Liquid Air

Tris.... you crack me up and provide wonderful entertainment!!!! I just love how you break each and every comment that you feel is an attack on your sensibility and explain it to us all....

Tell you what, Mary. You buck up your comments and I won't have to "break" them.

Like I said.. great entertainment.

If you're pleased then I'm tickled pink. Enjoy!

Katie, bar the door!

Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead!

(yougotquotesigotquotes...headded)

Are we having fun yet?

David: I know (or should I say, I hope) that POW is not chosen based on ratings, my question was more to those individuals who DID rate the image a 10/10 and THEIR reasons for doing so. As we all know, the "elves" do not explain THEIR reasons for choosing POW, so I didn't even bother to ask them. :)

 

 

Rhett: you think so?

is a very pleasant view, I would have never imagined that something so simple as a paperweight would be so appealing to the eye.

 

Good work

I find the photo both beautiful and unique. It's art.

Was it a fluke - I have studied Seven's work closely : this is no one off. The personal smarmy sideswipe above ignore. It is definitely Noughties as opposed to Eighties.

There's no need to justify my 10/10 - the artist and the image do that in their own right.

In parting Vuk, this gentleman (and I mean that) is an inspiration to the site - go beyond his images, look at the comments, the assistance he provides others.You might learn something of diplomacy, and of the ability to compress your feelings and thoughts into a few powerful words.

 

He is truly an inspiration for us all.

 

Congrats Seven - and now would you take a look at my new uploads ;-) Kidding, okay?

Donna.

 

Offering a critique of someone's photo does not constitute an attack on the person. Indeed, Seven is very much a gentleman and I respect him a great deal, both as a photographer and a human being. Nonetheless, he's taken a photo of something resembling what you're likely to find air-brushed on the side of a rocker's van and I fully intend on slagging him off for it ;-)

congratulations to the "Photo of the Week" !

Keep it on, Seven. There are photos in your folders, even nicer than this one, but anyway, POW is a great deserved recognition of your work.

I like corn. I like when mommy puts butter and salt on it. Daddy says it is not good for my cholesterol levels but I say, so what?

I found the photo aesthetically pleasing, mostly because of the colors. Am I a sucker for colors? Perhaps, but that is the overwhelming emphasis of the photo anyway. I could tell right away (right away meaning before you revealed the subject of the photo) that it was a paperweight or other small liquid-filled glass object. Frankly, that doesn't matter to me. Somebody complained above about using mundane subject matter. Isn't that the point of the originality/cleverness scale? Viewing things the way most of us don't normally view them?

Incidentally, these are rhetorical questions.

As far as that cleverness/originality goes- the photo didn't blow me away, opening up new vistas of visual joy and enlightenment. That being said, it's a far more creative take on bubbles and colors than most people bother with. My difficulty comes in figuring out whether the photo is that original if I have seen artwork like it before. Visit any desktop wallpaper website and you'll find work akin to this. I haven't seen any of it that was "real" though. Anyway, you can check on my scoring (I'm number 70 or so) and see how I felt about it in more qualitative terms if you so desire.

 

JeFF

 

PS- I absolutely loved the Bronzewing photo (http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=307460).

This is where it's at, Seven having his finger firmly on the pulse as to what appeals - and let me guess - what sells. Colour and angles.

 

Tris you and I are friends - but I couldn't disagree with you more about your comments on Seven's sublime image : it takes **** to submit something as unusual as this.

 

Tris something else - Ms Mary Ball is pretty on the button with her comments, she knows her stuff and, at the risk of our friendship let me say this this in open forum:

 

he's colourful Seven, he sees things you and I can't but wish to. He's an artist, we are just photographers with aspirations...Someone said above, we take them - Seven MAKES them. Talk all you like, that's a fact (though I hope we will remain friends hereafter.)

 

Your go at Ms Ball is unjustified, she always makes an informed and intelligent contribution to the POW page. Instead of asking her to re-read your lengthy prose, why don't you absorb her words ? ;-)

 

Elves - for what you were after, you couldn't have chosen better.

 

Vuk - oh, Vuk this is a 5/2 image right? Vuk my darling I shall bear this in mind when I pop over to your (undoubtedly) wonderful portfolio. ROFL ... Marco was unkind, but I do wonder....

