Paul

Well done. I like it. My first thoughts `very smooth` Strange what goes through the mind when you sees something as pleasing as this.

***WARNING***

If you are HUMOR-CHALLENGED, please skip the following post! It contains satire, sarcasm and ascerbic commentary.

 

This is GREAT! This is WONDERFUL! This is the BEST photo.net picture anybody has ever seen! Truly the work of a grand master!

 

The light is too dark, the face is in the wrong place. The colors are too bright. It would have been better in black and white. The focus is too sharp. The focus is too soft. The colors are too dim. You should have used a rim light (a term I heard once, so now I use it in every post) at 37.68359 degrees above the subject to properly illuminate the glasses, and how could you be so careless? This is the WORST picture on photo.net and the rest of your stuff is the same (but MINE IS BETTER/BIGGER/[iNSERT YOUR FAVORITE SUPERLATIVE HERE].)

 

---REALITY CHECK-----------

 

As I warp out of Universe #1 and #2, and leave the tiny-but-vocal few who make up the extremist fringes of each behind, I have to point out that all the above is tongue-in-cheek (for those too humor-challenged to "get it"). Ain't photo.net great? On a gray, cloudy day like today, its a lot of fun to read the posts.

 

Seriously, artists are always like the above -- all right brain and no left. Probably why "starving" and "artist" go together so well.

 

It's part of what makes us each take good photographs, even if we're the only ones who think so.

 

And in the end, (unless a making a living depends on the opinions of others) isn't that all that really matters? That WE ENJOY taking pictures and sometimes choose to take the risk of sharing them with others?

 

The Internet sure beats boring just our neighbors with our vacation slides! It takes the concept of captive audience to a whole new level!

 

And nothing I have said is aimed at anyone in particular or in aggregate, so please don't take offense.

After reading about half of this, I'm left wondering if anyone has ever been to an art museum. Especially one that shows modern art. It reads like a bunch of techies, mostly, trying to talk about art, without any idea what they are talking about. Probably like artists talking about programming, or whatever it is that some of the commenters do. In particular, a comment like "Where are the blood, sweat or tears here?" leaves me thinking that some people have no idea how to value art.

Sorry there were no blood sweat and tears in capturing the image of Paul, and (hoping not to offend anyone.)..I enjoyed the whole entire thing.

 

To Photonet:

Thank you for picking this photo as photo of the week, I think.

 

Thank you all who let me know here that you enjoyed my photo. For if even one of you did, I feel I have achieved success.

 

For those who offered constructive criticism, I have learned far more than I could have dreamed from all of you.

 

Were I to do it all again, I would lean towards Marshall Goffs rendition of my photo as the crop and matte treatment which I prefer the most, and I would photograph the subject using a bounce, off right.

 

It was a lighting experiment (my second try) which I felt worked for the most part as I had intended. There will be many more.

 

The lighting was natural light through an open window, no glass, into a dark building. The window was to the immediate left, and was cropped out of the photo. I felt it was my liberty as photographer to choose to show what i wanted to show.

 

After the shot was taken, I decided rather than to prohibit the photo from being improved in a manner typically achieved in a traditional darkroom, to go ahead and use the digital darkroom I had at my disposal (Photoshop). A contrast adjustment was made digitally, and what faint detail that remained in the wall after that, behind Paul, was burned to solid black. (For those interested in technical details.)

 

I consulted with three professional photographers first regarding the darkroom question, as it was my concern that I would be at a disadvantage if I could not employ darkroom techniques where film-based photographers could. I was told that this has been an accepted practice for decades. I am wondering now if it is perhaps I who in fact has the advantage, as it is often less time-consuming to accomplish the same task in a digital darkroom rather than a traditional darkroom.

I have some sepia toned photographs posted on photo.net for example, which I understand typically involve considerable amount of time in a wet darkroom. Not having a wet darkroom as an option, I must instead rely on the digital darkroom, and whether this is fair, is something that the jury is still out on, judging from the discussion I have seen related to my photograph and other digital photographs.

 

I have found that the majority of people who view a photograph either like it, or they dont, not withstanding how it came to be. But I digress... I choose not to be enjoined in that battle. I personally enjoy photographs taken both digitally and traditionally, and always will.

 

Tony Dummett...

