Come On! Let's Show Pictures

Apparently, two Daniels have fallen into the same lions' pit... ;o) <P>As for Daniel T., for me there is no problem with the expression of differing views as long as we're trying to be helpful and constructive. Couldn't detect any such attitude too clearly, though, in quite a number of Leica-related posts of yours. I'd be glad to be mistaken.<P>As for Daniel F. - Yes, please let us participate! The description of your work sounds most exciting to me. Maybe a "long shot" plus a couple of "details", to get an idea...?<P> Bests to both of you.

The ability to see what someone does allows you to assess their opinions. The problem here is that many opinions are expressed by people who have no idea what they are talking about, and that is misleading. I will give two examples.

 

There was a post here about bokeh, allegedly showing the difference between bokey between two lenses. But it was immediately obvious from the posted photos that there was significant difference between depth of field (which may have resulted from the noted different focus point) and also in exposure. The result was that I was pretty much able to decide that the poster and some of the other commenters really didn't look at photos enough to speak knowledgeably. I realize that is a pretty harsh statement, but the comparison was clearly flawed.

 

Another example is a poster who posted some horrible photos here, horrible to the point that even Tony told them to stop posting photos. I'm not picking on that person, but there's no way anything that person says about equipment usage could be taken seriously. Yet other people who arrived after he stopped posting photos seem to value his opinion, I assume because they have no idea his photos looked like they were taken with a disposable and developed at Walmart.

 

In general, I really distrust most discussion of differences between equipment brands, especially when it is done by someone who knows what the equipment used was, i.e., not a blind test. After years of showing photos, I have found that any comments on quality of images is bounded by format, not camera brand. This was recently confirmed when I got a new agent who went through my work on the web and selected, with one exception, all work I did with medium format cameras, including a pinhole camera. This includes blurred street shots, I don't really shoot that differently when using different formats. The only 35mm shot she chose was one I took with a Hexar (AF).

 

There are no magic tools that make one a better photographer. There are, in the end, just photographs.

This photo of Greek theatre was taken during my recent trip to

Taormina resort in Sicily, Italy with R5 and Vario-Elmar 28-70/3.5<div></div>

Another one for Daniel...<div></div>

here's one:<br><br>

<center><a href="http://www.subtleimages.com/">

<img src="http://www.subtleimages.com/scripts/getimg?q=100&subject=9&img=1"></a></center><br><br>

taken under an overpass in a woodbridge, nj neighborhood. i strolled the neighborhood with my camera instead of waiting for 2 hours in the customer lounge of my car dealer for my "30-minute oil change."

The following photo is off-topic since it's not mine (my friend Carla took it and sent it to me as a postcard), and it wasn't shot with a Leica (Nikon with crappy zoom). It is, however, a perfect fit with the other photos posted in this thread.<P>

<img src="http://mikedixonphotography.com/stupid.jpg"><P>

<i>grafitti is stupid, copyright 2002 Carla Koen</i>

WOW! It's so good to see all the images from so many people.

NOW this forum is getting interesting again.

 

Daniel, there was no intention of making anything negative of

you or your work. Nor did I say anything to that effect. I merely

posted a photo on a photo forum. I do not think it bodes well for

you to belittle such things as " Graffiti images" while exalting your

own creative approach using multiple images. Using your own

logic back on you, I would ask why play out a thread of Cubist

thought so deeply explored by notable artist from Picasso to

Hockney? Played out to the Nth degree, and then abandoned by

them years ago.

 

Of course, you may have discovered a new angle these

genuises overlooked. But somehow I doubt it.

Okay, here's a photo from Denver Int'l Airport last month. I missed a flight, and while waiting around for the next one I got a few snapshots, bought some new sunglasses, and had a nice cappucino.

Shoot, that didn't work so well. And it is the wrong picture! Lemme try this again. Two pics, hopefully. If it doesn't work this time, can one of you 'net savvy folks give me some help?

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photo/849132">

</center>

 

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photo/849179">

</center>

What am I doing wrong? I'm goin' to bed!

Marc, it's two Daniels. Daniel Flynn didn't belittle anything and I'm still curious to get a glimpse at his work. Daniel, one of my first group works (entitled, in fact, "Projekt 1"....) was a triptych of three times 100 stills, enlarged from Super8 b&w stock. 3 times 100 facial expressions: 100 identical, 100 different, 100 transitions from one extreme to the other (joy-sorrow)... Must be deep down under decades of photographs, but nice to be reminded of.

A piece of Aussie graffiti ...<div></div>

<i>Using your own logic back on you, I would ask why play out a thread of Cubist thought so deeply explored by notable artist from Picasso to Hockney? Played out to the Nth degree, and then abandoned by them years ago.

 

 

Of course, you may have discovered a new angle these geniuses overlooked. But somehow I doubt it.</i>

 

<p>

 

Marc, how are we to tell without seeing it? What's the point of putting someone down with no evidence either way? One thing is for sure, there are always new angles waiting to be discovered.

as some of the others have pointed out, i think that you have mistaken me with daniel taylor. as for why i posted what i did...it was more for jeff spirer as an offering of a different perspective as to why some people make comments whilst having no photos of their own on display in computerized form. although the more i read throughout this website the more i can see that i am a bit of an anomaly and i promise i will try to locate a scanner. afterall, i do love to share visuals and conceptuals. i am relatively new to this site (and extra-new to computers) jeff has hit the nail on the head and his words not only ring true for me, but they stay with me, at the very least out of respect for someone who works in the field and clearly knows what he's talking about. if i were to submit a photo for a 'critique' i would be honoured to have people such as jeff spirer, rob appleby and yourself share your knowledge and expertise. in fact, i would be honoured.<br>

<br>

one thing i would like to add though...i've discovered that i actually attach voices (and tone !!) to the comments i read..does this happen for everyone?..anyone?..it seems that some responses to some comments come from an emotional standpoint and then rampant reactionaryism ensues. keeping that in mind, i think that from now on i will attach the voices of innocent and playful children to the usernames and in that way i will continue to giggle and have fun.<br>

<br>

once again marc, thank you for the thread..i am amazed at how much i learn from seeing the pictures within the run of comments. it is visually stimulating and interesting. i for one am glad that the photo.net people have included this feature. and again, i will try to locate a scanner and some suitable photos to submit here before i ask that anyone take my comments too seriously. (if i scan at the internet cafe, do i email them to myself so that i can save them on my own computer?)<br>

<br>

~poetprince

<i>What am I doing wrong? I'm goin' to bed!</i><p>

 

First of all, you referenced a web page rather than a photo. This is common with photo.net - in order to properly display the image, right click on the image and click Properties. Get the URL of the image itself rather than the web page.<p>

 

Secondly, your images are too big. Size them down to be something like 600x400 (or similar for verticals) and compress them down to under 100K.

Rob, I agree there are always new angles to anything. I also

agree that without evidence to the contrary we'll have to wait and

see. Meanwhile just talking about it doesn't mean a darn thing.

 

The notion was don't use one form of verbal logic to critique work

then whine when it is used back on you. I could care less about

visual ramblings in words alone. Its like talking about music in

leu of hearing it. ANYBODY with a dictionary can spew forth

platitudes about anything. In words alone I am the greatest Boxer

in history. A painter second to none. A jet pilot. A Brain surgeon.

But ask me to prove it, and, well.....

"Using your own logic back on you, I would ask why play out a thread of Cubist thought so deeply explored by notable artist from

Picasso to Hockney? Played out to the Nth degree, and then abandoned by them years ago. Of course, you may have discovered a new

angle these geniuses overlooked. But somehow I doubt it."<br>

<br>

i've been asked this question before. i'll attempt to answer without appearing too long winded. also, this may also reinforce jeff's statement that "in the end, their are just photographs"...for i believe in the reality as much as i see within the illusion.<br>

<br>

when i view a scene, whether large or small, my eyes do not follow as a video camera does, although i suspect that the result appears that way. it takes in sections at a time (or frames, if you will). especially to my everyday mind which is also affected by all of the stimuli i encounter on any given day, while being inundated with thousands upon thousands of images every second. so fast is this process, that i come to view it as reality. persistent and consistent.<br>

when i was a child (late 60's early 70's) people thought me to be (what they called it in those days) 'deaf and dumb'. my mother dragged me to every specialist and they poked and prodded me with every modern device you can imagine. all because i would sit for hours on end and just stare at things and not immediately respond to someones voice if it were directed at me. or so it appeared. in my mind, i was responding to them. visually. they were just so speedy (in their demand for a rapid response) that they didn't see it at the same speed i did. or perhaps the could not focus on the distances i was able to. i have never found out why. but i have a desire to communicate with them all the same. when i was a teenager i was exposed to the art world through my mother, an impressionist painter and art teacher..in those days she was just a weird hippie. she continued her dragging around sessions with me, only this time it was the wonderful world of galleries and artist's havens. at some point, a pentax K1000 came into the picture and the freedom to make my own 'art'. in those days it seems, everything was art. i would take photos of all the freaky friends my mom had at their colourful parties and no one seemed to mind that i just sat silently on the stairs 'staring' through the camera.<br>

i would cut up the pictures, glue them together in scrap books in comic book form... i would do school projects and put them on bristol board. one day, my mom gave me a book about the photographic works of david hockney. i was fascinated. there was evidence that someone else saw the world in a similar way. that they too had an awareness of a 'seperate reality'. the fact that he was a notable artist and his works were published in a book meant that this 'way of seeing' was also acceptable to the masses, and thus educational and informative. looking at 'reality' from a different angle caused people to 'feel' differently. some were even calling it art.<br>