 

Seven - are you there??? Because here are 2 tens - gorgeous my boy, gorgeous as always.

 

 

 

It's my fault I didn't repeat my comment from previous week POW:

"I hope this POW won't be touched by Tris Schuler !!! " It's a good spell.

And now that individual is bothering us with his strange point of view. I'm sorry Seven. I thought your nice picture was nothing controversial, but like you did something very good from nothing,

in similar way Tris Schuler can produce discussion

out of any photo, unless elves will choose his one as POW, I guess. Tris you simply bully the discussion.

Debbie, disagreement is a natural function of life and a necessity of art. You'll never get an argument out of me re that in principle. So disagree with my opinions until the cows come home. I can take it.

Sorry, but Mary Ball so far has added on balance little positive energy to this discussion, or anything very pertinent for that matter. Far from not reading her words I seem to be the only one of us two who has bothered to do so with a clear head, and when she came for me I felt at ease to hand her's back to her. A kind of quid pro quo where I come from.

Pawel, your chief agenda of late seems to be to keep me silent with insults. Don't hold your breath.

Here's something possibly foreign to your nature but potentially beneficial, an idea: instead of reflexively rating POW's with high marks why not explain to everyone why you think these photographs are worthy of such acclaim? In that manner this forum might be used for the purpose of learning through the give-and-take process of candid discussion.

To the forum at large: I believe I've come round to a point of view expressed by others several times, that being that while the digital medium is quite able to produce pleasing images the process is not exactly photographic in the strictest sense. Indeed, the more I look at it the more I'm convinced it represents a distinct, if not exactly different, form of art altogether.

And one more time, for whatever it might be worth: all these 10-10 perfect scores do nothing more than to make a mockery of the grading system.

Here's an intelligent question: does it stand to reason that this week's POW represents a form of photographic art which cannot be excelled for its originality and absolute quality of visual expression? In other words, this image is equal, in its own way, to the finest photographs ever rendered? For anyone capable, please give that some serious thought.

Meanwhile, this place is becoming more and more an embarrassment to people who take their photography seriously, who strive to cultivate better skills. I do not wish to come across as elitist, and don't believe I am. But consider. There is next to no discussion of photographic technique at all, just for example, and at least part of that must owe to the fact that so many seem to know absolutely nothing about it! And how could they when all they do is take digital images with auto-focus lenses, how could they when the norm for critical photographic discourse on this server equates into fluff such as "That's beautiful" and "Lovely colors!" and the like, while feedback which is actually critical of the work in question has to beat its way up wind past veritable storms of protest from the people who make those same above inane comments?

In case it hasn't been noticed, the sad fact is that the best photographers on this server--there are not that many good ones in my opinion but they certainly do exist for I have seen their work--don't bother coming round here much, certainly not in meaningful numbers. Now I don't claim to know what all these people think, but it's just possible some if not most of them consider it useless to do so. And why would that be?

A photographer who I recognize to be an expert in the field (to judge from his work, which is simply stunning--it towers like a giant above this pygmy fare put forward as POW each week) did come forward not so long ago to comment on the POW taken with IR film. His feedback was somewhat critical, though, and I'm afraid it fell on deaf ears. Except for one man's query after the fact it certainly did not excite further discussion.

So much for this forum's acceptance of and appreciation for an expert's point of view.

Some of you might wish to give that some thought as well.

There is nothing wrong in posting your negative opinion Ken, actually vice versa. But forcing everyone to share your negative point of view by casting huge number of agresive comments,(like Tris did two weeks ago and try repeat it now), which don't reffer directly to the POW, until everyone is fed with it, is not OK. As a matter of fact I am glad that not only Tris has negative opinion. Once again I'd like to remind that POW usually isn't the best photo of the best (how to judge it in absolute scale?), but the one which is good enough (or better) to encourage people to share opinions and comments. So calm down little warriors. Be reasonable, you can't force us to admit you're right by land slide number of comments. Is that clear?

 

 

PS: I started to write before last Tris comment. Finished and .... Ha, ha ... I like it.

 

Yes Tris I have thought about it - long and hard.

 

Seven's image, his vision and eye for colour and comp (we have spoken of that) , stand above you and I. I do not think we in the 600s can argue otherwise.

