Liquid Air

...continue this thread with such topics as Religion, the Government and Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debates. I've rarely seen a group this diverse act in this manner.

I myself did not find the photograph POW material, but obviously somebody did. Why should you people branch off into conversations such as Digital vs. Film and toss meaningless insults back and forth. Can you not read? Mabye your computer is malfunctioning. When I click on "Add a Comment," the first thing I see is: Add a comment to Liquid Air

Perhaps the general sum of you have forgotten the entire theory behind a Commentary Forum. If you want to whine and throw a fit about the digital camera use or technique, use the "General Photography" forum. For us who wish to critique an image, as well as better our own performance, it's quite annoying to read the jibberish you've improperly catelogued.

I'm especially embarrassed to read comments from such people as Tris Schuler, though I'm glad he's taken so much time that he normally spends with his film camera to be here and type nonsense for us all to read. Tris, you sound like a Christian trying to discuss philosophies of Bhuddism. How the hell can you harshly critique every digital photographer if you yourself haven't taken the opportunity to use a digital camera? You might as well buy a pick-up truck and some white bed sheets and go join the Klan, a group of half-brained prejudice people I'd never wish to associate with.

Do I sound unreasonable? Do I? Probably. Well so has about 90% of the comments I've read on the same page as poor Seven's photograph. Now if you'll excuse me, I have an image to comment about!

 

Now Seven, I think the image itself has no strong subject. It is a wonderful image, something I'd hang up in my hall as a huge poster or as the background to my desktop. It just seems more like the backdrop to a picture of much much more. Does that make any sense? Your technique is intriguing, though. Seeing this image has made me want to jump into your Portfolio to see what else is inside. Keep the creative juices flowing!

I am a amateur at photography. I love coming to Photo.net because I can see the work of so many people. To me, the technical part is not the most important. It is the image that is most important. What good is a technically superior musician if the music is bad?

 

I love this picture because Seven took an object that most of us have ignored all our lifes and presented it to us as an interesting image. It is colorful (I do like colors), the little bubbles are interesting to look at. Seven has inspired me to look closer and find beauty. I think this applies to people too. Sometimes we overlook people for whatever reason and miss out on their beauty if we would just stop, look and appreciate.

 

I've marked Seven's folder as "Interesting". All your work is great to look at - visually stimulating. I will be checking back for more. Thanks, Seven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Seven,

this is a very pleasing + interesting color composition. A treat to the eye! Excellent

Maurice, call it a "back-to-top-button".

ibi, i think we just found ourselves a very worthy and rewarding occupation. we'll just put back to top buttons when the comments start getting really long and repetitive. i won't tell where we'll send the really nasty ones. i'm a man with a mission now. ah! what a wonderful life, with a meaning, this is!

P.S. this is a joke... i ask the litterally minded not to worry about an imminent invasion of back to top buttons...

Now, back to Liquid Air... couldn't resist ;-)

"Unlikely that any"???

Vuk, please go back and read what I actually wrote. I opined it's unlikely that many digital users . . . .

It's true I included "any" in parentheses, but that's another story. No doubt there are some digital users out there who know something of what they do, but for the reason they've already learned the fundamentals (or at least have been exposed to the fundamentals) of film-emulsion photography. We speak here rather to Mrs. Smith in Omaha and Johnny "I've got a better idea about what's koooool" Rocket who have never learned the first thing about photography and as far as I can tell don't care a whole lot. All they want are pretty images and they want them easy and fast--as in now!

Actually, I've no problem with that as far as it goes, find this aspect of the digital medium attractive--for limited purposes. The fly in the buttermilk is that this allows (encourages) people with no practical knowledge of the field to swarm all over a site such as this with "pretty images" (in some cases) but no way to really intelligently interface with the essential art and science of photography per se because they simply don't know anything except which direction to point their cameras, and that doesn't make it by half.

Now none of this comes as any surprise here, and that these same people would rate stuff like this week's POW as if there were no tomorrow is only the logical result.

Colored bubbles? Wowwwwwwwwwwwwww!

There is (always has been) an entire class of people who (forgive me, but it is true) simply don't know any better, and if (as I do) one points this out to them they will hurt their tormentor if they can.

Just one more lament in life. But it isn't new. It's just the baser side of human nature coming to the fore. Mark my words: if you took away these digital cameras half or more of this server would go pooffff. Just like that. Why? They wouldn't have anything to upload, that's why.

Anyway, the rub is it's necessary to point this bitter truth out to these people, for if it is not pointed out to them then no further reasonable discussion is possible, for then the inmates have assumed control of the proverbial asylum.

