Jump to content

The Elves Unhinged!


Norma Desmond

Recommended Posts

<p>The Elves are becoming boring and jaded. Look back at the current page of Photos of the Week when you click on the Gallery Tab at the top of the page and then the Photo of the Week tab. We have about the least diversified choice of photos imaginable to critique. It is basically the same photo chosen over and over again, sometimes in black and white, sometimes in color, but all with idealized and sensational views of the world, mostly pictorialist in nature or something close to that, often with similar handling of photoshop post processing, and barely a spontaneous or non-tardy stroke among them, many wishing they were or at least trying to emulate painting. The goal seems to be the same in each and every one of them. (By the way, I'm a fan of some pictorialist stuff. But smaller doses!) It's getting ridiculous. If the elves can't choose, within about 20 weeks time, either a street photo or a simple, honest portrait, or an unadorned landscape, or a more personal non-idealized shot of anything, or something documentary, or even a mundane splice of life, then they should be tossed out on their ears for lack of imagination and for having an incredibly narrow range of visual attunement. It shouldn't be that hard to broaden the kinds of photos chosen for Photo of the Week on a site like this with probably thousands of uploads a day.</p>

<p>Fantasy is great. But there are other things photos can show.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Yea, I don't know what it is and it isn't fair to the current POW person, but my stomach sort of flopped when I saw this new choice. I like that everyone gets a chance, despite one's skill level, to have a POW, but there are so many more interesting possibilities that it is becoming extreme work to come there and comment and not just blast the choices that have been made.</p>

<p>Photography is a lot of things, let's see some others!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Fred, you have said it much better than I did earlier today in the POW. I agree fully with your sentiments.</p>

<p>Photo.Net has changed its editor-in-chief, and perhaps, despite the fact that Josh did a very good job, the new editor may wish to improve the appeal of Photo.Net to serious photographers. She may wish to visit some of the issues like this one, that drive a wedge between the latter and those who play an active role in relation to the content of the site, namely the elves. We may need photographers in that role who have more "catholic", or more universal, tastes and interests in photography.</p>

<p>Another review that may be of interest is how the administration might intervene to stimulate enhanced use of the discussion forums ("forums"), which seem to be running down in terms of fresh ideas and topics, and to bring into them new participation of the multi thousand numbers of members who do not use them to date. It may also be worthwhile to encourage more active membership by requesting that members upload at least a few images per year to the site, or at least link others to their photography on other sites. It needn't be mandatory, just a friendly exhortation to get people involved and to better identify those with whom we may discuss the approaches and techniques of photography in the forums.</p>

<p>Fred, I don't mean to dilute by these other considerations the importance of your post regarding the elves. It is important. I feel that there are a number of companion issues dealing with the improvement of our site that might be treated with this one by the new editor-in-chief and her admin colleagues.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Arthur, I appreciate your thoughts on the Photo of the Week and other matters. I'd like to keep this particular thread to the Photo of the Week issue. I suspect there will be ample opportunity for continuing feedback, negative and positive, on other aspects of the site.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Consideration of a wider aesthetic would be appreciated. I would love to see a documentary, street or even a snapshot image now and again. The mix would keep the forum interesting. I would be blown away by a table top still life picture occasionally but that would almost be asking for too much.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Jeremy, In addition to all these photos on steroids (overblown rather than subtle Photoshop manipulations) that are common to the elves' selections, here are some answers to your question. First, Fred has already answered that in part, with some examples:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A street photo or a simple, honest portrait, or an unadorned landscape, or a more personal non-idealized shot of anything, or something documentary, or even a mundane splice of life.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>To that I would add,</p>

<p>1) photographs of clear human interest, whether portraits, group images (activity, cohesion, harmony, conflict. etc.) or even an image in which no human is present but that can be felt (I am currently working on a project in which that is a principal theme;</p>

<p>2) photographs in which specific elements of a large scene have been recognised and adopted by the photographer in a creative search for something to visually express about that element or the parent scene, and in which the originality of the perception and the composition are independent of any need to exaggerate whatever is there;</p>