 

These guys are in a league of their own - even Dan Bayer says as much. (And Dan I will soon see yours , take care of that heart okay? ;-)

 

 

Talk, talk Tris and others - I know him and his visions ....lambast him at your peril. he's a genius that probably doesn't need PN to tell him that.

 

I just wish you'd say something Seven!!

 

 

 

 

Tris, sorry friend - but Mary's opinion is as valid as yours ; she is a pro and ought to be respected as such. Read her critique, she is surely right there...and now I will say hello Mary, and congrats on her eye. Sorry Tris, you sound older by the second.

.....I know that I have been largely a non-participant in these forums up until just recently, guilty as charged. Yes Deborah, the "heart" thing has had alot to do with it, debilitating to say the least. I aplologize for this. Heck! I am the one who has been missing out on all the "color'" in the threads!!

 

I just want you all to know that I will be down in Tasmania's South West National Park for the next three weeks. I intend to get up to my thighs in mud and mountains for the better part of it. I have been exchanging emails with new Geographic photographer Amy Toensing. She has been a bit of help in contacting those folks at the yellow border. I did indeed contact them and let them know that I exsist. I am not setting FOOT back in the states until I get SOMETHING going with them.

 

So that's my rant for this moment. Need to go get some food and pack.

 

Cheers all

Debbie: Mary's qualifications as a shooter are irrelevant. I address her attitude vis-a-vis critical commentary. For whatever reason she seems to be against it, at least in this instance, as are many. An old story.

Same same when it comes to Pawel's reference to Dan Bayer's opinion of this work. Just because Dan likes it I'm supposed to? I'm glad that Dan likes it, but so what? I do not.

From what planet you're coming from Tris?

One thing is certain your selfexpression is better than your photographs, and actually has nothing to do with Seven photo. So do not interfere overshouting everyone, that you don't like it,

how you don't like it, in which way you don't like it, when you don't like it, etc. We've all already have learned it right now, you don't like it. OK.

I'd be embarrassed to respond to this dribble if I was Seven.

 

Some of you people ought to get counselling. Right Away! I haven't witnessed such a collection of know-it-all, bull-shit artists since I gave up sitting on bar stools years ago. Some of you people just go on and on expounding nonsense. "Your stupid, No Your Stupid." Get a grip! This isn't fostering discussion. This is just bull-shit! Plain and simple. Offer you opinion of the photo. Then leave it at that. For Christ Sakes.

 

I gave it a 10! Chew on that. I think its an amazing interpretation of everyday life. It took creative vision ("But digital sucks, it's too easy"). Beauty is where you find it, folks. This POW is creative, fresh, balanced. It has beautiful detail. And it's very colorful! :) I'd love it on my wall. If you think I'm wrong, stupid, or unsophisticated, well, I'll give you one guess how much I care. Grow UP!

 

God, it gets so irritating. That Jerry Springer comment by Daniel above was right on! This is Nonsense! (Now I'm all upset, ........where is my Prozac :)

By Daniel Bayer......Welcome to POW. If you havent already noticed, it's like your birthday party gone awry. Friends are invited over for the celebration and they have fun singing your praises.........and then proceed to have a brawl of views and intellect on your dining room table!!!!

....Right on Daniel!

Tris... I don't know what is eating you all the time! I've seen the photos you like. A small few are my taste...which is fine. I can't imagine though, how you think you are THE expert here. Though you are certainly entitled to your own opinion....If this many people are not liking HOW you deliver your speeches on POW...maybe YOU should re-read your OWN comments.I think there is nothing wrong at all with "not liking" an image....or....believing it is not the photographer's best image. We learn by taking the good with the bad. Also we respect each others tastes! For instance, when Vuk doesn't like an image I don't insult him for his opinion! I don't act like I know better and am more "intellegent" for my opinion! I'm totally aware that he has "different" taste than I do most of the time...(with some exceptions). That does not make him wrong and me right or vice versa...

Re: Critiques in general: There is nothing wrong with pointing out cropping needs, or framing flaws, or density problems or color glitches, or a different take that would improve an image etc etc etc... These are valuable and helpful to improve our art. It is better received by the artist when it is delivered in the spirit of artists helping artists! You know the old saying...You get more with sugar than vinegar. Teachers all over the globe know that encouragement and gentle truths and crtitisisms foster improvement! Most of us are ALREADY our own worst critics! (Except those with a narssisism complex and there are those types around too).

