Your opinion on Philip Greenspun's work?

[john_h.1]

>>>>>The OP was intentionally confrontational and provided no basis for discussion other than "overall I am not very impressed". I can't see that the question was "neutral" at all.<<<<<

 

The part quoted wasn't a question. While lacking explanation, it was a stated position. The question itself was neutral and asked others for THEIR opinion.

 

If the OP left out the word "not", would you be condemning the lack of neutrality?

 

I think not.

[newmanuk]

<p>Counsel considered and will put into practice Apologies to Mr Wang . Miken</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>When email was first introduced we found that we had to establish some rules about facts vs. opinion, because people read all sorts of intent into emails that was never put there. There's something about the written word in this kind of environment that mixes fact and opinion, and it is truly amazing how some will react where intent was not meant. That doesn't mean that intent wasn't there, but perhaps some probing is required at times before going all postal on each other (and that's pretty much a quote from those instructions I had to write a couple of decades ago).</p>

<p>To the OP's question, I think Dr. Greenspun's work, taken in its historical context, is pretty darned good. He blogged before it had a name, and he added photography to the written word to make it interesting and useful. There are some nice, even great photographs in there, but I think his work was about how the internet could be used to share, and that included photography.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<blockquote>

<p>JDM, I interpret the N Korean reference as being to frenzied and frantic praise for a community's leaders.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes Sarah, I was thinking the N Korean reference was one of censorship but I now can see it is the cult of personality approach.</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality</p>

<p>I still appreciate the work of Greenspun. This is my favorite photo web site. I am sure he has thicker skin than some posters credit him.</p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>The original question was valid but phrased a bit tactlessly.</p>

<p>There's no reference point or foundation for a meaningful discussion or critical analysis. "I am not very impressed" and "What do you think?" don't form a thesis for any constructive discussion. It's so generic the same statement could be applied to any photographer's portfolio.</p>

<p>In any other context I might have assumed this was trolling. However since Rui has already posted on other ordinary discussions I'd quickly realize it's not trolling, but an offhand and somewhat carelessly phrased opinion. But I can understand why others responded as negatively as they did.</p>

<p>I'd say the same thing I say in regard to most questions asking how to get more useful and constructive critiques: Start with a specific request about the type of critique or advice you want.</p>

<p>Same with discussions like this: Start with a specific statement of your impressions, opinions derived from those impressions, and you'll have a constructive basis for a real discussion.</p>

<p>And as others have said, many of Philip's photos were intended as illustrations to accompany his travel essays and how-to articles. In that context the photos are competent for the intended usage. He probably wouldn't have claimed otherwise.</p>

[rogerwb]

<p>Having just re-read Mr Greenspun's article, I would suggest to the OP that he read all the accompanying text in the article. Then, hopefully it will become clear that many of the photos are indeed intentional examples of how <strong>not</strong> to shoot certain scenes. <strong><br /></strong></p>

[john_h.1]

<p>>>>>>I would suggest to the OP that he read all the accompanying text in the article. Then, hopefully it will become clear that many of the photos are indeed intentional examples of how <strong>not</strong> to shoot certain scenes<<<<<</p>

 

<p>How do you know he hasn't already done that?<br>

 <br>

I find the images to be competent. Not super spectacular but certainly satisfactory. Successful and worthy of display as advanced photography.

<p> </p>

[john_h.1]

>>>>>"I am not very impressed" and "What do you think?" don't form a thesis for any constructive

discussion.<<<<<

 

Just because the remarks lack specifics doesn't mean constructive discussion cannot follow. Whole

scholarly exams mention a scant topic and then say "discuss". People ask for critiques all the time

with no accompanying "thesis". People offer them all the time without being given one. SOme are

constructive, others are not. Having some learned preamble isn't necessary for a intelligent discussion

of photographic imagery.

 

 

>>>>>It's so generic the same statement could be applied to any photographer's portfolio.<<<<<

 

 

Of course. So what? He wasn't discussing anyone else's. He asked about people's opinion on a

portfolio. Its an open ended question. There's endless possibilities for responses.

