To Ivan and Giles and all critiques.

[joe_buechler]

It takes a bit of effort to properly critique a photo and identify

constructive improvements that could be made. It isn't reasonable to

expect that a group of people should all put that effort into a

particular photo, just because you scanned it and posted it. If a

photo doesn't move me in some way, or be close to good but have some

areas for improvement that can be easily identified, I'm also likely

to just say "It doesn't do anything for me."

 

<p>

 

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

 

<p>

 

Joe

[jacques_balthazar1]

it is regrettable that this discussion group is not limited to pure

ASCII

 

<p>

 

the tire traces are kinda cute. I'm sure that MoMA will purchase.

 

<p>

 

I guess this does replace the good old camera club, and yearly themed

exhibits. Only in those times, as boring as one's pics might

objectively be, utmost care was brought to try and shine amongst

peers. Especially crucial if you have to confront said peers face to

face at the opening cocktail.

 

<p>

 

Here anything goes, I guess. So minimal effort is OK, and cynical

comments such as mine are politically incorrect. A bit like those

absolutely crappy end of year kids performances some schools impose

on parents: minimal effort, no work, maximum applause.

[christopher_goodwin]

Travis, the last picture would have been improved by leaving the

lens cap on. Another of your beach pics? Same trip?

[travis2]

I rest my case, folks.

 

<p>

 

watever suits u....;)

[christopher_goodwin]

Is that a promise, Travis?

[michael_darnton1]

I like the second one better, except for the tilted horizon. There

was something wrong about the first one that sort of irritated me--I

can't put my finger on it.

 

<p>

 

Jeff's comment about going somewhere or nowhere was good--I was

thinking previously that two collided trucks rolled over at the end

of the two sets of tracks in the first shot would have made a more

interesting photo. Just my newspaper experience showing, I guess. :-)

I've never found pattern photos all that interesting when the point

is ONLY the pattern and nothing additional.

[travis2]

thx Michael ;).

[Jim_Tardio]

I agree that a "path" shot has got to go somewhere. Here is a shot I

took that I think illustrates that point...I know, not the greatest

shot in the world...but if you take the figure away, you just have a

path...with the figure it adds a little more interest.

 

<p>

 

<img src="http://www.jimtardio.com/gimi-2001-scooters-big.html">

[glenn_travis]

Travis, I don't get all the crocodile tears. For God Sake's Man! Chin

up, Chest out, and all that bloody crap! You're becoming a

nauseatingly, whiny, namby pamby! Just post your bloody picture and

move on!

[Jim_Tardio]

Sorry...let me try that link again...

 

<p>

 

<IMG SRC="http://www.jimtardio.com/gimi-2001-scooters-big.html">

[travis2]

Glen...yes sir Glen...I see u moving on too...;)

[Jim_Tardio]

Don't know why it's not working. Cut and paste if you're interested.

Sorry.

 

<p>

 

http://www.jimtardio.com/gimi-2001-scooters-big.html

[travis2]

to hell with it...

 

<p>

 

<IMG SRC="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?

photo_id=694611&size=md">

 

<p>

 

HE DID NOTHING FOR ME EITHER.

 

<p>

 

crap.

[Spearhead]

It's not working, Jim, because you were referencing a web page as an

image. Here is Jim's photograph:<p>

 

<img src="http://www.jimtardio.com/gimi-2001-scooters-big.jpg">

[Jim_Tardio]

Thanks, Jeff. But check the source code...I wrote it the same way

you did...didn't I???

[preston_merchant]

One ends in .html - the other ends in .jpg.

[Jim_Tardio]

Ah...never mind..I see I posted an html page instead of the

jpeg...not enough coffee yet today.

[Spearhead]

Jim - If you look at the source, you will see that your reference

ends in .html, while mine ends in .jpg. That fixed the problem.

[travis2]

jim, u have to put your mouse cursor on the image, click the right

pad, click properties, block the http address and then put that in

your source code as the image source.

[iván]

Hi, Travis:

 

<p>

 

I was surprised that I have tried to do right the same photo with no

more success than yours. I think that the light has a lot to do with

it: while looking at things directly our brain interprets it somehow

based on the rest of the same brain's content, not necesarily on what

actually is in front of one's eyes, in fact not exactly the way it

really looks (provided a REAL look could be defined). It is (should)

be part of our craft to know how to make our printed image look the

way we saw the subject at the moment we did. If we are lucky we have

the required knowledge tools along with us at the moment we shoot.

Otherwise we could still adjust the photo at the printing / scanning

stage. Some photos will requiere extra effort at both instances.

 

<p>

 

In this case(which happens to be my own, I told you), from the

graphical point of view (i.e intended meanings / stories left aside)

the light seems to be too flat to render a better negative. But i

like your second try somewhat better. It evoques more personal

experiences in me, but graphically I think it has the same quality

than the first one.

 

<p>

 

I haven't been lucky enough to find the same subject under the light

conditions I'm thinking about, yet. And I'm not technically equiped

to make any better of the conditions I have found in practice, so

I'll keep trying. Lets do it both of us. I'll make you know if I

have any better success at any time.

 

<p>

 

BTW: focusing right on the part of the tracks closer to the viewer in

the second photo, and still closer, lens permit . . .?

 

<p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

Thanks for sharing, Gerry. Great site ! !

[raymond_tai]

Travis, Are you shooting for some strangers or are you shooting

for yourself? Who gives a flying f--- what others think. It is your

art dude. Except for Spirer, Appleby and Dixon do you think there

are any Winogrands in the making here?

[travis2]

Ray, I , like Ivan, will be more selective in hearing comments from

now on.

 

<p>

 

As u know, there are still people like Mr Good-for-nothing-Win around.

[richardvanle]

Travis, I say this in all friendliness, but lighten up. It's the internet

and obviously there will always be people with rude or obnoxious

or unhelpful comments. Don't take it all so personally.

[fred_sun1]

<i>Ray, I , like Ivan, will be more selective in hearing comments from

now on.</i><br>

Hmm.. would that be matched by greater selectivity in posting to the forum too?<br>

Alfie, more dishracks please. Krasnodar Chris, you've been way too quiet lately. You both should get equal airtime.

[fotografz]

Travis,

Aspire! Discriminate! Eliminate! Get some books, and visit art

galleries to train your eye. Tear into your own work and try

making the decisions at the time you are shooting. Then, after

the fact, do it again. There is a huge gulf between snapshots

and photographic art. It takes a lifetime of dedication, even if you

are born enormously talented. Devour the images of recognized

photographers. Become aware of why you respond ( or do not )

to work that others see merit in. It will help you to form your own

vision. When that happens you will know it. And never fear to

show that vision when it comes. As Piccaso said, " a work of art

kept in the closet, might as well be kept in the head. "

Best of luck, Marc Williams