Critiquing and Judging

[robbins.photo]

If i only shot captive animals i wouldn't shoot B+W

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

Well as long as we can be adult about the whole thing - you know, avoid being snotty and personal, sure, why not.. rotfl.

 

[gsgary]

If i only shot captive animals i wouldn't shoot B+W

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

Well as long as we can be adult about the whole thing - you know, avoid being snotty and personal, sure, why not.. rotfl.

Im only stating a fact, if you shot artistic photos you might use B+W

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

 

[pgriz]

I've shot B&W film for years, partly because I could do my own development. Depending on the film type and processing, you could get anything from extremely fine grain, through very coarse grain in the negative. Negative film also had much more latitude than did colour slide film, and now, digital sensors, so the exposure could be off, and still allow decent prints. There were certain subject that were (and are) better expressed in B&W, such as texture, shadow-play, silhouettes, character studies (portraits), street (sometimes), where the colour can get in the way of highlighting the other aspects. Just as the use of DOF allows us to blur out the unessential background/foreground, so does the removal of colour allow us to focus on other attributes (tone, shape, line, texture). It's an artistic choice, and as such can be carried out clumsily or brilliantly, or anywhere in between. In some ways, it's no different than using selective colouring, or toning, or vignetting... The end result depends on the skill and taste of the artist.

 

[robbins.photo]

I've shot B&W film for years, partly because I could do my own development. Depending on the film type and processing, you could get anything from extremely fine grain, through very coarse grain in the negative. Negative film also had much more latitude than did colour slide film, and now, digital sensors, so the exposure could be off, and still allow decent prints. There were certain subject that were (and are) better expressed in B&W, such as texture, shadow-play, silhouettes, character studies (portraits), street (sometimes), where the colour can get in the way of highlighting the other aspects. Just as the use of DOF allows us to blur out the unessential background/foreground, so does the removal of colour allow us to focus on other attributes (tone, shape, line, texture). It's an artistic choice, and as such can be carried out clumsily or brilliantly, or anywhere in between. In some ways, it's no different than using selective colouring, or toning, or vignetting... The end result depends on the skill and taste of the artist.

And I don't disagree with any of that. What got this whole thing started was that ultimately the "rules" of photography that were being discussed earlier is based on what is popular and pleasing to most. In most cases B&W really doesn't hold much appeal for me personally, but it does for a lot of other people. That was really the only point I was trying to make.

 

[mmaria]

I really don't see what causes misunderstanding with robbins.photo, he clearly stated "for me" and "my personal preference"....

 

[robbins.photo]

If i only shot captive animals i wouldn't shoot B+W

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

Well as long as we can be adult about the whole thing - you know, avoid being snotty and personal, sure, why not.. rotfl.

Im only stating a fact, if you shot artistic photos you might use B+W


Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

So it's ok to cheap shot the heretic, perfectly justifiable.. lol.. got it. Must be nice to be able to rationalize things like that, not an ability I have ever possessed myself. I do have some regrets in all of this, apparently some people took my commentary personally, which was never my intent. So yes, that I do regret. Had I known this was such a hot button issue I would have done things differently.

Oh, and since apparently you are not aware of it, what I choose to share on Flickr is actually only a small portion of the pictures I take and I've chosen to share mostly just my wildlife photography for my own reasons. However I do shoot a lot of other things as well, including what I'm assuming your referring to when you say "artistic" photo's. I guess I could launch into a huge tirade about how apparently you are attacking all wildlife photography as being "un-artistic" and "unworthy" but I really can't - even though it would really just be turning the tables. I'm just not capable of that level of intellectual dishonesty. Sadly it' doesn't look like you can say the same.

But I guess in the long run it's not that it really matters one iota, I am naught but a worthless heretic after all. So by all means, continue with your ad hominem personal assaults and feel perfectly justified in doing so, since you are embarked on a crusade to defend the true faith thus making all of your actions perfectly acceptable, right? I mean why bother with things like truth or reason or even minimum standards of decent behavior, not when faced with heresy of the highest order.

I guess the most ironic thing about this is that you are defending B&W on the basis that it is some awesome media of artistic expression, and yet in doing so you feel compelled to viciously attack anyone that isn't 100% completely in lock step with the "popular" view, which to me would pretty much be the antithesis of artistic expression. Have to admit that one gave me a pretty good chuckle.. lol.