[rui_wang3]

<p>Okay let's be specific. (All the following are my own opinion.)<br>

Photo # 1:<br>

<a href="http://philip.greenspun.com/images/pcd0834/helgumannen-56">http://philip.greenspun.com/images/pcd0834/helgumannen-56</a><br>

Composition: too much sky (if the main subject is the hamlet)<br>

Exposure: sky is well exposed but the hamlet is too dark and obscure. The foreground (grass) and the background (ocean) are too close to the subject (the hamlet) in color and tone.<br>

Lighting and perspective: not much light/shadow to convey shape. Rather uninteresting and flat perspective.<br>

Photo #2:<br>

<a href="http://philip.greenspun.com/images/pcd1765/gruyere-68">http://philip.greenspun.com/images/pcd1765/gruyere-68</a><br>

Composition: vertically the farmhouse is right in the middle, breaking the rule of thirds and leaving a vast and uninteresting foreground. Could use a wide-angle lens to introduce a more interesting foreground (grasses, flowers, etc.).<br>

Lighting and perspective: again not much light/shadow to convey shape. (Even those trees do not have shadows. I suspect the photo was taken on a cloudy day.)<br>

Your opinions, please. Please be constructive. Thanks!</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Both photos look fine to me. But I'll admit I don't care a thing about rules for composition, whether in art, music or literature. The fishing village photo might have been strengthened by getting a slightly lower perspective so the roof peaks broke the horizon line.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Rui,<br>

You really ought to learn and see things in context. The two photos you linked were for illustration purposes:</p>

<blockquote>

 

<h2>Give Old Buildings Some Space</h2>

<p>In general, the older the structure, the more environmental context is required.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For complete context, see the whole article here : http://www.photo.net/learn/architectural/exterior </p>

 

[rui_wang3]

<p>I did read the context and I don't think those are good examples in support of the main argument: "In general, the older the structure, the more environmental context is required."</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Whether you agree or don't with the photos, you should of provided the context. Again, he showed the photos for illustration purposes, in this case, environmental context. Your main critique were that they were</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Composition: too much sky...Composition: vertically the farmhouse is right in the middle, breaking the rule of thirds and leaving a vast and uninteresting foreground.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And they were for, again, including environmental context. btw where your photos? Why don't we critique a couple of yours? Seeing a couple of out of context illustration photos over 10 years ago won't help your photography now, will it? Or, if you really want...critique my photos, I'm here and got thick enough skin:) </p>

[rui_wang3]

<p>Sure I can upload my own photos later today. However, that is not the point. I didn't come here to diss Mr. Greenspun's work. I came here and found tons of spectacular photos in the 'Gallery' section, but photos in the 'Learning' section are not up to the same level (not even close). Of course that is just my own opinion. I would like others to enlighten me.<br />I could have dropped out my comment ('not vey impressed') completely. However, I didn't want to ask for opinions without giving my own, which seems unfair.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>"<em>photos in the 'Learning' section are not up to the same level</em>". That'd because they are not supposed to be the same. Gallery images are usually people's best work, exhibited as "art". Pictures accompanying articles are illustrative of some point the article is making. They're not intended to be art and they don't even have to be good. They just have to make a point.</p>

<p>This applies to everyone. It certainly applies to me. I have some pretty poor images in my various articles here. If I'm reviewing a lens and it rains for the week I have it, it's unlikely I'll be including any dramatic landscapes as illustrations, even if it's the world's best landscape lens.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Wang...</p>

<p>You mentioned you were going to leave the forum. I hope by that you meant you were responding to the comment that your post was in the wrong forum and have followed this into the "casual conversation" forum. As I wrote, starting my post, you're new here. Everybody was new here once, even an old fogey like myself. At least you've learned two things from what is probably your very first post. First of all, posting in the right forum is more critical to the current management than it was to the previous. Second, when you say "What do you think?" people might take that literally, as I did, and told you what I thought. There are people who say things like "What do you think?" who are really just seeking compliments for themselves. That's become more prevalent recently. </p>

<p>I've seen your subsequent responses and now have more thought to express as to "What do I think?" In the current generation American speech, "I'm not impressed" is usually meant as a put down, or at least a very negative and sometimes insulting remark. English may be a second language to you and you were meaning it literally without the current connotation, which I had taken. Further evidence that you were not being mean spirited can be found in your subsequent posts, such as the polite recognition of needing to post in the proper place and the apology. So I now think you're probably a decent fellow, somewhat new to photography whose comment was simply awkwardly put, rather than intentionally negative. You also seem to have a quick learning curve. That will serve you well, as there is a lot to learn on Photonet as you refine whatever type of photography you're interested in from both good and bad examples that are posted here on this site. I hope you continue on and enjoy the benefit. </p>

<p>Mr. Dickson...</p>

<p>Pissing contest? Hell, pushing 94, I'm lucky to develop a lengthy dribble. The question wasn't inappropriate, it was how it was worded. That was my objection. </p>

<p>I would partially agree with you about Dr. Greenspun's level of accomplishment. Outside of a matter of taste, which is an individual prerogative, I could be persuaded that there may be some few photographers who are slightly more accomplished. I would strongly disagree that there are either many who are more accomplished or that there are any who are far more accomplished. </p>

<p>Mr. Rochkind...</p>

<p>Hmmm. I wouldn't have thought to compare Photonet with North Korea, but if you think so??? </p>

<p>Mr. Carron...</p>

<p>Hadn't read and still haven't looked at your reference, so anything I said was not connected. I did learn from your post that Large Format was transferred or folded into Photonet, interesting. </p>

<p>Mr. Bergman...</p>

<p>I too thought Dr. Greenspun was an interesting writer. My question to you would be: "Did you notice how well Dr. Greenspun captured the spirit of his text with the photography work that he used to illustrate it?" I found his photos to consistently capture the subject in a way that the eye that read the text would see the item in the photo in a cohesive light. That impressed me. </p>

<p>Ms. Fox...</p>

<p>Dr. Greenspun is no longer the leader of Photonet. Furthermore, Dr. Greenspun appeared to me to be far more competent at what he did than the "community leader" of North Korea. As an aside, I also think the difference in personal character between the two is about as wide as it gets. It seems as though you share with Mr. Rochkind a far better opinion of North Korea than I do, which of course is your right. It's also my right to disagree. </p>

<p>Mr. Atkins...</p>

<p>Yes, the question was entirely appropriate. But, no, I did not think the tone was. From your previous writings, which by the way have been proliferous and much appreciated by myself, I find it curious that you did not even see the term "I'm not impressed" could be taken as a snidely negative statement in current American English dialect . Your articles and comments are so well written and so understandable to someone who speaks American English with your use of slang, idioms, etc., I would be very surprised to find that wasn't your native language. If it is your second language or second dialect, I've got to say you do very well with it, much better than I would do with whatever yours would be. </p>

<p>As far as your saying "We should be welcoming newcomers, not driving them away," how right you are and how indicative it is of your usual type of post. </p>

<p>Ms. Cheung...</p>

<p>Yes, styles have changed since the '90s and 2000. Although there was dodging, burning, and using different filters to tone different colors, and/or change contrast in both black and white and color, there is still a lot more post-processing done today in current photo postings. It's almost like it's become an art in itself, which it may be. However, I consider Dr. Greenspun's work of the '90s still excellent today. He just did his work with the camera more than with the computer. It's going to look different. But superior work is still superior work, and I obviously believe his was. </p>

<p>Mr. Brad...</p>

<p>Wrong. People don't need to do anything at your demand. A request to lighten up or do anything else, although not always, still is usually well taken on Photonet. </p>

<p>Gentlepersons...</p>

<p>I may be old, mean, and ornery, but at least I do it on an equal opportunity basis. I've also been known to suppress some of these bad traits and give kudos where and when warranted. In any event, whether my responses are put negatively or positively, when asked "What do I think?" I will always feel free to give an honest answer. I may get booted off the board for it. Or it may just invoke further negative response. But it will be my answer. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke </p>

<p>P.S. Mr. Wang...I really do hope you get to see this, and furthermore, hope you not only continue with Photonet, but your experience here tweaks your interests, answers questions you may have, and helps you become an even better photographer than you are now. </p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Gentlepersons: </p>

<p>P.P.S. I started dictating my last comment about 1:00 Photonet time. I’m a bit slow these days and it takes time to have my thoughts typed by someone else and re-read before posting. So…anything posted by others after about 1:00 today and before the time when my last post made it on the thread was not (and could not have been) taken into consideration. </p>

<p>I see Mr. Wang is still posting. Good for him. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[peter_doucette]

<p>Thanks for staying with us through all these comments.<br>

Quite simply, Dr Greenspun's work in the learning section is there to learn from. The gallery includes hundreds (or thousands) of photographers showing off their best work. I see a lot of beginners asking how to get a certain effect, and sometimes it's like asking a musician how to get to Carnegie Hall. Practice, practice, practice. Using the Learning Tab at the top of the page will put you in a place where you can learn, and maybe even surpass the teacher. When you do that, you will continue growing. <br>

I think that is the object of the game.</p>

[rui_wang3]

<p>Thank you for your comments. Now I understand that photos in the 'Learning' section are for a different purpose than photos in the 'Gallery' section.<br>

Mr. Burke:<br>

Yes, English is my 2nd language. When I made the comment I didn't mean to insult anyone. I had no idea that Dr. Greenspun started www.photo.net, nor was I aware of his many other achievements. </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>English is indeed my native language, but I've learned to speak American passably well.</p>

