ON THE GROUND THE WAR WAS NOT GOING WELL

speaking for myself (but I think Gordon would agree) I see no accusation. Just stating facts. And the comment has only to do with you insofar that you triggered it by presenting this photo, that's all.

 

For many it seems, but certainly for me, this photo has a clear political connotation although it may not be what you intended it to be in the first place. Yes, your country is not on it's best right now for a great many reasons but for someone who's parents have been liberated by the allied forces somewhat more than sixty years ago there is also a clear and very important historical context.

 

Maybe we read too much in it. Still, I maintain my judgement on its quality.

musn't forget. U.S. home values as you call them is what defines you as citizens. U.S. policy is what defines you as a country. For me those are two totally different things. So judging U.S. policy in whatever terms isn't judging you as a U.S. citizen.

As far as I'm concerned there lies the real wealth of your country.

I'm not terrible concerned as to whether there is accusation or not. I think there is good reason to be critical of my country. I was simply trying to defend my personal honor as much as possible. And, what you mention about the U.S. sixty years ago is very fitting to this image. The proud and pristine flag in the background might have been the appropriate model for that period. Having said that, I cannot deny some complicity in the stupidity we have fallen into. I'm not sure what I could have done to alter it, nor what I can do to change its course, but I am, after all, a citizen of this country and that would be most difficult to change at this point in life.

 

 

Honour is defined by who you are and how you act, not by where you live. You're one of the good guys David. Nuff said?

You're right. Nuff said.

I have been away and sidetracked lately so I just now returned to this thread. I feel a need to pick up on this again for just a moment so please forgive me blathering on after the 'nuff said' rule has been evoked.

 

I never meant my comment to be taken as a personal affront, that was not my intention. In fact I have always seen you as a champion for the truth and someone who actively exposes hypocrisy whether it be religious, national or otherwise.

 

I have never been a fan of patriotism. I feel that we are all people and although we may live under a multitude of differing governments, that fact has little to do with what we are at the core. I was born on one side of a line and you were born on the other. Neither of us drew that line or had a choice about where we were born. Both of us had the good fortune to be born in one of the free and wealthy countries of the world.

 

The world has always had its bullies as has every school yard. This is simply one of the aspects of human nature. Whomever has the greatest wealth and the largest military tends to uses that military to advance their political and financial agenda. The Roman empire , the British empire etc. In the 20th century that role has been filled by the USA. I am sure our current PM would love to have George W's military budget but the reality is that our GNP as a nation, is smaller than the GNP of George's home state of Texas. My point being that the differences in our politics have to do with a host of factors that have no relationship to the relative moral values of our people.

 

Your photo spoke to me of what looks to possibly be the the beginning of the decline of an empire, along with the slimmest of hopes that history will not repeat itself and that was what I was referring to in my comment. I also read far too much into your title and took it literally, which I now realize was not your intention. If this had been anyone else's photo I would have kept my big mouth shut. I'm thinking there is an obvious lesson in this for me. David, please except my sincere apologies if I have caused any offense. I was out of line and regret having made the comment.

No apology is needed in any way shape or form. I think I over reacted for the very reason that you are quite correct. I was merely trying my best to dissociate myself from your correct indictment of the U.S. As a citizen of this country, I have to accept some responsibility whether I like it or not. After all, I could renounce my citizenship and take a vow of poverty and move to Somalia. So I now must apologize for being too profuse in my defense. I never took it personally, and I'm always so pleased to hear what you have to say, both because you bring a well honed intellect to the table and because you are not just a good ole boy who pronounces nothing but "attaboys." Please do not hesitate to speak your mind. I assure you that it is highly unlikely that you will offend me. I feel badly that you even felt the need to apologize. And that was kind of the point with Ton. I really appreciate the opportunity to exchange thoughts and ideas with folks from the Netherlands, Israel, Canada, and all points between.

Thanks for the reply. I am glad to hear that you did not take my comment personally. I do maintain that my comment was ill conceived and poorly worded. I need to refrain from making comments after my bedtime has past, and/ or after I have exceeded my daily beer limit. As an old fart, that limit has now dropped to 2 beers and 10:00 PM after which falling asleep is the best possible outcome.

Yeah, being an old fart myself, I'm pretty much on the same program. Although I do sometimes substitute wine for beer.

