Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Last Rays on Devil's Tower  (Read 9402 times)
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #100 on: February 21, 2013, 09:58:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote amolitor

Why should we assume that such a collection was carefully made? There are 100 billion vernacular photographs out there, almost none of them were carefully made.

Unquote

How long does it take to look at a 100 billion vernacular photographs and establish if they were carefully made? Roll Eyes
You shouldn't assume anything. You should look at the photograph, not the photographer. Just as I assumed nothing about how many hours of "careful crafting" might have gone into the photograph in this thread.

I asked, "How do you know anything about the time it took me to do a photograph?" To make the point that time is not the point in ANY photograph.  We don't post at the top: "36 hours to photograph + 22 hours of photoshop." The time to make something is meaningless.
Logged
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 815


WWW
« Reply #101 on: February 21, 2013, 09:59:59 AM »
ReplyReply

If only time spent was a [...] there is more of a craft set here. I will adjust to that reality.

Aaand, we just continue to talk right past each other. I wish I could communicate effectively with you, but it appears to be hopeless.
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #102 on: February 21, 2013, 11:43:21 AM »
ReplyReply

I have had no trouble understanding your comments.
Logged
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 815


WWW
« Reply #103 on: February 21, 2013, 11:55:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I have had no trouble understanding your comments.

I am happy to stipulate that the communication problem is in one direction only. Nonetheless, I am only rarely able to discern any connection between things you write in response to me, and the remarks to which you are putatively responding. Whether the failure is one direction ort two, and in which direction, is moot. Successful conversation requires both.
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #104 on: February 21, 2013, 01:00:57 PM »
ReplyReply

I am happy to stipulate that the communication problem is in one direction only. Nonetheless, I am only rarely able to discern any connection between things you write in response to me, and the remarks to which you are putatively responding. Whether the failure is one direction ort two, and in which direction, is moot. Successful conversation requires both.
When I don't understand what someone said or the meaning of it, I ask for clarification.
Logged
James Clark
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 220


« Reply #105 on: February 21, 2013, 02:12:38 PM »
ReplyReply

We have to be clear here----
I have never said any photo I posted was more "serious" than some other,  or any other such word. Are you confusing me with some other poster? Not once, not ever, I have made any such claim. Nor would I.

We're over complicating this. If people don't like a photograph, they can why.

As to this photograph in this thread, I said exactly why.

And I too have to be clear - I was just using your photo as an example (i.e. picking two photos to compare theoretically), and I picked yours and Slobodon's because of the general direction of the thread.  I don't believe you made a relative judgment of that kind and didn't mean to imply that you did.
Logged
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #106 on: February 21, 2013, 02:27:29 PM »
ReplyReply

And I too have to be clear - I was just using your photo as an example (i.e. picking two photos to compare theoretically), and I picked yours and Slobodon's because of the general direction of the thread.  I don't believe you made a relative judgment of that kind and didn't mean to imply that you did.
Thank you for clearing up your end! Really, I appreciate it, and now I fully understand your comments.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6185


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #107 on: February 21, 2013, 03:25:31 PM »
ReplyReply

If only time spent was a measure of quality, right? I see photographs all the time which have undergone 40 hours of photoshop work. They aren't an ounce better than the moment they were captured for all the "careful crafting."

I beg to differ. Not all photographs are better after PS, but some certainly are. GIGO principle applies here as well.

Take for example the attached triptych.

- Is the first one, the "moment it was captured," the only true one and the best one (if it can't be made better in PS, then it is already at its best, right?)

- Is the second one, which underwent those 40+ hours of PS, a lie, worse, better, the same?

- Would #1 end up on a cover of a magazine?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #108 on: February 21, 2013, 04:23:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I beg to differ. Not all photographs are better after PS, but some certainly are. GIGO principle applies here as well.

Take for example the attached triptych.

- Is the first one, the "moment it was captured," the only true one and the best one (if it can't be made better in PS, then it is already at its best, right?)

- Is the second one, which underwent those 40+ hours of PS, a lie, worse, better, the same?

- Would #1 end up on a cover of a magazine?

You have the perfect right to differ all you like on the photographs you see. My comment was about "many of the photographs I see which have undergone many hours of photoshop." You are commenting on things you see, I am commenting on things I see. I never said a word about "all photographs." Not a word.

To your questions....
The questions are irrelevant to me. It might be relevant to you because of what you are going to do with the picture. To me, a good photograph has not a thing to do with being the backdrop for an advert. I could care less if the advert is for Coke or Nike or whatever. Such a use doesn't imply anything to me about the quality of a photograph intrinsically. It might mean the photograph has utility to an advertiser, but how could I care about that? Under what reasoning here would I care if a photograph was on the cover of a magazine?

