SEEN BETTER DAYS by GERRY GENTRY

<<<Being civil is a two-way street.>>>

I thought you were asking about being constructive. If you're asking about being civil, one of the hallmarks of civility is allowing for the free flow of expression, even expression or speech we find objectionable.

When I first read this, I thought maybe you were confusing this with the old saying "if you don't have anything positive to say, don't say anything at all".

I was going to answer this myself but looked it up on wikipedia and think the definition there is right on.

"the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative comments, in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one."

How one receives it has nothing to do with the spirit with which it is offered.

If I may be so bold, John, that is a lesson that all of us are in the process of learning, and some are more mature than others in learning it. It is possible, after all, to overlook a lot of things and find something in the criticisms, no matter how harsh, that is worth responding to.

--Lannie

I agree absolutely, Fred, but as a near absolutist on the First Amendment I can also say that simply because I have the right to say something, or even the right to say it a certain way, does not necessarily mean that I ought to say it or ought to say it in a certain way.

I am not lecturing anyone here. I am arguably the least tactful SOB on the forum, which is quite an achievement, given the number of SOBs on the forum and on the web in general. Which of us more nearly fits the following description? "He has the social graces of Godzilla." That is how a former boss of mine (at the departmental level) described a former Vice President for Academic Affairs at a college I once taught at.

It might fit me equally well. Ask my ex-wife. I have to say that, for both you and me, our training in philosophy impels us toward a certain directness that others may misinterpret as being deliberately abrasive. I doubt that we are often that, which is not to say never.

--Lannie

I will say this about abrasiveness: I would much rather converse with people who are sometimes abrasive than with those who never are, if the former have something of interest to say (and they usually do)--and I could argue that those who are never abrasive simply do not risk themselves on the controversial issues and are thus not really worth talking to.

My ex-wife and I once had a bunch of people over at our place in the late sixties, and we had a spirited discussion about race, "the war," and much else besides. After we closed the door for the last time sometime after midnight, I turned to my wife and said, "Wasn't that great!" Her response: "That was absolutely horrible." I am amazed that we actually made it a total of thirty years before splitting.

--Lannie

This discussion has the fascination of a trainwreck in progress. Don't confuse freedom of expression, which is being exercised here, with civility, which is not. You guys have been thumping your chests with pride at beating up on Gerry for comments he made, what, 4 or 5 days ago?

Martin, you may have misunderstood me. I've been talking about the comments made to Gerry before he ever responded. His responses and the followups to them were of less interest to me.

In my mind, constructive criticism of art is designed to impart some words of intelligence (to some degree) that might be of help to the artist whether or not it's accepted by the receiver. If the giver of the criticism is abrasive, that in itself could be distracting enough to nullify the "constructive" aspect of the criticism. To cite an absolutely terrible example, Donald Trump is so abrasive that anything he offers of intelligence (although I've never witnessed it) is easy to immediately dismiss.
I agree with Landrum's point that "those who are never abrasive simply do not risk themselves on the controversial issues and are thus not really worth talking to," although I respectfully disagree with the use of the word "abrasive." One can be "confrontational" and worthwhile to listen to, but abrasive, to me, is like the sound made by sandpaper or fingernails scraping a blackboard. You just want to get away from it.

Mr Gentry has unknowlingly inspired a conversation that is constructive, so I thank him for that.

He has certainly done that, and I think that that is because a lot of us really do like many of his photos--or would if we could see alternative treatments. I doubt that we would spend this much time on somebody with no talent, even though threads can morph and generate ideas further and further away from the original topic.

You might be right about the word "abrasive," Dennis, at least in most connotations. I should search about for a better word.

I am quite sure that I have lost a lot of potential listeners (and perhaps readers, too) because of how I have said (or written) things. I don't think that people here deliberately went after Gerry, but I suspect that, from his point of view, that is exactly what happened.

I am pretty sure that most of us could do better when it comes to thinking about how our words are going to be received, not so that we would take the critical edge off of what we have to say, but precisely so that we do not wound and drive away listeners or readers before they have had time to consider the worth of our comments.

I do consider myself a big offender in that regard, especially as it relates to issues involving college teaching, where I have made a lot of enemies--even more so than here. Some of that was unavoidable, some not. If one is passionate about something, then one is going to get emotional at times, and that can certainly happen to me. I do not trust what I say when I get emotional. The tone can change, too, and that can be abrasive. I would not want to glorify that. The risk of that happening, however, should not make one retire from the fray. There are many intellectual battles worth fighting--although right there I almost immediately regret the use of the military metaphor. Words can wound, words can heal, words can solve problems, words can cause problems. They are powerful. If we have sharpened our use of language, then I believe that we need to be doubly careful.

--Lannie

Lannie, I agree that people did not deliberately go after him, but when I first went to this thread and saw his very nasty comments right up front, I decided that, although many of his images are quite nice, he is not someone who can discuss his work in a healthy discourse.

I'm also a college instructor (was!) of design and visual thinking and I was always careful about the difference between "constructive criticism" and making comments that could not be defended. The students who heard the former stayed with me for several years; the latter left pretty quickly. Because of the nature of the courses I taught, it was my job to be constructive so I try to extend that into my later years. Of course, we can't always hold our tongues but in our personal lives, it's also important not to be liked by everyone, right?!

I think that Dennis has made a good distinction between abrasive and confrontational. Confrontational is a part of constructive criticism and can lead to enlightenment of one or both parties in the discussion. Fred, John, Stephen and others have made a good plea for critique, comments and debate that are made using a sound basis of argument. There is a transparency to the comments and discussions in this POW that I think augers well for future POW posts. Perhaps the elves were aware of the useful controversy that the POW would create.

But they could not have foreseen the explosion, which has made this thread as much about the study of character as it is about photography.

As a person who deals with controversial material in the classroom in every course, I don't have to try to be controversial, much less abrasive. If I try to speak the truth, I am going to be controversial, and I will often be perceived as abrasive. If someone gets my goat (not a common occurrence), then I am definitely going to come off as abrasive. It can be a by-product of intense and heated discussion.

I never worried for one second about being popular in my work--or here. I do not, however, see much point in being deliberately disagreeable. I prefer to be liked rather than disliked, but not at the cost of my "soul."

--Lannie

OK, I'm 70 years old. First, I'd like to say I really like this image. I agree with Fred's characterization early on in the discussion -- however, what he presents as negative, I see as positive. Second, I think it is just fine for a photograph to be sarcastic, overcooked (I don't think this image is), a caricature, satirical, etc. This image may be all of those things -- but I find them delightful to look at. Third, virtually all of the criticism leveled at this image could be (and probably was) leveled at Dickens' novels.
Gerry, good work -- keep it up. I like the image, the approach and the theme -- well done!

John

Why don't more photo.net members contribute to the POW discussion?

John, a fair question. Interest in photography? Time? Desire to share opinion or to learn?

Did you? If not, why not?

Arthur, not this one; but, most preceding ones. Why not this one? The opinions expressed already reflected what I would have said. No need to repeat.

I typically look at the pictures of the week, read the feedback but never comment. Instead I use the comments as an exercise to see how other interpret works against what I see as an amateur. After reading the thread here I felt a strong need to comment.
As a professional teacher I most certainly can take and give constructive criticism and what this thread has done for me (and probably many others) is hope that none of my photos ever gets selected as POW. Offering criticism, disagreeing with a technique or offering alternative ideas for post processing is much different than saying things like, "awful", "bad stylisitcs", "hamfisted" or even "ruined it". Of course these comments were only tempered by the old, "Your works sucks so what do you know anyway" response for the poster.
In my opinion this thread has shown that whether or not you are a great photographer the art of giving or taking constructive criticism is easily lost by many.

Hi Joseph,

Several serious commenters have done just that, and more, in respect of constructive criticism, rather than using abrasive language. I believe you should remember those many such positive interactions among the 180 or so posts, and perhaps simply dismiss the small amount of noise.

John,
Great question, Why don't more members contribute? From my own viewpoint, from the few who do post, it seems as though they're grandstanding. Writing more about themselves and their views, and very little about the image itself. Playing the role of teacher or moderator, feeling the need to answer every post, and not just giving their critique.....

Brutal honesty is mostly accepted from children. When adults engage in this, there's a backlash that can even lead to violence. Even if someone verbally seems to take the criticism well, it doesn't mean they take it to heart. I'm not suggesting that people shoudn't be honest, but is there anything wrong with it being mixed with compassion?

The appearance is that there's a small group of members that seem to get great pleasure out of participating in the POW discussion. Now, that in itself is commendable and there's nothing wrong with that. However, the discussion invariably digresses into a "small group discussion" with an extreme number of "I" and "me" references, often to the point where independent comments by anyone else are by-in-large ignored in pursuit of the current train of thought; whether that train is on track with the POW or has been derailed into philosophy.

Having had two of my images selected for discussion as POW I received very gracious comments and helpful advice from many of the most active participants, so this is not a comment offered in rebound, but rather an observation as I follow many of the POW selections. That said, I wouldn't want to change the open dialogue in any way, but having worked for many years in a field where long term relationships between parties can become rife with confrontation, I've found that opinions can be presented clinically to the detriment of the relationship or presented with a dose of honey or humor to soften the message without changing the content.

(Cue the "We are the World" music).... Mike

Regarding John's question about why more members don't contribute to the POW discussion, I am guilty as charged, and I concur with several of the other responses made. When I take the time to visit the weekly thread, I would usually appear so far down the list as to be redundant, and perhaps irrelevant at that point. It shouldn't matter, so I suppose I have no excuse. If you visit my gallery, you'll see that I don't contribute actively so at least I'm consistent. But I'm a member of this forum for 10 years and I constantly do visit, and I always enjoy browsing the many threads.

Before the relatively small number of commenters of the POW (compared to the very great number of Photo.Net members) are placed in a neat little box of 'grandstanders' and a 'clique group who do not seem interested in the opinions of others', I think it is useful to know why someone like myself who comments regularly does so, and what are his values.

I cannot speak in a general manner for others but what I see in my approach to photography and to POW discussions are things quite different than those suggested by Phil and MI; they are related to the following:

• a considerable love of the medium and art of photography and a very active on-going role as a photographer, including both lightroom and darkroom photography;
• a conscious knowledge that I have not done everything that can be done in photography and probably never will, and possess a personal and not universal aesthetic, but this I think is compensated by a keen desire to explore the visual world and my response to it and therefore includes also a curiosity for the work of other photographers;
• a conscious knowledge of my own paradigms and specific aesthetic and the fact that they are not compatible with the feelings of some other photographers;
• appreciation of the work of others is not for me a one way street - it can be an acknowledgement of fine original work of others and capable solutions to photographic opportunities or problems - it is also a desire to know why a photographer has created a POW of a certain type or nature where I might not fully understand his intent and/or the message of the photograph. It is also to share with the author my opinions on the work where I think that it may have not been fully successful (admittedly a subjective call, but that is how viewers usually react), and where I might be able to suggest some positive element of improvement;
• in some cases I support the apparent intention of the photographer or the perceived message of the photograph when his or her work has been subjected to critiques that I think do not do justice to the quality of the image.

I wouldn't be surprised that many other photographers who frequently comment on the POW share some of these approaches and viewpoints. It would be great if many more members of this site entered into the discussions. I see no obstacle to that, contrary to what is being said. New ideas or thoughts on a particular photo are in my experience well received, whether they are on page 1 or page 4 or page 7. It is the idea or perception that counts. I think most reviewers recognize that.

Good comments and discussions are real value-added to the experience of most of us and the results often transfer into our own approaches to photography. This is quite important because there are not many sites where active discussion of photographs takes place and I feel that those who have one of their images in this forum are in some ways lucky as they can freely benefit from the discussions of their fellows. I do not see other critiquers as protagonists. We are usually mature and confident enough of our own approaches and photographic results to be able to accept useful comments and to ignore those we may not agree with.

The issue of over-processing has come up a number of times. The over-processed ones tend to hit one in the face, I believe--but not every photo by Gerry has been over-processed, or else HDR has been strong but appropriate (in my opinion). In a number of the photos, over-processing seems not to have been the issue. Yes, the degree of processing varies in these, but some seem to work while others do not. What is striking is that Gerry has really tried a number of styles and techniques. Here are some that I would not change, regardless of the degree or type of post-processing involved:

[LINK]

[LINK]

[LINK]

[LINK]

[LINK]

[LINK]

That leaves a third category: those which might (in my opinion) be a lot better if Gerry had backed off just a bit on post-processing, not getting rid of the HDR processing, but backing off just enough on HDR such that it would not be obvious.

Here is one, for example, that looks as if it might have been more successful if he had backed off just a bit on the HDR:

[LINK]

There was another of a seaport, but that photo seems to have been removed.

My reasons for including these links to other photos is that I believe that a photographer's work can often be better evaluated in the context of what else he or she is doing and has done. A discussion of such context might have given further insight as to what the photographer was trying to achieve. Yes, the Photo of the Week was and should have been the primary focus, but putting it in the context of what else Gerry has done gives a better sense of what he has tried to achieve. (I have no illusions that there will be any more consensus on the value of my selections than there was on the original.)

Why Gerry chose the processing that he did on the Photo of the Week remains a bit of a mystery to me.

I will say it one more time: the thread could have benefited from his having posted the original, in my opinion.

Gerry, I will appeal to you one more time: PLEASE POST THE ORIGINAL. That might seem like a futile plea at this point, but sometimes persons change their minds and decide to risk themselves one more time.

--Lannie

It's almost impossible to "de-HDR" an image, but here's an approximation of what this image might have looked like with less of the HDR effect.

Tom M

Why don't more people participate - for me, there are 4 or 5 people who dominate these discussions. If you look back over the past 6 months these people contribute a vast majority of the comments. Their comments seem to me to be very esoteric with lots of discussion of what is art, comparisons to various photographers and artists and to me many opinions presented as fact. The comments seem to take the form of a conversation that several people are having. Much of this discussion would be better in the "philosphy of photography forum" or even a private conversation among them. In addition many of the opinions are actually very rude. There are no rules against it and I suppose this is fine. However, speaking only for me, a less rude, more open discussion of the actual image might do the trick.