DSC_7468dd11_new_web

NOTE: Because PN is so poorly designed, when I linked to the two photos above, I didn't consider that the POTW discussion wasn't present under the photo. If you want to refresh your memory about the POTW part of the discussion, click on the link in the descriptive paragraph under each photo that says READ DISCUSSION.

Bill, unfortunate but not entirely surprising, that you would find my bridge analogy ridiculous.
Going with Tony's music example, when I first started listening to classical music I loved Bach but did not care much for Mozart. As I familiarized myself with classical music I gained a better understanding into why I loved Bach and why Mozart left me flat. Developing a more studied understanding did not necessarily change my initial predilections but I did develop a greater understanding and respect. A richer understanding leads to a richer experience.

First, I'd like to applaud those who actually have made comments on the present POTW.

Second, I agree with most of the comments on the technical aspects of this image. My problem with the discussion is the line between what is a photograph and what isn't. This argument seems to be gathering steam, and it reminds me of a similar argument, at the turn of the last century, about how photography was diminishing the quality of painted art. The digital bell has been rung. It will only evolve, and take us to places no one may even imagine. It has not decreased the value of paintings, or the desire to paint. For me, it adds another tool to use or not use. Wow, we actually have choices!

Fred wrote, " There is much to discuss intelligently and artistically and technically and photographically when it comes to Adams's work and whether one likes it or not there could be a great discussion about his approach, his vision, his technique, his use of the camera, his darkroom work, his relationship to his environment, and many other things. Someone with depth could discuss Adams for days without even mentioning whether they like him or think he's "good" or "swell" or not. POTW discussions can have many layers." Please point me in the direction where such discussions exist on the internet? I'll gladly join that group. You've addressed Edward Weston and Ansel Adams, but not one comment on the vision, technique, use of camera, or relationship of environment of the present POTW. I guess it's easier to tell people what should be done, that showing them how it should be done.

That's a pretty rich comment coming from someone who has made 3 comments on members photos at PN in the last 6 years.

Charles, all you'd have to do is read my comments on many of the POTWs over the years and on thousands of individual photos submitted for critique. Instead, you'd rather try and corner me into a corner of your own making, also not commenting on the POTW but rather on the style of one particular guy you dislike. Good for you.

Fred,

I commented on one of those linked photos when it was POTW, but I don't see where either generated any lengthy discussions, but those that do generally wander off into a sidebar discussion, much like this one.

As you may recall, I started the Weekly-post-processing challenge that is in the digital darkroom forum for the very purpose of getting ideas from other photographers on how they would process an image. The idea was to experience the vision of those with varying degrees of skill and experience. How would they make the photo better? I think the POTW photo falls within the same lines - why do you like it or why don't you like it, and how might you make it better. I think some are making the mistake of thinking it is an award of some sort to be chosen POTW. I don't believe the 'elves' are choosing photos because they think they are good necessarily, but because they might generate discussion. Several recent ones generated none. I don't know why, but I know I personally didn't comment on them because I didn't know what to say beyond 'I like it' or 'I don't like it,' which applies to the majority of photos I look at anyway.

I think that's asking a lot of someone. I believe the POTW is usually chosen from images that have been fairly recently uploaded, and for someone to go through them all and try to develop some theme to be followed through the weeks would be difficult, though I believe I suggested in one of these discussion recently that it would be interesting to see multiple images of similar subject matter from different contributors posted side by side for discussion. We had another recent boat shot that could have been compared to this one.

EOD, love the not-so-subtle insult. Feel better? If you don't think there is a difference between judging art, which pretty much everyone does and which many even create with not an ounce of study, and studying civil engineering and building bridges, then perhaps you should re-evaluate your stance. But I agree there is some benefit in learning more about an artist, though I don't think it typically changes your opinion of the art, and is therefor not really necessary in evaluating it. If, for example, I heard a piano piece that I absolutely hated but learned the artist had only one hand, I'd be very impressed, but still probably hate the music.

I like tony's example of the subjective nature of art and Charles' comment on the potential for these discussions regardless of the shot.

