars" (and like-minded others) will simply call the shots as they see them, no insult implied or intended. That is how it should be. No need to chase any one away - people either like the style or not and the participation will "self-select".

Re (3) Hacking - he says he didn't. Innocent till proven guilty. If proven guilty, grounds for banning from the site. Covering-up editing tracks (is this different from "hacking"?) - he didn't respond to this charge;he should either deny it or apologize for it - this is a reputational issue.

Re (4) We've all been around and around the issue of what makes for useful comment in that other discussion thread about whether to have a photo critique section on the Forum. No more needs to be said - except I think that thread was a victim of the crash - most unfortunately. It had some good ideas in it. Perhaps we should start a new one, just to synthesize the key points as we remember them. This particular thread isn't the place to do that. As for photographer's being allowed to respond - why not - after all it is discussion between photographers, and discussion is a multi-way street.

Now saving the original purpose of the thread for the last, (1) the merits of the photograph, I have several comments, a bit different from what has been said before:

(a) I find the picture doesn't work because there is no center of gravity due to divergent compositional lines. The mountain slopes from the left to the right lead into the river, but the river leads off the page. I think the crops that Jan illustrated are an attempt to resolve that issue, and they do so by making the river the center of attention with less distraction.

( While the contrejour lighting in the lower portions of the photograph are interesting and stimulating, there is too much monotony between the upper parts of the mountains and the sky - it is all too grey, diluting the impact of the lower half.

Hence, if those points make sense, I think this photograph could be improved, (1) as already shown above, by cropping that simplifies the composition and gives it more unity, and (2) driving apart the tops of the mountains from the sky by lightening the sky and increasing its contrast.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8910


« Reply #92 on: September 15, 2005, 07:55:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
Ray, I do not agree with:

"Ultimately, it's saying your attempt does not conform with my standards."

This would seem to put an end to all education.

Howard,
How do you draw that conclusion? Seems to me all education is a striving on the part of the student (and sometimes an imposition on the part of the teacher) to reach a particular standard of understanding and competence.

Those who have failed to conform with those standards (and you could also say failed to 'reach' those standards) fail the exam, in a formal context.

In the world of art, those standards are enormously flexible, which is why so much hot air is generated and why people often feel more comfortable discussing technical matters, especially considering that 'so-called' art experts have been known to confuse paintings drawn by an elephant with abstract art produced by homo sapiens.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8910


« Reply #93 on: September 15, 2005, 08:15:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Your notion that print salea is the proper measure is also flawed.  It filters out all the negative responses from people who don't like the print (didn't buy it) along with the "LOved it but I'm broke" response.  You end up with only "Wow" responses.
True! But it also filters out all the hypocrisy and erudite pontificating that could be summarised as "wow!', from people who can afford to buy the work, but don't.

The net sales are thus a reflection of the truly 'wow!' responses set against the sum of truly negative responses.

Of course, this is still a very imperfect gauge because sales of anything can be increased through improved marketing.
Logged
howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #94 on: September 15, 2005, 09:40:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray, I will not argue these points any longer.  We simply don't agree.

Rather than "argue," can I say debate?
Logged
Bobtrips
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #95 on: September 15, 2005, 10:42:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The net sales are thus a reflection of the truly 'wow!' responses set against the sum of truly negative responses.

I cringe at that purposed definition.  

Did you not live through the era of the big-eyed kids?  Are you not aware of the success of Thomas Kincade?

Somewhere one needs to total the Barfs as well as the Wows.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8910


« Reply #96 on: September 15, 2005, 11:50:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I cringe at that purposed definition.  
Cringe as much as you like, but how true is my statement?

One man's cringing is another man's elation, perhaps. It's still a matter of standards, or perhaps I should say a matter of which standards you as an individual subscribe to.

I don't believe in any absolutes. I tend towards Utilitarianism; the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Esthetically, there are a lot of things that make me cringe too, but I don't use such an emotion as an objective guide to the value of a work of art otherwise I might find myself in the position of consigning most of the works of Picasso to the rubbish bin.
Logged
seberri
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #97 on: September 16, 2005, 01:07:59 AM »
ReplyReply

MarkDS Cropping left and upper part is not for that foto at all .... i agree that maybe it is better to throw directly the foto

the 2 fotos of Jani are not working at all for me, the space is totally lost, and the middle moutain is not growing up from the light anymore

I think occidental eyes have a long way to go to accept empty space

Ray in Picasso's art you will never find space he was so full of himself that there is no place for emptyness (not shure of all that words in english) , he is the succefull model of occidental mentality

in photography foreground is the place where i am, it give a very good indication of what the fotografer thinks of himself

I think Howard was waiting for a "wow ! Howard your opinion is great you are right" :-) .. and after > 1000 commentars  it has a special price in the forum balance

for me speaking without showing has a value = 0 even after 1000000 replies

 i saw Lisa's pictures , that was good to know how she works ...
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8910


« Reply #98 on: September 16, 2005, 02:23:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
for me speaking without showing has a value = 0 even after 1000000 replies
Last time I checked there were 97 relies in this thread. I think you might be confusing views with replies, seberri.

If I were painting representational landscapes and someone made what I thought was a valid criticism of one of my paintings, and then showed me one of his/her paintings in the cubist style that I happened to think quite horrible, for example, then how should that affect the valid comment? Should I change my mind about the comment? Should I take the view, 'Your comment is worthless because I don't like your paintings'?
Logged
seberri
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #99 on: September 16, 2005, 02:30:45 AM »
ReplyReply

you'r speaking of a style, cubism is a style, they are very good cubist like Brake and very bad cubist, I  generally don't like sport photos (for the style) but I can't make a difference between a good one and a bad one

cubism is a very interresting moment of our culture, maybe the top of modernity

i agree with you for the quality of criticism, Wittgenstein was not a good musician but his music commentars are just great

here it will be better to show as far as no commentars are interresting
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad