Untitled

"social renegades such as myself" -- Tris Schuler

 

Tris, with your writing skills I bet it wouldn't take you long to turn this into a mission statement for yourself ;-)

I am a good writer, an effective writer. Then again I ought to be--afterall, that's how I used to earn my bread and cheese. But the POW thread as a mission statement for myself? There's irony in that, for if you'd bother to look around you might notice this has been attempted, yet not by me, and the writing's been sophomoric into the bargain.

Thanks for your concern, though, Frank. :)

Aldo,

I just noticed your self-rating (10/10), it made me smile. Is this meant to keep the discussion going or change subject? You might be successful. WJ

Please, let's not get the forum going on the ratings and all that that implies. This thread's silly enough already.

 

Thanks for " changing subject "... A self-rated 10 / 10 POW ! Now that's great ! I didn't even know one could rate his own shots !! I was stupidly assuming that the site's technology would prevent this from happening ! What a good joke ! Aldo, if you meant this rating as a joke, after all you have endured, it could be slightly " over-rated " but the joke itself is well worth a 10 / 10 ! :-)

This thread's silly enough already. -- Tris Schuler

You sure got that right..

and a side note - take a look here... down at the bottom of the comments..

homeless people in boston by mike czepiel

That's sad.

Good photographic work, though. Mike did his subject proud.

I used to think that Tris was a troll, but now considering the lengths he must go to, to write such lengthy jibberish, I have to conclude that he is just a delusional socially inept person, that needs to somehow feel better about himself, and so he criticizes whether he has the right to or not.

 

I don't think you have to be a good photographer to give an opinion on this forum but stating what is proper photography and what is not in such abbsolute terms as if you are an authority on the art, is not giving an opinion.

 

Aldo, I like this shot. Some say it's not original being a straight on tele with limited DOF, but you could say the same thing about Steve McCurry and the Afghan girl. It's still a great shot. I don't blame you for being offended by Tris's comments being downright inflammatory as they were, but your attack of others is in very bad taste.

 

Tris, your 140+ photos are the most absolutely mundane and unoriginal photos around, that's my opinion.

 

 

And, this POW isn't very good at all. Im neither moved at an emotional level, nor impressed at a technical level. I think Tris and others are right on. I guess if this was my first exposure to a homeless person I might be intrigued, but come one. In general, this POW and thread reflects the sad downward spiral that photography has taken. Awkward attempts with a 35mm SLR to capture life, but little thought as to how that should be done best. Look at what Weegee did with a 4x5 speed graphic. We need quality, and that takes technical perfection and asethetic vision. This photo has neither. Just because you can doesnt mean you should

Tris, your 140+ photos are the most absolutely mundane and unoriginal photos around, that's my opinion.

All 140+ photos, eh? And at that this blanket condemnation emanates from yet one more shadow person who has not bothered to upload a single example of his own work. Great stuff! :)

Tell you what. When you get a clue I'll think about developing an "artistic" eye. Until then, I suggest you hang out with the Aldos of this world. The likes of you guys fit hand in glove.

I wanted to weigh in on the appropriateness of politically weighty subjects of POW's. While I at first disagreed with Mark's initial comments on this, I agree that there is some validity to a need for some degree of restraint on the part of the elves. A picture of say an aborted fetus, or a circumcision in process or of a dog being "put down" could all stimulate conversation, just as the cardboard sign and disabled person in this one have, but to select a POW on that basis alone is pointless for this forum. I guess political and/or ethical potential should be on no more than an even par with technical or other aesthetic values when considereation is given for POW.

 

Tris, I don't know, man. I know lots of folks who get paid good money to do what they do and they still don't do it very well.

Tris, I don't know, man. I know lots of folks who get paid good money to do what they do and they still don't do it very well.

Agreed. But what is your point?

This is my first post on photo.net.

 

I need to say that I was shocked when I read some of the posts here, shocked by some people's calousness regarding the subject matter. A few people said "so what, I see that where ever I go, nothing new, blah, blah". For someone like myself, I DON'T see things like that very often, I live in a small country and our homeless people are not as obvious perhaps, and we don't have that many per capita. So, I welcomed being able to view an image that I do not often come face to face with.

 

Surely the purpose of 'art' in any form is to engage the viewers in thought and discussion, to provoke an exchange of ideas? And surely photography is art? Or else why are we here? I also believe it is the response of the viewer to the image that is most telling. Not all art is technically perfect. Sometimes when it is so, it lacks in emotion.

 

Given all the above criteria, I think the 'pixies' as you so sweetly call them have done a fine job in selecting this particular shot!

 

Bravo!! Perfection be damned!

I find it funny that most of the comments on the photo here were positive in the beginning, then progressively more negative as Aldo attacked some posters. Regardless of what you think of the photographer, shouldn't his work be graded objectively?

