Three Poles

My initial reaction to this picture is blah.

Now my reaction to the picture is blah.

I simply dont see anything interesting and I suspect that the elves are simply trying to stimulate more realistic discussion. Sorry Tony, you werent very convincing.

 

BUT

 

As I have played around with the medium we call photography, I have taken very similar pictures and I actually like some of them (see attachment).

 

No, this has nothing to do with jealousy. I think it simply means that these types of pictures are dangerously close to abstract art; you either love em or hate em. I dont like the POW but I can definitely understand how some people might.

 

Anybody who says things like I know that there are no original ideas anymore should try espionage if they havent already.

 

Jeff, your POW led me to your portfolio. I remember having seen your shot Fork in the Mud before as an example for (paid) Professional Critique in the category Landscape at www.the28thfloor.com For me its more interesting than this POW that I didn't have the desire to open from its thumbnail before. I wonder if the former is your favorite for Professional Critique or you have delivered lots photos for it.

I am soooooooo sorry. But I'm affraid somebody has now pushed it a bit too far for my taste here.

 

This is about 2 little sentences, that passed the limit... The first talking to Jeff, the second talking about me...

 

1) You're trying too hard. To have a "style." Try instead to have the ability to photograph more than one or two subjects competently, preferably something that moves more nimbly than a barn.

 

Ohhhhhhhh ! As I saw this, I thought: " now that must come from somebody who knows what he's talking about, who has tried it all and managed it all as far as photography is concerned... " So, I had a good idea... I went to see Professor Triss's folio... Well, Professor, I understand better now... You are lucky that I'm confused...

Why so ? Because you might be wondering whether I rated any of your shots. No worries, I won't... Never below 5 - that's the confused man's rule.

 

2) witness the gentleman above who bothered to take me up on my challenge to articulate his rationalization for awarding high scores--while I applaud his candor I am thankful I am not likewise confused .

Good for you Tris, so you can keep on critizing images and giving lessons and bad ratings - which saves you the trouble to learn how to take your first picture almost competently...

When you are looking for the Truth, Professor, be sure it comes to you... And now you can peacefully go to my folio and rate every picture you find below 3 - I'm sure you'll love that...

Marc, as it turns out you have arrived late to the party and must stand in line if you care to bash me and my pictures. I have already been called countless names and there are, as I say, others in the queue ahead of you--I suggest you use this waiting time to get your creative juices flowing.

But you know, at that you've hit nevertheless on another useful point, one I brushed by before: namely, it would help most (if not all) of the users of this server to upload all sorts of work as they complete it, not just what they consider to be their "best" (for purposes of ranking?).

Would you care (are you able) to explain to me why this might be so?

I would. We upload our best stuff so that we don't have to waste everybody's time looking at a lot of crap.

Exactly right Bill.

And learn what, pray tell, from all this happy praise?

 

Just because we upload our best stuff does not mean we're going to get happy praise.

 

Case in point, some of the comments on this page.

 

The reason we don't show the stuff that we consider to be bad is because we usually already know what's wrong with it.

 

 

Jeff -

 

As has probably been mentioned before, this is an intriguing photo which draws its interest from the sense of isolation, calm and mystery that it evokes. The composition, by centering the poles in the vastness of their environment creates that isolation - to move them elsewhere would only lessen the feeling. The calm is created by the languorous water showing that not a wisp of wind disturbs the deafening silence of the place - the dead air is ringing in our ears. The mystery is in the subject (what are these poles doing in the middle of nowhere - what forgotten civilization are we looking at) and in the manipulated lighting which concentrates our attention on the subject of the mystery. I dont know if this is your intention in the photo (since all of the photos in your portfolio exhibit similar characteristics I suspect it was) but if so you have been very successful. Is it the best in your portfolio? Had you chosen it, that might be a question to be asked. But as it is I see it as one of a series of images successfully exploring the same themes, some more appealing to one person than to another perhaps. Working on a theme and drawing on or emulating others working in the same area is an inherent part of any effort to understand and learn, and if you have only been doing this for a year (I seem to remember that from another post) I would say learning very fast.

 

I do have a criticism also no doubt mentioned before. It is not about what we can see in the photo but what we cant. Such minimalism, I think, is at odds with the format that you have chosen to work in and with the place you have chosen to display it. Such simple subjects want more enticement to the eye and brain than an 8x10 print or any computer monitor on earth can give. We should be able to see it across the room and be struck by the above-mentioned characteristics. But then as we approach closer we should see the water becoming richer in tonality, see the most minute tendrils in the clouds, see that the poles posses an infinite world of splintered texture - what we initially thought was pure simplicity becomes, like the world itself, a complex affair. Your oeuvre, in short, cries out for an 8x10 camera! (I have no particular preference for film, however, and would be happy with an 8x10 digital back, if such a thing existed.)

 

My compliments on the patience and maturity with which youve responded to some of the more petulant rants that have been going on in this thread.

I must confess that I made a grave mistake and, despite myself, rose to Triss bait. I assure you, Marc, and Morwen, that I will attempt to refrain from doing so in the future.

Nice shot. Lots of debate about composition, etc. But I have shot the Salton Sea, too and can tell you it is the stinky-est plae on the planet. Imagine 1,000,000 porta-johns after a Rolling Stones concert being dumped in one place.

 

Anyone who gets a good shot from that place deserves some credit!

 

TRIS SAID: "The sad fact is that only a few months ago this server could just not tolerate outright criticism on the POW thread, and it was only through the course of more than one virtual bloodletting that we have arrived so far as to peacefully allow even this minor discussion to unfold without correspondent acrimony of the most bitter kind." Bulldinky "Professor Tris"... Actually we've all made a pact (one which I'm breaking right now because once again you go too far with your patronizing attitudes) to just ignore you when you get "preachy" and obnoxiously know-it-all. On the other hand - except for the latest comments of yours to Jeff - you've been pretty reasonable and at times helpful in a more constructive and kindly way recently. You have much to offer but your delivery blows. You are making me work harder on keeping my cool which I'm sure will eventually make me a more tolerant person. To Jeff - Congrats (I think) and I also applaud you for your patience and I just want to say... You have your own style and you have your way of seeing the world. I'm sure you know what drew you to the world of photography and what moves you - so keep going. There are generalists and there are specialists. I must say I used to not be interested in shooting people and now I love it and make quite a good piece of change with what I do. On the other hand I hate shooting cats and dogs and I can bet I never will. Re: ratings... I think there must be a reward for some folks that "play the rating popularity contest" on this site. The game is - who is going to get to be number 1 for a day first. The reward - well - when you can't make a living doing this, a high rating is it's own reward I guess.

I'm not reading all the comments so sorry if someone said the same. I think you can center the subject when it's symmetrical enough, which is not exactly the case here. Centered horizon is good when the sky is very beautifull (lot's of clouds and textures) as is the ground, which, again, is not the case of this photo. The another photo Jeff put in his comment follow all this. Lot's of things to see in both ground and sky and a very symmetrical subject. This another sample is a perfect subject to put centered and I like it a lot (see Jeff's comment about Centering).

-Dennis, your altpoles.jpg was very very clever. The hat and the boat did me in. I laughed for quite a while!

First, about the image (call me crazy, but I say the pictures come first):

 

Nice concept. I think the centering works well here. I respect the "rules of photography" as guidelines that frequently need to be broken. I'm not immediately offended by centering, but it must be done with thought and here it is effectively used to convey a sense of the scene -its watery desolation, perhaps. The tones do seem a little muddy, and de-mudding the image might aid the texture of the water and the definition of the poles. The compressed tones are great, though, in the mostly absent horizon line. Alterations would have to be selective, preserving the ethereal horizon treatment while increasing the range elsewhere.

 

I appreciate Jeff's candor about how the image is created and how it is treated digitally. I can see reasons to introduce the "vignetting" around the frame, though I might not make that choice.

 

I'd be very curious to see the large prints from this shot, given my skepticism that a digital image of that size can be printed to that enlargement. I lack the experience with digital cameras to say "it can't be as good," but am still skeptical. I'm also inspired to play a little with Genuine Fractals.

 

Ok, now, onto a few topics that have been raised here...

 

I couldn't care less if this image was taken with a digital camera. I say, Jeff, if you're most comfortable with that medium, go for it. Just as long as you recognize its advantages and disadvantages.

 

I personally don't think there's a crime in being influenced by another photographer (in this case, Fokos), nor should anyone take offense (on Fokos' behalf, really), that the influence isn't automatically mentioned in the notes. Fokos isn't the only one to make fine images of this type. As long as Jeff isn't only out there with a camera to try to copy Fokos, I see no problem with it when one of his (Jeff's) images reflected his appreciation.

