Liquid Air

Tris Schuler,

While you protest incessantly that you never say anything 'intrinsically offensive', has it not struck you by now that it is the way you express yourself that rubs people up the wrong way? Conviently, you can be as arrogant and unpleasant as you like, without being overtly offensive in the words you use. That doesn't, however, stop you being a malignant influence on this site.

The criticism directed your way is not that you take the time to critique POW images, but that you seem intent on expressing your displeasure not only at what is on offer but at the methods, motives, vision, even the chosen medium (film, digital etc) of the person involved. You appear to seek to belittle the photographer so much as to discourage them from persuing their art just because YOU don't like it. If that is not your intention, you are failing in achieving that which actually is your intent.

Take this POW thread, for instance:

"I personally am unmoved by this image. It is not especially beautiful to look at (how long would you want to hang it on some wall?).... how long would a photo such as this likely reside on someone's wall?"

It's all very well if you say, "I don't like this picture. I wouldn't hang it on my wall," but you seem intent on implying that because YOU don't like it, you appear to be saying: "My God, that's not art. Nobody should be able to like this, and you certainly shouldn't be putting it on your wall."

"It wouldn't go up on one of my walls to begin with..."

Well, fine. You've made your point, now let everybody else get on with expressing their thoughts on the image. I really wouldn't mind if you were of the calibre of the likes of Bayer, Dummett, Venhaus, Julian, Heller or Zha; I wouldn't mind so much you sitting on your pedastal holding court over the rest of us, but your work is singularly unimpressive to the point of boredom and while I would never suggest you have to have a great portfolio (indeed have one at all on this site, because I haven't yet had my slides scanned - I have even removed the ratings/critiques I have made of other images) to offer critique, it would help enormously if you did have merit as a photographer if you are going to be so holier-than-thou when it comes to the work of others.

I completely agree that the proliferation of 10/10s and other ridiclously high ratings makes a mockery of the critiquing system here at photo.net, but at the end of the day, this is a community of supposedly like-minded people looking to share their work amicably and get constructive feedback on their photographs in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

For what it's worth, while I personally wouldn't hang Seven's work on my walls at home (I would consider it at work, perhaps), I can appreciate it as art and I CAN see what others seen in his photographs and how he is regarded as a true artist. His portfolio is well thought out, his vision is superb, his use of color wonderful and his work is genuinely original. I might have chosen another of his shots as POW but if a POW is chosen on the strength of a wider portfolio, then that's no bad thing.

Your contributions to the POWs (presumably through some disgust that someone dares to tell YOU what is a good photograph) are totally against the spirit of the forum simply because you cannot say anything without coming off as resentful, spiteful, arrogant and, yes, offensive.

I completely agree that the proliferation of 10/10s and other ridiclously high ratings makes a mockery of the critiquing system here at photo.net, but at the end of the day, this is a community of supposedly like-minded people looking to share their work amicably and get constructive feedback on their photographs in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

In other words don't make waves.

Look, that's hogwash. Everyone around here is presumably of the same mind? Where'd you dream that up? Or is it just the way you'd like it to be?

For your edification, art doesn't happen in a vacuum. What you foolishly advocate is a kind of social vacuum sans the cultural friction requisite for birth of artisitc thought and expression.

And that is why we call what you've just proposed hogwash.

For what it's worth, while I personally wouldn't hang Seven's work on my walls at home (I would consider it at work, perhaps), I can appreciate it as art and I CAN see what others seen in his photographs and how he is regarded as a true artist. His portfolio is well thought out, his vision is superb, his use of color wonderful and his work is genuinely original. I might have chosen another of his shots as POW but if a POW is chosen on the strength of a wider portfolio, then that's no bad thing.

I see no art. I see no creation as far as that goes. What I see is someone snapping off digital frames without number until he hits on an image from which he hears jazz. He shares this sound and the crowd then ooh's and ahh's.

What this picture and its general acceptance represents is nothing more or less than a manifestation of the general dumbing down which has overtaken and rather disabled society over the past couple of generations. Everything's relative and you can say anything you like with impunity as long you "believe it."

I can't get enough, God. Give me some more!

Your contributions to the POWs (presumably through some disgust that someone dares to tell YOU what is a good photograph) are totally against the spirit of the forum simply because you cannot say anything without coming off as resentful, spiteful, arrogant and, yes, offensive.

If I do get that way it is only in direct response to idiotic posts such as this which have as their sole aim to shout down anyone who cares to criticize anything seriously, much less the sacred POW. My original remarks were in no manner, shape or form of the type you so readily and inaccurately impute.

I'm sorry, sir, but you are part of the problem. I guess that places you somewhere in the middle of the majority, and I have no probelm to believe that makes you feel swell, possibly superior--though a modicum of thought on your part should cause you to scratch your head on that one. But of course you won't because you haven't the wit.

Regardless of your limitations, I prefer and intend to go my own way with opinion. Telling people what they wish to hear never did anyone any good in the long run. A lesson you haven't learned while I have.

How about if the next time you post on this forum you try to keep it focused on photography and not personalities? Or does that strike you as unreasonable, too?

Final questions: just what sort of education were you treated to? And how long has it been since you entertained an original thought? Have you ever entertained an original thought?

Have a nice day.

I'm sorry Seven but I've got to say this.

I QUIT!!!

As long as Mr Tris Schuler will cast his bright comments on every POW he doesn't like, I'm

not going to write a single word. That's enough for me. It's the second his entry to the POW critique and It's far beyond limits of acceptance. I would like to read and write about something more normal than intrusive discussion why Mr Tris doesn't like particular piece of POW, and how he's clever in lo...ng answering. What as a matter of fact has nothing to do with POW but himself. To see that he doesn't care about anyone else but yourself. And is going to bring anyone down by self promotion. THAT'S ENOUGH !!!

First off, thanks to my beloved T for her support - and having the presence of mind to acquire the subject matter before us.

To fellow members, thanks for the considered critiques - these take time and are greatly appreciated.

 

Regarding those flames : please, Dr Greenspun and co. have a wonderful site through which I and others have made many friends and improved our skills... let's keep it succint, pertinent and courteous.

I strive to elevate the mundane, as a philoshper once said : to find meaning in the menial. It balances my life. I hope my PN work comes across as simplistic but colourful....I strive for that alone as beauty, to me, is always simple.

 

Take care folks.

 

I don't exactly like those abstract photo's like this one. (Sorry if that's being a bit old fashioned). However, that doesn't mean that this photo isn't creative, has great colour and an intruiging composition.

Therefore, good job.

In my opinion, a great photograph, like any great work of art, should capture and convey an emotion (mood, feeling, etc.). This photo, while technically excellent, fails to do that for me - and for that reason falls short of what I would call a great photo. However, it's technical merits do deserve praise (if not adoration) and I'd say it is certainly worthy of its POW status. Congratulations, Seven.

Aesthetics 7, Originality 6.

I am going to try really hard not to respond to this trying interchange in future... It clearly falls on deaf ears.

 

Many of us have been the recipient of a thoughtful pointer or two or ten -- about our images... I personally have given my share of pointers from my own opinion and perspective. I've even given out a few 3's and 4's. No, of course we don't want to say ooo and aaa over all photos and POW's. What I don't like to see is an arrogant, pompous attack. If you read Tris's first comment...that is how I take it. It infuriates me. He starts out insulting others and the photo in a snooty self important way. Even his "positive" comments are aloof and condesending. It is inflammitory to me. Others have commented "negatively" but responsibly and thoughtfully. Bravo! Best of all is Seven's own comment. He said it briefly and well. I'm quilty of going on ad nauseum about this conflict and personally I'm going to "try" and ignore it for future. I will try and remember what Mom always said about the bully in the playground...

 

good concept and execution

I must admit that I don't greatly care for this picture. I think the idea is cute, and the pattern of the bubbles is attractive, but the stripes of saturated blue and yellow are way over the top, and who ordered the corn? It is certainly interesting, and definitely a cut above average, but I can't see it as one of the best 52 photos that will be posted this year on photo.net.

On the subject of the use of the rating scale, it would seem that there are two dramatically different schools of thought on how to assign scores. One school interprets "9" and "10" to mean "very nice": probably a few photos every day merit a 10 for members of this school. The other school interprets "10" to mean "among the handful of best photos on photo.net", and awards one or two 10's per year, and maybe a couple of 9's per month. This is fine provided every photo gets the same proportion of raters from each school, and the two schools do not differ in their appreciation of the different photographic styles and subjects. Unfortunately this is probably not the case. In the absence of guidance on what the ratings are supposed to mean, and somewhat consistent ratings, the "generous" school will of course eventually drive out the other one. It is easy to see that this has been happening recently.

On the subject of POW discussions: it would appear that the POW is being treated by some as a general, high visibility, thread where the aesthetics of photography is discussed every week, along with a fair amount of the usual bulletin board noise that comes up when people discuss things they care about. It seems unfair to the photographer to make the "honored" photograph the venue for these long discussions. It seems to me that the discussion threads associated with photographs, including the POW, should be limited to critiques of the photograph, and except for the photographer himself/herself, people should limit themselves to one or two comments, and not turn a photo critique thread into a slug-fest about who-knows-what, especially not one with a lot of ad hominem banter. Daniel put it best: let's not keep turning the weekly POW birthday party into a brawl. It is not civil, to say the least.

Most of this comment of course does not belong here, either, but the damage is already done.

On the subject of POW discussions: it would appear that the POW is being treated by some as a general, high visibility, thread where the aesthetics of photography is discussed every week--Brian Mottershead

Brian.

I actually find this to be a good thing and perhaps the fact it keeps occuring suggests a need for a better system to chat about photos in this place. POW allows a discussion to develop far more easily than regular critique, mostly because contributors are likely to check back and read replies to what they've posted. I also think it's grossly unfair to pin the blame for "unpleasantness" here on those who expressed a dislike for the photo or wished to talk about the reasons. It is the people who (over)reacted with personal attacks who need to be scolded, not the individuals who've taken the time to type out a critique. Speaking of taking the time to explain, it would be nice if the elves set aside 5 minutes of their precious time to compose an intelligent paragraph explaining the merits of the picture (from their point of view), instead of tossing us a one-liner. The whole thing (choice and comment) seems to betray a thankless task that gets carried out at the last minute, with little thought or effort. I may be completely wrong in this assumption, though I would be glad to stand corrected and have the entire procedure explained to me.

Vuk, here I am already doing exactly what I counselled against. (Well, maybe next week.) I quite agree with you that the fault lies less with those who express an honest critique than with those who indulge in personal remarks and who insist on having the last word at the expense of repeating themselves ad nauseum. (Venturing into the ad hominem here, my observation is that you very seldom are guilty of either, although you can be provoked.)

I agree that there should be a thread where people can regularly rendevous to discuss photographs, although I tend to think that the photographs themselves are not that place.

The chat room might be OK, but it is usually deserted, and besides I don't think "chat" is conducive to longer, more thought-out, comments.

Only the POW has enough visibility to make it a suitable rendevous, but given how meandering the discussion can be, it seems somewhat unfair to the photographer, and makes POW a notoriously mixed blessing.

I agree the whole process for selecting the POW is too much shrowded in mystery, and needs to be rethought. I suspect the "elves" are mostly the hard-working folks who administer photo.net for a living. Gathering in the pub to pick the POW was probably fun at first, but could now be more a burden of which they would be grateful to be relieved.

In other words don't make waves.

Don't make waves just for the sake of it. Critique, criticise, analyze and pontificate all you like, but when you label another person's art - the focus of so much creative energy - in this manner:

I see no art. I see no creation as far as that goes. What I see is someone snapping off digital frames without number until he hits on an image from which he hears jazz.

...it disgusts me that you could denigrate an artist's creative process as such. There is NO thoughtful critique of photography there, merely a small-minded and ill-informed swipe at the digital medium (and I say this as a religious devotee to film) and Seven's approach to his work.

How do KNOW he fires off hundreds of digital frames before randomly hitting the jackpot, as you infer?How do you KNOW Seven isn't so good he got his entire portfolio on the first shot? You don't, so why make such a sweeping and damaging assumption? And just what IS the difference by your narrow definition of the art of photogrpahy between a pro with massive resources who takes thousands of shots because he can afford it, and a digital photographer who takes numerous frames because he is not reliant on film?

And finally, I would ask what YOU see as the difference between Seven's approach to his work and the reason why you take pictures yourself? What makes your work more relevant - either on a personal level or in the context of public consumption - than Seven's?

Telling people what they wish to hear never did anyone any good in the long run.

And crushing their art is somehow of benefit then...? Please. Seven's work is not my taste, but I can totally appreciate what he does as art. You cannot, merely because it is inventive and modern, it seems.

How about if the next time you post on this forum you try to keep it focused on photography and not personalities? Or does that strike you as unreasonable, too?

Which is rich when followed by:

Final questions: just what sort of education were you treated to? And how long has it been since you entertained an original thought? Have you ever entertained an original thought?

Every day, my friend. Every day.

how about having a D-POW and a F-POW! It would probably create a better discussion atmosphere.

I like the picture as a digital shot.

great technical work....

This is interesting in terms of it's composition and subject, but as a rule I am not fond of color photography.

 

Whoo-hoo....Wow, Seven, you really got it, didn't you? Don't take it on, just keep shooting. Its a good piece of work, and I think its cool that you can see the art in little things. Congrats on POW. Now pray you never get chosen again!

In a spirit which wishes only to embrace critique of photographic art I will try to redirect this thread into more thoughtful channels. We'll see.

I see no art. I see no creation as far as that goes. What I see is someone snapping off digital frames without number until he hits on an image from which he hears jazz.

...it disgusts me that you could denigrate an artist's creative process as such.

These sorts of emotional outbursts do nothing more than to push buttons. If indeed you feel "disgust" to read a simple statement of personal expression within the context of artisitc critique (be it of a photograph, a painting, an architectural work, whatever) then I would suggest that you approach a qualified agency and enroll yourself into a program of anger and violence counselling. What I hear sounds very much like someone who "stuffs" his emotions, and that is not healthy.

I don't mean that to be cruel, but much of what I read here is over the top.

There is NO thoughtful critique of photography there

That's known as a "blanket statement." There is "no" thought there? What, I'm a robot with taped responses triggered by remote?

It would be more correct for you to have written, "The following emotional outburst by me will now be delivered with little thought for the consequences in order to relieve my "stuffed" feelings.

...merely a small-minded and ill-informed swipe...

More insults, more relief for your stuffed feelings.

...at the digital medium (and I say this as a religious devotee to film) and Seven's approach to his work.

Here you presume to read my mind.

For what it's worth, I've nothing against digital media in general and have toyed for some time with the idea of buying a digital camera. I see uses for this technology. I do not condemn it, I just think it is being somewhat abused by people who have no conception of what photography per se actually is about. And mind you, these people are the losers, for unless they delve more deeply into the photographic arts than that they'll never come to understand anything. Or at least not much. That in turn will inhibit their potential to produce.

How do KNOW he fires off hundreds of digital frames before randomly hitting the jackpot, as you infer?

It's irrelevant how many captures he or anyone else with a digital camera makes before uploading images.

In more detail, my objection to this new-wave approach to photography is not the resultant images formed but rather the enforcement it offers to the general public that "shake 'n bake" methodology is a good deal and acceptable for the creation of art.

It is not.

Digital cameras have their proper place, but snapping off myriad close-ups of household articles in extreme light and whatnot does not speak to much creative process and indicates next to zero understanding for the actual field of photography. Indeed, I think it's fair to say that many (if not most) people using digital cameras today have next to no experience whatsoever with film emulsion and the properties of light, form vis-a-vis light and shadow, etc. And they could care less. They don't want to think about what they shoot and how they shoot it. They just want the image and they want it now. The camera companies realize this and have moved to fill the demand. That's a good decision for sales, but it doesn't do a thing for art.