Bill, I also don't see it as an award. That I'm asking for more interesting photos to discuss doesn't mean I think it's an award. You seem to be willfully missing the points being made. So, you've focused on whether my choices generated a lengthy enough discussion instead of what you asked, which is what types of photos I'd choose and why. I'd like the photos chosen to be photos worthy of photographic discussion. You may want to notice that those photos generated some substantive comments, all of which seemed to focus on the photo in question and not on the process of the POTW or whether or not they were photos. It may not have been lengthy but there might be things to have learned if the discussion were read. Many recent photos have been so trite as to be not terribly worthy of a discussion, IMO.

As I said, that's only one of many valid approaches to an intelligent discussion of a photo or photos.

Bill, again because you're not really reading or listening carefully, you're still suck on the "judgment" side of the coin, which is limiting your ability to understand what some of us are actually talking about. A photo is constructed, as is a bridge. That construction can be discussed without being judged (or with being judged for that matter). I'd want someone who knows a thing or two about bridge-buidling to discuss the making of bridges just as I'd want someone who knows a thing or two (i.e., has studied) about photography to discuss what the elements of a photo are, how they're put together, how they compare to other photos, whether the most was made given the tools used, and whether or not, for example, it's a photo. I would put a lot more stock in what someone who knows the history of photography says about whether or not something is a photo. Sure, anyone can have an opinion about whether this or that is a photo, but I won't treat all those opinions equally by any means.

It is. I never mind doing that of others and myself. It usually pays off in terms of substance and depth.

Bill, that I was not surprised was due to the fact that you seem to often take away something other than what I hoped to convey in so many of our exchanges and not because of some ulterior intention to insult you. I am happy to own a good measure of that failure to communicate. When I write a response to one of your comments and think that my response is as clear as window glass your response indicates that you received it as clear as mud.

Internet conversation is tiring and often difficult, so I'll simply make this last point. Any photo can be commented on with regard to contents/technique/feel etc., and the POTW conversation will go in the direction that it's lead. The first few comments here addressed the photo, then it went astray. The moderators asked for suggestions, no doubt in response to some of these conversations, and I have no way of knowing if this was a photo suggested by a 'learned' photographer or one selected by someone who knows nothing about photography. My main point is, I don't think it matters. Fred and EOD think otherwise. I have no idea how you intend to have 'acceptable' photos selected each week when what's 'acceptable' is subjective even among the 'experts.'

Fred,
I did make a comment about the photo. First sentence, second paragraph. Everytime I make a point about something you've written, you respond with all the other things you've said. I don't follow you around from forum to forum, picking fights with you. My last correspondence with you was in private. My question was, where do such enlightened discussions exist on the internet? Here on PN, I don't believe it's because of bad selections, that some claim, are the reasons for poor discussions here.

Most of the discussion on any of these selections, comes from the differences in how we define art , not the photograph itself. Points have been made here about a recognized/educated photographer giving their critique/opinion on an image carrying more weight, however without a strong body of work and/or a reputation to back it up, how much weight would their opinion carry? I have several coffee table books of the works of Avedon, Penn, Ritts, Weston, and Adams, but none of these great photographers have published any critique books. I wonder why?

End of Days,
I don't mean to come off as pompous, but, how many times would someone have to post on PN, before their point would qualify as valid?

You could've fooled me!

And I already told you, and will add to that by referring you to any number of good discussions we've had in the Philosophy forum over the years and say again that you can look at the pages of many of the photographers I engage with regularly on the critique pages (and some who I simply come across as I browse and comment quite often on new photographers I find as well). You can also look through many past POTWs, though not that many recently, for good, solid discussions, though you may run into personalities you don't like too much and I suspect that might get in your way of appreciating the substance.

Yes, sorry, I forgot that you had agreed with what had previously been said by others. My first post in the thread, by the way, said more about the photo than you and said some of it in my own words while also agreeing with others, and I did address the vision of the photo. My comment was brief in keeping with the degree of stimulation this photo afforded me.