More genius from Ball, more insults from Ball. You've managed to say essentially nothing at length and be rude in the process. That amounts to an utter waste, in case you're interested. Also in case you're interested, your little sophist trip of accusing me of "not letting go" will only go over with a crowd that moves itself emotionally. That that will undoubtedly include much of the crew here will come as no surprise to anyone paying atention.

Two more examples of your sophistry:

I can't imagine though, how you think you are THE expert here. Though you are certainly entitled to your own opinion....

Do you ever bother to re-read what you've written and then edit it for content? You've managed to at once to contradict yourself and betray your base motives.

In short, I don't hold myself to be an expert photographer and believe there is no such thing when it comes to personal taste. I do believe it ought to be possible to critique another's work without having to defend yourself from a barrage of hateful attacks which can find no better mark than a person and not an issue, not an idea.

If this many people are not liking HOW you deliver your speeches on POW...maybe YOU should re-read your OWN comments.

Thank you, but anyone with interest could easily go back and read my original remarks and see there is nothing intrinsically offensive said. It might also be obvious to a neutral observer that it is not just I who receives this sort of treatment from people who take umbrage at any sort of honest criticism, but this treatment is gleefully meted out to anyone who dares to speak a little too plainly his mind. Again, one only need back up a few posts and find evidence of this aplenty.

Finally, it is a regretable truth that the majority of my time in this thread has been spent replying to individuals who do not wish to discuss the POW but only attack me personally. You might not agree, but I happen to think I've a right to do just that.

The thing is, were it possible to simply get in a simple critique and let it lie there then that's precisely what I would do. Within my limited experience on this forum, however, that has not been possible for the reason people very much like you lay waiting in the wings to launch personal attacks on the critic for the reason, presumably, that their "party" has been disturbed.

And now we've come full circle on that.

None of which changes the salient point: this week's POW is a sort of abstract cliche which almost defies constructive criticism per se, though several have tried mightily. It is neither original in concept (surely we've all seen this many times before) nor especially well rendered, as far as I'm concerned, yet it has been picked as the POW, with the result that the vast majority of those bothering to rate it have assigned outrageously high scores for no better reason than . . . than what? That it actually does belong in the Smithsonian?

Right.

Move over, Ansel, you're old and in the way.

Well trying to ignore the above battle of dumb-wits. I shall say that your photo is both striking and quite well done. Its detail fascinates me and its color holds me in. The choice of framing and cropping seem excellent.

 

Referring to an above comment: The slight hint of a corn pattern in the blue does not bother me, but rather adds a texture to what would have been empty space. Its adds the fading shadow and allows the bottom of the photo to function seperately from the top blue portion.

 

Congrats on POW, great photo and fabulous portfolio.

Very interesting concept and the colors are beautiful.

I like it *enough* and I'm hesitant to write anything too critical, because I know how that can lead to people rating all your photos 1/1, or sending nasty e-mail, or whatnot. But the thing is, it seems the elves have finally found a POW that everyone but me likes a LOT. It's as if I've inhabited the body of Samuel Dilworth ;-).

 

It's hard to put my finger on it, but my initial reaction was very much like Ken Michelson's. How many close focus digital P&S shots of ordinary objects have we seen? Tons. Why? Mainly, I think it's because this type of shot is fun and easy to do -- these cameras focus extremely close, generally have great DOF, exposure is pretty much automatic, you can do it handheld, and feedback is instant. As a result, it's as if the floodgates have been opened on handheld macro photography and photography of ordinary objects composed in an abstract, aesthetically pleasing way. Fun, interesting shots, but not my cup of tea, I guess.

 

On the plus side, this is a good example of one of these shots done well. I find it aesthetically pleasing and I've always loved the blue/yellow color scheme.

 

PS - 89 comments? On *Tuesday*? Wow -- it looks like POW is getting lots more comments lately! No, wait, 30 of them are from the same two or three people...

It's certainly well-executed and it has its own kind of glow.

 

However, it's like new age music, it's something that plays well in the background but doesn't offer enough close up. There's no feeling, no edge, no mystery, no excitement. Unlike Samuel, I don't think this has to do with digital - look at those UK photo magazines filled with photos of colored pencils or paper clips, those photographs have been in there for years.

 

So it might work in the "design" sense, home decor and all that, but it misses in the "higher plane" department.