w/nw main street

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by m_., Aug 7, 2004.

  1. m_.

    m_.

  2. http://brucealangreene.com/websitejpgsfullreshorizontal/
    mainst.jpg
    Main Street - Tacoma, Washington
     
  3. Main Street, Bodie, CA (at the Nevada boarder near Yosemite).
    0096Et-19103984.jpg
     
  4. tokyo
    0096FR-19104084.jpg
     
  5. Leon, Spain
    0096KY-19105784.jpg
     
  6. Leon (old city), Spain
    0096Ka-19105884.jpg
     
  7. Would I be outta line in pointing out that the photos of Wentwong, Allen, and Ray Wilson contain zero texture or detail in the shadows? Maybe this was intentional. As long as it's not an oversight. If it is bad manners to comment this way in a W/NW thread please accept my apologies.
     
  8. Wish I could see the Bodie shot larger, even oversized.
     
  9. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    I don't think so Kent, you're polite and all. And Allens photo is cool, i'd like to just see the bottom half though, as i think the top half distracts from a great relection shot!
     
  10. m_.

    m_.

    Kent: That's quite all right. Your opinion is well taken.
    0096MB-19106184.jpg
     
  11. Kent: Sorry about that. I always have trouble posting pics here and this time I just over-did the reduction. Sooner or later I?ll figure out the balance. Here's the original scan (the picture was taken with K-25 or 64).
    0096ME-19106284.jpg
     
  12. I bet in the slide there is great texture in those bricks that you could print if you learn Photoshop a little better. The print looks soft but I'm betting the slide is sharp. What say you?
     
  13. Yes... The scan is a bit soft, but the original slide is tack sharp. One of these days I'll rescan it and sharpen it up a bit. I do have Photoshop, but I don't use it enough to know how to get the full benefit out of it just yet.
     
  14. Grapevine, Texas
    0096TC-19109884.jpg
     
  15. Let's try again: Grapevine, Texas
    0096TK-19109984.jpg
     
  16. <img src =http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2550534-md.jpg>
     
  17. Travis, very cool photo, here's Main St., Santa Monica, CA

    <img src = http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1117026-lg.jpg>
     
  18. m_.

    m_.

    Travis: I like the shot very much. The composition is perfect.
     
  19. Wentwong - would you be willing to say what about the composition in Travis's shot is perfect? To say it's good is a friendly thing to say but, as a reader, I can't follow you because you have given no line of reasoning. "Criticism is about making arguments not pronouncements."
     
  20. Please help me understand Travis' shot better. What I see (make that almost see) is two unrelated people doing nothing interesting in a print that is so under-exposed that there is zero detail in either figure. I am irritated that I can't even read the sign. There is no story for me to grab onto, no interesting visible body language or even any significant action. What am I missing? What is "cool" about this photo? <BR><BR>

    I don't want to inflame the page but it seems to me, in relation to photos in this forum, people say either nothing or something equivalent to "great shot." To be told nothing about your photo is kind of a snub. 4973 people visit your photo and 2 people say something. I guess it means the viewer didn't like your shot. But maybe they just didn't want to take the time to feedback or maybe they are a dolt. Or maybe they don't consider you a friend and therefore deserving of your reaction. I want to be loyal to good photographs here not personalities. Possibly their disapproval has as little to back it up as those who rave about it. And just possibly it's a bad shot but you can't tell which it is or why. To be told great shot is also no help even if it is supportive. As a reader or a photographer submitting pictures how can I use this lack of information to improve?
     
  21. If you'd rather I not raise these issues please tell me and I'll desist. Your silence speaks volumes. The very people I reach out to are silent in return. I don't think I know the regional rules or how to play whatever the game is going on here.
     
  22. C - Q<BR>
    C - Q<BR>
    This is Long Beach. C - Q
     
  23. To each his own I guess. Some choose to say a lot, some choose to say little, some choose not to say anything with regards to pictures. Some like dark pictures, some like meaningful pictures, some like more meaningful pictures.
    It's like telling you why I like apples over oranges. Why? Because I like them. Of course I can choose to write a long essay as to why I like apples but then if I choose not to, it's just that. Different people respond differently.
    Perhaps they have more urgent things to attend to.;)

    keep it simple/
     
  24. perhaps Im different. But there seems like a 1000 pictures I don't like on the net but others do. I just can't imagine myself asking 100,000s of people why they like or don't like certain pictures. Unless, of course, you need to.;0
     