If I might step in one more time. Do never, and I mean NEVER hold back then on any of my photo's or comments. Be as critical as you like for whatever reason because I know you're gonna tell me why anyway. David is right Gordon. It's all about constructive exchange. So if you both think it's warranted feel free to bite my head of.

 

You can rest assured I'll keep doing likewise ;-)

I find that generally I just don't say anything on an image that I don't like and simply talk about the ones I do find well done. Do you all think that is a bad idea? Just curious.

Interesting question. I tend to avoid commenting if I have nothing more constructive to offer than that I do not care for the photo. Certain genre I simply have little interest in. I tend to be a creature of habit and continuously stalk the same photographers. I generally comment more on the particular images by those people that I feel an affinity for. I do not hesitate to point out areas I feel could be improved upon and I appreciate getting that sort of feedback in return. Some people are OK with that and the ones who are not I refrain from commenting on. I try to offer as detailed of an analysis as I am capable of. Sometime that means saying that although this and that work well for me in the image some other aspect does not work well IMO. I used to spend more time looking through the critique forum and offering suggestions or fixes and generally trying to offer advice. Over time my enthusiasm for the CF has waned. These days I try to reciprocate when people take the time to comment on my images ,as I do appreciate their efforts and I enjoy the exchanges. Time constraints limit most other activity at PN lately.

Well, why wouldn't you comment on a photo or a comment that you don't like or rather is flawed in your opinion. People (like me) can get something out of that, sometimes even a lot while I myself always appreciate it.

I follow silently this thread. I did not want to write in my comment the political connotation it evoked in me so I only hinted it,(As the political agenda is very present in my country, so at last I could not, I can not resist....) but the US flag in the FG was very symbolic to the LIMITATION of power, here in my country too, and the other flag, the bank as the power of money ,not only as economical national budget means ,but directing money to political agenda ( Iran... that all the countries in the west can not put brakes to its oil wealth and nuclear plans).What I write is" the tip of the fork" of course....

 

Dave, this photo is very symbolic, but it is much wider than your thought may be while you have photographed it. Thats what I always say, a photo after being uploaded has its own life ,and viewers interpretation.

 

About the other question, which photos one comments on. I comment on photos that 'talks" to me and I have what to say.If I see flaws, but it still touches me, I express my point of view.

Pnina;

 

" What I write is" the tip of the fork" of course.... "

 

What a lovely expression ! I am always fascinated by the different turns of phrase we all use.

In Canada we have a similar phrase with the same meaning, however, Canada being a cold place, running all the way up to the high arctic, our phrase is " The tip of the iceberg " most of the iceberg being hidden under the sea.

We are living closer to the desert... so we have not the "tip of the iceberg."...we have to be satisfied with the" tip of the fork" ....;-))

I think what Pnina says about commenting on photos that speak to us is maybe the key. I don't much comment on bird, sunset/sunrise pictures of weddings, because they really don't speak to me, so no matter how well done or how pretty or ugly they are, why bother? Each of you have posted images I did not care for, and there can be little doubt that I have posted a good many that you folks consider mediocre. But if it is merely a matter of something that has no real flaws, but just doesn't interest me, then I can see little purpose in commenting. Most of us are accomplished enough to know when there is a bad technical flaw in an image, and probably would not post it. I will admit that there are a few times when a technical aspect can be missed and you folks can save someone like me a bit of embarrassment. I remember having gotten a new LCD monitor and posting an image that had a horrible fringe around every major element that could not see because I had not properly adjusted the monitor. So in that case, comments were extremely welcome. But for the most part I cannot see much reason to comment on an image that I basically have no interest in.

 

Pnina, as far as being careful not to step on anyone's toes politically, I understand why you would feel that way, but I don't see that as being a big issue with me. Some others on Pnet may not feel that way.

I'm not sure whether more DOF would have improved matters, because the bank's name on the building also would have become sharper, which may have been distracting. Perhaps chosing a slightly different stand point so that only the two flags would have been visible (meaning a step further to the left) would have been a bit better in this case, but I'm not sure. I like it - there's a deeper meaning in a lot of your images and this is definitely no exception. Few photographers have the ability to display such things the way you do: portraying things typically American in an aesthetically pleasing yet original, ironic as well iconic way. That's what keeps me addicted to your portfolio.