And when I say "truth" I don't mean an unretouched negative. I am not referring to physical evidence. I have made no claim that a photograph that has been adjusted is no longer truthful by virtue of just that process. I have said that you can (it is possible) wring the truth out of a photograph using that process. That's not the same thing.

Probably what is happening here is an assumption about values. Selling something to someone means nothing to me. I've seen people open their wallets and give real money to a guy selling black velvet painting of Elvis. Should that imply I must consider that painting good, because someone paid money for it?

Satisfying the needs and requirements of a buyer is a good skill. It can be a profitable skill too. But I don't look at these photos and make my judgement about them based on how many were sold and to whom and for what purpose. 
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6185


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #109 on: February 21, 2013, 04:57:19 PM »
ReplyReply

... I never said... I don't mean... I am not referring... I have made no claim... I don't look...

Then what did you say?

The trouble with your verbose posts is that you say so many things, in so many ways, over so many posts, and in so many threads, that, when cornered with a single specific statement, you always weasel out with "I did not mean that." When asked what did you say, or what did you mean, you resort to another verbose, obfuscating pile of pseudo-intellectual, but ultimately charlatan sentences, good only to fool the gullible. After all, charlatans always find their audience, at least initially, as being seductive and sounding persuasive is exactly part of their toolbox of tricks.

In your posts, you raise so many issues, state so many wrongs, create so many internal inconsistencies, that rebutting it would turn into a full-time job.

Frankly, you are not worth it.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #110 on: February 21, 2013, 07:46:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Then what did you say?

The trouble with your verbose posts is that you say so many things, in so many ways, over so many posts, and in so many threads, that, when cornered with a single specific statement, you always weasel out with "I did not mean that." When asked what did you say, or what did you mean, you resort to another verbose, obfuscating pile of pseudo-intellectual, but ultimately charlatan sentences, good only to fool the gullible. After all, charlatans always find their audience, at least initially, as being seductive and sounding persuasive is exactly part of their toolbox of tricks.

In your posts, you raise so many issues, state so many wrongs, create so many internal inconsistencies, that rebutting it would turn into a full-time job.

Frankly, you are not worth it.
When you are unable to follow the discussion in detail, it's best not to jump in. You're in way over your head. A discussion like this is not like trading quips about testicles. There's logic to be followed, and specific words really do mean specific things. Uh, "some" and "all" to begin with.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2013, 11:27:56 PM by RedwoodGuy » Logged
rogerxnz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 297


« Reply #111 on: February 21, 2013, 08:22:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Then what did you say?

The trouble with your verbose posts is that you say so many things, in so many ways, over so many posts, and in so many threads, that, when cornered with a single specific statement, you always weasel out with "I did not mean that." When asked what did you say, or what did you mean, you resort to another verbose, obfuscating pile of pseudo-intellectual, but ultimately charlatan sentences, good only to fool the gullible. After all, charlatans always find their audience, at least initially, as being seductive and sounding persuasive is exactly part of their toolbox of tricks.

In your posts, you raise so many issues, state so many wrongs, create so many internal inconsistencies, that rebutting it would turn into a full-time job.


Slobodan, why do you feel you have to argue with RG so much? Why not just appreciate that, even if you disagree with his comments or the length of his posts, he spends significant amounts of time expressing his opinions, which is what this forum is all about. If RG comments about one of your photos, just thank him and move on.

Your whining about not be able to understand what RG says and the number of words he uses does no credit to you and, in my opinion, is childlike behaviour.

Quote
Frankly, you are not worth it.

This behaviour is not acceptable, in my opinion. You are attacking a fellow forum member personally and again is child-like. Fair enough to debate content if you think it is necessary or worthwhile but you seem are out of control. Get a gripówe are only here to discuss photos, not start a world war!

Next, you will be saying that RG started it!

I vote that this discussion on critiques be moved to a new thread.
Logged

Roger Hayman
Wellington, New Zealand
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6185


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #112 on: February 21, 2013, 09:46:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Slobodan, why do you feel you have to argue with RG so much? ...  just thank him and move on...

Some of you argued that he should be allowed to post whatever he wants and at whatever length. Are you now telling me that I can't!?

Quote
... Your whining about not be able to understand what RG says and the number of words he uses does no credit to you and, in my opinion, is childlike behaviour...

Oh, I understand perfectly well what he says... I just said that rebutting it would be a full-time job and thus not worth the effort. And it wasn't whining... more like disgust.

Quote
... This behaviour is not acceptable, in my opinion. You are attacking a fellow forum member personally and again is child-like. Fair enough to debate content if you think it is necessary or worthwhile but you seem are out of control. Get a grip...

Aren't you doing the same?

EDiT: Btw, I am not attacking a "fellow forum member personally," as "he" has not introduced himself... I am referring to his internet persona.

Quote
I vote that this discussion on critiques be moved to a new thread.