That's not nice to say, that's not popular to say. But that's the way it is nevertheless.

Ultimately, though, the sever's going to behave as it wants, There seems to be no end to newcomers to photography with digital auto-focus wunderbricks as they're fashionably called, and my best guess is that this situation will become more and more extreme, that we'll see more and more POW's of colored bubbles and like that.

I hope I'm wrong, I think I'm right.

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.

All of what you've said misses the point.

First of all none of this addresses you. You didn't just arrive on the scene with a new digital, as far as I know. Plenty of others have, and they don't know beans and couldn't care less.

But let's get back on track. The problem is not that digital cameras cannot do decent work. They can--though not, at present, as well as film. No, the problem is that digital cameras have opened up floodgates to people who don't know what they're talking about, and now sites like this are swamped with these people and they're turning colored bubbles into the best thing ever.

Of course that can't be blamed just on the digital cameras--you'll notice people who work with film emulsion run around here giving out outrageous grades, too. That, however, has to do with something else and I'd rather not get into it at the moment.

Back to digital: does it affect my work? No. Does it affect photography in the long run? It might well, and that effect will not likely be for the better.

Why is that?

Societies don't rise overnight and they don't fall overnight. It takes time. Appreciation of art is a kind of societal nicety, call it one of the fine threads which goes to make up the cloak of what we loosely term civilization.

But I ask you: what would happen if there were no more appreciation for, say, the master painters and master sculptors and master photographers? What would happen if these masters were replaced with new-age icons? What would happen if the work of Monet were replaced with a picture of a Campbell's soup can? What would happen if the work of Ansel Adams were replaced with . . . colored bubbles?

Well, you either see this or you don't, you either want to see it or you prefer to stick your head into a dark hole of denial. Either way I know exactly what I'm talking about, and if you can't see it then so much the worse. Not just for you, but for me and for all of us.

Regarding the E10: I didn't know it had issues with reading light properly, but then I haven't boned up on it awful close, either.

Have you seen the new Olympus? Maybe that's better.

Dan, a couple thoughts occur to me.This Livia person is just one more goofball on a site full of them. Sure, these grades do not reflect the true merit of your worth, as I gauge it, but so what? Let it pass. One low score isn't going to affect your overall average that much.

Why are you so concerned with your grades anyway? You know you're good, yes? Isn't that enough? If not, then I'd say you could do with a long look in the mirror.

As for National Geographic: if you imagine for one moment that those people could care one way or the other about what kind of grades you get on this server then you've lost it completely. That is the finest photography journal in the world, bar none. If they decide to throw an assignment your way as a freelancer it will be for reasons which have nothing whatsoever to do with your average score on Photonet.

Last, but not least: this plea to the community here re your grades is not only unseemly but does potential damage. There's enough BS around here re scores to begin with, and now we're treated to the top-rated photographer on the site whining about some idiot with a hard-on who's given him a few 3-3's.

For your information, there is a gentleman on this site, rated a bit lower than you but just as good, if not better, who has also taken a few hits along the way from people equally as obnoxious as this Livia character. And you know what? I haven't heard a peep out of him.

I'm sorry to have to say this, Dan, but while you're an awful good shooter you have a lot of growing up to do. Maybe you should find a friend and talk it over with him.

Also, if I were you I'd remove any reference of this incident from the site. Should someone from National Geographic bother to read any of this foolishness (which I seriously doubt, but then you never know) it would do you no good and might well serve as a red flag to them that you're not what they're looking for. That's because they want stable photographers as well as able ones. In other words the whole package.

As for threatneing to pull off Photonet if the people here don't do something . . . well, that points more surely still to your instabilities. Again, go seek some counseling.

I wish you well.

You didn't just arrive on the scene with a new digital --Tris Schuler

Actually, that's precisely how it is, though I quickly bought film cameras thereafter.

Regarding the E10: I didn't know it had issues with reading light properly, but then I haven't boned up on it awful close, either. -- Tris Schuler

No issues with the E-10. An incident light meter is a more precise tool for determining exposure in most situations than any in-camera device. Tris, are you the sort of impatient novice who hasn't bothered to learn these fundamentals of photography? ;-)

Tris, the point remains unshaken that none of this is required knowledge for critiquing a photo.

Back to subject which is POW - I beg of you...

Enough already~

Personally, I agree whole heartedly with Jeff Spirer, who said it best. I also started out agreeing with Tris, before it became personal and non-related.

It's just that it reminds me of photos I myself take with my digital camera. And they're boring. Pretty colors, but fundamentally not about anything. Like a painting by Mondrian (and I don't like him either, even if his work is famous).