 

[The_Traveler]

Case in point - I really can't stand most black and white photography. When I see a black and white photo, for the most part, I think to myself - wow. Nice picture. Damn shame the photographer chose to completely ruin it by trying to make it "edgy" or "artsy". There are a few.. a very, very few photographs that actual benefit from being converted to B&W, but at least to my eye that's only about 1% of all the B&W photos I see out there on a daily basis.

However I also understand and accept that a lot of other photographers and viewers like black and white. For them it seems to add something to the photograph. To me it's like stamping the words "Look, IT'S ART!" in huge red letters right across the photo, but for whatever reason it seems to be popular with others.

BS on that.
It's fine with me that you don't care for B/W photography; no skin off my nose.

But what you did was to imply that the photographers doing this 'most black and white photography' are poseurs, attempting to make 'ART', which is somehow wrong.
Implying, not that you were tired of the work, but that their work was somehow fatuous and pretentious.

In saying that, you are insulting me - and any of us here - who do a lot of B&W.
You weren't trying to be honest, you were inserting a snide, passive-aggressive comment, and then trying to back away by saying it was only your opinion or that you were misrepresented.
Then you try to act all hurt and defensive, that we were branding you a 'heretic'.

No, what I was doing was not allowing you to get by with this snide remark unchallenged.

 

[robbins.photo]

Case in point - I really can't stand most black and white photography. When I see a black and white photo, for the most part, I think to myself - wow. Nice picture. Damn shame the photographer chose to completely ruin it by trying to make it "edgy" or "artsy". There are a few.. a very, very few photographs that actual benefit from being converted to B&W, but at least to my eye that's only about 1% of all the B&W photos I see out there on a daily basis.

However I also understand and accept that a lot of other photographers and viewers like black and white. For them it seems to add something to the photograph. To me it's like stamping the words "Look, IT'S ART!" in huge red letters right across the photo, but for whatever reason it seems to be popular with others.

BS on that.
It's fine with me that you don't care for B/W photography; no skin off my nose.

But what you did was to imply that the photographers doing this 'most black and white photography' are poseurs, attempting to make 'ART', which is somehow wrong.
Implying, not that you were tired of the work, but that their work was somehow fatuous and pretentious.

In saying that, you are insulting me - and any of us here - who do a lot of B&W.
You weren't trying to be honest, you were inserting a snide, passive-aggressive comment, and then trying to back away by saying it was only your opinion or that you were misrepresented.
Then you try to act all hurt and defensive, that we were branding you a 'heretic'.

No, what I was doing was not allowing you to get by with this snide remark unchallenged.

Am I hurt? Not in the slightest. Did I offend you? Obviously. Was that my intent? Nope. Will you accept that such wasn't my intent? Apparently not. Have I been thus branded as a heretic? Absolutely. Does that really bother me? No, not really.

Did I ever state that it was anything other than my opinion? Nope. Have I been misrepresented and do I continue to be misrepresented? Absolutely. Is your righteous indignation warranted? No, not really.

But that's ok, like the others you have a few options here to choose from - you can continue to say that I was attacking all B&W photography, which of course I wasn't and I've made perfectly clear I wasn't, but if you feel the need to ignore all that and continue your holy war I guess that is a "viable" option. Not a particularly intelligent or necessary one, but it seems to be your chosen path at least for now

The second option of course would be to accept that your preceeding from a false premise, give me the benefit of the doubt and move on - but of course that wouldn't be as much fun as a game of pin the tail on the heretic, now would it? Lol

 

[robbins.photo]

Oh and Lew, for the record I am pretty active on Flickr - which is the vast majority of the stuff I see on a daily basis. So when I said less than 1% of the stuff I see, well what is posted here is probably a lot less than 1% of what I see, most of what I see is over on Flickr and yes, a lot of it I really don't care for at all.

If you did take that as a personal indictment then I am sorry, it wasn't meant as such.

Of course that apology goes for anyone else that was offended as well, if you'd like it in a more personal form I'd be more than happy to offer it that way. The vast majority of the B&W work I see and was referring to, as if it will really matter at this point, is:

1. On Flickr
2. Not shot on B&W film but rather converted from a digital color photo in post - usually with the color version posted right next to it
3. Not something that really floats my boat.

So hopefully that will even further clarify and hope soothe over any ruffled feathers. I think I've done what I can for my part. Guess we'll see where this goes from here.

