Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Last Rays on Devil's Tower  (Read 6036 times)
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #20 on: February 17, 2013, 10:04:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Redwood post # 16 reinforces my opinion about over analysing everything. Like Chris I prefer to cut to the chase and rationalise my thoughts. Most of my ideas about an image boils down to a feeling if I like or dislike something. Too many words from you. This isn't personal BTW only a comment.
But why do you feel compelled to read them? Why not just skip on by to the thumb comments? Or better yet, just view the image and move on? I don't mind that you don't like my comments, why would I? But I kind of DO mind that you insist on the right to say I can't or shouldn't make them. See the difference?  S'pose I don't like B&W photographs. Should I complain to the guy posting them, "Hey, I don't like those B&W photos - please stop posting them!"

What's wrong with you just moving past my comments?

I have gotten "thanks" from many other photographers here for my comments about their photographs. Do they get a voice, or just you?
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5726



WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 17, 2013, 10:15:00 AM »
ReplyReply

They're off and running.
Logged

RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #22 on: February 17, 2013, 10:34:43 AM »
ReplyReply

It's not that I disagree with all RG's analyses...there is some merit to each. It's far more the over-abundance of palaver in the analysis. I'm a pretty much cut to the chase kind of guy: What's good, what don't I like and on some occasions perhaps a visual edit comment. But geeze, he just goes on and on and one with all his philosophical baloney of "how does it make you feel, and what were you trying to convey, and why did you put the camera to your eye," when by the posting of the image itself, most of this is pretty well stated. Duh-uh. As to what the image means to the artist, well, to me that is a personal thing. It's kind of like religion or politics. You know what you believe and what you don't and the rest just goes down the toliet where 90% of RG's stuff goes when I read his philosophical bullsh*t.

Why can't he just post some work, let everyone who wishes to participate have a go at his images and comment thusly to theirs?

Sorry RG, but having spent most of my life it education and listened to far more crap than I thought possible, I find your comments repetitively boring, disinteresting and frankly, when I post, I hope you omit me from your comment list. Please!

I think your complaint is easy to understand. You want conformity on my part, and you don't want me to comment on your photographs. The latter is easy to do - - - you are now on that mental list. The former isn't, and I see no reason for anyone here to expect that kind of conformity. Teachers can and do use that authority to command conformity, and maybe you impulsively expect that power in all venues you participate in, I don't know. But, for now, my reading of this forum and it's purpose allows me to express my own thoughts quite independently, and as long as I am civil and not malicious, I think I am within my bounds here to call it as I see it. As I said to the other fella earlier, can't you use your mouse to slide on by my comments? I slide by lots of things I have no interest in. Why can't you?
Logged
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 756


WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 17, 2013, 10:44:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Anyone who thinks this forum particularly values conformity simply cannot or will not read what people write. The amount of dissent here is startling, the only thing more startling is how civil the dissent normally is.

That it is now so un-civil suggests to me that SOMETHING has changed, but I cannot quite put my finger on what.
Logged

- Andrew

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

Posts: 417


« Reply #24 on: February 17, 2013, 11:05:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Anyone who thinks this forum particularly values conformity simply cannot or will not read what people write. The amount of dissent here is startling, the only thing more startling is how civil the dissent normally is.

That it is now so un-civil suggests to me that SOMETHING has changed, but I cannot quite put my finger on what.

What I think changed is that I make longer comments. Is that what you think changed by hinting "SOMETHING" above?

If I have said anything uncivil, will you please point it out for me?
Logged
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #25 on: February 17, 2013, 11:15:55 AM »
ReplyReply


That it is now so un-civil suggests to me that SOMETHING has changed, but I cannot quite put my finger on what.

May I ask you, do you think the following comment from a couple minutes ago is civil or uncivil?

QUOTE
But geeze, he just goes on and on and one with all his philosophical baloney of "how does it make you feel, and what were you trying to convey, and why did you put the camera to your eye," when by the posting of the image itself, most of this is pretty well stated. Duh-uh. As to what the image means to the artist, well, to me that is a personal thing. It's kind of like religion or politics. You know what you believe and what you don't and the rest just goes down the toliet where 90% of RG's stuff goes when I read his philosophical bullsh*t.
END QUOTE
Logged
David Eckels
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 822


Paris sidewalk cafe


WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 17, 2013, 11:26:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Have not posted my favorite subject, landscapes, in a while:
I like it. It's difficult to get a unique shot of an icon. I think you succeeded SB, one doesn't need the entire rock to recognize it. I too was disturbed by the cloud, but upon reflection, to me, there's an ominous feeling to the building thunderhead that matches the mood of Devil's Tower when I first saw it. The colors work for me, too. But is that a hint ot halo I see around the rock Wink Sorry, couldn't resist trying to be funny Cheesy
Logged

amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 756


WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 17, 2013, 11:58:21 AM »
ReplyReply

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.

