music Madredeus (Portugal)

I am strongly opposed to removing Mr. Schuler from this site. He posts pictures, gives comments (a lot, haha) and stirs up trouble. What more do you want? Nobody has to react, if he/she doesn't want to. Nobody has to fight with him.

I don't care too much for his pictures, I also don't care too much for his opinions, but I must say I don't care for a lot of pictures on this site and I also don't care about a whole lotta more opinions on this site. So what. My opinion about the world and it's population in general is roughly described like this: 90% are ...holes, but I love to live this life for the other 10%. I wouldn't dream about the idea of removing the 90% I don't care for, and look what trouble they're stirring up in this shitty world. Tris is nothing compared to George W. Bush and Osama Bin Baba and all the others... So my vote goes to Tris very clearly. There's no reason at all to remove him from this site, it would be a shame IMHO (This one's for Tris! LOL...knowing how he loves this webchitchatlanguage...).

On the picture: I know myself how hard it is to make good concertpics, and this one isn't bad. I don't care too much for the composition though. I miss kind of a "bottom" in the pic...For my humble eyes, it's not really balanced as a whole...rather vague, sorry. I'm not that good with words in this foreign language as Tris is...Haha (LOL)...When I used to do a lot of concertpics in my early R'n'R-days, I always had Ilford HP5 film upgraded to 1600 ASA. I kinda liked the effect. Hope y'all have a nice day. Rienki

As most responders, I like the feel of this picture, but I don't really like the composition. Things seem pushed to the edges, from the top of her head to the musician on the left, it seems too tightly framed. The most realxed part is to the right edge behind the 'direction' of the picture. I can imagine the photographer leaning juuuuuussstt right to fit all threee in the frame. Either that or there is something that needed to be cropped out to impose this framing. I don't really like the expression on the vocalists face. At first I thought well, it's probably hard ot get a better expression, but almost all of your other concert photos caught more interesting facial expressions from the sublime to the mysterious, so this one falls short of your other works.

 

The soft appearance of the two men to the stark contrast of the vocalist works well for me, I just wish it weren't quite so tight all around.

 

I also feel like the image is a little cold. The artists are all focused on their own tasks, noone is looking at anyone or anything but what they are doing, noone looks necessarily inviting. Maybe a similar shot with the guitarist glancing at the vocalist or with the voalists eyes open would warm it up a bit. While the picture has nice feel to it, it doesn't necessarily make me want to be there. Maybe if I knew what they sounded like, my attitude may change.

 

I know nothing about concert photography, but the standard bearer for me is the image from inside an old KISS album, I think it was KISS ALIVE! from the mid-70's that showed the crowd before a show. As a pre-teen that image was burned in my head. It wasn't even of the band but it made me know that that was a special place to be and the anticipation of what the kids in that picture were soon to witness left an indelible impression. This image is nice, but beyond the interesting shapes and texture, it sort of leaves me cold.

 

That being said, there are at least a dozen other pictures in your folders and in your concert folder specifically that I find so much better and darned excellent. Trombone player and rokia are exquisite and your other group pictures are wonderfully composed. As a folder, your concert pictures are among the best my untrained eyes have seen, to me this is just not the best of the bunch.

 

Kyle, did you mean dodge the dress and burn the face? I don't think burning in that dress is going to bring anything out, it looks fairly well cooked already.

 

 

Tris-Man, I like this site as much as anyone. It's really the only place I can show photos with any chance of real critique. It's a great place to kill time in between classes. But you really do expend WAY too much time and energy on it to be consistent with good mental health. I mean, I love a good argument about B&W Vs. Color or some such thing, even if it is pointless. I love to hear the opinions of people accross the country. I disagree with those who imediatly shoot down any deviance from disscussing the aspects of the given photograph. But you're writing entire chapters agruing with people that have NOTHING to do with photography at all, and no matter how right you are, the're simply obnoxious. Why try to defend your honor to someone you will probably never see in person or talk to?

 

Concerning the POW; Before I start, let it be known that I am just a humble student, and, when compared to other's on this site, know next to nothing other than my own opinons. Normally I'm content just to lurk.

