Musician

No clandestine motives from me, so don't worry ;) I read your comments now, and I see what you were referring to.

Mark :]

Your work is lovely, by the way...

It never crossed my mind to suspect you of clandestine reasons :) Thanks a lot for compliment, but I'm just a "freshman", or rather fresh-woman. Well, I didn't know you visited me:) Cheers, S.

 

Alex, please excuse us for using your "personal" space for chating. Best ragards, S.

Thank you Mark for commenting. As usual a good diplomat;) Sabina, please be my guest; my space is your space.

What's again this nonsense about clandestine reasons for saying what one thinks...? I believe it's not the first time that I comment on Alexandre's pictures and I am sometimes following his work a little more than some others. Is that a crime ? I believe Alexandre knows that I only mean well. It's just that no matter what you may think, sabrina, I have MY opinions, and that's all I have to offer.

 

Please note that in the sentence where I did dare (!!) to mention about objectivity, I added "IMO" in a bracket. Meaning, that I (ME AND ONLY ME) THINK it is not a subjective matter. And I added that other people are free to disagree. All this is just a way to say, that I am VERY STRONGLY CONVINCED, that... etc.

 

Perhaps this is not a way of expressing things that's very popular on this "wonderful 7/7" planet, but that's me, and that's that. Please keep in mind that not all people in the world think that all opinions are subjective. I don't. Some opinions are subjective opinions, whereas some other things are objective - again, this is (I)MO.

 

If you read this week's POW, you'll see - if it isn't moderated - that I wrote somewhere "PS: this is not a subjective opinion". You may find this awful, anti-democratic and what not, and you may be right in fact, BUT... Take a professional book about architectural photography, and you'll read just the same, so shall we assume that all Pnet folks know better than all the masters who write books about photography ? Well, you may, but I don't. I'm one of these old souls who do believe that some folks know some things better than others, and I did bother to read their books when I could, and such. Just the same as thre are bad professionals and great amateurs in every field (including photography), there are good books and bad books - so I guess the argument never ends. Yet, there are people who are known worldwide as specialists of this or that type of photography, or PShop, or what ever, and there are millions of anonymous folks, who never make it to achieve their goal in photography - what ever their goal may be. The first ones write books and propose receipees, and the others usually don't write books, but try at best to follow these receipees in their own way. So you can't believe what non-writers write, and you can doubt thebooks that masters wrote, that's ok, but that won't take you very far on the road to improvement.

 

You can call me a fundamentalist, or others may call me a purist, that's all ok: it's your opinion, just as I have mine. In daily life, you'd hardlyfind any more open-minded person than me, but not in photography. In photography, I have my own beliefs and set of references, and I do believe that most things are subjective - yet, not all. I may be wrong there, but this is the way I have always been, and which enabled me to work as a photorapher for almost 20 years, which isa good reason forme to continue believing whatI do - although I might be wrong, still.

 

As a side-note, it is very easy for me to skip this picture, or to just stop by to say that I love the boy's face and dog - which I said - and to keep quiet about what I dislike. The same for John F. or anyone on this site who includes the bad with the good in his comments. Is that what you want, really, sabrina ? A place where everyone congratulates every one all the time, with no negatives ?

 

I chose, instead, to express strongly that I lovedthe boy's face and dog, and that I strongly disliked the PS manipulation. I'm confident that alexander will know what to take and leave from my comment, but I trust he will remember it and will think about it. That's the reason I still post (sometimes admittedly harsh) comments on this site.

 

And now, I'll try my best to illustrate my point in PS, but perhaps I should email to Alexander rather than posting the result here - so that we can burry the axeof war on this page... :-) Sabrina, life can be so simple, really... All you need to do is to realize that not every harsh comment needs "clandestine reasons". Anyway, here are my reasons, so I hope they are no longer clandestine...:-)

I understand perfectly your point and you are definitely right in suggesting that Alex (and the rest of us, the beginners) need your advice, cause you really know what you are talking about. Me too I prefer the criticism of a master, instead of the admiration of a ignorant. In this regard, my opinion has no value compared to yours, since I started shooting only eight months ago, while you are a true artist, which I admire a lot. And of course you said that you are the one who believes that your opinion is not subjective, but this is actually a truism, cause everybody thinks, more or less, that his/her opinion is not subjective, otherwise he shouldn't bother communicating it. While asserting that you really think your opinion is not subjective is somehow equivalent with postulating its almost universal objectivity. Of course, your subjectivity is much more "objective" than mine - if I may say so - or than other novices, but I think there are no objective truths in art, at least from a certain point on. When Picasso came to be known, a lot of famous artist from his time contested him, because he was breaking what was considered to be the "objective rules", but he is still, until today... Picasso. Yes, maybe the exemple is a bit hasardous here, and for the moment Alex and me, much more than him, have a lot to learn from great photographers like you and many others, here on PN, but I am sure than even between you and other masters there are esthetical and technical disagreements. This is what I'm reffering to when I say that there is no objective truth in art. An objective truth is something like "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius", "violets are blue" or "the Earth spins", and even so there are physicists who may disagree with that, invoking the relativity of the reference system, the ineherent flaws of the human eye etc. Therefore, I guess we should be more careful while stating the objectivity of our opinions...

Regards, S.

Sabina, I think you can be more confident that there are objective truths in art. It is an objective truth that Beethoven's 9th is a richer, more valuable composition than ABBA's "Dancing Queen." It is an objective truth that Karsh's portrait photography is finer art than those fluorescent paintings on black velvet backgrounds. These are not physical truths, such as that water freezes at zero degrees (ceteris paribus). But they are objective nonetheless. No scientist doubts that it's an objective truth that water freezes at zero degrees. No one who knows anything about music doubts that old LVB's work is "better" than ABBA's. The fact that some people enjoy ABBA has nothing to do with it.

 

Carl Root mentioned a test that might help convince you. Take one of the mediocre landscape photos that receives "Wonderful 7/7!!!" comments here on PN, put it beside a really good landscape photo, and show both to someone who knows nothing about photography. Viewing the mediocre photo alone, a casual viewer might say it's good. But viewing it alongside a genuinely good photo, even a casual viewer can see the difference.

 

Taste is subjective. But value usually has an objective element to it.

Thanks for this interesting reply. First let me say that I agree with this very much: "Of course you said that you are the one who believes that your opinion is not subjective, but this is actually a truism, cause everybody thinks, more or less, that his/her opinion is not subjective, otherwise he shouldn't bother communicating it." But I'm not sure whether my post above was or wasn't clear enough: what I meant is that my opinion is just as subjective as anyone else in most cases , but not subjective on other topics (imo, and yes, that's the truism). A very neat example of this is what I wrote today in the POW forum. I hardly manage to express it well, but it's all in the books and very clear and 100% logical - therefore not subjective (provided I understood well what I read, at least).

 

As a side-note, thanks for the very kind words about me or my work, but I am very sure that I do not deserve them.

 

Side-note 2. You have probably heard of Tony Dummett on this site before. Well that's a true artist imo, and you'd find interesting to read his discussions with Mike Spinnak in one of Michael Spinak's journals - see links to articles on PNet's front page. Not so surprisingly, he doesn't believe in subjectivity much - in fact even much less than I do. And most great artists I have met did believe in some kind of truth. It may or may not mean much, but I thought it was an interesting point to add.

 

Finally, about "disagreements" in arts... They are very common, and natural. And yes, there is the norm and the normal, and the out-of-norm and novel work. Picasso clearly broke some norms, and the example fits. But neverthless it is an objective truth that, for example, a picture shot at 2000 x 3000 pxls will not allow for a wonderfully sharp 150 LPI publication at A1 size - sorry for this outrageously simple but very clear example. So, not everything is subjective - in terms of technique, perspectives, etc at least. On the other hand, to determine exactly what's a good and a bad composition for example is more or less possible in theory, but there are so many interpretations of this theory, that it becomes quite subjective. I feel that in some cases defining one's PS work as sloppy is subjective, and in other cases (more technical cases), it's not. :-) Meanwhile, I've emailed the "revised" version of this picture to Alexandre, and he's free to post it or not, to like it or not, and whether he does or not like it, I'll be interested in his opinion. All I know is that I did roughly my best in 15 minutes or so, and that I personally liked the result. It ends there, and one could of course disagree and find it awful and that would be fine by me. Regards.

Chris, come one, when I mentioned Picasso I wasn't comparing him with a cartoon graphician, and you know that! (No offense to the cartoon graphicians intended...) These are different artistic categories, so your exemple with Beethoven and ABBA is not good, imho, cause you cannot compare apples with pears. What I meant is you cannot say that Beethoven is better than Mozart, for exemple, cause you cannot proove it. That's why esthetic judgements are taste judgements, in comparison with mathematical or logical judgements, that can and must be proved. Therefore, esthetic judgements are subjective. I'm not saying that proof is everything. If I would think so I would probably have studied Chemistry :) In mathematics, for exemple, you cannot say that 1+1=2 and 1+1=3 are both true in the same time. But art is appealing to a more subtle, sensible and mysterious human faculty, that allows different great artist to be all... true, in the same time. Marc G is giving a very good exemple that sustains somehow, I would say, this point. I know, Marc, that objectivity is very dear to you :) and there is some objectivity in the esthetic appreciations, although difficult to manage, but it's not an absolute objectivity. Thanks a lot, Marc, for feedback, I will read the disscussion you mentioned. Best regards, S.