 

And I still don't see the objection to this photo on "moral" grounds. A little bit of self rightiousness I guess? Was Dorothea Lange's Migrant Worker objectionable? How about William Albert Allard's photo of the peasant Peruvian boy crying? They don't slant things in a negative light, they show people the reality of lives outside their own. When properly done as in this picture, it does more to help these people and their plight than any self rightious person that criticizes another for taking such a picture.

 

Tris, his point is your photos suck. Could it be any more clear? Well... maybe not to you. I like your new ID BTW, Eric Mortensen, cool name, created today I see:) You may think of yourself as some "renegade voice" (lol, been watching too many B movies eh?) with an "artful eye" but sadly I don't think this fits reality. Sorry....

 

The picture has to be commented objectively.

 

But the judgement is and must be influenced from what the author tells his work is, from where the standard is set.

 

At a first time I rated the picture 6/6

 

After I saw Aldo rated his own picture 10/10, and aggressively reacted to justified criticisms too, I changed my rating in 1/1.

 

One may accept this mediocre and faulty shot for what it is: a first effort of an amateur photographer who may be encouraged to keep trying (and get better). As the work of excellence Aldo is trying to present, it is simply not acceptable and not justifiable.

Epiphany.

 

Not many bananas grow where I live: Milan, Italy. Does this make EVERY shot of a banana tree a great shot because it reminds to me something I seldom have occasion to see?

 

Yes, a banana tree shot may be a great shot. But this requires a good photographer at work behind the camera. Not only bananas in front of the lens.

Accepted, but what good is shown in changing your rating to a 1/1? As protest to Aldo's actions?

Are we here for that and similar reasons or to discuss photography? If you first thought the photograph was worth a 6/6 then why not give the devil his due? It would be essentially the same as someone rating stuff in my folders 1/1 just because they can't stand my comments on the various POW threads, or whatever. It's dumb all around and this site has too much of that behavior as it is.

Do the right thing.

Tris,

 

If I come to your portfolio, I may see a lot of casual pictures, none of them I rated yet, probably. If I'd rate them, I could consider some of them acceptable, given the site standard: a place where a group of amateurs place their own efforts waiting for reactions.

 

Some pictures could even be nice to my eyes, given this standard.

 

I won't rate, if not required, the pictures which do nothing for me.

 

If you attack other posters for their works, this won't change my judgement on your pictures.

 

If you attack who reasonably criticize your pictures, if you decide to present your pictures as very important works of excellence, then I'll accept your perspective and I''ll rate your pictures in comparison with the pictures ***I*** consider true work of excellence.

 

That's why I changed my rating on Aldo's picture. Not a protest for his reactions. Just a new perspective.

That sounds about fair. I misunderstood you.

For myself, I rate all works of art in the only "fair" reference I know, which is my experience with other works of art. In other words my standard never changes but remains an absolute within that special context. I might express my views more gently with some than others, say, to a child who presented her work to me for approval, but I still couldn't bring myself to rate it higher or lower within that system I've proscribed. For me, art is art.

Hum, Tris... I don't mean to plead in favor of Antonio, but here you show a new facet of your personality, which I had not discovered yet...

2 POW's ago, I remember you called me " confused " and got a bad reply from me because I don't accept direct attacks. Fine. Case closed. But today, when you accuse Antonio for his lack of objectivity, and give him a moral lesson, I suddenly remember something: didn't you erase all the ratings you gave to about 15 pictures of mine after what I told you in the POW that day ? Hum... I didn't bother much and I still don't - actually, in a way, I even understand what you did - but I'm not blind or THAT confused, and I find it tough to swallow when you slap Antonio on both chicks today for doing what you did 2 weeks ago... But I guess that was ok, for some reason that you might want to bring to the audience... Objectivity is something you have completely lost in my opinion... And week after week, I keep on seing that you have a point to make every 5 minutes, and I see more and more people getting tired about it... Do you care about this very fact at all ?...

When I first read that I had "self-graded" my work with a 10/10 I thought the poster was jocking. I eventually checked the ratings and sure enough, there was my name. I certainly didn't do it, and I don't know who is responsible for it. But please, please, elves: take your POW award back. Life is just too short to have to deal with sickness of this sort.

ha! just returned to the thread to see that i, too, was called out by aldo for having some totally flawed and forgettable photos posted, yet i ventured to point out that this one is also flawed and forgettable. Of course, I have received negative posts, too, and all were entirely deserved and taught me something i could work from. i'm pretty sure that's half the point of the forum...

Hey Aldo, you can always delete your photo if you're as sick of this as you claim.

done. as I'm trying to delete it, I'm getting this response:

The requested URL cannot be accessed due to a system error on this server.

Vuk, if you have a special "expertise" in computers perhaps you can tell me wha needs to be done...