 

I love black and white. It's really all I shoot with. I have loved the past two POW's, particularly Ian's. I also like this one. However, I am not sure how well suited it was for B&W. Concerts are usually will suited for color with all the lights and constumes. It's not that this photo doesn't work, it's just that it might have worked better in color.

As for the focus, I don't know. I have never been a stickler for completely sharp focus, and this one is more in focus than some of my all time favorites, although I supose that is a poor and irrelevant comparison. I tend to look more at the mood this photo conveys, which is that of a band just jamming in some nightclub, which I like. I love the smoke and the body postioning of the guitarist. Yes, the main subject might be the singer, but if the concentration was meant to be completely on her, why even include the others? Also, I think the horizontal format lends itself to drawing attention to the entire band. Of course, this is pure speculation. I can't know what the photographer was thinking, unless he tells us. I would like to see a little more detail in her dress, though. Probably this is something that can be corrected in the darkroom.

I have just joined Photo.net and have also just started leaving a few comments on photos. I have looked at most of the POW's and I must say I really like this one and also last week's. They are great photos in my opinion. Most of the comments on this page does not have anything to do with this photo. It seems they have more to do with personal views and feelings about other Photo.net members, which seems to me to be very much off topic.

.....monitor lost it's color!!! Just kidding!

At first glance I thought this was on old photo, I think it was the smoke that did that??? More people smoked back "Then"??? Dunno? I think that the previous POW was the strongest image of the B+W trilogy. The composition is balanced, maybe a bit too much so for a jazz shot?/?/? Opinions, opinions.

 

As for the thead masters...GEEEZ guys!!!! I leave ya alone for a week and the cats eaten the dog, the house is a mess and there is hardly a thing to do with the POW image in your ego echoes. I will check in once a week now even though the internet is only about a buck an hour here in Malaysia. Yep!!

That's right, while you guys are keeping the antacid companies in brisk buisness I am out shooting color, Black and white.....What Ehh-verrr, PICTURES! I am out in the world shooting pictures. Spent 3 days in Singapore, Now in Kuala Lumpur, I will spend days on end in a old fashion town on an island in Panang called Georgetown. then off to Thaialand, Cambodia, Vietnam. shoot till I go boke which should not be too long since I have not worked full time since June.

 

But I. Am. Shooting!!!! Not argueing on a POW comment board! ( Sorry, you verbal runaway freight trains make me laugh:-)

 

I have to say that this image is nice but does not keep me interested like Ian's did.

 

Keep em coming elves, I never object to what you give us after all it's not about any of us now is it.

 

Dan

Regarding Tris Schuler :

 

Crudely I do not care for the man, his creations or comments. His is an energy I have fought against all my life, to conquer. Photographically, I consider him less artistic than a goldfish.

 

That said - I am uncomfortable at the suggestion he be forcibly removed from this site. Why? Because he dares speak his mind - hell, isn't that censorship, something that art cannot tolerate if it would remain art?

 

No, no - it's not on folks. Tris has a part to play, a course to run. I will offer him free lessons in verse and poetry so to keep him concise and colourful; but to ditch him for being himself - no. I guess he would have counted me upon the last of his supporters; he's right - I merely support what he stands for - freedom of expression. Should he lose the Absolutism, and so acknowledge Relativity, then I must say STAY. Like Rienk (or whoever) said : ignore/ engage - it really doesn't matter in the end.

 

 

You have made of Tris a scapegoat - not on IMHO.

 

 

 

NO, Dan, to answer your question.

I'm not going to discuss Tris' merits and demerits, nor the quality of his photos or the validity of his prose. However, I don't see how any intelligent person can support "banning" him from this site/thread. He's committed no crime against humanity; he hasn't even blown-up 1500-year-old Buddhas. And he certainly hasn't "hijacked" this forum (no boxcutters, no guns, no bombs--just an acerbic and sometimes long-winded wit). He's written a few words that have annoyed a few people. Big deal. Grow up. The arts are about debate and expression. If some of you believe Tris is offensive and mean-spirited, try spending a year or two at a topnotch MFA program . . . then come back and tell us something about intellectual and personal viciousness.

 

This is meant to be an artists' forum--boorishness and buffoonery are bound to occur (certainly others besides Tris are guilty of this). So what? Give up the country club, suburban attitudes. The internet's a democracy, in the truest sense. It, like this forum, is heterogeneous. People rub against each other--sometimes the wrong way. Sparks fly.

 

In my mind, Tris' just exercising his rights in a free society. If you don't like what he has to say, exercise yours by either ignoring him (probably the best idea) or responding in-kind.

 

And to the elves: there must be better uses for your time than threatening a relatively harmless member of photo.net.

 

(I'm waiting for the deluge under a flimsy umbrella)

Your comment is in line with the spirit of mine : i.e. why pick on the one person who speaks his mind, whatever the colour of that mind. Truth be told - and this is vice versa - I can't bear Tris : but I will defend his rights to the end, and if I should sink to #500 as a result so be it.

 

I realise I won't be too popular for saying that but WTH - like Mary Ball - I have port for comfort :-)) and then there's the couch...

 

Stick to your principles Robert, I am learning just how to do that. It may cost in PN terms - but then what the hell is cyberspace??

 

Go well - ALL.

 

 

 

I really don't want to get sucked into this any more than I have, however this freedom of speech argument has raised a few neckhairs. I have no kick against the freedom of speech thing, BUT this is a site owned by a private enterprise, NOT a public agency. I support the right of this site's administrators to exercise THEIR freedom of expression by banning ANYBODY who doesn't abide by the rules or spirit of this site. The offending parties should been warned to "behave", or lose their privileges to post on this site, resulting in them being allowed to liberally use their free speech to complain to anyone that will listen.... I think the proper thing was done- there was not an immediate ban, as I read it. As I perused through all of the messages, I couldn't help but think of THIS

 

Chris,

 

I really enjoy your photos, but care little for your thinking.

 

P.S. The Monty Python bit undermines your point, while illustrating the silliness of this argument. You can have the last word--I'm done for this week!

I am drawn to this photograph initially because of the raw intensity it captures. Having grabbed my interest I dwell on the elements and decide that the exposure, tonality, grain, and soft focus all ad to the effect. No doubt we might increase sharpness, moderate exposure and shift the composition. But would that make a better photograph.... or would it not simply create a different photograph?

 

Congratulations on the POW. Wonderful work.

 

From reading this thread and other POW's I'd strongly have to argue that Tris is being unfairly treated. If you read this one alone he didn't even start it but it seems that everyone has gotten over this and decided to calm down and play nice. :) So now with that behind us can the johnny-come-lately's stick to photographic discussions.

 

Next person that comes on here and acts like an ass and doesn't stay on topic I"m going to go through their portfolio and rate everything a 1/1. Maybe even twice :)

 

hehe

I had quite a difficult (but pleasant) task to read all the comments of my imperfect little picture. If this photo was a paperback book, I would print these comments on the back:

 

passive smoking nightmare - essentially sports photography dressed up in b&w jazz - weird, organic grain - the microphone is very ugly - (she was) caught at a non-flattering moment - let's just hope and pray for a drop of color next week -this one would have gone in my trash can - we of course have no idea what the relative humidity was.

 

;-))

 

Seriously, as photography is my hobby and not profession, I shoot only concerts of my choice. Because of that I am emotionally attached to my photos (frozen moments of good times) and cannot judge them (until some time distance). So POW is wonderful opportunity to hear different opinions and learn from them.

 

To all analytical minds here, some more technical details: lens was Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5USM, had to be cropped some because of the stage equipment in the way, scanned with 5 years old HP scanner. Print does have more grays. Smoke was a stage, not cigar effect. Sadly, the temperature and relative humidity data was not recorded at the time. The picture was taken at the moment of enough light (light technician created private atmosphere with low red lights to go with their music and I waited for the bright moment).

 

Special thanks to Mr. Tony Drumett for his kind comment, as I am great admirer of his work.

Thanks to all who have contributed their time to share their thoughts. Cheers,

 

I concur with Seven and Robert's comments. I missed a few days of Photo.Net, so it's taken me nearly all morning to get through all the comments. (Granted, I had to get some work done as I read.) It's very interesting to get the discussion all in one go like that. I ask, how could we possibly consider removing one of our members? Least of all, Tris.

 

I can understand removing someone who has broken an explicit rule, someone who has inappropriately used or abused people's confidences on the site, for instance, but, removing someone just because they're an ass? That's crazy.

 

Tris is articulate, he even seems intelligent. We can't question his ability to string together a series of words. I read his first comment on this thread and was impressed -- it was primarily a critique of the photo. However, Tris is a machine, with all buttons and levers exposed for his audience to press. And press them, Dennis did. All subsequent input from Tris was merely mechanical. Look to previous POW commentary, the plotline is nearly identical.

 

THIS is what the POW is and part of what makes Photo.Net enjoyable for me. It is something like the comics page in the newspaper. The analogy breaks down because I suppose the comics page is self-aware -- here on the POW commentary we actually believe we're in the business of photo critique.

 

I think it would be much more constructive if Phil would make a slight alteration to the working of the server. That is, this commentary should be a thread of its own, related to but disconnected from the artist's photo. It's a shame that all this jibberish is forever connected to the unfortunate artist's image, since it really is less about the photo and more about an opportunity for us to wander along a thread.

 

Therefore, I humbly submit the suggestion that the POW thread be separated from the actual image. That we allow ourselves to discuss what comes up as we consider the topical photo. We may then be less driven to govern ourselves to "stay on topic", to "do the artist credit of providing a valid critique" or "thwart the knee-jerk response of putting the pompous and self-righteous in their place." The POW then could be a place we could come to for a sometimes enlightening, sometimes hilarious, sometimes infuriating diversion from the otherwise generally valuable content of the site.

 

What comic strip are we this week?

 

((This off-topic comment posted only after the horse had gotten out of the barn...))

 

Jeff

The photo itself is a change from the typical photos of late- family vacation photos, pornography in the name of fine art nude, and the same tree in fog everyone else is shooting. It has all the elements one comes to expect from a nice photo. Nothing more, nothing less.

Se pridruzujem cestitkam za POW, res lepa klasicna koncertna fotka. Tako naprej. Slovenija gre naprej :)

Alen,

 

I looked at the other images in your portfolio after commenting on this one, and you have some fine shots there. If I were producing a music event and you asked for a photos pass I grant you one based on the strenghth of the portfolio you've posted here. This photo, however, would not go in any of my promotional mailings.

 

The problem with it, from an artistic standpoint, is that the musicians seem disconnected from each other. The best time to take photos of stage acts is when the musicians are interacting, jamming. This is just too static.

 

The comment equating this with sports photography is pure nonsense, as is Tom Manegatos comment that sports photography is easier than shooting live stage acts. I've done a ton of both, and they're both difficult to do well. You have a good eye. Keep developing it.

I had already given my two cents above, though someone mentioned in an e-mail that I neglected to give my own opinion about the photograph. Here goes my other two cents:

I think the photograph is well balanced and properly centered given the complicated subject. I do find the heavy top left corner is a bit of a distraction, perhaps you could dodge it slightly for the next print. My eyes trace down the woman's face down the cord of the microphone, (which does look a bit odd, as someone mentioned earlier.) My only quirk is the guitarrist on the right, too bad he's not left-handed, that neck of the guitar makes my eyes look off the edge of the photograph, which is well cropped, I might add.

Someone mentioned earlier that he could tell that the photograph had been edited in Photoshop by zooming in on the pixels that make up her dress?!? With such expert advice could you explain to me how you can discern an edited pixel from an un-edited pixel? I can understand if the dress was a solid tone of black with no variating value of pixels, but it could have easily been burned via darkroom before being scanned. If Alen did touch up the image in Photoshop, which I'm not saying he did, then why does it matter? It's not like he broke any law. Quite a lot of touching up is done in a darkroom and is never criticized.

In response to Tom Menegatos' question as to why people like myself hardly bother to leave our comments on photographs: it's because I feel as though the comments are usually not received, the questions are generally not answered. Or, if they are acknowledged, like in Tris' case, they are butchered, misinterpreted and often times enough not answered by the person intended to be from.