<p>3) photographs which employ creative use of point, line and form, harmony and discord of various volumes, colours, masses, contrasts of subject matter, not as some graphical exercise but in a manner to evoke other qualities of emotional, visual and aesthetic interest;</p>

<p>4) seeing in both nature and human life and environment things that can inspire the viewer to see something unique, unusual or enigmatic (in the sense of very successful paintings and photographs);</p>

<p>5) photographs of a quiet eye that finds subtle beauties or events or actions in human life and that of nature;</p>

<p>6) clearly artful abstract images that are reinforced by the compositional qualities mentioned above and suggest "content" to the viewer that is not simply relate to the chosen subject matter.</p>

<p>7) photographs which transcend the obvious and communicate to the viewer something he may not have considered in regard to the subject;</p>

<p>8) simple unadorned images of either familiar or unusual scenes, wherein the subtle communicative qualities of the scene become apparent on extended viewing;</p>

<p>9) ands yes, sometimes snapshots of familiar events in which a synergy of the viewed elements talk to us as much as a more refined aesthetic creation, if for different reasons.</p>

<p>This is but a short list, and I can add many more examples if I wished to take the time.</p>

<p>The more important question at this point is perhaps that of why do the elves not think in such manner, which I would think is simply the manner that any art exhibition or photo exhibition attendee would approach what he or she sees, and experiences.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Jeremy, that's what we're asking the Elves to do: Show us something different. Do you not understand our complaints, descriptions, and suggestions? If not, email me personally and I'll offer some links to portfolios I think show a variety of different kinds of photos than what have been chosen over the last few months. I don't think it's appropriate to reference or link to other people's work in a public forum and then possibly starting some sort of competitive contest. Are you not seeing a lack of diversity in the photos chosen? If not, perhaps you simply disagree with me, which is perfectly fine.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Fred, I started this in a sense with a much more trivial complaint about the POW selections. My complaint was (a few weeks ago) that

the Elves were not even choosing photographs, never mind interesting ones. The response to my initial concern was a basic rejection by

you and Arthur. Now you and Arthur are complaining that the Elves are not selecting the right kind of photographs. How on earth are we

supposed to get anywhere with this complaint if we can't even agree on what a photograph is. So I was thinking that rather than

explaining, defining and describing (which is what we all tend to do) maybe showing would help us move forward. I understand your

reluctance to do this but John has in the past linked one if my images to the POW thread without much concern.

 

Fred, I think your complaint is reasonable. I went back to 2008 and earlier just to have a look at previous POW selections. I noticed two

things immediately. The images were better and they were much less manipulated in post. I'd be happy just to return to that. What we get

now seem to my rather simplistic tastes to just be hyper-manipulated ordinary images. JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Jeremy, I understood your complaint and disagreed with your emphasis on what you consider a "photograph." I didn't need examples. You seem to understand my complaint as well and how it differs from yours. Judging by the responses here and in the current POTW thread, others are frustrated with the elves' choices, in terms of photographic range. I think getting into the manipulated/non-manipulated arena and whether we call this or that a photo is often like entering a minefield and didn't sense your complaint going anywhere, in terms of other poster responses. I am definitely not asking the elves to avoid manipulated photos or photos that have been post processed and I am not asking them to differentiate on this web site between what they think is a photo and what they think is not a photo, especially since the rules of the site are clear in terms of what's acceptable. I'm asking for a broader representation of the types of photos on the site rather than a restriction of types of photos. Any one of the recent POTWs, in itself, is a fine choice for critique, IMO. It's just that 20 of them in a row, similar as they are in sensibility and aesthetics, is beyond the pale.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Addition:</strong> Jeremy, I meant to add that, IMO, it doesn't matter whether or not we agree on what's a photo. I'm happy for us each to have a point of view on that. But the site rules set out what is acceptable for uploading here and the elves choose from all uploaded images. Again, I'm not asking that they exclude any kind of image, no matter how it's made. I'm asking them actually to broaden what they include.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Actually Fred, I do see fairly frequent complaints about hyper-manipulation. I just think we don't allow these complaints to go anywhere in the POW thread. You are suggesting we discuss the range of selections (which is fair), I was suggesting we discuss whether we want digital illustrations to be part of that range (which is also fair, judging by the number of posts complaining about them).</p>

<p>I get the sense over the last few years that digital HYPER-manipulation has become so popular that it has displaced other more traditional forms of photography. I agree range is an issue, I just get the sense that the range is closing in on digital illustrations rather than opening up to more traditional forms of photography (such as photojournalism for instance). So, I agree with you in a sense Fred...fewer digital illustrations, more of all the other good old photography stuff. JJ</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>more of all the other good old photography stuff. JJ</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Well then we should require that all comments and critiques be written with a pen and lined paper. No reason to require photography to stay back in the last century and not expect the same of the commenters.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Jeremy, as a professional of education, you are aware that most phenomenon can be described by words and observing (show me) is just one of the mechanisms of their communication. Accordingly, different forms of photographic approaches can certainly be described quite adequately through words, as has been attempted in posts above, and however distant those words might seem from the image itself. I think that what Fred and a number of us would like to see is simply a wider swath of appreciation of photography in all its forms by the elves, which would take into account a variety of photographic approaches and results.</p>

<p>I have observed in the recent past (a year or two) that most POW images are ones that have been highly rated previously by Photo.Netters and are mostly accompanied by written superlatives of success. My supposition, and it is just that (and possibly erroneous), is that the pre-selection of a POW by the elves is made using the rating system and a probable cut-off of around 5.5/7 or 6/7. This means that those images are preferred and quite naturally will have a lot of accolades attached to them. Those many photographs that are not rated (many of us will request only a critique and not a rating), or are not in the 5.5+ "chou-chou" category (sorry, this is Québécois slang for "darling"), are probably not seen by the elves. It is also quite possible that many of us are attracted to the power of electronic image modification and see in that a kind of liberation of an originality in itself and are very ready to praise such efforts. Again, these are feelings and words from one with a scientific training, and therefore not a stranger to making these sorts of postulates or suppositions. Actually, we don't know how the elves select their examples, except the fact that there is a predisposition to highly manipulated images. A sort of photographic dogma.</p>

<p>The act of finding depth in some more conventionally crafted (not conventionally conceived) images is perhaps a bit like searching the meaning of Paul Eluard's line "the earth is blue like an orange" which I've found is always a good background thought to have in mind when faced with viewing art and some photography. At first sight, his phrase (contained in a poem on beauty written for his ten year old daughter) seems quite absurd, but like a good photograph or work of art, it releases its meaning(s) with prolonged consideration (viewing). This is not to praise the enigmatic or difficult to understand in photography, but I think that we should not always seek only the photograph that illicits our expression of "wow", and look at the wide variety of extremely interesting results that are possible using this marvelous medium.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Fred,<br>

You referred to the POW as, "an all but abandoned forum". Why? IMO, it's because of people like you that turn every critique into your personal philosophic blog, which in the majority of the cases, has nothing to do with the POW. You attack the rating system. You have attacked other posters for criticizing the Elves. On more than one occasion, you have stated that the Elves know what they're doing. On Dec. 30, 2012 you wrote, Michael, you're mistaking this forum for something it's not. The POTW is not about better or best. It's about the photo to critique........for better and for worse.. Did you do that with the current POW? No........but everyone else should.</p>

<p>Who in the hell wants to come into a room where every word has to be defined and/or debated. The debate over what is and isn't art, vision, what is a photograph.....etc. Every Week. I'm not sure this will matter but the largest forum, or should I say, the one that most participate in is the NO WORD FORUM..imagine that in a photographic community</p>