You and what army? Feel free to vote on your own thread.

« Last Edit: February 21, 2013, 11:00:57 PM by Slobodan Blagojevic » Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
rogerxnz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 297


« Reply #113 on: February 21, 2013, 11:28:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I think Roger last night suggested an intense vs. less intense split. I think the more appropriate split is craft vs. art. I always assume photography as an art. If you are posting a craft photo, maybe identify it as such, I will look at it differently.

I think we can avoid categorising people or images as intense/less intense or craft/art or shades in between. No matter what terms are selected, it always sounds like elitism.

I now consider that the problem is simply that some members do not like in-depth or long critiques or those that deal with feelings and emotions. Previously, members have used derogatory expressions to refer to such critiques as "verbose" and "fluff".

I think we do not need to categorise the posters or the images as intense/less intense or craft/art or whatever. All we need to do is to establish an etiquette that says that if you get a critique which you do not like for any reason, you just ask politely for clarification or you just give thanks and move on.

After all, why would you want to be rude to someone who has spent time and gone to some effort to give their thoughts on your work?

What members should not do is attack the reviewer for any reason. After all, attacking a review or a reviewer because you do not understand their critique only establishes doubt as to your own intelligence.

So, if all members would just politely move past critiques which do not suit their needs, we should have a calmer forum. That is not to say that members cannot ask critiquers for clarification but I would hope they will do so politely.

The above approach hopefully avoids all suggestions of elitism and any need to categorise members or images.
Roger
Logged

Roger Hayman
Wellington, New Zealand
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6185


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #114 on: February 22, 2013, 01:03:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Roger, that lovely scenario you are sugesting sounds awfully like Emperor's New Clothes.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 815


WWW
« Reply #115 on: February 22, 2013, 06:53:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Once again, it's very easy to suggest that everyone be calm and nice when you have not been the target of the crazy person's rantings.

RG isn't just a different personality that's rubbing a few of us the wrong way, in my opinion. I don't give a damn how long his posts go on, and his bloviating nonsense is only mildly irritating. The truly offensive behavior is when he attacks based on a mis-reading of a few phrases in a post you've made. He's a guy who isn't interested in what anyone has to say, only what he has to say. He's not a contributor in any meaningful way.

I dare you to find a single instance of a case where he has clearly read a post of more than a couple of lines in length, and made a cogent response to the central remarks made in that post. You won't find one. He writes at length, but won't read much of anything, and becomes wildly angry when he perceives he is being attacked, which he does quite a lot of the time quite independently of whether he's being attacked.

If you like his critiques, and find them helpful, well, that's great. Just don't try to engage him in conversation, it won't go anywhere and it'll probably blow up. You may not care, but me, I like the possibility for conversation and debate that a forum offers.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 07:04:02 AM by amolitor » Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #116 on: February 22, 2013, 07:25:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Slobodan, why do you feel you have to argue with RG so much? Why not just appreciate that, even if you disagree with his comments or the length of his posts, he spends significant amounts of time expressing his opinions, which is what this forum is all about. If RG comments about one of your photos, just thank him and move on.

Your whining about not be able to understand what RG says and the number of words he uses does no credit to you and, in my opinion, is childlike behaviour.

This behaviour is not acceptable, in my opinion. You are attacking a fellow forum member personally and again is child-like. Fair enough to debate content if you think it is necessary or worthwhile but you seem are out of control. Get a gripówe are only here to discuss photos, not start a world war!

Roger, I agree with you, but think your comment is also applicable to others, not just Slobodan.  As we've seen, however, your efforts are in vain.  

RG, nobody's saying that you haven't the right to post whatever you like. By all means, post whatever you like!

What they're saying is that you're an idiot. I'm pretty sure we have a right to a) hold that opinion and b) state it from time to time, as appropriate.

Andrew, there is no rational way to justify calling RG an idiot!  You should apologize, and look at your own behavior.  You may not agree with what RG writes, or his writing style, but calling him an idiot is way, way out of bounds.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 07:29:00 AM by dmerger » Logged

Dean Erger
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 815


WWW
« Reply #117 on: February 22, 2013, 08:16:58 AM »
ReplyReply

I decline to be lectured to, and stand by my opinion that he is an idiot, although the astute reader will notice that I did NOT call him an idiot. It is arguably implied in my remark, and I certainly think it's true, but the remark doesn't say that.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 08:18:50 AM by amolitor » Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1920



« Reply #118 on: February 22, 2013, 08:26:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Folks, try and restrict your comments to photography and not other Forum members.

Eventually, when we get tired of 'Report to Moderator' messages, the topic gets locked and when the abuse reaches 'idiot' proportions, the offender gets turfed.

Please respect others and acknowledge the fact that the Forum is made up of many very different voices, opinions and abilities.
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad