Jayden, at Six Months Old.

If you look closely you notice that it looks like Jayden's left eye isnt looking at the camera.

Yes, he has a "wally-eye", as does his grandfather (not me, by the way, I'm related by marriage). It's getting better as time goes by, but I think there'll always be a certain air of mystery in the little guy's eyes when he looks at you. I've grown to love it.

Hi Tony, nice image but I'm not sure about the cropping. While cropping off part of the head in portraits and fashion shots work quite well I am still unsure if it works for baby shots. But thats only my opinion of course.

 

P.S. I hope you and your family are ok up there. These fires sound pretty horific.

Michael, I never noticed the cropping.. but many others have. I like to get in close, a sort of "keyhole" point of view. To me it gives the effect of "things going on outside the frame"... it's hard to put into words. I DO know what you mean though. I cropped his arms and lower half of his body too, to add the same effect. His parents like the picture, part of a compilation set I did for them.

 

It has just ticked over to Monday, December 31 here in Sydney. Today was supposed to be THE big fire day, but it cooled down and the winds stayed as breezes, as opposed to the predicted gales. Many fires were brought under control. Some were extinguished altogether.

 

Incidentally, the house where this photograph was taken burned to the ground last Friday. There is nothing left of it.

Please tell them that our thoughts are with them in this difficult time.

I would have like to seen more head room.

It's called a "close-up".

The expression on the baby's face is so sweet. The eyes sparkly! Who cares if the top of the head isn't shown?

Tony, Thanks for your ultra-long replies to my previous two comments as usual. I have the impression that you consciously and unconsciously express yourselves this way to imply Listen! You average photographers should learn how to enjoy my great shots rightly. It is clear, one shows his photos on this forum only when he thinks they are worth a presentation in the aspects of aesthetics and originality. However, it seems to me you sometimes took advantage of your VIP status in this site to upload some trivial photos which still were highly admired by your fans and no one dared criticize them straightly (to spare himself a doctrine from you?).

 

 

For me, the current shot is by far not so fantastic or genial as some 10/10 ratings suggested. Apart from the aesthetics, I wonder how you could expect this baby photo might evoke a strong feeling of originality by other photographers who most possibly have taken many such baby photos? In photo.net Critiquing System (www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/standards) I read an explanation on originality: Give a photo a high rating for originality if it shows you something unexpected. Im thinking of the exemplary comment by Rajeev & Philip to a macro shot of flowers I'd give 1 for originality--shoving a macro lens into the face of a few orchids in an orchid garden does not require a lot of outside the box thinking . I wonder what they would say to this shot.

 

 

Finally, let me do something constructive for this lovely baby with an example for your close-up theory, although I know exactly you wont hesitate to refuse it (as usual). Pardon me for ruining your masterpiece once again.

ATTENTION ALL ZOMBIES

THIS MESSAGE DESIGNATED *** FLASH AAA PRIORITY ***

PLEASE GET OUT YOUR ELLEN FRANCIS DOLLS AND STICK

PINS IN THEM ALL TOGETHER EXEC PLAN B AT

1900 HR US EASTERN STANDARD TIME JAN 09 2002 STOP

HAS STUMBLED ON EVIL PLAN DOMINATION PHOTO NET

VIA ULTRA LOW RATING PICTURES AND MUST BE DESTROYED STOP

CODE WORD THIS OPERATION IS PISSOIR REPEAT PISSOIR STOP

NOT A DRILL STOP
SIGNED EVIL DR DUMMETT

MESSAGE ENDS

 

 

Ellen, There are 38 ratings posted for this picture as at January 14, 2001. Two of them are "10/10" (that means "OK picture" nowadays, by the way, not "perfection"). That is 2 out of 38 ratings, or 5.3%, approximately one-twientieth, a nickel compared to a dollar. Can I put it any other way that will make it sink in?

 

On the other hand, there are many "sub-5" ratings. The picture's average as I write is "6.53" for aesthetics and "5.79" for originality. My position in the rankings at the current time is...hmmmm... let me see... "32".

 

So much for me being the Dr. Caligari of the Ratings, complete with zombie followers under my evil control.

 

On the other hand, if I deleted the four or five pictures you have picked on in the last few days in response to your cockamamie theories, I'd actually go up in the ratings, not down.

 

You are talking though your hat.

 

EPILOGUE, WEDNESDAY, 09 JANUARY, 2002, 9PM USEST...

(I'd better say this before you go off half-cocked again (...oops! can I cay that word "half-cocked"? It might be too tasteless...): the telex above was a joke. I haven't really made any "Ellen" dolls and distributed them worldwide to the Zombies - in fact there aren't any Zombies. If you are reading this and didn't feel any pain around 7pm US Eastern Standard Time tonight, then you'll know what I am saying is true.

Hi Tony, greetings. Sorry about the fires there :-(

 

I am not very fond of the cropping of the head - I like the head cropping style - for better lack of description, but i think it is a bit too much here, intentional or not.

 

CUte baby, nice tones.

I wished to refer you to a comment on a previous PoW which I made, but since it takes an eternity to load I copy a [more applicable] edited version here:

 

<'Tony is regularly accused of jealousy regarding the current toplist positions, aswell as putting himself on a pedestal. The current system is fundamentally in favour of quantity (small) rather than quality. I can assure you there is no jealousy involved, as working out the stats on paper (regarding the size of portfolios) you can see how radically different it should look if members cull their portfolio. The fact they don't is testament to 'toplist positions' NOT being a priority for them. May I assure all you newer members that Tony makes observations over a period of time (longer than most). The angst that appears to have arisen between the more modern artists and more traditional photographers is not all as it seems, and neither is it one sided. The problem appears to me, that some members are unable to accept an unfavourable critique either on their own work, or more commonly, on behalf of a favourite photographers work. They respond by making rash assumptions and hit out with accusations/personal insults as some kind of valid defence. It is not, and furthermore it is unfair and discourteous. The oversensitive, over-reactive defenders are the ones that truly communicate tension/aggression. If they had a valid case for defence then why don't they courteously address specific points raised that they feel to be unfair? I agree there have been problems with egos on this server (I despair as much as anyone) but I feel you are aiming & firing your arrow of contention at the wrong target here. I speak from experience as I too have fallen foul of getting personal on the odd occasion (& gunning for Tony). Having made the effort to look at things more logically, and to discuss matters further with the particular individuals concerned, my mind has been broadened regarding PN politics, individual members as people, and ultimately photography.'>

 

I do hope you manage to develop some sense of civility Ellen, & consider the possibility you may have presumed too much.

I have expected no other reactions than the present ones that I already experienced for my very first critical comment to Tonys great shot of gentlemans toilette three weeks ago. Thanks for the friendly warnings.

 

Morwen, as a gentleman, you may remember what constructive critiques Tony wrote in Julia Lius threads and how the atmosphere was polluted there consequently (I could hardly trust my eyes while reading through those terrible threads which you old members should be familiar with, but perhaps not all of you, even as Tonys friends, had your enjoyment then. However, I dont remember seeing you make the same appeal to those who didnt comment in a civil fashion there. I just wonder how many followers a member needs to be able to clam that he wants to do away with another member from this forum so frankly and arrogantly like Tony did to Julia Liu.). Anyway, I have no intention to do the same non-photographic things here and dont care if my threads will be messed up the same way in future.

 

Finally, I have a technical question to Dr. Dummett: In some of your photos, the subjects look unnaturally sharp in comparison with the surrounding objects. (my knowledge in the optical imaging tells me, theres always a focus-plain but no focus point in the space, even if a fisher-eye lens is used. That means, the surrounding objects which are in the same distance to the camera as the subject must be equally sharp or blunt as the subject itself what doesnt seems to be the case in some photos you have presented.). Im not sure if you sharpened the subjects and blurred the backgrounds for those photos on your computer, or, I saw it wrongly. Hope this will be my last comment in this portfolio FULL-STOP

The Julia Liu episode was instigated by a personal matter regarding Tony's prior ratings abuse from Julia (which I believe evidence can support) & in light of this I would not consider defending Julia. There was a history many were unaware of, started by Julia herself.

Ellen, I experienced the same thing by commenting Tonys style to write record-long captions to speak for his photos earlier. I would advise you to listen to Tony and his friends in order to avoid becoming Julia No 2. It was really amazing to see in Juliass threads what these established members were capable to produce. So, take care my fellow newbie!

Ellen,

 

Nice try but you're mistaken again.

 

Your latest suggestion is that somehow or other I have faked the depth of field in my photographs. This comes from your masterful analysis which I will quote in part here:

 

"...my knowledge in the optical imaging tells me, theres always a focus-plain but no focus point in the space, even if a fisher-eye lens is used. That means, the surrounding objects which are in the same distance to the camera as the subject must be equally sharp or blunt as the subject itself what doesnt seems to be the case in some photos you have presented...."

 

Huh? Can you point out these pictures to me, so we'll all know what you're talking about with this gobbledeegook (or would you rather leave this accusation to fester, as another bogus generalisation?). When you fill out the "particulars" form, I can post hi-res details from each and prove you wrong, one by one. It'll take up time and space, but it'll be worth it. There are no faked pictures of mine here. No altered DOF.

 

So far you've accused me of ratings corruption (disproved above), inserting fog effects, faking DOF and "tastelessness": a combination of un-aesthetic and fraudulent activity. The creative criticisms are OK, as such, but should not be used to support patently wrong-headed ratings abuse allegations. As to the "photoshop fraud" charges, when these breezy misrepresentations of yours are challenged or disproved you never admit your mistake, you just substitute another spurious suggestion in its place (like this DOF "issue").

 

You're plain wrong, Ellen. You are demonstrably obsessive about this. You should admit it, apologise and desist (and get some help... they can fix these imbalances pretty easily nowadays).

 

Postscript to Bill:

 

What did you "experience" as a result of our short Q&A over long captions? You made a point that you thought they were inappropriate and I quite plainly said I agreed 99.99% with you (explaining the 0.01% disagreement in a short post). In a later post to that same picture, I said you were perfectly in the right to question me on "long captions".

 

Was this "experience" you're talking about an unpleasant one? Was I rude to you in any way? Did I not answer your question and defend to colleagues your undoubted right to ask it (and to have it answered properly?).

 

I'm puzzled about what you meant and perhaps you might clarify it.

Tony,

 

I remember, as a response to my comment, someone (a follower of yours, Ellen would say) said to me: no one asks you to read these long captions if you dont like them, or something like that (I dont want to go back to that thread any more). So, wouldnt you be unpleasant and annoyed if you commented a photo critically and got to hear Listen, no one asks you to look at it if you dont like it?

 

I first found your reply quite reasonable. Later, I doubted if I understood your well-known irony rightly.-)

 

Take care, my master!

the tops of babies heads can look odd sometimes. I don't mind that the photo was cropped at the head but I think it would have been a greater shot if the eyebrow wasn't cut off. It is still a nicely lit and expressive portrait.

Thanks for your reply, Bill. I wasn't being ironical in any way in responding to your question about long titles. I thought it was not only a fair question, but a good one. That's why I answered it thoughtfully.

 

I'm not responsible for what others may say to you (even on one of my own photo pages), but I do remember chipping in on "your side" in the subsequent (extremely short) debate. I also remember thinking that it was no big deal at the time. Maybe I was wrong and you were upset. If so, I'm sorry that happened.

 

To tell you the truth I very rarely look at titles myself, and only take notice of them when I want to refer to a picture or elicit some factual information from it. So I can see what these people meant by advising you to skip the titles if they annoyed you.

 

On irony: I don't use smileys. It's a "thing" I have, a bee in my bonnet if you like. This sometimes gets me into trouble, but I'll persist in my one man (losing) campaign to rid the net of these awful linguistic crutches.

