Sand bars, tidal slants, and fuzzy clouds

[rob91]

Im glad someone mentioned Picasso as there is something to be learned here. Im not against what rob does, However people calling this amazing creative work are massively deluded. If you had been to art school or self taught art history you would know why.
Why?... because Picasso along with many artists like him could actually draw and paint VERY accurately. He was already established as a great painter and drawer, who could paint a figure with perfect proportions. He the CHOSE to develope the cubism movement, therefore giving his work a thought provoking twist.

Iv said this to rob before and he refused to answer me... why is he choosing to take all his shots out of focus, what is he trying to achieve?
Looking into his past posts i find nothing but out of focus shots which says to me that he cannot use basic photography methods and techniques and has little understanding of them. Therefore i find his photos uninspired and based on nothing.
You must first learn to understand the camera before taking your ideas to another level.
Just an honest opinion.

I'm not sure what your point is. I've posted a few shots that are in focus, so yeah, I am able to focus a camera. Regardless, I would still ask you to look at this photo on it's own. If you think the quality of this shot, or any shot I post, is based off a previous history of formalist photography then I think your criticisms are way off base.

 

[rob91]

I'm new to rob91's work, just discovering it, actually. I don't understand the criticism I'm finding. To all those who want rob91 to make his horizons rectilinear, and the photograph in sharper focus, I think you're mistaking a "photograph" with a "picture post card." Would you have told Picasso that a subject should not have had two eyes on one side of the nose? or have told Gaugin that South Sea natives should not have had blue skin? A photograph may need to distort the normally accepted parameters if, more than conveying the facts of a scene, it wishes to convey the essences.

Damn dude, where have you been all my life :thumbsup:

I don't think it would be possible to consistently do what Rob does on accident. I'm sure that he knows how to use auto focus, he just chooses not to, lol. Why, I'm not sure I'll understand unless he'd care to enlighten us. I just find it very hard to believe that he doesn't know what all those buttons on his camera do.

Most of his work doesn't do anything for me (this one, for example), but I honestly do like a few of them ("Almost Hollywood" and "Look", to name two).

Sometimes I wonder how many of the people saying how much they like it honestly do like it, or if they're just messing with him. I personally would not say I liked it unless I really did (but at the same time I can see why some people might think it would be fun to play with him). If I didn't like it I probably wouldn't even comment at all.

Thanks, Almost Hollywood and Look are two of my favorites as well.

 

[c_armsworthy]

I can see leaving a photo out of focus to achieve some desired expected end, either as a telling point about something in today's culture, or as an artistic tool; likewise with the underexposure. But if that was the intent here, I think I missed what you were going for.

I don't necessarily think that diamond-sharp focus is mandatory for a great photo, but I think if they photo is out of focus, then there has to be something else in it which forgives or is accented by the lack of focus - an interesting subject or angle or effect.

A beach shot is pretty standard, so I have to admit, I don't know what you were trying to achieve.

 

[Mr. Lou Garou]

A beach shot is pretty standard, so I have to admit, I don't know what you were trying to achieve.

Well, there you have it. A beach shot ~is~ pretty standard, and with this photograph, rob91 gives you a picture of a beach in a way that causes you to see the piling clouds, the ocean, the waves, the strand, in a new manner. The photograph also causes the viewer to be mindful of all the other, more pedestrian, beach shots he has ever seen, by comparing this photograph to them mentally. That is quite a lot to achieve with a picture!

 

[c_armsworthy]

OK, but what makes this shot DIFFERENT from thousands of bad tourist shots of a beach which fill dozens of vacation photo albums? How has be done something which no one else could do?

 

[Roger]

I have said this in other posts about Rob's work, ignore it and it'll go away!

 

[Arch]

I'm not sure what your point is. I've posted a few shots that are in focus, so yeah, I am able to focus a camera. Regardless, I would still ask you to look at this photo on it's own. If you think the quality of this shot, or any shot I post, is based off a previous history of formalist photography then I think your criticisms are way off base.

you mis-understand me. Im not sure how to explain any better then i did... i suppose a simple phrase i could use is learn to walk before you run... and im not just refering to the shot being out of focus.

 

[rob91]

you mis-understand me. Im not sure how to explain any better then i did... i suppose a simple phrase i could use is learn to walk before you run... and im not just refering to the shot being out of focus.

No, I didn't misunderstand you. In your first post you stated I failed to understand basic photographic technique because my shots were out of focus. You may have other criticisms but that is the only one you mentioned.

