Sand bars, tidal slants, and fuzzy clouds

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 am going back to the out of focus argument because that is where this began, yet in our discussion everytime I have brought it up you just brush it off.

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.

No, I'm suggesting you haven't given them a context relevant to my photography.
 
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".

Actually, rob, you aren't responding to "serious" criticisms - for instance, I acknowledge that focus is not the be all end all of a photo, but asked you what made this shot different from hundreds of bad tourist shots in dozens of vacation albums? Archangel asked you for your thoughts on this shooting style, which you didn't comment on.

If you cannot respond to the questions being asked, and respond intelligently, giving reasons for why you made the choices you made, then you don't have a piece of creative work. You have a bad photo you're trying to pass of as art.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I've spent years trying to learn what I do, and I would never presume that I still know everything. And when I break the rules of composition on purpose, I have a reason for doing so, and my photo makes that clear.
 
Actually, rob, you aren't responding to "serious" criticisms - for instance, I acknowledge that focus is not the be all end all of a photo, but asked you what made this shot different from hundreds of bad tourist shots in dozens of vacation albums? Archangel asked you for your thoughts on this shooting style, which you didn't comment on.

If you cannot respond to the questions being asked, and respond intelligently, giving reasons for why you made the choices you made, then you don't have a piece of creative work. You have a bad photo you're trying to pass of as art.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I've spent years trying to learn what I do, and I would never presume that I still know everything. And when I break the rules of composition on purpose, I have a reason for doing so, and my photo makes that clear.

I never said this shot is any different, better, or worse than a tourist shot in a bad vacation album.
 
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...

For kicks...

http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=99417
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102188
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=100823
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=106203 #2
 
Rob, as I continue look at this, the obscurity of your statement persists. However, the questions it poses continue to mount??? ron
 
Rob, as I continue look at this, the obscurity of your statement persists. However, the questions it poses continue to mount??? ron

Smoke more weed Ron and I promise it will come into focus.
 
mytroll.jpg
 

Well.. Congratulations, some of those shots was actually focused correctly. But instead you underexposed them. The first bird photo I do like because it has some composition and nice contrasts. Your other shots don't have this.. There is so much basic stuff for you to learn and control. Why do you ignore all the basics and go directly to developing a style? Seems stupid to me. I mean, by looking at your "normal" photos I can easily see that you don't know sh1t about photography. Not trying to be rude but if you don't know what you're doing then why the hell do you try to take it to the next level already?! It's like writing avant-garde music just because you can't write "real" music...
 
No, I'm suggesting you haven't given them a context relevant to my photography.

Now im thinking you are a troll... you are just trying to continue the arguement. You want me to give you the context in which i stated i dont find this image to have aesthetic value, shape or form, colour, contrast?

ok, here it is then for you seeing as tho i suggested you find out more but you want me to spell it out for you.

aesthetic value - the image is dull, colourless, vague and overall holds no aesthetic values. It is certainly not being displayed for how pretty it is.

shape or form - The image has no defined shape or form and is not abstract enough to hold these values in thier own right.

colour - The image doesn't convay a strong or decisive colour range, Its washed out in a way which seems unintentional.

contrast - The image has no contrast. There is also no display of trying to interpret contrast in an artistic way by juxtaposing light and dark shapes, or in giving depth to the image.

So there you have it... i was suggesting to you that you would already know what my criticisms mean having advanced yourself into the artworld already, but i spelled it out for you anyway.

Rabieshund is absolutly right, you can only make progress in the artworld or the world of creative photography if you at least try and begin to understand the art form which your trying to progress in. Ignorance of this will get you no where fast.
 
Now im thinking you are a troll... you are just trying to continue the arguement. You want me to give you the context in which i stated i dont find this image to have aesthetic value, shape or form, colour, contrast?

ok, here it is then for you seeing as tho i suggested you find out more but you want me to spell it out for you.

aesthetic value - the image is dull, colourless, vague and overall holds no aesthetic values. It is certainly not being displayed for how pretty it is.

shape or form - The image has no defined shape or form and is not abstract enough to hold these values in thier own right.

colour - The image doesn't convay a strong or decisive colour range, Its washed out in a way which seems unintentional.

contrast - The image has no contrast. There is also no display of trying to interpret contrast in an artistic way by juxtaposing light and dark shapes, or in giving depth to the image.

So there you have it... i was suggesting to you that you would already know what my criticisms mean having advanced yourself into the artworld already, but i spelled it out for you anyway.

Rabieshund is absolutly right, you can only make progress in the artworld or the world of creative photography if you at least try and begin to understand the art form which your trying to progress in. Ignorance of this will get you no where fast.

That's not what I meant. I didn't need for you to define those words for me, as I hope you know that's not what criticism actually is. If you want to be helpful to me, or instead simply criticize this as the poor shot you believe it to be, then I suggest you try thinking about how those ideas relate to the photo. Anyone can rattle off a list of terms like you just have, it's when you actually connect them to aspects of the work that they take on meaning. By the logic you present a lack of contrast or a "strong or decisive color range" would always be a bad thing, which is something I hope you don't believe. I will iterate what I have already said again: if you don't go into the "why's" then the criticism is useless.
 
That's not what I meant. I didn't need for you to define those words for me, as I hope you know that's not what criticism actually is. If you want to be helpful to me, or instead simply criticize this as the poor shot you believe it to be, then I suggest you try thinking about how those ideas relate to the photo. Anyone can rattle off a list of terms like you just have, it's when you actually connect them to aspects of the work that they take on meaning. By the logic you present a lack of contrast or a "strong or decisive color range" would always be a bad thing, which is something I hope you don't believe. I will iterate what I have already said again: if you don't go into the "why's" then the criticism is useless.

Wow..I'm curious if you actually read the post. He didn't exactly define the terms - he connected them precisely to your image.

I'm also curious as to why you don't go into the "why's" yourself. You've been asked a few times what you're trying to achieve with your photography, and why you shoot the way you do. In previous threads all you answer is "I'm not going to explain myself." If people here don't know why you intentionally take an out of focus shot, how can they provide true, honest criticism?

So I'll ask you again here - what are you trying to achieve with this photo, and in a broader sense, with your photographic style?
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top