Sabina, I don't think you really believe aesthetic judgments are merely a matter of taste. People say that all the time, but I doubt they really believe it. Sure, it's difficult to find an objective difference between the quality of Beethoven's work and Mozart's, or between the quality of Mozart's and Miles Davis's, but that's because they are all of high quality. My point is that comparing an *easy* case such as ABBA vs. Beethoven shows that there are in fact objective standards of quality, even if they are not precisely or easily measured. If someone really and truly thinks that the aesthetic value of ABBA's music is greater than Beethoven's, then that person's belief is false, and she doesn't understand music.

 

Notice too that standards of value or quality are different from subjective preference. I can consistently say that A's work has greater value than B's, but I personally enjoy B's more.

How can you say it's false if you cannot proove it? :):)

Excellent street shot. You have well made the musician to stand out from the other people. I like his expression and the little dog add something in the same time funny and touching to the photo.

Regards, Henri

Sabina, mathematical or logical proof is not a necessary condition for saying something is true or false.

superb

Yes, Chris, indeed, there are many truth theories, if you check the philsophical litterature, but there must be some type of justification, and simple opinion (or doxa) is never a fundation for attesting the truth of a statement. The good part is that art is not about truths, but about something more inexplicable and beautiful, more human - I would say. So your intuition was right - I don't believe those things either :), but then again, we were talking about truth, objectivity and validity at those moments, not about artistic splendor... Best regards, S.

Congrats.

Henri, Emrah and John, thank you for viewing and commenting.

 

Sabina, Marc and Chris, thank you for such an interesting discussion. I think all of you have made very valuable points and I guess this is one of those cases when one can say that all of you are right in your own well based points of view. Now let's all 'be friends' and continue to pass our technical and philosophical knowledge to each other, by continuing to distribute honest critiques and opinions :D

 

Here is Marc's version of PS fixing. I think it really does improve the original image without compromising the reality that this shot would in fact need. Thank you Marc!

Marc's version is excellent and honors him. You are very right, Alex, in the middle of the arguments, sometimes people are getting too personally involved and the things can become pretty hot. Me too I make myself guilty sometimes of such crimes, but when there is tolerance and consideration and when reason and good judgement prevail over emotion, good points and good ideas can come out at light and friendship cannot be spoiled. I wish you all a great week. Best regards, S.

 

P.S. I still like the initial psworked version (sic!) :)

Wow! Alex, your photo has generated quite a bit of chit-chat, which is great in these days of anonymous ratings and veiled praise ;) Marc, I love your version. It just jumps up and bites me. So vivacious. One can't help but be drawn to the boy and the cute puppy. I see now what you mean when you say you spend much time using PS.

Credit is, I believe, always due to the photographer first, if only for simply being there to press the button, otherwise the image would never have been captured in the first place. So, kudos to you, Alex, once again :)

Sabina, sorry I went quiet on the chatting here ;) Had a busy weekend. Hey, pop round to my 'folio sometime, will ya? Lemme know what you think.

Mark :]

I like this just the way it is. A truly poignant shot. However, now after going back and seeing Marc's version, I'll have to amend that. He really nailed it.

Yes Mark, a chit-chat as I never had before in my photos, so I'm very glad for that :) Thanks for your interest too.

 

Jack, I agree. Marc sure proved (if needed!) to know what he was talking about with his version. Cheers.

 

Prepare for receiving guests on your folio:) Best wishes, S.

I'd rate Alexandre's work with the camera as an A+, Marc's PS fix as an A+ and the discussion as a whole as an A++++.

I must admit I did not read the whole discussion about manipulated or not ...

 

I liked the reference to Place Pigalle, which is indeed a timeless expression in words for what it is expressed in this image.

 

Maria

Thank you for the compliment Patricia. Nice to see you around again Maria.

This photo is very polemic:) I like to read the discussion, it very educational. And I like the photo very much, I don't think that background is confuse and like the light spot around his face and upper side of keyboard. The dog is very cute:))) I was looking on your work and like it very much, you have great eye and you really "see" the unique cenarious on the usual things. It just great. I hope to learn with you... Thank you for your comment on my lighthouse pic. I'll try to take it on the night. Thank you for sharing!