 

Tom, the photo is of course presented full frame, so there's nothing cropped out of the original. This is all there was out of the camera. The little boy was bouncing around and playing "silly buggers" with me. I was lucky to get anything at all. This is not to excuse, but merely to explain the parameters of shooting. I suppose I could have dollied out a bit, but his expression was so elusive I wanted to make sure I "nailed it" in close-up detail.

Sorry, Im getting off the actual topic of this thread and referring to some messages above.

 

I watched that bad theater in Julias threads, and Im tired of hearing the dubious argument of Tony's ratings abuse from Julia.

 

Many of you may have the same experience as me: I have never got a 1/1 rating from an ordinary member with higher-than-average photos in his/her portfolio, but only from those fake members with 0 photo or dummy photos. We all understand why and know exactly that no one would be so idiotic to rate photos of others with 1/1 on the one hand, and to present his/her best photos for photo critique on the other hand. Gentlemen, please dont pretend to be so naive and overlook the fact that Julia was No 1 at the time during Tony wanted she slip down to No 200. Thanks!

Actually yes Larry there are some members that are so 'idiotic' as you say. I have certainly received a spate of 1/1's from an ordinary member with higher than average ratings in their portfolio. It is also not an impossible feat for a member to split their portfolio & display under several names. This would mean their photos are indeed 'dummys' as you say, and as an added bonus they have more than one name to rate/comment under, whilst appearing on the surface to be bona fide and separate individuals. Whilst such an elobarate mission might seem incredulous to most of us, I am beginning to wonder if this type of undercover tactic is seen as a viable option by others.

 

With regards to Tony questioning the high rates/ranking of Julias work, I would like to direct you to Julia's own first comment on her ID link, where she too questions high rates on work she feels is not justified. This is not a crime, and should not warrant a barrage of abuse in return, much less instigating a full blown political battle which Julias blatant posting of her politcal banner was intended for (now removed). Anyone might be forgiven for assuming she was running for presidency. The fact that her promotional campaign was not as successful as she might have wished is unfortunate for her, but again this event was brought about by herself. I'm afraid I seriously disagree with suggestions that Julia was victimized.

Tony, thanks for the explanations!

 

Morwen, I never noticed who said it to me. Now, youre telling me it was you. I want to give some 1/1 ratings to your photos in revenge, but have just seen 0 uploaded photos in your portfolio vs. more than 100 comments. What are you striving for here? Only as Tonys bodyguard?-) If you like you can write an email to me, but not in this thread any more which is going to be in a mess (sorry, for my part).

.... I like smileys :) especially winky ones ;)

 

Back to the photo of Jayden. I can't tell if it's B&W or slightly sepia toned, but whichever it is I quite like the 'timelessness' monotone lends to it. I would opt for more of the babies head and less of the torso, but as you have already explained, it was a matter of grabbing the moment. It is lovely shot with Jayden looking so directly at the cam. The innocence and unawareness of 'the real world' really come across. Shame they have to grow up and have their bubble of innocence burst.

Larry,

 

Julia Liu's 1/1 blitz ratings were made on July 10. At that time she had no pictures posted and it wouldn't have mattered if she had. Ratings up to that date, and for the next nine days were anonymous. No one could see "who" was rating "who", or the values awarded. Public ratings lists didn't eventuate until July 19, when the elves finally acted to combat ratings abuse of this very nature.

 

Your theory that she would have been too embarassed to rate lowly because of the comeback she would suffer (one of many I've heard on this subject, the most hilarious of which is the Evil Twin theory) requires public posting of ratings as a primary element in the chain of logic.

 

As the ratings were secret at the time, your proposition doesn't stand up to analysis.

Wow... this looks like POW. I'm talking about the thread....

 

I just wanted to clarify... I didn't mean to imply you cropped the image.... I meant while framing the photo a small portion of the photo was which I would have prefered to be in the frame was excluded.

 

I'll try to be more semantically accurate next time I leave a comment. :)

 

Either way I still would have liked to see it.

 

I once was photographing something that wouldn't stay where I wanted but I think people would have issues with using duct tape on a baby so I can't offer any advice other than a lot of grandad's give some babies a sip of brandy to calm them down :)