My dog - reflection

Osmer_Toby · Jun 9, 2004

Nice. I'm wishing for an 'ignore' feature right about now. Two posts aimed at me and both of them snotty and condescending.

Good day to you.

this would be my guess why there's the tension between the two. and i have more to say to you, mark, about your comments vis-a-vis terri, but i really don't think this is the place.

a request of the mods: is it possible to clip this thread and move the part of it where it veered off course, away from critique of the awesome bw shot that started it? it does seem sad that the thread deteriorated to this point, when the poor guy who posted the shot did such a great job in the first place. can the off-topic section be cut and pasted into, say, feedback or general?

doxx · Jun 9, 2004

click *on topic* this is one of the best photographs I have seen
in a long time. I don't care about a hair of distortion

Taken with an Olympus 35SP from the 1960's and

It's beautifully composed, well framed, nice tonality. It's a great photo.
period.

ksmattfish · Jun 9, 2004

Howdy Daniel,

You are just wrong, wrong, wrong! I'm just kidding!!! :lol:

Stating my opinion does not negate yours, nor does your opinion negate mine. And while I do appreciate the effort you went to explain your perception, I don't see the distortion that you and Mark notice. To me it looks like a strangely built military building, as mentioned by the photo poster (or normal lens distortion as speculated by MarkC). In my humble opinion it does not detract from the photo, nor does it draw my interest away from the subject of the dog as a viewer. I don't see anything particularly surreal about the image, except possibly the mirroring of shapes caused by the reflection (and maybe to get this the photographer held the camera at some other angle than level).

This thread is a great example why it's very difficult to critique via the internet. Besides having to deal with small, low-res images I seriously doubt anyone's feathers would be ruffled if we were all together in the same room with the photographer discussing the photo. We'd just have different opinions, and leave it at that.

People, don't take anything said here personally. If someone else's opinion radically differs from yours, quietly chalk them up as an ingnorant fool who can't possibly understand your artistic genius. That's what I do :wink:

One thing that has bugged me in a few of these critique threads. Why is it that when someone has a dissenting opinion they are accused of not really looking at the image? Or not spending enough time looking at an image? Or even not being "serious"? How do you know how long they took? Just as there are differing methods of photography, there are differing methods of viewing and critiquing artwork.

I've been obsessed with photography and photographs for about 10 years now, and all sorts of visual arts for decades before that, and I think I give most images a pretty good look over. If I'm not compelled to look at the image for quite a while, then I don't usually comment. But even if I didn't give the image much time, there are no rules in critque that I am aware of saying that you can't voice first impressions. How does that old saying about first impressions go?

Anyway, what has been written is written. Let's not ask the mods to re-write or censor anything. Leave it up, and hopefully we will all come to a better understanding. Not only about photography, but about how folks relate in this modern era of electronic monologues.