Glove and broken shadow by Pascal Riben

[Juga]

...you don't NEED to be an expert to critique something.

In fact, it's better if you know nothing about what you're talking: it's a good raison, when people politely disagree on your critic to act like a... heu... what is the english name of this dog who barks all time but is too small to beat?...

Hell I am a HUGE noob but I like to give critique because I believe it is part of the learning process. So throw me into that pot of people that don't have a clue. With that said I am going to go about and noob it up somewhere else on this forum.

How old do you think he is?

What does my age have anything to do with my comments? That is very condescending and what I normally would expect from you.

 

[pascalriben]

The Online Photographer: Great Photographers on the Internet

But the best of the best is the one on Bill Brandt :banghead: :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:I hope there is a life after the death and that Bill Brand can read the comment!

Unfortunately, if they comments are not real, they are very close...

 

[robbins.photo]

Thank you for your comment kathythorson. I'm sorry, but I disagree with everything: the main subject - my shadow - isn't overexposed, but the "white" girl isn't too - nothing is burn, I can't find the image soft and the car is not distracting in this kind of picture.

Alrighty then. I guess it is a stunning masterpiece.

Don't be sarcastic Kathy (or at least, if really you want to be sarcastic, try to be funny and imaginative): have you a so big ego and are you a so experimented and talented photograph that you think your non-argued comments cannot be discussed?

You know Pascal, so far I've pretty much stayed out of this whole thing but seriously, this was just uncalled for in the extreme. You posted the photo and asked for C&C - Kathy gave you her honest opinion. If you disagree with her or have different "artistic vision" or whatever that's fine, that's your prerogative. But you have zero right to get snippy with her for offering an opinion that you yourself asked for - that is just not right at all. If you don't want critique, then don't ask people to give it.

 

[DanOstergren30 5]

He just isn't very open to critique...

You know...so what? There's plenty of pretentious blowhards, plenty of people who think they know what their talking about, but don't have a clue.....so yeah.....full spectrum.

Agreeeeed.

 

[pascalriben]

Alrighty then. I guess it is a stunning masterpiece.

Don't be sarcastic Kathy (or at least, if really you want to be sarcastic, try to be funny and imaginative): have you a so big ego and are you a so experimented and talented photograph that you think your non-argued comments cannot be discussed?

You know Pascal, so far I've pretty much stayed out of this whole thing but seriously, this was just uncalled for in the extreme. You posted the photo and asked for C&C - Kathy gave you her honest opinion. If you disagree with her or have different "artistic vision" or whatever that's fine, that's your prerogative. But you have zero right to get snippy with her for offering an opinion that you yourself asked for - that is just not right at all. If you don't want critique, then don't ask people to give it.

I think it was a good idea to stay out "of this whole thing" instead of eventually trying to be provocative with a trolling comment.

 

[robbins.photo]

Don't be sarcastic Kathy (or at least, if really you want to be sarcastic, try to be funny and imaginative): have you a so big ego and are you a so experimented and talented photograph that you think your non-argued comments cannot be discussed?

You know Pascal, so far I've pretty much stayed out of this whole thing but seriously, this was just uncalled for in the extreme. You posted the photo and asked for C&C - Kathy gave you her honest opinion. If you disagree with her or have different "artistic vision" or whatever that's fine, that's your prerogative. But you have zero right to get snippy with her for offering an opinion that you yourself asked for - that is just not right at all. If you don't want critique, then don't ask people to give it.

I think it was a good idea to stay out "of this whole thing" instead of eventually trying to be provocative with a trolling comment.

Oh please. You've behaved like an ass and that much is perfectly obvious to anyone that can read. If you're not mature enough to handle critique, don't ask for it. It's that simple. There was nothing "trolling" about my commentary and you know it. You owe Kathy an apology, it's up to you to decide whether you can man up enough to offer one.

 

[DanOstergren30 5]

Alrighty then. I guess it is a stunning masterpiece.

Don't be sarcastic Kathy (or at least, if really you want to be sarcastic, try to be funny and imaginative): have you a so big ego and are you a so experimented and talented photograph that you think your non-argued comments cannot be discussed?