 

And, well, I've just deleted my comments about Tris' style here. I'll just say that it's unfortunate when we lose the value of some comments, whether we agree or not, because personal style pulls the conversation away from the content. I more or less agree with Mary's points above, and I'll try to leave it at that.

 

As I keep saying, perhaps I ramble too much...

 

Enjoy -

Tris, I'll drink that beer with you anytime...I'm sure we would find something interesting to talk about.

 

Thanks to everyone for your comments, I'm sorry I haven't had time to respond to each one, but I do appreciate everyone's input. Considering all of the great photography on photo.net, I feel very lucky to have been chosen for POW.

 

Jeff

 

Jeff, I think it's only fair that if you are buying drinks you should extend the offer to all of us. Some cheese and crackers would also be good, but what I could really use is one of those massive party subs. Don't try to fool me with one of those minimalist fluffy white bread sandwiches either. I want substance and lots of fixin's.

 

PS - Thanks for the compliment Mary. You are very very kind.

Mary: you're whining again. This is one of your specialties. Try to do better.

Let's see if repetition works--it's been known.

1) This forum is supposed to be about the discussion of photography, not personal style.

2) How you (choose to) react to another's style is on . . . you.

3) Learn to take responsibility for your own actions.

Marshall: same same for you.

As long as I'm on it, let me say this. We've now had two of Jeff's pictures chosen as POW. Ignoring the case of repetition, it remains that neither one of these pictures is all that hot. The first selection fell closer to "minimalist" than this week's offering (which I judge to be okay but nothing to write home about when it all boils down).

In any event, no one around here is going to learn a single thing more about photography without abandoning the need to operate within this forum as if it were some kind of gentle support group. Some of you could stand to get that (and other things) through your heads. Big time. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Jeff, perhaps we would have something interesting to talk about at that. If nothing else we might swap gear for the afternoon. I'd get to wrap my paws around a digital box and go from there with it, you'd have the opportunity to fool around with my ancient Oly gear. There are far worse ways to while away the time.

Actually, the only reason I want to drink with Tris is that I think the drinks are on him. I'm sure he'd be glad to include us all though, right Tris?

 

 

Jeff, I have been viewing your images for quite some time now. I think you have a good eye. This image warrants POW. One poster likened this to D. Fokos and felt you didn't give him the recognician he felt D. deserved. I disagree. D. didn't take this picture. Nor did McKenna nor Bill Brandt. And a host of others before them. You took this photo and translated your ideas very well. I have similar images such as this and I don't think that they are of any less value than any other artists images. Try and take a picture today that is truly unique. I bet Tris can't either. As for better equipment and rules.....to hell with them.

And if you can find time Jeff, please come down to San Diego and attend my show at The Poway Heritage Museum. The reception is the 23rd of February 5-8 pm. 15 to Poway Rd. east to Midland and left to Poway Midland Railroad and Park. Love to see you there. James

Rule #3 as stated above: "Taking responsibility for your own actions". Right. Get on your high horse and then take responsiblity for your own actions... which means being big enough to accept re-actions from people who believe in the importance of critisizing without demeaning or dumping negativity and preachy "advice" on an otherwise helpful/useful forum. I, meanwhile, will be working on improving my whining as suggested. You must have sensed that I'm holding back. I'll "try and do better." You were doing so well there for a while Mr. T. I even found it more tolerable to read (some) of your points and agree or even if I didn't - you were at least not offensive and naturally entitled to your opinions. Maybe your are just having a bad week. Sorry Jeff... my tolerance is not too high when dealing with grandiosity. It happens to push my "buttons".

when i saw the title "three poles" i was expecting lech walensa, krzysztof kieslowski, and nicolaus copernicus :))

 

only kidding... i really like this photo - congratulations. not a big fan of minimalist stuff usually, but this one has a "real" edge to it and doesn't look "staged".

 

The horizon is almost not there at all. The water fades to the sky. Nice effect. I like the simple approach, but still can't warm up to centered subjects. Just my POV.

Look, Mary, it's this simple: I'm a pain and you're pill. Get over it or see the humor but don't hold your breath.

I think my point was that it's unfortunate when a comment's style distracts from it's point, the end result being that we discuss the style. I don't particularly want to spend time discussing style here, and I am sorry that I'm doing it again. However, I feel that you also must take some responsibility for the actions you take that create reactions. Please continue to contribute and disagree. No one should assume that people can't handle criticism (though there are certainly examples of that), nor that one should have to treat posters with kid gloves, but remain conscious of likely reactions. Thank you.