<p>I'm sorry, but the give me more diversity argument, so I can have more, or something new to talk about seems a bit self serving to me. As fed up as you are about the same type of images, some are fed up with the same type of debate. I'm sure the comments thus far makes the current recipient feel pretty special. If the partcipants in this forum have seen this type of image way too often, and have nothing to say about it...Well then, don't say anything.....this isn't political or evil, where people's rights are being abused..it's just a photo forum.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>But I think many of you have valid points about the believability of some of these manipulated photographs...it is of utmost importance to use basic design skills when creating an image unless you are purposively trying to make a statement otherwise...one of the keys in digital manipulations is using light and shadow that emulates real conditions even when they are exaggerated...the current POW is suspect...the light/shadow looks neither here nor there (neither believable or exaggerated to unbelievability) but that is just a critique on the elements and does not address digital manipulations in general of which many of you are concerned regarding the preference of late to show images that have benefited (rightly or wrongly) from that process...it might be helpful to address the strengths and shortcomings of these images in detail whether or not any manipulation has been used...</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Fred, many thanks for raising this! My thoughts when seeing this weeks POW very almost exactly like Pnina mentioned: "oh no... not again...".<br>

Though I'm hardly active in POW discussions, but I very much enjoy reading intelligent and though-out discussions. To me this is an important differentiator of PN compared to others photo sharing sites. And I fear, such discussions will not be nurtured if esthetics of POW stay in that narrow band of mainstream taste.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Yes, I see Arthur's list as a pretty good starting point for evaluating the long run selections of POWs. A call for more diversity from members who regularly participate in the discussions .I am not one of the regulars myself, but drop in now and then. I have my own prejudices which I nourish but do not hold fast to for all time. Manipulation is something I have come gradually to accept and sometimes admire as a tool if done with some thought and taste.. <br /> On picking images for discussion feedback to Elves a la this thread. Reasonable arguments in the vast scheme of things I would say. POW performance goal has to be at stake; is POW to be healthy and engaging discussion going ahead. With lots of opinions and personal tastes clashing and eventually winnowed down and defined,as best as can be- for better understanding and self improvement and to shake up some of my little prejudices....<br>

Feedback here has got to be valuable and timely even if no consensus possible. I mean on a list of particulars.<br>

( Anecdote. I once moderated a little book club group. Wow, there was heat over choices of books by me and a couple of friends. Accessibility- can we get into it at all-- was more important than depth of subject or artsy merits in long run. ) In photos I think accessibility and depth both count. Over time, with care, something to feed many tastes. My two kopeks.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Charles, the reason I referred to the POTW forum as abandoned is because it used to get much more involved and active moderation. For me, that choice of words had nothing to do with members abandoning it, but rather with administration abandoning it. Josh had talked about re-assessing how the elves are chosen and how they choose many months ago. He never got around to that before he left. My guess is that was because his burdens on the site were enormous.</p>

<p>I appreciate but don't share your concern with my behavior and with time spent on aesthetic discussion. In a community of this size, we are all bound to be frustrated when discussions veer from our preferred topics or tone.</p>

<p>You are probably right that the largest forums on Photo.net are the No Words forums. That's why it's nice that there's also a place for discussions of photos and photo aesthetics. I understand the discussion forums are not everyone's cup of tea and many would prefer to stick to posting photos as their method of sharing. No problem with that on my end.</p>

<p>If wanting more diversity is self serving (which it may well be, and I have no problem with that), what exactly would not be self serving? Is it self serving to post photos on this site? Is it self serving to ask for critiques? Is it self serving to start Off Topic threads that interest us? I'm not sure I see the problem with asking for what we want on a site we use somewhat regularly.</p>

<p>I look forward to your continued participation in the POTW if that's what you want to do. And thanks for sharing your thoughts about the POTW, about me, and about the discussions.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Perhaps the problem is that the elf doing the choosing is on loan from Photo Net's sister site, tarot.com. Thus, the emphasis on fantasy-themed photos.</p>

<p>Someone could start a second, "unofficial" POW forum, with the selection of the week's photo made by someone other than a dislocated elf who longs for the forest of his youth.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...