<p>I'm not usually inclined to criticize someone's "tone", especially someone who is not a native English (or American) speaker. "I'm not impressed" does carry a negative connotation but not so much that it makes the post abusive or worthy of rejection. If the OP has said "<em>why do these images suck</em>" I might have had a problem with the question.</p>

<p>"<em>Why are the gallery images so much better than those accompanying many of the articles</em>" might have been a better and more politic question, but we don't reject people who don't quite phrase their questions in the best possible way.</p>

[tholte]

<p>"Yes, English is my 2nd language. When I made the comment I didn't mean to insult anyone. I had no idea that Dr. Greenspun started www.photo.net, nor was I aware of his many other achievements." A little research often reaps big rewards.</p>

[marc_rochkind]

<p>About my "North Korea" comment: Of course, my point is that a personality cult has no place here. What I saw at the start of this thread was someone saying something critical of Greenspun, and then two or three responses along the lines of him having no right to criticize our Dear Leader, that he should apologize, that Greenspun has done us a great service, etc., etc. An interesting combination of <em>ad hominem</em> attack paired with <em>ad hominem</em> defense.</p>

<p>But really, Greenspun's photography is just as deserving of criticism as anyone's. In the end, I see that this thread ended up in more or less the right place. That's good.</p>

<p>By coincidence, I just a few weeks ago got a copy of Greenspun's "Travels With Samantha". (I thought Samantha was his girlfriend, or cat, but, in fact, Samantha was his computer.) The book has its good points, but the photos are really just travel snapshots. Which, since Greenspun knows perfectly well what he's doing, is, I assume, exactly what they were intended to be.</p>

<p>I also looked at his two Database-Backed-Web-Site books, and THEY have his photos in them, too, only distantly related to the subject matter. I think he was trying to create a new form of technical book and in that he certainly succeeded. I've written a few books of this sort myself, and am working on one now, but don't have the guts to do what he did. Brave man!</p>

<p>By the way, he's still very much around. I read his blog regularly. Something of a curmudgeon, but always interesting.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Considering photos used in an educational/instructional context.... yes, you should judge them within that context as maybe not being the authors best work, and one should consider that a photo might be intentionally be sub-par to make a point.<br>

And still, that does not mean they cannot be criticised within that context. When somebody writes "always use the rule of thirds if you want to make a compelling photo" and displays a perfectly great photo with the main subject dead in the middle - then the critique might be positive, but the critique of the article negative. So, those photos are up for critiques too? They're used to make a point, but if somebody feels the point isn't made well or something like that, then it's fine to speak up and let your opinion be heard.<br>

That's a good thing. It means you thought about what you learnt, and developed your own ideas. In a creative endeavour, that's a positive step.<br>

__</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A little research often reaps big rewards.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The same could be said from all people responding to the tone of Rui, without apparently realising English is not his native language. A lot of people seem to blindly assume that everybody here understands references to American culture, shops in American webshops using US dollars and understand English well in all its subtleties. That's to me actually more silly than assuming Greenspun is "just another" contributor to this site.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Now that we're into more substantive discussion, yes, I agree with others that photos used for illustrating composition and technique often aren't one's best.</p>

<p>I'll add that when examining ANYONE's body of work, it is a bit unfair to judge it against the body of work of all photographers in an immense community. Dr. Greenspun's work is simply outnumbered. I'm not substantially familiar with his work, but I must say he has a number of portraits that convey great empathy of the photographer for the subject and create that same empathy with the viewer. That's not an easy thing to do. He sought to address some complex and difficult subject matter, such as date rape. That's not generally well appreciated. So he has my respect, and I love some of his images, for instance this one...</p>

<p><a href="http://philip.greenspun.com/images/pcd3502/crouching-10.jpg">http://philip.greenspun.com/images/pcd3502/crouching-10.jpg</a></p>

<p>Personally, I don't care if he breaks rules. I break them all the time. I feel "rules" are simply a conventional starting point of commonly accepted guidelines. So if he doesn't sweat the rule of thirds, I'm not bothered.</p>

<p>There are ways in which I feel I would have photographed many of Greenspun's subjects differently. However, I'm not going to say I would have done them "better." It would be presumptuous of me to infer what Greenspun was trying to do or say. I will say that many of his images appear rather flat and uninteresting to me. And I'm sure the same can be said by someone else of my own work. Hopefully some of my work has a few things to say that others will find interesting. That's my goal. If that has also been Dr. Greenspun's goal in his photographic work, then I'd say he's succeeded.</p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=153336">Brad -</a> People need to lighten up. A lot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Amen. That's definitely worth repeating.</p>