>>>Still enjoying all your photographs. And your comments about the
OK, I will admit it. I have on occasion gone off topic, as have many gathered here have done in the past. I will fully admit this: I have not posted any images. I also admit that I do not critique the work of others, until now. >From your message and the message you replied to, apparently you think I actually need to post images. Not according to the rules. Read the group web page.
Any comments, Gordon? Just how far off the mark am I?
So I will apologize to everyone as well as the moderator for perusing something OT and for not posting critiques and images. I do not want my images borrowed so I do not make them available. I can't (until now) bring myself to post critiques because I have not been excited by those images I have looked at. So it is best that I remain silent rather than run the risk of being far too harsh.
So gang., I get it. Shut up and stay on topic.
Qkano? I will not begin to care if you think I should post images or not offering critiques is such a terrible thing; that you think my not doing so should be of concern to you or others on this list does not concern me in the least. No harm, no foul. When the list owners and moderators say I must post images, I will. Until then, kindly lay off and mind your own shop. Your curt reply above tells me you want to take a few pot shots. Go for it, off list.
Say, where are your images, Qkano? I will be glad to receive a photo link and I will offer you a fair critique. Perhaps biased, but as fair as I can make it. I want to recognize the subject. I want image detail and extreme sharpness. If there are clouds, I want to see them. I want highlight and shadow details. I want to see the images before you PS them, if you do indeed use digital cameras. That is where the truth about the photographer is revealed. When you can PS, you can do anything including make a terrible image better.
I have opinions. I think endless Polaroids are a crutch for the photographer that lacks experience and ability. Time and time again, I have gone to sites to photograph this and that armed with only a few 8x10/11x14 holders and zero fear that I will make mistakes I cannot recover from. I have shot the Masons on large format and never used more than one sheet film holder. I have photographer aerials and for the most part, one scene, one frame. I knew/know what I am/was doing, I was well trained, and again, that is just a fact. So again, I might not be the best photographer and it is likely you can find faults when/if I decide to post. But I know perhaps more than you might think. Not posting images to this list must never diminish the stuff I know and put into daily practice for a very long time.
I want lots of things and if your images lack my specific preferences, I will tell you.
So here are a few critiques: there is a photo entitled "Water Fountain." I do not like it. Too red and where is the fountain exactly? It reminds me of George Tice and I found very little of his works worthy of mention. In my opinion, I should be able to recognize what it is I am seeing; it should be better exposed and dump the red and the special effects. If I were to photograph the WF, I would do so in LF and it would be tack sharp. Just an opinion.
Here is another: the image entitled "Tree." I do not like the tree near the middle of the scene. It would be better if moved; the image would be better if in stereo.
"Calcium Deposit" is way too dark. Zero shadow detail and the sky looks rather odd. At least on my monitor.
I liked "Geishas" not because of the subject but because they are lantern slides.
D.L. Shipman's picture of the boats looks odd. Was it "photoshopped?" Perhaps it is just my eyes. I wish it was a sharper image with better contrast. The boats should "pop" not simply be in the scene.
Bill McKinney's "Hotel" image, however is quite nice. It would make a great stereo pair.
Janice Bell's Makena Surfer 3X" would be far better in stereo, but it is a nice image anyway.
All in all, I see things I have seen before. I see a flower picture, but it is a close-up view that does little to show a poppy in all its glory. I would suggest that all flower photographers start reading magazines like "Horticulture" to see how the experts handle flower pictures. For you gem and mineral photographers, start reading "Lapidary Journal" to see how those subjects are handled. I see lots of such images on the web (none here?) and for the most part, they are "first week photo student quality" that does not convey the characteristics of the gem or mineral. Again, my opinions, but they are valid in this case because to compete for my attention, they must surpass the images I have seen.
As I peruse the web I see plenty of stuff I have seen before. I follow PF members web sites (no names) and all I see are images that in my opinion, are uninteresting. Pedestrian and been there done/saw that boring. Again, 'tis my opinion and you are free to fault me for a rather narrow view of what a photograph should be. So I seldom serve up my personal opinions of another photographer's work because I do not like having to dilute my personal opinions. Remember, I have stated my opinions, so no raspy comments about how bad I am or how wrong or how unfair.
Since I am "required" to critique, I will provide a general opinion. Nothing on the PF site, save a few examples, does much for me. I am not saying they are good or bad, just this: I want to see something new. My tastes are limited and I like what I like. I do not like skies sans clouds or snow scenes with little to no highlight detail. I deeply appreciate viewing the photographer's best work, not images with attached excuses. (no reflection on those gathered here) I like large, sharp images and I love stereo if done well. I cannot abide poor exposures or images described as experimental, if there is nothing to interest me. There seldom is. We called those images waste.
I want old school quality that in my OPINION, far too mane "professional" photographers are incapable of providing. Quality that comes from careful exposure, precision processing, and a lab printer that actually knows a thing or two. Like me, for example. But we are in a growing digital domain and what I know or apply or think is important is growing less valid with every passing day. When was the last time you used compensating developers, water bath development, desensitizes, decimated filters, Kodachrome, banquet cameras, dodging and burring, used a Morse Contact Printer, a Cirkit camera, an 11x14 view camera, a tri-color (one-shot) camera, ferrotype tins, a steam Kodak print straightened, a Kodak "automated" black and white printer, bound slides in glass, stripped individual color layers from an Ektachrome and reassembled the layers to make a composite? Like I said, what I know is leaving the scene and in the digital realm, less and less important.
So there you go. My comments on the current crop of images on the PF site and why I do not post/critique.
So I guess this post will get me banned, huh?
Enough of that. Sorry Gordon.
Bob ... Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com |
