c&c welcome

[pixmedic]

i reached that conclusion (having actually read amolitors posts) based on the fact that amolitor SAID he found this scene particularly interesting, and liked it even though he knew most people would not. he felt compelled to take the picture, and even mentioned it being a keeper, despite its flaws. you are basing your conclusion on the idea that a picture of a child is more emotionally evoking than a picture of a building. which is completely subjective. it is not a fact. it is totally based on different peoples feelings. what emotional attachment a picture "potentially" has doesn't really hold much weight, and is based purely on speculation. you call my comparison bad...but your following statements completely confirms my comparison as true. just because YOU have never been emotional over a type of picture, does not exclude others from being emotional over it. you actually prove my point with your second paragraph. I dont know why people keep rambling on about this photo being a failure. amolitor said a page back that he admitted that this photo is probably a failure to most people, and that he only liked it based on personal reasons. I really think people read way to much into what amolitor was asking for with this post.

My god give it up buddy. You are arguing that a fence "potentially" hold more emotional value the someone's child. Would you like to debate whether the sun will come up tomorrow? You obviously have a some sort of tie with the op and my guess is that's the reason you are not subjective. Fan club comes to mind....

Again, you are wrong. Please show where i said a fence has "more" emotional value than a child? In fact, i did no such thing. I said that anything is capable of having emotional value to someone. Which you admitted in your own post. You obviously have some sort of issue with OP, despite allegedly only being on the forum for a few days. . Are you another member starting a separate account to hound the OP anonymously? You obviously are more concerned with misquoting people than actually reading the posts.

 

[shaylou]

This is an incredibly presumptuous response. You are taking what you want from what has been posted and twisting it to get it to fit your position. Well then, bully for you. This is YOUR choice, YOUR approach, and if you don't ever feel you can make your own judgment call on your work without leaning on others' input, perhaps you may ultimately find yourself artistically stymied and not understand why. You're also relatively new to the forum, or you would think twice before accusing one of our more active, regular posters of having no desire to help out fellow photographers. How you can arrive at this conclusion based on a thread where his own work is posted is beyond me. There are two schools of thought regarding approaches to critique. One is to post your image and give lots of information about it - your camera settings, your intentions with the shot, and whether or not you believe you met those intentions, and why. The other is what we have here: an image is posted with little or nothing offered up. The poster retains much of the background, and still asks for objective C&C. It puts the burden on the viewer, yes. You get no help, no comments to guide you along with what you think the poster is trying to get you to see. TPF has had specialized critique forums in the past where both of these approaches were put into play - and both forums ultimately failed, because of the large number of members who prefer one style over another. Some people don't want to feel led around by the nose by too much information, and others assume a negative attitude by a photographer who offers up nothing but his work. It led to very rambling and ineffective critique threads. This is a good example of the latter.

Presumptuous ? That's an incredible statement coming from someone that Posted in cc. Got bad reviews from the forum and responded by calling the members "lay people" and in your utter arrogance declaring we were not worth explaining to. I posted off what you posted and have as much right to do so as anyone else in this forum regardless of how long I have been here. If you can't handle criticism perhaps these type of post are not for you. Perhaps next time you will think twice before talking down to other members.

I'm done!

 

[shaylou]

Again, you are wrong. Please show where i said a fence has "more" emotional value than a child? In fact, i did no such thing. I said that anything is capable of having emotional value to someone. Which you admitted in your own post. You obviously have some sort of issue with OP, despite allegedly only being on the forum for a few days. . Are you another member starting a separate account to hound the OP anonymously? You obviously are more concerned with misquoting people than actually reading the posts.

A few days? Not you too. Wow digging deep i see. Well I have stated my point and at this point there is nothing more to add. I hope you and the op live happily ever after.

Good day.

 

[Tee]

You obviously have some sort of issue with OP, despite allegedly only being on the forum for a few days. . Are you another member starting a separate account to hound the OP anonymously? You obviously are more concerned with misquoting people than actually reading the posts.

Dude- did you notice their join date?

 

[pixmedic]

You obviously have some sort of issue with OP, despite allegedly only being on the forum for a few days. . Are you another member starting a separate account to hound the OP anonymously? You obviously are more concerned with misquoting people than actually reading the posts.

Dude- did you notice their join date?

Nope. Did you notice their inability to properly quote what people write.?

 

[terri]

You obviously have some sort of issue with OP, despite allegedly only being on the forum for a few days. . Are you another member starting a separate account to hound the OP anonymously? You obviously are more concerned with misquoting people than actually reading the posts.

Dude- did you notice their join date?

I am the one who brought up that member's length of time on here because of the presumptuous and incorrect statement regarding the OP having no desire to help others - amongst other things. That member has been here less than a year and should take care before running off at the mouth in this way. He or she appears to also have me confused with the OP in his response to my comments. Pix is correct that this person was misquoting others and in this thread, at least, appears only to be spoiling for a fight - with me, or Pix, or the OP, whomever.

Bottom line: doesn't matter how long the member has been here; with this kind of behavior I predict a short shelf life, anyway.

I think this thread has run its course.