How do you KNOW Seven isn't so good he got his entire portfolio on the first shot?

Because I've lived and I realize how life works. It is entirely reasonable to assume that users of digital cameras do not work as carefully as some guy does with his camera perched on a tripod worrying about light readouts and the dynamic range of the scene before him with regard to his film and a lot of other things. And as I've tried to explain, it is quite unlikely that many (if any) users of digital cameras are either aware of such subtleties or could care less to begin with. Their clear statement in buying these devices is that they don't want to be bothered.

You don't, so why make such a sweeping and damaging assumption?

It isn't "sweeping" but application of common sense wedded to what I know of the different media and human nature.

And just what IS the difference by your narrow definition of the art of photogrpahy between a pro with massive resources who takes thousands of shots because he can afford it, and a digital photographer who takes numerous frames because he is not reliant on film?

First of all, a pro doesn't take thousands of shots because he can "afford it" but for the reason he realizes that with more images captured he stands a better chance of getting one which fits his needs. That assumes the pro takes a lot of shots to begin with. Some do not, as a rule. Sure, they bracket where this is feasible and circumstances warrant such treatment, but they're not about wasting film (or their time) for no good reason.

The pro who does make many multiple captures is probably working on assignment anyway and must run his material through an editorial process. I've never shot for National Geographic but I have shot for newspapers where the same method is used, albeit somewhat scaled down. If you have interest, visit the National Geographic website photo pages. They bother to explain in some detail what their assignments entail with regards to this process.

I can offer you an example of why I might use a lot of film to capture one image. Go to my Streets of London portfolio and look at Crowd Pleaser. Now everything I've uploaded thus far is hand-held street work, not "serious" work, and was taken with just one thought in mind mainly: try to bring back images which represent at least a feeling of where I was and what I saw while I was there. (Actually, it was an effort to allow my daughter, who happens to live in Spain, to view these shots.)

For Crowd Pleaser I was presented with live action, much like a sporting event, and so I elbowed in as close as I could and just cranked off a roll and a half of film in an effort to capture at least one pleasing image. Now whether or not you, as the viewer, are pleased is something else, but the point is I expended about 50 frames to allow myself the freedom to choose amongst them for the "winner."

Is there any difference between this method and how an operator of a digital camera works? I don't know. One would need to decide that on a case by case basis. But my thrust here is to show to you that I've nothing against rattling off frames in quest of the perfect image.

You do what you have to do. Nobody's out there for a suntan.

My problem with photograph's such as this week's POW is that the subject matter itself is rather thoughtless. I don't appreciate the resultant image a lot, either, but I don't find it offensive and so I gave it an average score for aesthetics. As I hold the two rating dynamics to be symbiotic then that obliged me (more or less--there are always exceptions) to assign a similar score for originality. Actually, if anything I'd go back and downgrade the second score on second thought, for I'm at a loss to see much rationale for this approach.

Who wants to look at colored bubbles? Apparently you do. I do not, though, and so I logically object to the rationale of the photographer coming into the composition. As the aesthetics aren't much to write home about, how "thoughtful" then could the compositonal component of the activity have been? Not very thoughtful, would be my conclusion.

Re the grades themselves (again): I'd urge everyone to check out the tutorial (if one might call it that) on this subject, and proceed apace. It's obvious to me that few have bothered--that, or they can't understand the concept.

Speaking for myself, I look at all art within the greater context. That is to say, if you presented a pencil sketch to me of something then I'd turn my mind's eye back to, say, the work of Rembrandt (I like his sketches) and try to weigh it fairly against that known balance. That being the case, it's doubtful you'd see many 10-10's from me. Other people apparently have more liberal views and assign perfect scores at the drop of a hat. Thus my remarks regarding the absurd nature of this mechanic.

Just the other day I received an email from someone asking me to go back and look at his pictures again and see if I couldn't find it in my heart to give him higher grades. So I did. And you know what I found? I found his wife (apparently) giving him 10-10's across the board, and he was even assigning himself high marks!

I didn't change my scores. I did leave what I felt to be appropriate comments to explain why I gave the scores I gave. I hope he can use that but I doubt if he can. You see, all he cares about are grades. And he gets good ones! Indeed, he's one of the top-rated photographers on the server--Top 10 or so.

I told him he's mainly underexposed.

In general I find grades to be detrimental. Comments are not, if they're composed within reason. I hope you find mine to have been just that.

In any event, that's where I come from.

/photodb/image-display?photo_id=416531&size=lg

click on the image i just uploaded...you can click on the arrow since it points more or less towards the top... i promise you will not crash into Tris ;-) that will have to do for now. call it a "middle-of-the-road-back-to-top-button".

back to top

It is entirely reasonable to assume that users of digital cameras do not work as carefully as some guy does with his camera perched on a tripod worrying about light readouts and the dynamic range of the scene before him with regard to his film and a lot of other things. And as I've tried to explain, it is quite unlikely that many (if any) users of digital cameras are either aware of such subtleties or could care less to begin with. Their clear statement in buying these devices is that they don't want to be bothered. --Tris Schuler

Tris.

"Unlikely that any"???

Although I feel much of what has been thrown at you here is unfair, your comments above are best described as simplistic nonsense and you are the one now making blanket statements. Let me give you just one example--which is enough to refute your sweeping contention, right? You see, I actually fuss over precise exposure with my E-10 a bit more than my Leica, because film is way more forgiving. I even use an incident light meter instead of what's built into the Oly, while all of my Nikon SLR friends let their camera do the thinking. In the end, however, none of this has anything to do with critiquing a photo and I am not sure why you insist on bringing it up. I don't really give a sh*t if someone hands his camera over every morning to a pet monkey who roams the streets clicking away for him. It's not a very effective technique, but amidst rolls and rolls of wasted film, it's quite possible something rather excellent would emerge: something to rival all the top-rated members and something you'd have no clue was shot by an animal.

how about having a D-POW and a F-POW! It would probably create a better discussion atmosphere. I like the picture as a digital shot.--MEHDI K

This is just as absurd. I could shoot the picture above just as easily on film or CCD and you would never know the difference, especially if viewing it as a compressed JPEG on Photonet. Such comments are almost as rude (and certainly as ignorant) as the personal insults we've seen in this "discussion."

sorry im going to have to agree with the other guys. photo of the week? i personally dont think its all that great. not that its not a good image its just not all that appealing.5/5 rating

As I've said, I'm not greatly enamoured of this photograph, but saying "pretty good for a digital shot" is damning by faint praise, and I don't think is fair either to Seven, or to the many people on photo.net working seriously with digital cameras.

In short...I like it! It shows a high level of originality and the image itself leaves the viewer to make his/her own interpretations. It sort of reminds me of a beach landscape with bubbles! Well done on POW...there are a number of other images in your collection that could equally qualify for this attention.

 

I commented on last weeks POW that perhaps people should limit themselves to two comments on a photo and was accused of advocating censorship by someone. What I do advocate is self-control. This photo does not deserve the repeated lengthy rantings of particular people or the "comments on comments".

Nice bubbles in primary colors

David.

 

I did not mean to suggest my approach was haphazard. Far from it, I am methodical, obsessive and emotional when it comes to practising the art of photography. That said, looking at pictures and evaluating them as pieces of art is something completely different and doesn't even require you to have ever taken a photo in your life. That's why I don't give a sh*t about how hard it was or what kind of camera was used or what the photographer thinks or what he did when I'm judging the final result. Yet, I am extremely interested in all those things as a photographer. Are you unable to enjoy or evaluate dinner at a restaurant unless you know what kind of pot the chef used, if he actually tasted his broth along the way or whether the oven thermometer was digital?

 

BTW--for all those who think this photo is somehow devalued by all the comments it has attracted, may I remind you they are not being forever imprinted on the image. If all the text upsets you for some reason, then don't scroll down to it.