But just to be quite clear: Your right to post whatever you want to say is pretty much absolute. Subject, of course, the site policy and the moderators, but most certainly NOT subject to the whims and desires of us, the posting rabble. Carry on!

Logged

- Andrew

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

Posts: 417


« Reply #28 on: February 17, 2013, 12:05:02 PM »
ReplyReply

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.

But just to be quite clear: Your right to post whatever you want to say is pretty much absolute. Subject, of course, the site policy and the moderators, but most certainly NOT subject to the whims and desires of us, the posting rabble. Carry on!


I'll take this then, as the approved standard for what is civil, and what is un-civil in this forum unless I hear different from moderators. That of course is not my business, it is theirs. What's more important about your standard setting here is just what it says about you. As I said yesterday after the barrage of your un-civil comments, you are what you post.
Logged
Chris Calohan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1798


Editing Allowed


« Reply #29 on: February 17, 2013, 12:25:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I think your complaint is easy to understand. You want conformity on my part, and you don't want me to comment on your photographs. The latter is easy to do - - - you are now on that mental list. The former isn't, and I see no reason for anyone here to expect that kind of conformity. Teachers can and do use that authority to command conformity, and maybe you impulsively expect that power in all venues you participate in, I don't know. But, for now, my reading of this forum and it's purpose allows me to express my own thoughts quite independently, and as long as I am civil and not malicious, I think I am within my bounds here to call it as I see it. As I said to the other fella earlier, can't you use your mouse to slide on by my comments? I slide by lots of things I have no interest in. Why can't you?

I didn't ask for conformity; I simply suggested you cut out 99% of the bullsh*t and participate rather than pontificate.
Logged

What! Me Worry?

Life is about a little kid driving a Mini...
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3671



« Reply #30 on: February 17, 2013, 12:41:10 PM »
ReplyReply

You want conformity on my part

Not conformity. Brevity.

Jeremy
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3671



« Reply #31 on: February 17, 2013, 12:42:20 PM »
ReplyReply

It's a fine shot, Slobodan. It's simple, the parts work well, the colours are lovely and there's plenty of space at the top left for the text ( Wink).

Jeremy
Logged
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #32 on: February 17, 2013, 12:42:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I didn't ask for conformity; I simply suggested you cut out 99% of the bullsh*t and participate rather than pontificate.
That's a self-contained contradiction. When you say cut out 99% of what you call the "bullsh*t", that means you want my comments to look like everyone else - a simple thumbs up, or "good capture" or "+1" or "crap shot," and so on. I'll ask you once more, since you keep coming after me, WHAT IS THE MEANING OF A PHOTOGRAPHIC CRITIQUE?
« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 12:47:25 PM by RedwoodGuy » Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5005



WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 17, 2013, 01:04:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Truth<------------------------------------->Ideal

Logged

Slobodan

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

Posts: 417


« Reply #34 on: February 17, 2013, 01:12:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I was referring to the truth of Devil Mountain, of course. Not the truth of the other image you posted on the left.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5005



WWW
« Reply #35 on: February 17, 2013, 01:27:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I was referring to the truth of Devil Mountain, of course. Not the truth of the other image you posted on the left.

I am sorry, my bad. In my quest for brevity, I snipped your quote to tightly, it should read (bold mine):

The difference between the graphic arts and photography might be summarized as this:

Truth<------------------------------------->Ideal

In which case it would be clear that you were not referring to the "mountain truth" (whatever that might be, if at all), but to "photographic truth" vs. "graphic arts ideal."

In any case, it is rather irrelevant whether you simply misspoke or I simply misunderstood, as I readily admit that my photograph is, as many of my other photographs are, closer to the "ideal" on your scale, and deliberately so.

If I were interested in the "mountain truth," I would become a climber, if I were interested in the "photographic truth," I would become a photojournalist, or, even better, forensic photographer.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 01:30:50 PM by Slobodan Blagojevic » Logged

Slobodan

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

Posts: 417


« Reply #36 on: February 17, 2013, 01:34:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I am sorry, my bad. In my quest for brevity, I snipped your quote to tightly, it should read (bold mine):

In which case it would be clear that you were not referring to the "mountain truth" (whatever that might be, if at all), but to "photographic truth" vs. "graphic arts ideal."

In any case, it is rather irrelevant whether you simply misspoke or I simply misunderstood, as I readily admit that my photograph is, as many of my other photographs are, closer to the "ideal" on your scale, and deliberately so.