growing up dependent on a starving (and dedicated) artist, i worked through high school and college as a carpenter. didn't take alot of photos but i did become a woodenboat builder. a craftsmen of sorts. i never wanted to be an artist. there was simply no money in it. and recognition was elusive and oftentimes was more dependent on marketing than talent.<br>

one day, i got invited to participate in the building of an old schooner (a replica of a real pirate ship !!). there was a fellow there hired to photograph every part of the construction process and every detail in the materials used. every joint, every fastener, everything. the purpose of this is to have a visual record for future boatbuilders, insurance people, coast guard officials, captains, owners, etc.. so that they may understand the ship in a deeper way. as long as she floats and looks good is really all that's important to most...but to some, there needs to be a documented visual presentation of how it came to be.<br>

the guy's pictures were horrible. which was a drag, because as the builders we would put them up on the wall (a very large wall 20 feet high by a 120 feet long) and use them as reference. they were nice 8x10 glossies, well composed and all. they told no story whatsoever. a large ship takes a long time and many hands to create. pictures would add up and the wall was a mess. it slowed down production and confused the process instead of aiding it. i brought my own camera in and began to make pictures that were made up of more than one 'single photo'. some were of actual boat parts, but many others were of the people i was working with. of course i love boatbuilding. it's magic. i portrayed people with smiles and looks of wonder...i caught sequence shots of an old bearded master twisting and bending a freshly steamed board into place. when put together in a photographic sequence it actually showed the movements clearly that it took to get that bloody board in place and soon people were emulating this and putting it into practice with their bodies. production improved. everyone noticed. no one spoke for hours at a time. they just moved about looking from time to time at the wall and then absorbing themselves in their own movements and tasks at hand. many of these people were volunteers and not trained woodworkers at all. i was amazed and began to explore different themes with my method. deeper ones even. i went to school for photography to learn more and even took some art classes. my motivation though was this physical effect that was caused by visual stimulus and presentation. that is why i follow this thread of cubist thought. it works for me. it also works for others in ways they may not even be aware of. that fascinates me. these days i am actually getting paid for some of my work although not in a conventional way. which is good, because in light of my upbringing and natural rebellion to my parental influences, i have come to loathe galleries and their unartistic approach to displaying people's works. my latest installation piece is for a play about road rage and will be shown through slide projectors on all the walls of the theatre while the play is being performed on stage. these highway and street images coupled with some great audio from two dj's will give the audience the 'feel' of being in a car moving through time and space. yet all the images are entirely static. i did a 'rave' once and the entry tickets were actual photos i took of our downtown core (victoria, bc, canada) and during the party everyone was asked to stick their photos on the wall like pieces of a puzzle. they were also free to place them as they saw fit. it wasn't how i saw it when i took the photos but the result was staggering. it lasted one night and then everyone took with them ALL of the photos. that was the most intense thing for me. i'd take that over a $5000 cheque from a gallery any day for any print.<br>

<br>

hockney never did anything like this. picasso neither.<br>

<br>

i kind of learn as i go. each piece leads to the next. or gives me new ideas. or new perspectives. or new angles that those geniuses may have overlooked. or simply, came to another understanding of their art and a need to express it in a different way, thus dropping the method. perhaps they had to do this once they became famous. i don't know, since i a not famous. nor am i trying to be.<br>

but to quote david hockney, "that's the way i see it".<br>

<br>

i apologize for my long windedness, but i do hope that answers the question posed.<br>

<br>

~poetprince

 

 

 

 

<i>i've discovered that i actually attach voices (and tone !!) to the comments i read..does this happen for everyone?..anyone?</i><p>

It happens to me occasionally with some users. Oddly enough, they begin to sound just like the aliens in that terrible movie <i>Mars Attacks!</i> . . .

Mike, that was a ****ing <i>great</i> movie, what are you talking about?! ;-)

Okay, I should have been more clear: it's an excellent "bad movie."

Daniel, you have a passion for your work which eludes so many

other people. That alone is worth a great deal. That you insist

on claiming a unique perspective is the part that is hard to

swallow without some revealing image, or a concept yet heard

of. That you say Picasso nor Hockney never did the concepts

you describe above reveals a lack of in-depth knowledge of their

work. Both did it years ago. Picasso in many of his lesser

known stage designs. Hockney actually did it with motion picture

film. Picasso actually thought he had played out the thread to the

end. Hockney thought to see if it could be played farther. Neither

had carried it beyond the initial concept. Picasso then reinvented

himself to the amazment of all the critics who thought it was over.

Life and art goes on. Good luck in your hunt.

marc,<br>

within this thread i only took an issue with a notion being put forth, that people who didn't post pictures had no right to make comments about other people's photos. (not trying to put words in jeff's mouth with this paraphrasing btw..) i am new here. i am not sure of the rules or protocol and so i have been interested in why this particular situation causes so many passionate responses. now that i am 'learning the ropes' i will round up some 'single photos' and figure out how a scanner works (still trying to figure out all the buttons on my cordless phone though, i admit, i've been a bit of a Ludite in that respect) and email them to myself transfer them to my desktop ( see?..i learn quick) so that i may upload them here. honestly, i stumbled across this site a few weeks ago from a search through google for some info on leica cameras. i have been fascinated and intrigued ever since. do i have an 'in depth knowledge of the works of picasso and hockney'?...no..i never claimed to. i read a book in high school (20 yrs. ago) that gave me a certain validation for the way i percieved the world visually..but no, i never followed up on his public career and any further influence is buried deep within my memory's hoard along with a ton of living. i agree with you that it is difficult to know what (my) photographs look like if you cannot view them but that is not really the relevent part in the particular statement i took issue with. i merely wanted to offer a perspective that perhaps there is but one person who may not be able to post works that can not be presented in this (photo.net) particular format. and i certainly never said my work was good or not, or even original..just BIG. i have other photographs that i will try to get here as quick as possible, but again, for where i am at right now, they would be completely out of context. although i am sure there will be those who like them and those who do not for varying reasons. i've yet to see anyone, here or anywhere, give an absolute definition as to what constitues good or not so good.<br>

<br>

my little confession about my personal vision was in direct response to your 'doubting' something about me. i thought if i would share something personal in a cohesive manner that you might understand me better and therefore not (mis)judge my comments as being on the same level as some of the ones that are unsubstantiated because those members have not posted photos. and i have seen for myself how hurtful some of them have been so i empathize with evryone concerned... i've not posted photos yet either though. does that mean that i'm not allowed to comment here? or that what i comment on won't be taken seriously? should i go back and study my history books before i take another photograph? if i want to market my work do i have to present it in the conventional and acceptable ways for it to be recognized? can i discuss my views on art/life whilst having only a degree in mathematics and a hand for a fine line? can i trade my hasselblad and nikon in on a decent leica so i can go see the world outside of my smalltown and not be weighted down by familiarity? can i touch base with some other leica enthusiasts who are not just collectors and who enjoy art in such a way that it is important enough to not consumerize everything about it? (more on that subject to come, i assure you)..<br>

again marc, i don't disagree with what you are saying, i just feel that most of these postulations concerning ones ability to comment are innacurate. but that is probably more due to trying to use the wrong set of standards here in photo.net. there are heaps of gallery owners and art collector's who have never taken a photo and yet there are photographers who value their comments highly. because they want something. money or recognition. the latter being proven in the form of 'alot of money'. this seems to be the standard on which people stand in their judgements (critiques) of people's art...and their own for that matter... i don't want money for my work. i seek no recognition. i make verbal comments based on my interpretations of how i feel. today, i felt like taking some pictures of grafitti. tomorrow, i will pound nails to buy more film.. whaddya know? one way or another, consumerism consumes us all.<br>

<br>

~poetprince

<i> i only took an issue with a notion being put forth, that people who didn't post pictures had no right to make comments about other people's photos. (not trying to put words in jeff's mouth with this paraphrasing btw..) </i><p>

 

I didn't see this being said. Nor did I say anything remotely like this. You are not even vaguely paraphrasing. It makes me wonder what you are reading when you respond.<p>

 

I have always been very clear. Comments on photos rarely have anything to do with one's own photographs, or even being a photographer. Most good photography critics are good writers, good at analyzing, have an understanding of history, and know how to articulate to a crowd. These are not necessarily connected to being a good or great photographer. I have never, and never will suggest a relationship between one's ability to photograph and one's ability to comment on someone's photographs.<p>

 

What I <i>do</i> believe is that it is very hard to take seriously comments about technique, about quality of cameras/lenses, etc etc from people who don't post photos. There are many people who have no idea what they are talking about, and that can be made clear from their photos, and many people who parrot from books and magazines and camera store people and other internet forums. When I want to know about something I don't know about, I want to know from someone who can clearly do it. Not from a random internet voice.

Jeff--

 

Thanks for the advice (above). I think it may work this time. The caption for this photo is "Can you hold it a second? I need to find my reading glasses."

 

 

 

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=849179&size=sm">

</center>

 

 

And here's the other one:

 

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=849132&size=sm">

</center>

<img

src="http://images.fotki.com/v5/photos/2/29529/125110/mttam-vi.

jpg">