There's a place for work like this. I really like William Morris' wallpaper prints. They're great wallpapers (like the stuff that covers your walls, not your computer screen) if you like busy wallpapers designed in the late 1800s. But there simply aren't many people who want to take a square of wallpaper and hang it on their walls. They want a picture of *something* on their walls. So they choose something else. Does that mean that William Morris was a bad designer? Does that mean that this is a bad image? No. But I wouldn't be excited to take this picture, and am not that excited to look at it.

I would add constructive criticism, like "crop out X" or "The light seems a bit harsh in the left corner", but I can't. It's hard to be constructive about John Tesh music either, it's just so vapid. Some people pay good money to see him in concert. I am not one of those people.

If you are one of those people, stand proud. You'll make a bigger target :)

hey, calm down! That was a joke!

I'm sympathetic to all that, Dan. Believe me. But you're going about this the wrong.

Look. Nobody on this site admires talent (and I'm talking talent) more than I do. And you ooze talent. But. This isn't the way.

Having said that . . . I've done a little research, and while it isn't exactly conclusive I'm not terribly big on coincidences, either, and this same Livian person, after (or before) screwing you over, marched right on over to the new champ's portfolio and promptly and dutifully(?) asigned a gaggle of 9-9's or whatever they were.

This is not to say the new champ had anything to do with this. But I also noticed that you got one (perhaps more--I'm too tired to check each and every picture) low grade from someone called Benjamin Fallwell, and this person also was over at the new champ's portfolio . . . assigning some pretty hefty scores . . . as if on cue.

For whatever it's worth--and again, it ain't worth much when it all boils down as far as I'm concerned.

As long as we're on this . . . the new #2 on the list is the same silly grade chaser I mentioned yesterday in this thread, and his stuff's mainly mediocre throughout. Climbed right on up from #6 overnight. How could that happen? Beats me, but if I check his portfolio and everyone else in the top 10 or thereabouts I'll bet a clear pattern would raise its ugly head. Anyone care to bet against that?

Sad all the way around, is all I can say.

No issues with the E-10. An incident light meter is a more precise tool for determining exposure in most situations than any in-camera device. Tris, are you the sort of impatient novice who hasn't bothered to learn these fundamentals of photography? ;-)

I guess I am a sort of novice in ways, though I'm experienced enough to go back to the good old Luna Pro for what that's worth. Nowadays I own a Starlite and hardly ever use it for the reason the meters in the OM-4T's I lug around are, for all intents and purposes, just as good and a lot faster. Once in awhile I'll break out my latest Gossen, but it's just to fool around--call it masturbation.

Sometimes incident light readings are best, sometimes spot gets you where you need to be light-wise. It just depends. After awhile, though, most of the settings you need are ingrained in your mind, at least for tripod work.

Tris, the point remains unshaken that none of this is required knowledge for critiquing a photo.

Well, a lot is required to intelligently critique anything, Vuk, and much of that, I'll agree, has nothing to do with photography. What it does have to do with is wrapped up in intellect and character.

From what I've seen and read since I've been here . . . this site is belabored by some very impaired people, and some of them are the "movers and shakers" around here from what I can tell, though I try not to keep up with such things. Then again, how could anyone completely ignore it?

Go ponder that for awhile.

I didn't realize you were a digital kid, that, or I'd put it out of mind. Really, the details of everyone's work isn't my top priority.

My counsel: put the E10 away except for when you need it to get something to someone fast, or want a "reference" shot, and work on the film-emulsion side of it exclusively for awhile--a few years would do you good. It'll pay dividends down the road for you big time.

Just my two cents if you can use it.

Umm. Shouldn't you guys be having your long-winded debates via e-mail, rather than cluttering up the board with things other than comments on Seven's image? What's the point of airing it out on a public forum when you have each other's e-mail address? Where I come from, what you're doing is just rude. If you have any issue with this comment, please e-mail me to discuss.

 

I like the image Seven, it works well as an abstract. Kudos on originality for this image.

I find the upper 1/3 blue portion of the photgraph distracting and find it detracts from the composition. When I crop that portion out by scrolling down on my moniter, however, I find the image to be very nice.

I find the turn of this discussion very interesting for this reason. Perhaps art is most powerful when it sparks the viewer to connect with deeply held emotions or universal feelings. I know this is true when I stand before Renoir's painting "The Boating Party" at the Phillips Collection in Washington, D.C. I am held there awestruck at the power of that painting every time I see it. So, if a photograph is to succeed as a work of art, it seems to me it too will inspire the same type of reaction in the viewer.

 

This discussion is the first one I have seen where the thread has veered so far off course as to make Mary Ball scream "AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHH!" and plead that the discussion again focus on the POW.

 

But the fact that the discussion was so thoroughly sidetracked may be a commentary unto itself insofar as the nominal subject of the discussion has failed to keep the attention of the crowd at hand. Whether this arises because of the digital nature of the process used to make the photograph, or the nature of the everyday object captured in the image, as some have implied or suggested, I don't know. What I do know is this: When I stand awestruck before "The Boating Party", there is no doubt I am in the presence of a work of art. On the other hand, when I continue to converse and completely ignore a song by Yanni that may be playing overhead (to alude to perhaps the most pithy comment by Triblett Lunger-Thurd in another context), I know I am not in the presence of great art.

 

So, perhaps the dramatic turn of the discussion away from the photograph that is the nominal subject at hand is commentary enough that what is presented here is not effective as a work of art.

Kitsch as art. Not a novel idea, but reasonably well carried out here. This is a "concept" photograph, superficially interesting but without a real lot of sustaining interest in and of itself. Literally "froth and bubbles".

 

The colors are distasteful (especially the dirty yellow... it needs more red for mine, but that's just for mine) but this only enhances the "concept", and thus paradoxically contributes to the photograph's success, but only on limited terms. I like it as an idea, but am not so fussed about it as an aesthetic work. Therefore I have to admit it's thought-provoking, but the thoughts provoked are more at the "trivial" than the "profound" end of the scale. It has definite wit, but little depth.

 

Visually? Quite interesting and well composed, but ultimately (in celebrating kitsch) it has become somewhat kitschy itself and a teensy bit self-limiting. It makes good use of the "new tool": the large DOF available with shorter focal-length DSP camera lenses. But ultimately the poaching photographer has become the gamekeeper. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with this (I have to confess to being fascinated by lava lamps and sneak a look every time I think no-one's watching), but I like a little more of a message and beauty in a photograph than this one delivers. A worthwhile effort, nevertheless, that should perhaps be seen in the context of the rest of the photographer's portfolio.

 

 

Then: Photography isn't real art.

Now: Digital photography isn't real photography

 

Then: Dadaism and Cubism ridiculed by knowledgeable and respected authorities.

Now: Man Ray photograph sells for over $200,000 at auction; Picasso painting for over $48 billion.

 

-------------------------

 

I have been up until recently ignorant of what has gone before me in photography. I knew what I liked and that was good enough for me, but recently I had the good luck to be introduced to a new way to see what I was looking at. I can compare photographs (and art in general) to food. There is food that tastes great and food that nourishes. If you're lucky, you find some that does both. Up until now, I was taking my fill of the "tastes great" category without any regard to any other aspect. I was a poster kind of guy. I would have brushed aside an Atget without a second thought. If it didn't have impact, I wasn't interested. Now, I can "read" a photograph with a bit more depth. I can see why Atget is considered one of the masters. Would I hang one of his prints on my wall (discounting the fame aspect)? Nope. There just don't appeal to me. For me the real treasures are the prints that both appeal to my tastes and also offer something to deeper inspection. Many of Henri Cartier-Bresson's and Robert Frank's works make that cut for me. Some, like Luigi Ghirri, have so much "there" that I could stare at the things for hours, and would gladly hang despite the lack of immediately obvious "tastiness". My sight is very immature. I am excited to think what I will see years from now.

 

The Universe has no natural law regarding art. It is a human convention. As such it is malleable to human desire and whims. Art is art. If you want to put structure around it so that you can do such things as critique it, rate it, then you need a context. What field is it rated against? All photography? Pictorialism? Surrealism? All art that has gone before? Even so, a number that represents your score for a piece's originality is simply how you rate it based upon originality ~as you understand it~ and upon only art you have been exposed to. Am I saying that a rating system is useless? Yes, to some extent, but it seems to be in our nature. I love to grab a 1st place as the next person. It is fun, useful, and helps us grow, but it is important to remember the limitations of such a system, and our own. I believe deriding someone else's work, or critiques, only shows our own ignorance. In my view, there is no bad art. There is only art that we can appreciate and understand, and art that we cannot. Did the Ghirris suddenly become something else, simply because my view of them changed? They did. But only in my world. What it comes down to is: What color is the sky in yours?

Mr. Carpenter in the above post made some interesting comments. Like nearly everyone in the art world, he is too liberal and happy to live-and-let-live for my tastes, to the point of prostitution, but all things considered, he makes some sense.

