Glove and broken shadow by Pascal Riben

[robbins.photo]

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.

Ok, so would now be a bad time to note that guys pay big money for that sort of thing in Vegas? Lol

 

[Juga]

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.

...like in a good way?

couldn't resist...it was staring me in the face and after 12 hours of work I just had to.

 

[mishele]

...like in a good way?

couldn't resist...it was staring me in the face and after 12 hours of work I just had to.

Test me and find out! Lol

 

[kathyt]

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. Hey, I tried.

Why do you have to jump to "stunning masterpiece"?
We could argue back and forth whether a soft image can still work and be a wonderful image to look at, or not.
I said wonderful, not stunning, or masterpiece.

What is the subject in this image, I think depends on the viewer.
You are a portrait photographer, aren't you?
Does that make you tend to think of any person in an image as the subject?

So much more in this image demands your attention. The girl, far from overexposed, actually gets a little lost in the white wall with dappled sunlight behind her. Heck, the line of the bottom of her purse, and it's tone, match the line and tone of the wall behind her. This further camouflages her.

What sticks out, to me, is her shoe! Her pants are even a similar tone to the pavers. But that bright white shoe! At an area of intersecting lines, that pretty much point right to it!

Further, look at the line of the girls coat, how it lines up with the line on the side walk... Squint at that image, and tell me you don't simply read a large, white, tilted, square.

While squinting, what is most prominent is indeed the photographers shadow. It's large, bold, and runs the length of the image.
It's even larger than the white "square" of lost girl.

To me, the glove is a "neat find" in the shadows. It's a little bonus. I personally don't find it important, but because it's in the title, many people may place too much importance on it.

And look at all the angles!!!

I find this to be a joy to look at. It's a wonderful image. "Stunning masterpiece?" Nah.
Would I hang it on my wall? Nah. Would I enjoy seeing it in a book? Yes!

Frankly, Kathy, your critique sounds like you simply tried to come up with as much wrong with the image as you could.
Did you find absolutely nothing appealing here?

I stated my critique. I didn't care for the image. Period. Nothing more. Nothing less. Should I have made up something pleasant to sugar coat it? I gave an honest critique of the image based off of my initial reaction of the image. I know now not to critique this members work. I have given this member positive critique in the past, but I just wasn't feeling this image. End of story.

 

[kathyt]

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.

Dan if you need to hash something out with me I would prefer you take it to PM's and leave it off the forum. Thanks.

 

[pixmedic]

all righty folks...
obviously a few Mod warnings are not going to be sufficient...
You guys are just hell bent on forcing us to lay out some temp bans..

here's how I see this.
Kathy gave honest technical critique. period. Pascal took it poorly.
now, i don't want to hear any crap about "poor pascal" because i have been almost violently defending him over the last two of his threads, so when I say that Kathy gave proper critique and pascal was out of line with his comment to her, i think i am objective enough here to say it.
yes, Kathy's comment afterwards was pretty sarcastic, but not nearly as much as pascals comment to her, after she took the time to view and actually critique his photo.

that is exactly how these threads start spiraling out of control.
if you cannot comment in a civil manner. don't hit the reply button.
if you cannot accept critique for work you post on an open forum designed for critique in a civil manner....dont post your work here. not everyone here will agree with, or like your work. this is a forum of many tastes. I myself do not care for B&W, so i very very rarely comment on those types of photos.

I am going to leave this thread open, and make this one last appeal to the forums better senses.
I expect that everyone, including the OP, will make the effort to give and receive critique in a civil manner.
the next warnings will not be on this thread, but via the infraction/temp ban message.

 

[IByte]

....bacon & eggs anyone?

 

[slackercruster]

one last warning folks, and this is it.
back the **** off this pascal thing.

if you dont like how he interacts on the forum, don't open his threads, or put him on ignore.

I thought with all the feedback this was something interesting. But alas it is just like the rest of his pix.

 

[Juga]

....bacon & eggs anyone?

Bacon...of course!

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I thought with all the feedback this was something interesting. But alas it is just like the rest of his pix.

Well, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle "ilovemycam".

 

[michael9000000]

....bacon & eggs anyone?

Bacon... with a side of more bacon...