Then my critique was accurate. It is a kind of graphics arts project. And it appears that what you want to know from the viewers is: "Do you think I moved all the levers and knobs and brushes the right way here?"

So, knowing what you are after, I'll briefly say this: I count four very colorful masses in that graphic!
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7451



WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 17, 2013, 02:50:36 PM »
ReplyReply

What's more important about your standard setting here is just what it says about you.
I think that is pretty much true about all posts by all of us (certainly including me). Posts tend to say more about the poster than about the subject. Often the posts are entertaining. Sometimes they are even informative.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5005



WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 17, 2013, 03:40:47 PM »
ReplyReply

... And each item appears to have been scrubbed down to its bare outline, removed, cleaned, polished, repainted and set back into its proper place and adjusted for perfect alignment. And somewhere along the way, the nature of mountains and the feeling of trees got scrubbed away. There's none of nature's imperfections or weird deviations in here. Errant branches don't even seem to exist any more in this Super World of Super Clean Plastic (like an animator's world).

Just to be perfectly clear: as much as I often resort to aggressive post-processing, I do not, and I repeat, I do not engage, nor condone significant cloning in or out of natural landscapes.

Nothing in this image has been "removed, cleaned, polished," no natural imperfections were "improved," no "errant branches" removed.

That is my way of sticking to the "truth" in photography, whatever that might be.

What was "improved" was not "natural imperfections" but rather sensor imperfections/limitations. Was that cloud really that white or was it sensor's idea of a correct white balance. Were those trees indeed so black/dark in nature, or was it sensor's/camera's preview inability to record simultaneously highlights and shadows properly? Was the sky that muted blue, or was it sensor's attempt to both white balance it and keep everything else in the capture "happy," by compressing excessive highlights and shadows, with mid-tones sometimes suffering as well?

Did I just correct for sensor's deficiencies, or did I go a step (or two) further to satisfy my own "deficiencies," my own idea of how I would like to remember the Devil's Tower? Perhaps.
Logged

Slobodan

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

Posts: 417


« Reply #39 on: February 17, 2013, 05:11:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Just to be perfectly clear: as much as I often resort to aggressive post-processing, I do not, and I repeat, I do not engage, nor condone significant cloning in or out of natural landscapes.

Nothing in this image has been "removed, cleaned, polished," no natural imperfections were "improved," no "errant branches" removed.

That is my way of sticking to the "truth" in photography, whatever that might be.

What was "improved" was not "natural imperfections" but rather sensor imperfections/limitations. Was that cloud really that white or was it sensor's idea of a correct white balance. Were those trees indeed so black/dark in nature, or was it sensor's/camera's preview inability to record simultaneously highlights and shadows properly? Was the sky that muted blue, or was it sensor's attempt to both white balance it and keep everything else in the capture "happy," by compressing excessive highlights and shadows, with mid-tones sometimes suffering as well?

Did I just correct for sensor's deficiencies, or did I go a step (or two) further to satisfy my own "deficiencies," my own idea of how I would like to remember the Devil's Tower? Perhaps.
I want to acknowledge you right now for actually having the concern (or interest) to even make this post. For that, in spite of anything else that has transpired, I say,  good on you.

I said in my critique that it APPEARED things were removed, polished and so on. It's a way of describing what the image is saying to me. This is a critique, not a fan club. I must offer some analysis of how it doesn't work, in order for it to mean something. The image doesn't convey much about nature or mountains to me. Sorry, it is too obviously perfect and subtracted from its environment. It is four areas colored in prettily. I used the analogy previously of the painted up fashion model. They don't demonstrate anything to me about women, because all they are is paint. If this analogy honestly doesn't work for you, then simply ignore all this and treat it as, what does Chris always say, "bullsh*t."

A photograph that moves me intellectually or emotionally has to convey some information beyond the color and shape of a few masses. I'll use the analogy again: which moves people - a B&W portrait by Lange, or the average commercial fashion portrait for lipstick? Many people will say the latter, but for me it is the former. I am just one person here making my critique, so I make it about what I think photographs might be able to do. Others can make it about their values and so on. Isn't that the general idea?

Photographs which turn into just a graphic arts piece don't interest me much because graphics artists and painters do all that kind of idealization far better than photography does. Why bother with photography when you can do all that kind of work in Illustrator? Or with brush and paper? My opinion is that it isn't taking advantage of the powers that specifically make photography different (and better) than the plastic arts. Great - you disagree with that. Ok, we do not need to agree. But we should strive to understand each other.

And I ought to say, my objection is not simply the coloring and all that, it's that when you framed this photograph, your choice didn't really allow much room for anyone's imagination about mountains generally, or that one specifically. For me, it's a bit like photographing someone's nose.  It isn't going to tell me much.

Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad