Two for C&C

[jowensphoto]

Even with the explanations, these are still sub par photos. Out of focus doesn't make something artsy, it makes it hard to look at. I'm not even sure how you got something in focus in the foreground and the background, but the middle is out of focus. It kind of defies the plane of focus rules. Strange.

 

[Rick58]

Sorry Fred...It ain't workin'

Rick, not even on a subconscious level ?

sorry. I went as deep as I could and got nothing.

 

[Frequency]

OP has mentioned his view.... we have expressed ours; why continue harassing ? please.... :hail:

 

[Fred Berg]

Pardon the bluntness but it just seems like you've combined two photos which are bad on their own into one photo which is worse and makes no sense.

"Holistic", "Serendipitous", "faux poloroid"... are just terms you are using to try and justify the end result. Unfortunately, although you can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.
This image fails any test for being a good photo I'm afraid; not matter what label you put on it

Putting the boot in like this suggests that at a subconscious level you have begun to understand the piece, even if you don't really get it

Yeah, that must be it. This piece is so deep it can only be understood on a subconscious level. Wow. pure genius. I get it now.

SOH failure?

 

[Fred Berg]

Even with the explanations, these are still sub par photos. Out of focus doesn't make something artsy, it makes it hard to look at. I'm not even sure how you got something in focus in the foreground and the background, but the middle is out of focus. It kind of defies the plane of focus rules. Strange.

Yes, they are sub par, but that is/isn't the point. You seem, like all who have posted, to be judging the individual images instead of the work as a whole. The title isn't really a request for C&C but, rather, a title which weaves together with the rest of the work .


The strange focus issue is down to the horse, not me: it moved its head at the crucial moment

Edit: You are right that visual aspects don't make something artsy: ideas do that.

 

[Fred Berg]

Sorry Fred...It ain't workin'

That's okay, Rick. It isn't, perhaps, suited to a gallery where the usual, clean images with clear aims, self-explanatory titles, rigid compositional rules, correct lighting, etc., etc., is the standard diet. I thought I'd try a little creativity, go in a different direction, and see what reaction I'd get. Not very positive or encouraging, but hey-ho. Next time I want to try something a little avantgarde (for me), I'll dig around in the themes section and see if there's somewhere better to post it up.

 

[Rick58]

Sorry Fred...It ain't workin'

That's okay, Rick. It isn't, perhaps, suited to a gallery where the usual, clean images with clear aims, self-explanatory titles, rigid compositional rules, correct lighting, etc., etc., is the standard diet. I thought I'd try a little creativity, go in a different direction, and see what reaction I'd get. Not very positive or encouraging, but hey-ho. Next time I want to try something a little avantgarde (for me), I'll dig around in the themes section and see if there's somewhere better to post it up.

Hey Fred, I'm just a plain old meat and potatoes guy.

 

[pixmedic5 5]

That's okay, Rick. It isn't, perhaps, suited to a gallery where the usual, clean images with clear aims, self-explanatory titles, rigid compositional rules, correct lighting, etc., etc., is the standard diet. I thought I'd try a little creativity, go in a different direction, and see what reaction I'd get. Not very positive or encouraging, but hey-ho. Next time I want to try something a little avantgarde (for me), I'll dig around in the themes section and see if there's somewhere better to post it up.

Out of focus is out of focus no matter what forum you go to.

 

[jowensphoto]

Even with the explanations, these are still sub par photos. Out of focus doesn't make something artsy, it makes it hard to look at. I'm not even sure how you got something in focus in the foreground and the background, but the middle is out of focus. It kind of defies the plane of focus rules. Strange.

Yes, they are sub par, but that is/isn't the point. You seem, like all who have posted, to be judging the individual images instead of the work as a whole. The title isn't really a request for C&C but, rather, a title which weaves together with the rest of the work .


The strange focus issue is down to the horse, not me: it moved its head at the crucial moment

Edit: You are right that visual aspects don't make something artsy: ideas do that.

Maybe I missed it, but what does c&c mean if it ddoesn't mean comment&critique?

i am really so mind-edges from the rest of your response I don't know what to say.

 

[Tuffythepug]

Fred,
You plainly asked for C&C. That is what you got. It makes no difference to me what you call this work. Call it art, call it an experiment, call it your aunt Louise... doesn't matter. It just doesn't' work as an interesting image in the view of everyone who has responded. So, either you are waaaay ahead of us or you are the one not getting it.

 

[Fred Berg]

Fred,
You plainly asked for C&C. That is what you got. It makes no difference to me what you call this work. Call it art, call it an experiment, call it your aunt Louise... doesn't matter. It just doesn't' work as an interesting image in the view of everyone who has responded. So, either you are waaaay ahead of us or you are the one not getting it.

Lol, TPF clearly isn't ready for this. The title was chosen because it is a reasonably standard way that people ask for C&C, here and elsewhere on the web; but the viewer isn't really being asked for C&C (not of the individual images anyway). Oh, to be misunderstood! But wait, you say it doesn't work as an interesting image (not they don't work as interesting images) so perhaps there's a glimmer of hope still.....

 

[Fred Berg]

That's okay, Rick. It isn't, perhaps, suited to a gallery where the usual, clean images with clear aims, self-explanatory titles, rigid compositional rules, correct lighting, etc., etc., is the standard diet. I thought I'd try a little creativity, go in a different direction, and see what reaction I'd get. Not very positive or encouraging, but hey-ho. Next time I want to try something a little avantgarde (for me), I'll dig around in the themes section and see if there's somewhere better to post it up.

Out of focus is out of focus no matter what forum you go to.

Sure, but it's also the point sometimes. Or are you saying that only images that have clear and precise focus fit into your schema? As mentioned, the blur on the horse was pure chance but that on the child on the swing was intentional (mostly). I've been trying a bit of work on various ways of achieving blur recently, and it's really quite interesting to get out of the box and think in a different direction for a while.

 

[Fred Berg]

Even with the explanations, these are still sub par photos. Out of focus doesn't make something artsy, it makes it hard to look at. I'm not even sure how you got something in focus in the foreground and the background, but the middle is out of focus. It kind of defies the plane of focus rules. Strange.

Yes, they are sub par, but that is/isn't the point. You seem, like all who have posted, to be judging the individual images instead of the work as a whole. The title isn't really a request for C&C but, rather, a title which weaves together with the rest of the work .


The strange focus issue is down to the horse, not me: it moved its head at the crucial moment

Edit: You are right that visual aspects don't make something artsy: ideas do that.

Maybe I missed it, but what does c&c mean if it ddoesn't mean comment&critique?

i am really so mind-edges from the rest of your response I don't know what to say.

Never mind, it's not important enough to worry about or fall out over.

 

[haynie90]

This was interesting to read, thank you!

 

[Rick58]

I really don't have anything else to say, I just thought it would be nice to end this thread with an even 30 posts.
Look at it this way Fred, at least you got people thinking. If I get 6 responses, half of them mine, I consider myself doing good.