It seems to me that replying to a criticism of one's work should be done in a civil way --say replying about technique or points of view. Even a misplaced criticism can sometimes be helpful -- if it's listened to rather than trashed.
On the other hand, personal attacks on the critic should be done outside the bar, or maybe dragged into the lavatory where the shirts come off and the blood flows -- if that's the level of reply. Just ugly.
All that, to start, to my comment on the photograph. It's maybe the first one I've seen from Faul that conveys action, TO MY MIIND, especially with the remnant of the wave running up the beach. I can feel it as a miniature of the big waves crashing farther out. Nice.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 20, 2014, at 9:05 PM, Andrew Sharpe <asharpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Jan Faul - Incoming Tide, Vesterhavet
Poorly exposed and no interest except perhaps for the vertical shaft of
light, unfortunately in the center. The horizon is crooked.It’s been awhile since I noticed a member here was blind, but you’re blind.As per the notes, it is shot with a fisheye and the horizon is curved, not crooked. Also, the shaft of light is off center by 15% or so, as per my normal style.I have almost exactly the same reaction to everything you shoot other than certain plants.Art FaulThe Artist Formerly Known as Prints------Art for Cars: art4carz.comStills That Move: http://www.artfaul.comGreens: http://www.inkjetprince.comCamera Works - The Washington Post.