No, this is not my best shot. My folders on photo.net have others which I myself prefer to this one. But it is the best one I could find sporting such a lovely pimp hat. Im sorry now that it was chosen. No, Im not. I have learned a lot. Tony, I have admired your work, and I will continue to stop by and look at your photos for inspiration; I consider you one of the better photographers on photo.net. My only question is why you chose to compare my photo against Michael Spinaks photo of the tendril from POW two weeks ago. There is no comparison. Michael Spinaks photograph is in another league beyond mine and is superbly done. Mine was an exercise in lighting.

 

Thank you to all the many talented photographers who have contributed to make this such a great learning experience, and so much fun too!

 

Good night all and keep smiling. Paul, lets get together and do some more portrait stuff soon... more than being a good pimp, you are a talented teacher.

Actual Results from my FIRST lighting exercise:

 

WARNING: A PARODY

 

Vuk, Do you agree that Paul's hat looks better on Tony?

 

(Peter the Digital Manipulator is not dead yet... don't I have another day left?)

Has anyone made the connection with the two acronyms POW (Prisoner of War and Photo of the Week)? I sometimes feel like they're one in the same for this forum!

This is another pathetic example of blatant digital and artistic manipulation. Your choice of subject matter is a truly fine one, but I am much better looking than this.

 

... and I would never be caught in a "pimp hat" (Vuk's nasty, tasteless phrase, not mine). I don't wear hats mainly because, although I may have shortcomings in other areas, I have a mighty impressive head of hair that is the envy of most of my contemporaries. Follicularly I am decidedly well-endowed. Why, just the other day my barber said my hair "grows like parsley", which I think was a compliment. To cover up such an attribute is sad testimony to this photographer's ability to either take a "real" picture or convey the obvious strength of character of his subjects (or their hair).

 

And another thing...the original of that photograph was posted so my fawning cadre of paid, adoring acolytes could worship at Their Master's Earthly Workspace, not for inclusion in some cheap bordello shot that can only bring discredit on This Server, the digital puppeteer who defaced it and the whole of Universe #1 into the bargain (Space Cadets and Peanut Gallery inclusive).

 

Are you aware of the libel laws of New South Wales, Australia, Peter? They are among the most archaic and draconian in the world. The defendant almost NEVER wins! Did you know that? If I lifted my little finger, any one of a number of hack QC's ("Queens Counsel" to the uninitiated...P.S. while I'm at it America, get a real legal system: one where they wear wigs) would catch cabs to the airport and sue your arse off the next time you even thought of coming here to Australia, for faking a picture like that?

 

No, I didn't think so...

 

Well, I'll let you off this time... but don't let me catch you doing it again. To make fun of the True No. 1 Photographer on photo.net (no matter which way you work it out, except - puzzlingly - the way they actually do work it out) is a serious misdemeanour, but nevertheless... I forgive you...

 

See? I'm not so much of a Mr. Nasty after all. But next time show the hair, not the pimp hat. I may be a low vicious rat, full of arrogance, jealousy and spleen, picking on defenceless photographers and their imaging when they can't defend themselves, AND taking pictures of people in pissoirs at a beer festival (I mean, how unreal can you get?)

 

...phew! I think I've covered about the whole list of complaints (they obviously haven't found the dog and cat photos yet)...

 

...but I do have some limits.

And I was hoping they were all asleep by now in the land down under!

 

Cheers, mate.

Next victim please!

Very nice! Warm, Dramatic and striking! If I were forced to critique I would prefer more space in front.

 

Wonderful job Peter.

 

OH NO! NOT ANOTHER PHOTONET RATINGS CRAVING CRYBABY (RCC)

"Mommy, no fair, Bobby scored higher ratings than me!"

 

This is getting tiresome Michael Spinak, and others who have apparently fallen down from off their esteemed pedestal. Mikey, someone liked another photographer's work besides your own. Deal with it. And do we all need to hear yet another RRC whine about the big portfolio vs little portfolio squabble. If bigger is better, than yes, YOU WIN! You win, ok, you win! But photo.net has determined that quality deserves more emphasis than quantity.

 

I am not singling you out, Michael. You are not the only one here on photo.net who needs to get over yourself.

 

And, while you wish to "further pursue the discussion about whether this picture is a photograph or a piece of photograph-based computer-generated graphic art", don't forget, while you are splitting hairs, to take a little time and go out to shoot more photos. It might prove to be far more productive for you.

