On Thu, 01 May 2008 12:39:57 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Thu, 1 May 2008 08:05:17 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980
><annika1980@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>On May 1, 9:38 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bret's stuff is good enough that he doesn't need to hire or persuade
>>> anyone to follow his posts with soppy praise. The fact that you
>>> always turn up to fawn over his latest, though, does hint at something
>>> a bit beyond normal appreciation of a photo by a disinterested
>>> outsider. Especially since you don't offer similar critiques of other
>>> poster's efforts.
>>>
>>> The actual effect of your excessive praise it to think "It wasn't
>>> *that* good".
>>>
>>
>>Helen has often asked me if I thought she should let up on the gu****ng
>>praise of my pics. She is always worried about doing anything that
>>would hurt me.
>
>You have to be bullet-proof to post links here. Look at Rita, for
>example. She links to some good shots and some mediocre shots, but
>she obviously continues to enjoy the art of photography. Isn't that
>what it's all about?
>
>Helen, and the detractors of Rita, are in the same boat, but opposite
>ends of the boat. Helen's gu****ng does you no service because she's
>so over-the-top that it detracts from your work. Rita's boo-birds do
>the same thing, but the effect is to give her credit because many of
>her efforts are much better than the criticism she gets.
>
>Anyone who doesn't see that Rita's playing games with the Canon/Nikon
>comments doesn't have sense enough to find the shutter release on an
>Instamatic. It's her entertainment, and she's obviously bright enough
>to know that the differences between Canon and Nikon are mostly
>personal preference. She's just pulling legs and causing knees to
>jerk.
>
>I scan the group for links and look at the images. I enjoy seeing
>other people's work. Landscapes usually leave me unimpressed. Yeah,
>you photographed a mountain. So what? Damn thing didn't move so all
>you had to do was keep snapping. When the scene has a unique aspect,
>it's different. Someone, perhaps you, linked to one with fog or mist
>that made the image something more impressive. The eye caught it and
>said that the camera should record it. It was good because the eye
>saw something.
>
>What really impresses me is when someone photographs an object or
>scene that the average photographer would not recognize as something
>worth capturing. The guy who photographs abandoned buildings in the
>Netherlands (?) is good at this. Someone linked to a bicycle tire on
>a red background that was a great job of composition.
>
>Hummingbirds, OK. It takes skill and luck to capture one on film.
>(Or an SD card) Some other bird shots are great moments, but
>squirrels and dogs and cats and things like that are too commonplace
>and easy to shoot to impress me. Show me a shot that you had to work
>at to get, not one where you walked out in the backyard and snapped a
>tree rat.
>
>Me? I photograph my grandchildren mostly. At three and four they are
>a changing scene every day. I won't link to those images because it
>just doesn't seem right to have strangers looking at them.
>
>My daughter just did a series in Daytona Beach (FL) shot during Bike
>Week...all shots of the backs of motorcycle jackets. Not one really
>great picture on its own, but the theme was strong and the jackets
>tell a story.
>
>She also does a lot of flower shots, but they are like mountains to
>me. They just sit there and let you take pictures until you get it
>right. No challenge once you learn to press the button.
>
>Here's one her flower shots
>http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/calla.jpg
>It's a save-as of a 533 x 800 .jpg sent to me as an attachment, so
>it's not going to knock anyone out, but I like the look of it.
>
>What annoys me, though, is the people who look at an image and start
>whining about "bokah", focus points, "soft", etc. The only reaction
>should be "Does this shot please me to look at?".
>
>I've been to most of the major art museums in this country, and to
>several in Europe. The "masters", the really good stuff, view best
>from several yards back. It's the overall impression that makes them
>"masters". Photographs are much the same, but you view them from a
>shorter distance.
>
>If the negative comments were attempts at suggestions for improvement,
>that would be OK. However, "the pin feathers are not distinct" offers
>nothing. Anyone who views a photograph with a mental loupe doesn't
>know how to view art in any form. It's not a picture of pinfeathers,
>it's a composition. Take in the whole composition.
>
>--
>Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Tony - you said it VERY well! There is a compulsion amongst too many
aspiring "hot shot" photographers to do a lot of nit-picking. It's no
longer aspiring to get shots that really make the shooter feel good,
it's become how to get commendations from the competition.
Olin McDaniel - Florence, SC
To reply by email, please remove "abcd" from Return address
-----------------------------------------------------
"Ignorance is treatable, Stupidity is incurable. Sometimes
the difference is hardly distinguishable, however."
|