  25. Travis - By your argument there is no such thing as valid criticism, whether photographic, literary or any other. It's all just a matter of personal taste. And one need not explain why a photograph/novel/play is good or not or where it could be stronger or where it shines. By your argument one just needs to make the pronouncement. Thumbs up or thumbs down. There's no art to it. It's arbitrary and entirely subjective. I think personal taste must enter into it, especially in regards to the specific genre you like. But you seem to be saying that there are no objective measures of good photography. Cartier-Bresson was great just because everybody thought his pictures were great and there would be nothing innately wonderful in his photographs without those people's opinion. By this argument Van Gogh would have been a mediocre painter while he lived and for the next 50 or so years. Then suddenly he would become one of the greatest modern painters because the general public just sort of changed it's mind.<BR><BR>
    The reason I asked is because I hang out on this Leica forum and hear these pronouncements of "great picture" all the time and wonder what's behind the statement. When someone says a picture has "perfect composition" as Wentwong did about yours and I can?t see it I ask him, like any curious person who isn't walking on eggs, what is it that you find perfect about this composition. I am not asking 100,000 people. You made that up and it makes my question look ridiculous. I am trying to have a discussion with one person (now 2) who made a statement I can't see any evidence for. What is the problem?
     
  26. Ok I leave it to those who want to discuss my picture further. I just like the picture because of its darkness and the silhoutte thingy. I just like the feel of it. I have nothing more to say.
    Please please discuss in great detail as you wish. I like to find out too...but I guess Im not articulate enough or knowledgeable enough to contribute to my own picture or anyone's else. I hope to contribute in future.
     
  27. I think Kent makes a good point. Not that every comment must be a profound analysis, I'd like to see something a bit more specific. It's pleasant for the poster to see "that's great!" type comments, and I'm pleased when that happens to one of mine, but it's ultimately empty of much meaning. It might cause others reading the thread to look again at the complimented photo, but has no other use. I too don't want to criticize Wentong's compliment, just to understand what he saw there that I might have missed. "The arrangement of shadow masses" or some such, might be a good addition, or a reference to the moodiness or whatever. "Perfect" is also somewhat provocative as an absolute, so something additional might be especially useful here. I'm enjoying this thread and the many other w/nw, so please carry on, and have fun. :)
    0097Ze-19132384.jpg
     
  28. Doug, I think most of us understand yours and Kent's point. To me, these "wow","great","very nice!" short comments have been given ever since pictures were posted in the leica forum and although they didn't mean much, nothing was done about it or the commentor asked for further reasonings.
    SO my question is, why my picture in particular? why Wentong in particular? there are lots and lots of one worded comments going on and noone asked about them?
    Of course it's good to somehow hear more about why people think a picture works or not in more than 50 sensible words but then my point is that we leave that choice to the commentors. Surely if they feel they have more to say, they'll say it. Encouraging everyone to say more is never a bad thing. I myself and Travis has little to say in words most times with regards to critiques, because I do not have that artistic foundation? to make my statements coherent or sensible, so most times I say if I like the picture or not. I see nothing wroing with that because that's my choice or words.
    Wouldn't everyone like to be given freedom as to the way they critique?
    Again, why me and Wentong specifically? There are 100s(no kidding) of few worded comments in our No Words section that needs to be addressed immediately!;)
     
  29. Hi Travis... just guessing from Kent's first response that it's that "perfect" word that might have opened the relief valve on a little pool of wishing-for-more. :)
     
  30. I hope you don't think it's a personal hit. "Perfect composition" has some meaning to me and Wentwong must have some reason for saying it. But without a basis for the critique the words ring hollow. I am asking him to help me see what about the composition he finds perfect. It's possible he and I think of composition differently. So I am asking him to define his terms. Please understand I am not picking on you or Wentwong. "This is not personal Sonny. It's business."
     
  31. I usually say I like a photo because it sticks out in some way from other photos in a way that pleases me, I could write paragraphs, but actually as Travis himself said, I like the light and dark and sillouette because it all works together to create a mood and a photographic moment (not neccessarily the actual mood at the time of the photograph)
     
  32. Everyone's "perfect" is different.Kent, obviously Wentong's "perfect" and yours differ, does it matter? I doubt even if he explained why it's perfect to him, it'll still differ from your standards and then lead to more questions etc. But hey you were trying to understand why Wentong likes it, that's cool but then WT perhaps was held up with something today shooting, who knows. WHy not email him and see if he has more to offer?;)
    To me, that pic above isn't perfect, it just appeals to me personally so I posted it. Isn't that why we all post what we post?
    Kent, nothing personal of course.;) Hey if you'd really like to critque, perhaps visit my porfolio, hundreds of pix there. Pick some of those u don't think works and then tell me why, I'd very much like to hear.;0
     
  33. The regional rules as closely as I can figure:<BR>
    1. Don't question a critique even if it's unsubstantiated.<BR>
    2. Praise photos you like but not too specifically. (great, wow, beautiful, perfect are safe bets)<BR>
    3. Don't rip a photo even if it's terrible.<BR>
    4. Don't make waves.<BR>
     
  34. Nice and easy, nice and easy, one small move and everyone in the canoe goes for a swim...
     
  35. Point taken ed. I am more than a little anxious to get to the truth.
     

Share This Page