Carnation

amolitor

TPF Noob!
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
6,320
Reaction score
2,131
Location
Virginia
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Shot this this morning as a technical exercise in lighting and composition. Nothing profound here, but CC welcome of course.

$Carnation-Small.jpg
 
Couldn't find this one on any reverse searches. Nice, if you actually took this.
 
You'll notice that I included the image directly, rather than linking. If it's NOT mine, then it would be violation of TPF rules, right?

Thanks! I am sort of mixed on it. it says nothing, but it's pretty.
 
Well, linking to work by other artists is fine. Seriously, do you not realize the problem with what you did? You didn't say, "I took this," but the context in which the link was posted lead the viewer to believe you did. In addition to my guess on the other thread, I'll give it a go and say you also had another motivation: post a famous photo you thought would go unrecognized so you could sit back and laugh to yourself about how clueless we are on here.

Again, you sir, are a douche.
 
And whose photograph is this? Everything else you've posted has been the work of someone else so why should anyone believe that you shot this one?
 
Well, linking to work by other artists is fine. Seriously, do you not realize the problem with what you did? You didn't say, "I took this," but the context in which the link was posted lead the viewer to believe you did. In addition to my guess on the other thread, I'll give it a go and say you also had another motivation: post a famous photo you thought would go unrecognized so you could sit back and laugh to yourself about how clueless we are on here.

Again, you sir, are a douche.

Name calling really proves your point.
 
Well, linking to work by other artists is fine. Seriously, do you not realize the problem with what you did? You didn't say, "I took this," but the context in which the link was posted lead the viewer to believe you did. In addition to my guess on the other thread, I'll give it a go and say you also had another motivation: post a famous photo you thought would go unrecognized so you could sit back and laugh to yourself about how clueless we are on here.

Again, you sir, are a douche.

Name calling really proves your point.

Jowens seldom, if ever goes so far as to Name Call! The very fact that she did means something! (if you are willing to recognize that, of course!)
 
Complaining about my use of name calling proves your point :)

Take a look at my siggy, I think you'll understand the point I am making.
 
You'll notice that I included the image directly, rather than linking. If it's NOT mine, then it would be violation of TPF rules, right?

You are losing credibility with your recent postings... I'm sure you are aware of that, though.
 
In case anyone is wondering, I don't intend to hop in and attempt to justify myself or explain anything further, this isn't the place for that sort of thing.

If you'd like to talk about the photograph, I'd be happy to converse. Any other issues you have, you are welcome to PM me but I am not interested in muddying up a gallery thread with that kind of discussion.
 
Couldn't find this one on any reverse searches. Nice, if you actually took this.

Funny, jowens!!! and at the same time, indicates some type of slam against the OP (who I think is a pretty alright guy in his own right...) not sure what the beef is here, but there must be some kinda' back story...

I think the lighting looks a bit too flat...and by that I mean the highlights seems too dark, and the shadows seem a bit close in tonal value to the highlight tonal value...something just appears "not quite right". I looked at it on-screen, then clicked to "embiggen" ( a new web-word!!) the shot...just not quite "right"...

I sometimes ask myself, "Is this just a digital thing? Is this my preference for a traditional, film-like tonal representation, showing its deep-rooted nature?" And then I think, "Naw...". I see a LOT of images that look like this one now that digital and PS post is the norm...this shot just doesn't quite convey that type of lighting scenario to me in a way that feels "true to life", OR "photographic". With post-processing being what it is today, there could be 50 different reasons "why" (yes, reason why is oft considered redundant, but in this case...it's for clarification) this lighting is not reading well to me...

Anyway...an exercise like this is of little value without detailed C&C from others, so, there you go....my C&C, my thoughts on lighting. Compositionally, the space in the upper left quandrant feels excessive, and it feels to me like the flower is tipping the frame right over,so to speak. Perhaps that was the intended response--because the feeling of imbalance, or "real weight" is VERY strong!
 
Well, linking to work by other artists is fine. Seriously, do you not realize the problem with what you did? You didn't say, "I took this," but the context in which the link was posted lead the viewer to believe you did. In addition to my guess on the other thread, I'll give it a go and say you also had another motivation: post a famous photo you thought would go unrecognized so you could sit back and laugh to yourself about how clueless we are on here.

Again, you sir, are a douche.

Name calling really proves your point.

Jowens seldom, if ever goes so far as to Name Call! The very fact that she did means something! (if you are willing to recognize that, of course!)


What it means is that calling someone a douche only proves that you are a douche as well.
 
Is that not what you are doing right now? I love talking in circles, we could do this all day!
 
Well that must mean you're a douche too, Charlie. zOMGGGGG lets all be douche BFFs and start a club! LOL

Seriously, I am too tired to keep going on with this crap today. My ignore list is ever growing.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top