You then go on to say that because my shots are out of focus they are "uninspired" and "based on nothing", and also claim I don't know how to operate a camera - how on earth can you know any of this? You certainly have not seen every shot I have ever taken. I will iterate it again because I think it is important: if you truly believe that a history of formalist photography, from me, would make my current photographs any more worthwhile than your criticisms are way off base. Stick with the photo and judge it for what it is, and what the hell, maybe try offering up some criticism more substantive than "oh man, it's totally out of focus."

 

[NikonLady52]

No, I didn't misunderstand you. In your first post you stated I failed to understand basic photographic technique because my shots were out of focus. You may have other criticisms but that is the only one you mentioned.

You then go on to say that because my shots are out of focus they are "uninspired" and "based on nothing", and also claim I don't know how to operate a camera - how on earth can you know any of this? You certainly have not seen every shot I have ever taken. I will iterate it again because I think it is important: if you truly believe that a history of formalist photography, from me, would make my current photographs any more worthwhile than your criticisms are way off base. Stick with the photo and judge it for what it is, and what the hell, maybe try offering up some criticism more substantive than "oh man, it's totally out of focus."

Would you be so kind, Rob as to post some examples of your " in focus work"? I think that may settle this difference of opinion. It's ok if you want to be a bit creative but, it should be only a part of what you do. No harm in trying everything you can, as it can only be a good thing.

Now for the other thing I am seeing here. If you have posted an image for critique, knowing there will be positive and negative feedback, you have to be prepared to take the good with the bad, otherwise you never grow in your experience level. There will always be suggestions as to how you can make an image better and taking it as a negative instead of positive criticism is not why we are here. It's like anything in life, once you begin exhibiting your repetitive side (in this case the same kind of work over and over) people will either: 1) Tire of it very easily or 2) Become negative/critical of what you do. 3) love what you do and praise your work. How you respond will be the overwhelming impression that is left behind. You surely must realize that not everyone will share your enthusiasm for your creative side? That is ok because everyone knows what he/she likes and if it doesn't fit in with the posters' opinion, it isn't a personal dig at that person. In the end it is what you feel about what you do. No one says you have to agree with their assessment. We are just your sounding board and what you decide to do with our suggestions is up to you. So take everything your read here with a grain of salt or use it to expand your horizons.

Please understand what I am saying isn't a personal gripe at you, but an observance, that I have seen time again in this and other forums and I guess I needed to voice my opinion. This one was just the icing on the cake , so to speak. My understanding of critique is to give/receive a critique (good or bad) and then gauge for myself those suggestions and then use them to make me a better artist going forward.

 

[rob91]

Would you be so kind, Rob as to post some examples of your " in focus work"? I think that may settle this difference of opinion. It's ok if you want to be a bit creative but, it should be only a part of what you do. No harm in trying everything you can, as it can only be a good thing.

Now for the other thing I am seeing here. If you have posted an image for critique, knowing there will be positive and negative feedback, you have to be prepared to take the good with the bad, otherwise you never grow in your experience level. There will always be suggestions as to how you can make an image better and taking it as a negative instead of positive criticism is not why we are here. It's like anything in life, once you begin exhibiting your repetitive side (in this case the same kind of work over and over) people will either: 1) Tire of it very easily or 2) Become negative/critical of what you do. 3) love what you do and praise your work. How you respond will be the overwhelming impression that is left behind. You surely must realize that not everyone will share your enthusiasm for your creative side? That is ok because everyone knows what he/she likes and if it doesn't fit in with the posters' opinion, it isn't a personal dig at that person. In the end it is what you feel about what you do. No one says you have to agree with their assessment. We are just your sounding board and what you decide to do with our suggestions is up to you. So take everything your read here with a grain of salt or use it to expand your horizons.

Please understand what I am saying isn't a personal gripe at you, but an observance, that I have seen time again in this and other forums and I guess I needed to voice my opinion. This one was just the icing on the cake , so to speak. My understanding of critique is to give/receive a critique (good or bad) and then gauge for myself those suggestions and then use them to make me a better artist going forward.

You can find some of my in focus work by looking through my post history, I know there are a couple I posted on the People and Pets forum.

I receive negative criticism nearly every post I make, I am used to it. Everyone here is entitled to an opinion of course and for the most part I let it be - I would rather receive negative feedback than none at all. From time to time, however, I will take objection to certain criticisms, the "out of focus = bad" argument in particular as it is utterly ridiculous. In this case I also took special exception to Archangel's comments because not only did he berate my work with those baseless comments but also anyone else who found value in it.