You know Pascal, so far I've pretty much stayed out of this whole thing but seriously, this was just uncalled for in the extreme. You posted the photo and asked for C&C - Kathy gave you her honest opinion. If you disagree with her or have different "artistic vision" or whatever that's fine, that's your prerogative. But you have zero right to get snippy with her for offering an opinion that you yourself asked for - that is just not right at all. If you don't want critique, then don't ask people to give it.

This is an issue I often have in this forum: Someone posts a photo, and someone critiques it, which is all fine and dandy and they have every right to. That being said, if they have every right to critique, the artist also has every right to disagree with said critique, which is exactly what Pascal did. The person who left the critique get's butt hurt (something I've been guilty of both when receiving and giving critique) and says something rude and sarcastic simply because their critique wasn't agreed with. At that point, how is it inappropriate for the artist to point out that the criticizer was getting sarcastic and seemingly rude? Even still, Pascal was being nice by suggesting that she at least try and lighten up about it.

I think it's perfectly fine to disagree with critique; people need to quit getting so butt hurt about that.

 

[pascalriben]

Don't be sarcastic Kathy (or at least, if really you want to be sarcastic, try to be funny and imaginative): have you a so big ego and are you a so experimented and talented photograph that you think your non-argued comments cannot be discussed?

You know Pascal, so far I've pretty much stayed out of this whole thing but seriously, this was just uncalled for in the extreme. You posted the photo and asked for C&C - Kathy gave you her honest opinion. If you disagree with her or have different "artistic vision" or whatever that's fine, that's your prerogative. But you have zero right to get snippy with her for offering an opinion that you yourself asked for - that is just not right at all. If you don't want critique, then don't ask people to give it.

This is an issue I often have in this forum: Someone posts a photo, and someone critiques it, which is all fine and dandy and they have every right to. That being said, if they have every right to critique, the artist also has every right to disagree with said critique, which is exactly what Pascal did. The person who left the critique get's butt hurt (something I've been guilty of both when receiving and giving critique) and says something rude and sarcastic simply because their critique wasn't agreed with. At that point, how is it inappropriate for the artist to point out that the criticizer was getting sarcastic and seemingly rude? Even still, Pascal was being nice by suggesting that she at least try and lighten up about it.

I think it's perfectly fine to disagree with critique; people need to quit getting so butt hurt about that.

I COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH YOU DAN!

 

[robbins.photo]

Don't be sarcastic Kathy (or at least, if really you want to be sarcastic, try to be funny and imaginative): have you a so big ego and are you a so experimented and talented photograph that you think your non-argued comments cannot be discussed?

You know Pascal, so far I've pretty much stayed out of this whole thing but seriously, this was just uncalled for in the extreme. You posted the photo and asked for C&C - Kathy gave you her honest opinion. If you disagree with her or have different "artistic vision" or whatever that's fine, that's your prerogative. But you have zero right to get snippy with her for offering an opinion that you yourself asked for - that is just not right at all. If you don't want critique, then don't ask people to give it.

This is an issue I often have in this forum: Someone posts a photo, and someone critiques it, which is all fine and dandy and they have every right to. That being said, if they have every right to critique, the artist also has every right to disagree with said critique, which is exactly what Pascal did. The person who left the critique get's butt hurt (something I've been guilty of both when receiving and giving critique) and says something rude and sarcastic simply because their critique wasn't agreed with. At that point, how is it inappropriate for the artist to point out that the criticizer was getting sarcastic and seemingly rude? Even still, Pascal was being nice by suggesting that she at least try and lighten up about it.

I think it's perfectly fine to disagree with critique; people need to quit getting so butt hurt about that.

As I stated earlier, if he chooses to disagree that's fine and dandy with me.. this, however " have you a so big ego and are you a so experimented and talented photograph that you think your non-argued comments cannot be discussed" was rude and uncalled for - if he doesn't want actual criticism then he shouldn't ask for it. If he gets what he's asked for then he should at least be an adult about it. If he wants to disagree with Kathy about her critique, fine. If she feels like there is no purpose served in debating it, that's her prerogative as well. The snottiness was completely uncalled for, period.

 

[DanOstergren30 5]

You know Pascal, so far I've pretty much stayed out of this whole thing but seriously, this was just uncalled for in the extreme. You posted the photo and asked for C&C - Kathy gave you her honest opinion. If you disagree with her or have different "artistic vision" or whatever that's fine, that's your prerogative. But you have zero right to get snippy with her for offering an opinion that you yourself asked for - that is just not right at all. If you don't want critique, then don't ask people to give it.