 

P.S. I can't be sure, or prove it absolutely, but I think maybe the picture Mr. Christoph took of Paul is a photo. I also looked at your leaf picture, and I decided it is also a photo.

Arthur,

 

Mike is absolutely correct on this one and you are wrong. He is only stating the facts of the matter.

 

A year ago a positively sensational rating - one that would attract thousands of viewers as the word spread - would be 8 out of 10. Nowadays a rating of 8 is, as often as not, a sign that the rater doesn't particularly like the picture all that much.

 

Mike has quite a few pictures posted. If he was to delete all but three of them he would rate very highly on the "Top Member" list. That he does not do that is a sign of his sanguine approach to that list. The same is true of many languishing down in the bilges.

 

What Mike is saying is that either, in the last few months, the quality of photographs posted to photo.net has dramatically increased, or the ratings standards have loosened off considerably and pictures are generally rated quite a bit higher.

 

There is also the side issue of the publication of ratings. Ratings were confidential until late July when (during a particularly scandalous period of ratings corruption) the elves conducted a "Night of the Long Knives" and expunged many bogus raters and made their ratings public for all to see. It is simply more embarassing to give a low rating nowadays, so many rate higher than they would normally. Others, wishing to comment with silence, decline to rate at all (where once they might have), leaving only the high ratings to skew average "scores" upwards.

 

The current crop of highly rated photographers (with some notable exceptions) has smallish portfolios with extremely high ratings, due to the fact they were posted relatively recently and received the benefits of ratings inflation. Mike was counselling them against getting too swelled a head over this. It's as easy to be a ratings millionaire today as it is to be a property millionaire: you just have to enter the game at the right time and you can't lose.

 

I don't see why a discussion over the ratings needs to be characterised by you as some kind of "whining session" or borne of jealousy. You've been a member here for just over two months. I doubt whether you could really know what you are talking about on this issue, as it is necessary to have a proper understanding of the history of it (which only members from those times can have, as only they were qualified to access the various databases at the time) to appreciate how the average ratings have crept upwards - by probably 25% - over the last six months.

 

There is one problem: the ceiling level of 10. I predict that soon a 10 rating will be as common as an 8 rating is now. Unless the elves allow 11 to be awarded, pretty soon there will be many, many photographers all crowded at the top with ratings differentials of a few hundreths of a point and most of them thinking that this is meaningful. The virus of ratings inflation will finally have come too close to destroying the host. What then?

I apologize to Michael.

 

My frustration was more with a larger group of people, and I should not have singled you out.

 

It is interesting that when the masses have discovered new talent, that a lot of the "old masters" seem reluctant to offer a "Good for you!"

 

And if a new upstart comes along and is awarded POW, then it must certainly have everything to do with an inflated rating system and absolutely NOTHING to do with his skill or vision as a photographer?

 

Let's recognize that maybe lots and lots of photonetters like their work, and consider that this could be a POSITIVE thing for everybody.

You're so tense.

I like your other picture of Paul better in your Portrait Work folder. That one really IS a portrait.

Tension probably arises from pure exasperation Arthur. Tony & Mike are so regularly accused of 'jealousy' from the current toplist positions, aswell as putting themselves on pedestals. Mike is right regarding the current system being fundamentally in favour of quantity (small) rather than quality. I can assure you there is no jealousy involved, as I have worked out some stats on paper regarding the size of portfolios and Mike is quite correct that things would look radically different should certain members cull their portfolio size (& the fact they don't is testament to 'toplist positions' NOT being a priority for them). May I assure all you newer members that Tony & Mike are making observations over a period of time (longer than most) and also that their comments/critiques are borne of honesty, not spite. The angst that appears to have arisen between the more modern artists and more traditional photographers is not all one side's fault, or the other. The problem appears to me, to be a number of photographers being unable to accept an unfavourable critique either on their own work, or more commonly, on behalf of a favourite photographers work. They then make rash assumptions and bandy accusations/personal insults as some kind of valid defence. It is not, and furthermore it is unfair and discourteous. The oversensitive, over-reactive defenders are the ones that truly contain tension/aggression. If they had a valid case of defence then why don't they address specific points raised in the critique they feel are unfair?

 

I agree there are indeed problems with egos on this server (as any other) but I feel you are aiming & firing your arrows of contention at the wrong targets here. I speak from experience as I too have fallen foul of getting personal on the odd occasion. Having made the effort to look at things more logically, and to discuss matters further with particular individuals, my mind has been opened regarding PN politics, individual members as people, and ultimately photography as an art.

Geraldine Allen,

 

What you have posted above is quite a nice defense of Tony and Mike. While you have done a good job of coming to their aid, what I find interesting is how it appears that you are in fact one of the same misguided, "oversensitive, over-reactive defenders" (Tony and Mike this... Tony and Mike that...) that you just finished speaking about.

 

May I assure you that this flagrant piece of hypocrisy that I just read is what makes people wonder if this site is more about photography, or politics and ratings.

 

From now on, let's try talking about PHOTOGRAPHY.

This community involves social politics & ratings, aswell as photography, & since many members concern themselves & make comments regarding these matters, I am entitled to respond.

 

Read your comment again, and then read your comment entitled 'Boohoo' to which I was responding. Talk about splitting hairs and hypocrisy! I was not making rash presumptions, personal insults or accusations in anybody's defence, I was merely offering some background history. Too bad you can't see the difference.

Michael,

 

You've shown your true colors again. Your diatribes are now very tiresome. I can't say I am impressed at all.

You're too easily impressed, Peter.

 

Why is it that when someone weighs in with stupid comments (and bogus, ironic apologies for them later) that it is the person under attack, in this case Mike Spinak, who is vilified for merely defending himself? The attacker, in this case Arthur Hurd, gets away with it whilst Spinak is represented (by you) as being the Bad Guy.

 

You've got things all back-to-front, Peter. You should be addressing your concerns to Arthur Hurd, not Mike Spinak.

 

There's a lot of this going around lately. People come in and slag-off a person's character (by "slag-off", I mean they make unsubstantiated assertions without a shred of defensible proof), but it is the vigorous defence to this slander that attracts opprobium, not the original attack itself.

 

If Michael had not defended himself, Hurd would go around crowing about how he silenced Spinak (impliedly "proving" his ill-informed case). Being "nice", or some kind of "strong, silent type" to guys like Hurd (and others of similar ilk) only seems to encourage them. They go on, emboldened to make more unsubstantiated allegations that they can't possibly back up. And then they whine on about aggressive posts-in-reply when challenged to put up, or shut up.

 

Mike Spinak is a very well respected member of photo.net of long and honorable standing. He is appreciated for the thoughtfulness and balance he puts into everything he posts here. You and Mr. Hurd are relative newcomers with necessarily little understanding of the historical dynamics of the place. You personally behave in an exemplary manner in the comments threads and can obviously give as good as you get, with good humour and strongly-put arguments where appropriate; but before you start handing out castigations for bad manners and breaches of site etiquette to Mike, you and Hurd might both make yourselves more fully aware of the dignified nature of Mike's contributions in the past and right up to the present day.

 

On this matter, Michael had no choice but to defend himself and, in the face of smart-arsed cheeky responses, to pursue that defence in the forum in which it was first put, i.e. this public one.

Oops!

What I meant to say in my last post, was what I did say.

 

But I typed in Michael's name instead of Arthur. My apologies to Michael, and to whoever read that post. That message was to Arthur Hurd. Arthur, can you please LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE! Arthur, you are not helping anyone. Bashing Geraldine, Tony, and Michael is foolish.

 

I have sent him emails and no response. I am going to report him next for abuse. Don't know what to do..

I have been following the attacks that Arthur has been making on you. Totally uncalled for. I've seen your pictures. They speak for themselves. That picture of yours with the leaf and tendril is still my favorite on photo.net by the way. I don't know if I should say what I am going to say here, I may regret it; but I will. Arthur Hurd, take your ball and go home.

If you kids can't get along, you can't play together any more!!!!!

 

Did ya like the IMAGE or not? Let's not even call these RGB phosphorized graphic things photographs any more, let's start calling them images -- that's what they are. I'm an old-school photographer who has spent zillions of hours in a wet and dark room making contacts, and bunches (a technical term for "lots") of prints. Those were called photographs, then computers came along and we e-mail, ftp, upload, download, scan, and all sorts of things to our 21st century "IMAGES" and they appear here for the world to see.

 

Yes, it's important to know how to make a good image, and yes, there are folks out there who want to know the rudiments -- but do we really need to bash someone who doesn't make the exact kind and type of image we do? Call me crazy, but I son't think so.