However, notice how many times he refers to humans, human nature, and people. Also note that a few of the photographers he mentioned are people photographers. You see, ourselves being people, we can have an interaction with photographs of people on a level that is impossible with dead objects. That of course doesnt mean that all photos must include people -- it doesnt even mean that no photos should honestly celebrate form and colour. But looking at this POW, all I can think is that the photographer was seeking to ignore humans, deny their very existence, glorify an inanimate object to a level that should be reserved for human nature. And I see this all the time in this sort of work.

"In my view, there is no bad art." Mark Carpenter

This, however, is absurd. How can that notion be consistent with the idea that a photographer, or artist, can improve over time? Or even that some are better artists than others?

Absolutes are important, in my opinion. If everything you looked at were art, and everyones opinion were valid, and there were no right or wrong, the world would be insufferably boring, and I certainly wouldnt be spending a lot of time and effort on my photography.

That is what I first thought of this image when I noticed it. "Who put bubbles in the pool?

I thought as if it looks as though the yellow thinga-ma-bob was a lane marker.

 

I suppose if I were to nit pick, it would be that the nice transition of yellow to bubbles at the lower portion is soft and gradual. I would have liked to see it carried through on the upper part as well. While there is no moment or emotion really depicted here, there is an artist's or better yet, a "Person's" reaction to what he saw. To me, that in it self, is purely a human trait......I don't see leopards going around re-doing there dots. Humans make Art, period!

Is it really my taste? No. It does however remind me of when I put WAAAAY too much bubble bath in a whirlpool tub and saw them go over the edge and all over the floor much to my partners amusement.

 

As for the lingering threads latley, I think that this group of people wants to do this!!! If this is not the most appropriate venue for doing such, then there needs to be another one established on the main page. Maybe call it "For what it's worth" or something of that nature.

 

As for my publicly annouced immense frustration over a nasty ratings subject, I apologize. I think that when you rate someones work, you need to take time and look at it...then look at it again, kind of like tasting wine. You don't just gulp the whole glass down, belch and say "Mmm! Them's good grapes!" and move on to the next one.

 

Enough of that though, it's going to happen, I have seen it at plenty of wine tastings!!

 

Have fun sipping everyone, I'm going to Tasmania to become a "tasmaniac" instead of needing Prozac.

 

db

Hi Seven, wasnt sure how much more room was left on this page, so ill be short and quick, well done for getting photo of the week, you deserve it, just wish my photos had been viewed over 67000 times! best wishes my friend, Marc

Oh, and by the way, STOP taking photos of you farting in the bath!

Seven's World : I don't see any "inanimate" objects in this vast Unknown about us. So long as anything makes an impression upon me (e.g. the thought of a dead relative or pet, a paperweight) it lives and is likely to find its expression through me.

 

I can be as much moved by the contours of a piece of clothing or paint running down a wall as, say, by the presence of an attractive woman (wife excepted!) or a sunrise.

 

Some further information - I do shoot film, plenty of it. Don't suppose I am lacking in photographic technique simply because my photo.net portfolio is a digicam experimental one. This image was not easy in either concept or execution, few of mine are. They might look simple... that's another matter. I think the shoot was 14 frames BTW, not hundreds.

 

It wasn't pshopped beyond contrast adjustment and a slight crop plus frame. Vivid colours because of 3 light sources - dual halogen lamps in front, and strongish sunlight behind. And all items are brightly coloured in any event.

 

Think, think. Behind that paperweight is the human thought by someone "I will make a paperweight." Thereafter the design,manufacture and marketing. There are humans aplenty involved in this image before us. If you cannot see - no FEEL - that, then I believe you are suffering an impoverished existence. Does a photograph need a human face or body, a bird, tree or beast to be deemed art? Will not their ideas suffice - including the idea of the capturing artist.

 

The elves do not say it one of the 52 BEST pics of a year, read their reasons for its selection. It is not one even one of the best 52 in my own portfolio.

 

Anyone have a spare Campbell's soup tin?

My fish love the stuff, helps with their flatulence.

 

 

 

There exists no animosity between the two of us, and I am disappointed about a certain comment above that was clearly an attack on this friend's character.

I would very much appreciate a retraction or at least an apology to Vuk, he doesn't deserve that. Please.

I must admit I'm not a great fan of this type of picture. Sometimes I consider photographing my toenails (side lit and abstract - maybe I could make my belly button look like the surface of the moon).

And this is why I don't take Macro photo's, because my taste is absurd.

 

Like my own ideas, to me, Seven's picture seems introspective and tells me nothing of the world in which we live.

 

Honestly. I prefer pictures that imply story, a sense of narrative that communicates an idea from the Photographer to his/her audience.

 

But then I'm a dyed in the wool Documentary guy with little time for froth and bubbles.

 

Incidentally, Seven, congratulations.

 

Seven (out of Ten).