This is an issue I often have in this forum: Someone posts a photo, and someone critiques it, which is all fine and dandy and they have every right to. That being said, if they have every right to critique, the artist also has every right to disagree with said critique, which is exactly what Pascal did. The person who left the critique get's butt hurt (something I've been guilty of both when receiving and giving critique) and says something rude and sarcastic simply because their critique wasn't agreed with. At that point, how is it inappropriate for the artist to point out that the criticizer was getting sarcastic and seemingly rude? Even still, Pascal was being nice by suggesting that she at least try and lighten up about it.

I think it's perfectly fine to disagree with critique; people need to quit getting so butt hurt about that.

As I stated earlier, if he chooses to disagree that's fine and dandy with me.. this, however " have you a so big ego and are you a so experimented and talented photograph that you think your non-argued comments cannot be discussed" was rude and uncalled for - if he doesn't want actual criticism then he shouldn't ask for it. If he gets what he's asked for then he should at least be an adult about it. If he wants to disagree with Kathy about her critique, fine. If she feels like there is no purpose served in debating it, that's her prerogative as well. The snottiness was completely uncalled for, period.

How is it uncalled for to point out that someone reacted poorly to their critique being disagreed with? That is a display of ego, so from my perspective his comment was not untrue or uncalled for. If anything, Kathy making a snotty and sarcastic comment in which you are projecting on Pascal was uncalled for.

 

[Juga]

It is a lost cause to argue either side. This of course only coming from my inadequate child like mind.

 

[mishele]

Let's get back on topic please!!:banghead:

 

[robbins.photo]

This is an issue I often have in this forum: Someone posts a photo, and someone critiques it, which is all fine and dandy and they have every right to. That being said, if they have every right to critique, the artist also has every right to disagree with said critique, which is exactly what Pascal did. The person who left the critique get's butt hurt (something I've been guilty of both when receiving and giving critique) and says something rude and sarcastic simply because their critique wasn't agreed with. At that point, how is it inappropriate for the artist to point out that the criticizer was getting sarcastic and seemingly rude? Even still, Pascal was being nice by suggesting that she at least try and lighten up about it.

I think it's perfectly fine to disagree with critique; people need to quit getting so butt hurt about that.

As I stated earlier, if he chooses to disagree that's fine and dandy with me.. this, however " have you a so big ego and are you a so experimented and talented photograph that you think your non-argued comments cannot be discussed" was rude and uncalled for - if he doesn't want actual criticism then he shouldn't ask for it. If he gets what he's asked for then he should at least be an adult about it. If he wants to disagree with Kathy about her critique, fine. If she feels like there is no purpose served in debating it, that's her prerogative as well. The snottiness was completely uncalled for, period.

How is it uncalled for to point out that someone reacted poorly to their critique being disagreed with? That is a display of ego, so from my perspective his comment was not untrue or uncalled for. If anything, Kathy making a snotty and sarcastic comment in which you are projecting on Pascal was uncalled for.

Projecting? Oh brother. Save the dime store psychology, it's wasted on me. Was Kathy being a little sarcastic? I'm sure she was - hardly surprising under the circumstances. She was asked for her opinion and when she gave it she was told she didn't know what she was talking about. So she used a bit of sarcasm as a way of illustrating that there wasn't really any point in debating the subject. Which of course, there isn't. If Pascal isn't willing to accept anything she had to say it's not like there is anything she could say at that point that would make any difference. He obviously thinks the shot is beyond reproach, something made perfectly clear in his snotty, over the top response. So maybe you might want to analyze that for a moment. I think you'll find what your looking for in the DSM-IV under the classification NPD, or you can refer to the WHO's ICD-10 for further information.

 

[robbins.photo]

Let's get back on topic please!!:banghead:

Apologies Mish, was formulating my last reply prior to seeing this. I will cease and desist as requested.

 

[mishele]

Apologies Mish, was formulating my last reply prior to seeing this. I will cease and desist as requested.

Good, because I'm cranky!! It's effin 4:30 in the morning and I can't sleep. Hehe Next off topic post gets smacked.