 

[Arch]

maybe try offering up some criticism more substantive than "oh man, it's totally out of focus."

i dont speak like that, nor would i ever give someone such useless feedback.

In this case I also took special exception to Archangel's comments because not only did he berate my work with those baseless comments but also anyone else who found value in it.

ok maybe i could have worded it better... (although i did say in my second post) its not just the focus im talking about. The above picture doesnt work for me in many levels, i cant find any asthetic value, shape or form, colour, contrast etc etc... this is what i meant by learning and using these skills. My comments are certainly not baseless... i have seen your post history, why do you think i brought it up in the fist place.

Rob, i have told you before what my main criticism is but you ignored me. That was when people wanted to know more about YOUR thoughts behind this shooting style but you refused to comment. This, coupled with the lack of skills in your previous posts, to me, devalues the work as it has no context and they certainly dont work as stand alone images. I could just as easily put my camera out the window now without looking at any of the settings then post results here...

This is all just my opinion tho, it doesn't hold any more wieght just because im a moderator, if you disagree with everything i say then thats fine. When i first saw your posts i had to say something in case you were deliberatly posting these images and refusing to say anything just to get people to argue (and is why im reluctant to keep bumping this) but if its something you wish to continue then thats ok. My only advise is to at least learn about shape and form as i think thats what would benefit your 'random style' the most.

 

[Rabieshund]

I agree with Archangel...

And I did look up your older threads with your focused pictures. They were pretty much out of focus too. I think you really should listen to Archangel. Learn to take decent pictures before you try to take it to this level, for at least I can't take you seriously...

 

[Mesoam]

i look at the photo and think to myself...i just got up and can't see anything...but realize i haven't just got up...its nearly 9:00am....

 

[rob91]

i dont speak like that, nor would i ever give someone such useless feedback.

You sure about that? Because your argument has revolved almost solely around the fact that my shots are out of focus, yet you spectacularly manage to avoid any criticism that may be helpful and instead throw a handful of tired cliches at me. I know you don't speak like that as well, I was making light of how I feel about your criticism.

ok maybe i could have worded it better... (although i did say in my second post) its not just the focus im talking about. The above picture doesnt work for me in many levels, i cant find any asthetic value, shape or form, colour, contrast etc etc... this is what i meant by learning and using these skills. My comments are certainly not baseless... i have seen your post history, why do you think i brought it up in the fist place.

Rob, i have told you before what my main criticism is but you ignored me. That was when people wanted to know more about YOUR thoughts behind this shooting style but you refused to comment. This, coupled with the lack of skills in your previous posts, to me, devalues the work as it has no context and they certainly dont work as stand alone images. I could just as easily put my camera out the window now without looking at any of the settings then post results here...

This is all just my opinion tho, it doesn't hold any more wieght just because im a moderator, if you disagree with everything i say then thats fine. When i first saw your posts i had to say something in case you were deliberatly posting these images and refusing to say anything just to get people to argue (and is why im reluctant to keep bumping this) but if its something you wish to continue then thats ok. My only advise is to at least learn about shape and form as i think thats what would benefit your 'random style' the most.

I see now you've rattled off a few photo buzz words, light, composition, etc...I understand it's totally subjective, I happen to disagree with you, I was just hoping you might offer up some criticism slightly more substantive. Those words are useless to me if you cannot at least go into the "why's".

What was your main criticism again, I'm not sure I remember it? Was it the fact that I'm not explaining my work?

And just so we're clear I know I have plenty to learn.

 

[Arch]

Rob do not make personal attacks. I was quite clear with what i think you could do to improve your shooting, if you dont want to do that then fine. You keep insisting that i am repeating the 'out the focus arguement' i think you are the one who is hung up on this idea... read my posts again... i mentioned it in the first then not in any other. You are clearly very defensive about it.

I see now you've rattled off a few photo buzz words, light, composition, etc...I understand it's totally subjective, I happen to disagree with you, I was just hoping you might offer up some criticism slightly more substantive. Those words are useless to me if you cannot at least go into the "why's".

Buzz words??.... are you suggesting i dont know what they mean? And as for the whys... it took me 5 years of art college and several years more for me to understand some artistic concepts.. so no i cant explaine that to you now in a few sentances... i was recomending to you that you go and learn for yourself.