 

I leave with this final note: If you people whine and pout enough as to desire the banishment of a person simply because he participates in discussions and defends his own name, as well as posts his own photographs for discussion, let me know. If this is the general consensus for the members of Photo.net, then I shall delete all I have posted here and resign my membership. It may be free, I won't claim to be a member of a group that can best be described as a child's "Clubhouse for cool people who agree with me."

If somebody disagrees with me, at least there is grounds for a conversation and a debate. Nobody wants to associate themselves with people who whine and complain all the time. It's like having the window seat on an 8 hour flight next to a hungry three year old brat...it's just not fun.

Reading through this thread was about as entertaining and informative as reading the ingredients on a box of cereal.

 

I like this shot though, and I hope is Alen is chuckling at all of this. I also checked out the rest of his portfolio and in my opinion his 'Music' folder is the finest B/W portfolio on Photo.net. I've had to shoot both concert and sporting events professionally with pushed B/W and can respect how difficult it is to keep the "mood" of the event when the film is being so abused under such adverse lighting. Something that I don't think Richard has spent much time doing.

 

In the POW, I especially like the stark contrast of the singer vs the more subtle lighting of the background musicians, and being able to record all of it with one shot. This was clealy not a snapshot and the photographer had to work to get this one and paying close attention.

 

My only nit is the rather tight crop, but it's what any editor would choose for a newspaper or magazine. This is the kind of stuff where an 80-200 2.8 comes in handy. Nice shot Alen.

Thank you Micheal Walter, yes I believe I got my dodging and burning mixed up. It has obviously been a while since I was in a dark room.

 

To Dustin Henry I have no idea what you are getting your shorts in a knot for. I never implied that I am against editing of any sort. I simply stated that it seems to me that there has been some editing and that the editing is opposite to what I would have done to enhance the picture.

 

And if you cant tell the difference between a group of poorly edited pixels and a group of un-edited pixels then you obviously dont have a lot of experience in digital image manipulation.

 

Here is a hint Take two equal size groups of pixels. Group one consists of alternating 40% Grey and 60% Grey pixels. The second group consists of all 50% Grey pixels. They both look the same at 96 dpi (or 72 dpi for Mac users) but which would you say is manipulated? Remember, its more of an observation then an accusation.

 

"What's funny is that while Dave Gouras is accusing other people of being David Geiszler he is making statements that are pretty much direct quotes of David Geiszler...Are you harrassing and stalking the female photographers on this site as well?"

"Kindly substantiate this maliciously false and publicly made allegation, or have it withdrawn...Your assault has become actionable."

If something is true, then it is not libelous to say it.

I disagree with what seems to be a minority consensus (which isn't necessarily as contradictory as it sounds) that the quality of Alen's portfolio of concert images is high. I find it rather mediocre. The shots mainly show little to compel interest and there is virtually no technical expertise displayed throughout.

I would also quibble with something else that seems to be a popular belief: shooting concerts is not the most demanding form of photography, or even close to it. It is infinitely more difficult to walk into a high school gym and grab a couple of decent action shots at a baskeball game, just for instance--the lighting's even worse, the action much more furious, and there's usually no room courtside for photogs, so mostly pictures are taken from either end under the baskets or from the well areas upstairs in the corners of the building--depending on the layout.

None of which is meant to bash this photographer. But do we want to get serious here re what's good and what's not?

..tap..tap..tap..

You want good? Check this out:

Anonymous singer

Has anyone taken the time to study this picture by Alen?

I like it. A lot. It, too, is technically on the weak side (was it Kyle who did a digital autopsy on the central figure of this week's POW? whoever did I think he was close to right) and cries out for a cloinng tool, in fact appears to have been touched up poorly already. Even so, this impresses me as one powerful image.

On another topic still, though related in its own way, I found Alen's best landscape to be a desaturated effort on Kodak Gold 100--I think that was the emulsion. What's that about?

Even more curious, recently someone uploaded a photo of a horse for critique and this was displayed prominently on the site's home page last night when I logged in. I checked and it turns out this image was captured on Provia 100F--if anyone doesn't know, this Provia emulsion is basically Kodachrome 64 in terms of all-round performance (they're different but similar), or in other words pretty much the best as far as transparancies go (this assumes you're looking for photorealism--don't get me going on Velvia) and it, too, was . . . guess what.

You guessed it--desaturated.

Not that anyone asked, but in my estimation that is sheer lunacy. Draining the color out of a Provia 100F image is essentially the same as, say, dropping the engine from a Ford Pinto into one's Porsche 911. It just isn't done. On the other hand, if you prefer your humor with a twist . . . the horse in question happens to be a grey.

Anyway, so this horse was given a Provia lobotomy just in time to whinny and wink at me in B&W yesterday and, coincidentally, benefit from a veritable tsunami of compassionate graders who giddily compiled a composite average score of something over 15 for our equestrian friend, and you know what the kicker is? This picture is not even in focus!

Try to think of that as a preface to this: we need to rid ourselves of this grading system. Not because it's a bad joke as implemented. (And it's all of that, make no mistake.) No, we need to get rid of it for the reason that there is virtually nothing about this preposterous process which smacks either of intelligence or consistency. It was not conceived especially well and has been implemented deplorably.

On top of that it evidently encourages some of this server's membership to participate (with less reluctance than enthusiasm for all I can see) in what amounts to The Ratings Game. And if that has anything to do with "art" or photography then I'm a monkey's uncle.

There was a thread devoted to this topic (it's still there, and I haven't read it for a week or so but I think it's current) in the general forum and someone (last summer maybe) suggested the site's administrators were anxious to attract new members and keep those already on board, and thus was born this scheme of scores. There's probably some truth in that assumption, and as far as the narrow reasoning goes I'm not sure that Photonet made a mistake. But wouldn't it make even more sense, for the long-term health of this site, to figure a way to stir interest in the 99% of this server's users who never come round to the POW to do so in the future, and even if they can't bother themselves to leave a comment they might at least be inspired to leave behind a couple of those precious little scores?

Agreed. There is ratings abuse. It is actually funny sometimes watching the list. Clearly there are some people that spend a good amount of time "working" their and other portfolio's to keep afloat. That said.... I love going to "top rated" and putting in the numbers so that I can see the most recent High Rated images. Saves time! Beats going through most recent one by one. Sure, there are some that are shocking! Out of focus or truly bad work with 7's, 8's and up...but either I pass them by with a chuckle or sometimes purposfully go in and give a true rating. Other thing I do is go down the list and pick out names at random and find some really good and interesting work in the lower numbers. Ratings, in any case - as inflated as they can sometimes be - help me sort through the huge amount of work that comes on this server. I suggest that anyone who is interested...in continuing this discussion... go to the thread that Tris speaks of and discuss it there.

I agree only saying wow or superb isn't critique but it never hurts to compliment. To the photog: Nice shot!

 

Is the haze cigarette smoke, dry ice or something to do with lighting.

 

Tris brought up a good point about the focus of the lady. Might be movement but I was also thinking her face is brighter than everything else so that might be giving off a bit of a halo effect.

 

Also, there were some comments about the film. My quick informal eval is that it looks Neopannish (excuse the new English). But I've never developed or printed my own stuff so I'm not very familiar with the dynamics of b&w film. I do think in this case Neopan is a better choice than TriX- which I do like a lot.

 

Was the pic cropped? Maybe this question was already answered. The thing I like least about the picture is probably the framing. It's a litte tight for my taste. But if it wasn't cropped then I'm sure position and space in the venue come into play. Anyway, I think wider would be better. It would give us a little more feel for the environment.

 

Last comment: I agree with the guy (sorry, forgot your name) who said we shouldn't kick Tris off the forum. He has a right to his opinions. And I often learn from his opinions. Today's comment about the framing of the photo were right on. Having said that I do think Tris could himself do a better job of staying on topic and not insulting people personally. Tough opinions about photography are fine but disparaging remarks about the intelligence and opinions of others are not. This is a learning community and courtesy is important in a community. So although I often curse at your comments (joking) Tris, blaze on. Blaze on but please keep the insults about the members to minimum. That would be appreciated