Jan, I agree with some of this, and disagreee with some of this. Yoram's opinion, is, well, his opinion, and you cannot take that away from him. And believe it or not, many viewers of our work will only make simplistic (but sometimes insightful) remarks on our work. We do not make our work solely for photographers; indeed, we shouldn't make it for others, either, unless we are doing commerial work. Rather, we do the work for ourselves. Since we put so much of ourselves into our work, of course it hurts a bit to have short, direct -- seemingly shallow, but not necessarily -- criticism of it. But that is reality. Having worked with so many names in photography (there was a bit too much name-dropping in your email, but I do understand -- and respect -- that you have worked with many photographers, and have many years of experience), you obviously have seen much of their work treated the same way as Yoram did. It doesn't lessen the photographers, nor does it lessen you. In fact, this RIT forum is specifically *not* to show your best work, or to "educate", as you put it. Andy's statement for this forum states that it is a friendly place to put out perhaps experimental work, in hopes of getting feedback. Well, you did. With respect to your advice that Yoram goes to a photography workshop, I'll leave you with a quote from the photographer Harry Callahan (I didn't see him in your list, but perhaps you worked with him as well), who says (emphasis is Mr. Callahan's, based on a copy of this I've seen, written in his own hand): "To be a photographer, one must PHOTOGRAPH. No amount of book learning, no checklist of seminars attended, can substitute for the SIMPLE ACT OF MAKING PICTURES. Experience is the best teacher of all. And for that, there is no guarantee that one will become an artist. ONLY THE JOURNEY MATTERS." Andrew On Sun, March 17, 2013 10:18 am, Jan Faul wrote: > > Yoram?s dissection of this week?s photographs is his slapdash opinion. To > me it appears that he is making simplistic statements about a field he is > currently studying. According to his website, he hasn?t been doing > photography all that long, and yet here he is trying to analyze the > vision of others. > > It has been my experience that good photographers dissemble their views > of the world around them. Most hold their best conversations through > their images. Through the Photoforum Gallery there is an opportunity to > read a photographer?s real intentions as there is no jurying here. I feel > that submitting work here has the potential for educating others and > displaying my shifting passions in photography. Some members here > steadfastly refuse to see anything other than the obvious in any of the > images displayed, often including their own. Photography is still an art > where one has to read a photograph to discover the intention of its > maker. > > During my life I have watched various photographers work in their studios > or on location and to be in the presence of art being created is always a > joy to behold even if the photographer is shooting something I wouldn?t > shoot. To whom am I referring? This is a partial list: Ansel Adams, Dick > Avedon, Arnold Newman, Steve Szabo, Eliot Erwitt, Andrew Davidhazy, > Walker Evans, David Plowden, Jodi Cobb, Palma Allen, Ken Regan, Howard > Baker, Dvid Hume Kennerly, Dirck Halstead, David Burnett, Larry Fink, > John Eley, Len Rizzi, Patrice Gilbert, Dennis Brack, Paul Conklin, Neil > Liefer, and others too numerous to mention. I am no longer young and what > do I have to show for it? I have a certain vision of the world and being > a photographer has definitely widened my horizons. > > Rather than let Yoram slice up photographs he may not understand, my > suggestion would be that he save up some dough and take a trip to Maine > this summer for a workshop in photography on the topic of his choice. The > same is true for the others here who hack away at the photographs like > bad golfers. Learn more and think about what you?re going to criticize > before you do so. I rarely give a flying fig about criticism and that is > mostly because as noted I am no longer young and my skin is now very > thick. Before you begin a criticism with ?Sorry, it is just another...? > try a little harder to imagine what creating something from within takes, > and then apply that thought to your own vision. I think Randy?s shot this > week shows incredible perception and great skill in just seeing that > scene with enough foresight to record it in all its glory. It?s the kind > of shot I?d like to see on LF film and also the kind of shot which > diminishes the power of a NEX 7. It?s an image worthy of a painter named > Alfred Bierstadt. > > > Jan > > > > On Mar 17, 2013, at 12:51 AM, YGelmanPhoto wrote: > > >> This week's collection is much more eclectic than usual -- probably due >> to the scramble to get something in after being told than Nothing was >> in the pot! Anyway, here's my take. -yoram >> >> >> >> On Mar 16, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Andrew Davidhazy wrote: >> >> >>> The PhotoForum members' gallery/exhibit space was updated March 16, >>> 2013. Authors with work now on display at: >>> http://people.rit.edu/andpph/gallery.html include: >>> >>> >>> Andrew Sharpe - Bixby Park, Palo Alto, California >>> >> I don't understand what I'm looking at. >> >> >>> Emily L. Ferguson - Reaching >>> >> The tree is strong but it's just standing there -- not participating in >> anything. . . like a sailboat race perhaps?? >> >>> Yoram Gelman - Tracks Over Hill >>> >> My own . . . I see I overdid the vignetting in the sky. >> >> >>> Art Faul - >>> >> Sorry, to me it is another car with a composited pattern. >> >> >>> John Palcewski - Round Two >>> >> At first, it's an interesting dynamic with the sparse audience staring >> at the woman while the trainer seems to be looking for help. But the >> graphic behind the number '2' on the sign makes it a junk photo for me. >> And don't try telling me it's a silhouette of a boxing glove. >> >> >>> Allan Rosen-Ducat - >>> >> I guess you could call it an abstract image. Saying that the straight >> line is a contrail does not add. >> >>> Randy Little - >>> >> The image is what it is. To me there had to be a lot of "retouching". >> The claim of "ZERO retouching only dodge and burn and and some minor >> CC" is self-contradictory. >> >> >>> Christopher Strevens - my other hobby >>> >> This could be the only honest photo in the whole bunch this week. My >> eye is drawn to every device on the table, trying to figure it out. >> Extreme simplicity with complex overtones. (Sounds like I'm trying to >> describe some wine.) >> >> > > > Art Faul > > > The Artist Formerly Known as Prints > ------ > Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com > Greens: http://www.inkjetprince.com > Camera Works - The Washington Post > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/battlefieldparks/front_qt.htm > ArtNet: http://www.artnet.com/artists/jan+w.-faul/ > art for cars: panowraps.com . > > > > > > >