 

[The_Traveler]

If you had apologized and shut up, we would have been even.
But you continue to back and fill and try and make yourself the wounded party and make me wrong for taking offense.

Nope, for my part you're a non-person from now on.

 

[kathyt]

 

[robbins.photo]

If you had apologized and shut up, we would have been even.
But you continue to back and fill and try and make yourself the wounded party and make me wrong for taking offense.

Nope, for my part you're a non-person from now on.

Ouch. Man.. Lew, that stings. So, not invited to your place for Christmas then?

 

[amolitor]

You did come across as a bit of a snot, robbins. Managing ones tone online is a bit tricky, to be sure.

How can I tell the difference between someone who is saying ", lol!" or ", just my opinion!" to try to bury what is ultimately a nasty remark intended as such, and someone who is genuinely teasing or expressing an opinion? It's not easy, so it's helpful if, when writing, you can try to make the overall tone match the intention. It doesn't always work out, that's life. When that happens, take the high road and say 'Hey, I'm sorry you took it that way. Not my intent.' no matter how bitchy the response was, and then move on with your life rather than continuing to engage, mock, and snark.

The ongoing engagement, mockery, and snark, doesn't do a lot to support your claim that it's just your opinion. You look like a guy who's looking for a fight at this point.

 

[robbins.photo]

You did come across as a bit of a snot, robbins. Managing ones tone online is a bit tricky, to be sure.

How can I tell the difference between someone who is saying ", lol!" or ", just my opinion!" to try to bury what is ultimately a nasty remark intended as such, and someone who is genuinely teasing or expressing an opinion? It's not easy, so it's helpful if, when writing, you can try to make the overall tone match the intention. It doesn't always work out, that's life. When that happens, take the high road and say 'Hey, I'm sorry you took it that way. Not my intent.' no matter how bitchy the response was, and then move on with your life rather than continuing to engage, mock, and snark.

The ongoing engagement, mockery, and snark, doesn't do a lot to support your claim that it's just your opinion. You look like a guy who's looking for a fight at this point.

And the three guys attacking me at this stage look like.. choir boys I guess? Funny, absolutely no mention of that - the 3 on one odds, or the over the top snotiness there - but of course none of them had the temerity to break ranks, now did they? Funny that.

Not like it really matters I suppose. I didn't mean to give the offense that I did, and I have tried to do my part and explain that the offense was not meant and that I do regret/apologize for it. Have I been a choir boy in this whole thing? Nope. Freely admit that. Just find the level of overall hypocrisy on the entire topic rather staggering. I also happen to find it ironic that the same people who decry me for a "personal" attack that was never directed at them personally have said some really vicious, very personal things that were most decidely aimed directly at me and yet we find nothing to say about that, only another critique of my actions/words.

Well I guess I didn't make channel heretic and official non-person of the 2016 olympics for nothing. I've done what I can.

 

[pgriz]

Since I started this thread, let's see if we can steer it back to rules and critiques. Do you perceive the "rules" to be a) mental structures that the OCD need to bring "order" to their images, or b) useful guidelines that derive from an understanding of art, or c) arbitrary dictates from the "experts" that only serve to support the "experts" biases, or d) proven techniques that work most of the time if applied judiciously, or e) some or all of the above or f) none of the above, or g) oh, go away - this is getting really annoying?

Yesterday, our photo club had a "members' night" where members presented their chosen projects in a 4-minute AV presentation. They ranged from a presentation of someone's travel in an airplane, to a study of lamp-posts, to exploration of reflections, to someone's documenting the growth of his kids, to... well you get the idea. Some of the presentations were very moving, others were rather boring. I was looking for some guiding principles as to what attributes the individual images had that really grabbed my attention. In all cases, the technical aspects of the "good" images were excellent. But what set the images apart were the artistic elements of surprise, novel viewpoint or perspective, clear and obvious subject matter, and consistency of view (as in lack of competing or distracting elements). Many of these images were accompanied by the audience reaction ("wow", intake of breath, etc.) so it was clear that the really good images affected many people at once.

Now there is the other issue that "popular" images are not necessarily the same as "good" images. Images of cute animals are always popular, but few are "good" from an artistic point-of-view. Sunsets are popular, but again, not particularly original. Images of attractive people (both male and female) are always popular, but again, not original or necessarily good art. What guidelines do YOU use to decide whether an image you see is "popular" or "artistically good"? Should there be other categories as well?