 

Some of my photos, sorry, images are technically perfect, but look like crap and some are vice versa. I think we can and must rise to the level of what this site is all about -- promoting images that make us feel some emotion. Yes, we should "point out", the good, the bad, the ugly in a constructive and not demeaning way. There is no ONE best way to make an image, and not one of us has the right to tell someone that their way is wrong. Different yes. We could be the cause of someone putting their camera away for the rest of their life. Remember when we started to make images.

 

Sorry, but this needed saying. I'll shut up now.

Paul,

 

Your "imaging" proposition is an important one and goes to the heart of what we're about here. There are some who don't agree with your definition of admissability as a "photograph": which seems to be anything that's flat and can be made into a JPEG. Of course, there are some who do agree and support your ideas.

 

You're a teacher and it's important for teachers to challenge their students (and we are all students at at least some level or other). But I'm not sure that either technological progress or ubiquitous usage is sufficient to justify an "anything goes" attitude towards work posted here as "photography".

 

To me, photography is genuinely about means and tradition; not in some old fashioned stuffy sort of way, but more concerning ultimate origin of our two-dimensional flat spaces. I've been inside and worked in more darkrooms than I care to remember and couldn't wait to get a hold of Photoshop to rid me of the tedium of chemicals and the depressing "hit-and-miss" technique of print making. However, I never quite went so far as to go the whole hog and commit totally to manufacturing images... beyond a certain point, that is.

 

This is really a sort of demarcation dispute. You can say all you want about inevitability and point out hair-splitting "anomalies" (e.g. traditional photographers' use of scanners, photo editing software and so on), but there is a real line in the sand that many who claim to be "photographers" don't want to cross, which you do not even see, much less seriously consider. And I don't doubt your motives or your honesty here. It's a fact that you don't see (or respect - if that word can be used neutrally) the boundary that others do see.

 

Now you might say that this means you are free of constraint and archaic restrictions and thus, perhaps, more genuinely creative than us stodgy old traditionalists. We might say in reply that the dispute is not about who's the most switched on. It's more about artistic constraint and discipline: happy acceptance of restrictions that tax our ingenuity in a certain direction. Either approach is perfectly valid and sustainable: it's where they should properly find their expression that I'm concerned about.

 

Consider a musical analogy. If results were all that matters, then we might all just press the "rumba" button on our electronic keyboards and confine our criticisms to subtle nuances of the "tempo" dial or the "pitch-bender" fader. Anyone who actually wanted to play their own instrument or alter the set beat would be criticised as "old fashioned". Maybe you might see what I'm getting at here, I don't know.

 

Coming to photography, many of us don't want the convenience or the ease associated with digital manufacture of images, even if those images owe some of their origination to a camera at some stage of the process (like this one undoubtedly does). It's not old-fashioned to want to make photography in a more restricted and limited manner, just as it is not old fashioned to want to play an acoustic instrument and to set guidelines for the participation of other people who claim to be musicians when they want to join in the jam session.

 

The question is: what is photo.net about and what SHOULD it be about? General "imaging" or more traditional "photography"? It is a very big question that can't be just dismissed as anachronistic.

I agree with a lot what Tony says because I learned (self-taught)about photography before cameras were electronicly controlled. My first camera was a Nikon F. No meter. I learned the "Rule of Sunny 16" and use it to this day.

 

There is nothing like a beautiful hand-made black and white photograph made the traditional (old fashioned?) way. Heck, if you told me five years ago that I'd be embracing the digital world of photography (imagery?), I would have looked you in the eye and told you that you were crazy. No way, no how.

 

Now I love to play with an image in Photoshop (in broad daylight, sitting down) and if I don't like what I did -- poof! Control or Command Zeeee. Gone. Not like the old days, right Tony?

 

I definitely have mixed feelings about photography vs digital imagery and for me the tide has sort of blurred the line in the sand that I once saw clearly and would not cross. I guess it's progress?? Sort of like the caveman or Rembrandt with a laptop. Now THAT's an ugly image!

 

I'll keep on using film and media and hope to strike a balance while searching for that elusive image I saw in my "mind's eye."

 

Keep being creative in whatever medium suits you, the image-maker. (some folks have never even owned or used an SLR)

 

PS -- The music analogy. Consider a Blues musician who can't read music and plays an old acoustic guitar vs the music school graduate who plays the electric guitar. Is one necessarily better? And then there's Clapton.