Published: Thursday 10th of April 2014 01:38:19 PM
The image provoked my imagination, your explanation limited it. ed
The purpose of this service is to provide helpful critiques, not to offer criticism of comments or mostly for the captions.
Unhappily (for the most part) captions are almost necessary, and sometimes happily so, because they sometimes act as pointers to things that might be otherwise unseen. Captions can work both ways, but they can be quite helpful for the hundreds of thousands of newer viewers inexperienced in spotting part of photos or interpreting them; for the more experienced (as you and me), they may be superfluous, and in which case it may be in our best interest to make up our own in our heads.
The caption did help place these feet on the Metro which is NOT obvious to most people, and that is an important indicator for viewers, though obviously it is some form of public transportation. Score one for captions. 'Idle' seems to be supported by the photo context, but 'Metro feet' without more seems to much contracted, but I did consider that as a caption. I'm frankly a little baffled about your upset about the caption even if it is justified.
If you had a disagreement with the caption, in light of the above comment and what you wrote, it is clear that your comment was ambiguous and could have easily been better and more clearly written to make your point in any case, obviating this discussion, but I'm glad you clarified . . . . since your comment obviously denigrated my comment next above 'in my mind'.
Since that was not so, I accept your apology.
Please feel free to continue commenting; from time to time issues develop, and I try to be fair, as you have been in explaining your own words and me in accepting that explanation (I hope I have been fair).
I'm sorry if I offended you. I was not commenting on your response to the other member, but the caption on the picture. I don't think I was kvetching, but only making what I thought was a serious comment about the relationship between captions and pictures. ed brown
Frankly, I don't see how.
My message above is meant for a Photo.net member who is severely disabled and had to take his communication inability/disability into account.
Don't make derogatory surmises about how my very personal relationship with that member and his somewhat cryptic comments and my intuitive understanding of them and my wordy replies affect you, please.
If you have an issue, please just ignore the words and comment on the photo, and don't kvetch - my words were meant as a 'reasonable accommodation for a member with a very specific handicap or disability' which I doubt you knew.
The result is your 'smart remark' ends up looking less 'smart' than not well informed. Please, please don't kvetch about my comments which were intensely personal in this case to complain and instead comment on how to create comments to make my photography better which is why I solicit comments -- please look to my critique request.
This is the second time I've had to tell someone complaining about my personal replies to that member to stand back and not kvetch rather than just concentrate on the photo and photo critique - not critique the critiques which is out of bounds.
I hope you do understand the difference.
I'm sorry to have to point this basic point out to you.
It's a matter of decency.
I was decent to my disabled critic, but you were not decent to me in your comment because of ignorance; I deserve your apology.
!! ! !
Ed . . .
More than our colloquy (and your gentlemanly responses to my pique), I am mostly mystified not only by the ratings but by the lack of interest shown by members in this photo, which I regard highly.
But that is not worthy of my pique toward any member, and I am sure it did not affect my reaction to you; merely my defense of a member I hold dearly who is severely disabled (in written communications only so far as I know) and my comments in reply to his cryptic (to others) comments, which are informed (by me), but which appear balderdash to others who are not well informed about his and my cyberrelationship as photo poster and critic.
He's a pretty damn good photographer, despite his inability to express in words his feelings and opinions, but his exclamation points say things very clearly just by their number and placement, which to me is an exquisite form of critique for those (me I hope) willing to look past pure written language.
He had a stroke at an early age, affecting his ability to post comments, but his photos which I have viewed seem very good - excellent in fact.
So, I am protective of that special relationship -- no reason you shouldn't have that explained now.
Another 'hot button' is the one of ten commenters who make comments derogatory to my comments and/or captions but fail to make remarks about the photo or 'how to improve my photography' by critiquing as I request.
My usual response to this 1/10 of those who so comment, is to tell them just to 'look at the photo' and 'disregard the words'; the explanatory words are there for those who relish them along with all sorts of other colloquy.
The vast majority of my e-mail regarding comments (and comments too) attests to the popularity of those who read these comments (some just to read the comments without regarding the photos), and almost NONE from those who denigrate those comments.
The word and idea-starved here turn to my comments for 'interesting reading,' sometimes because my very few writing detractors seem also to be on the bad side of many other members for other reasons suggesting some are malcontents.
Baily Seals, was an exception, who got into quarrels with nearly everyone BUT ME, because (1) he liked my photos, and I not knowing this but being low-rated by him suddenly (all my photos, every one) I publicly invited his (invariably low) rates on my photos because I found them qualified, reasonable, intellectually honest, and studied.
I wrote that (you can find that in my 100 or 120 pages of comments under my photos in my gallery).
Seals was a Photo.net institution who signed by letter symbol [contraction], rather than give the actual name, so few knew the actual name.
He quarreled with nearly everyone, or rather nearly everyone quarreled with him, but not for good reason in many cases; as they kvetched about his ratings (often low) when mate-rating (in which I did not participate) often distorted certain rates mostly to the high end and his ratings irritated some very high rated photographers disrupting what they thought were well-earned reputations which sometimes they advertised.
He rated my photos lower too, but my very best got good ratings from him, even his best, and as a result I judged (and wrote publicly) -- he was intellectually consistent, qualified and honest. I did not and do not rate to keep my reputation from being involved in mate-rating.
He lauded me and my work (comment removed when he left this service) his comment singular, I think for him.
How does this relate to you?
You think (as do I), this is a good photo, but our colloquy and your remark got in the way of the message. It is on the lowest end of ratings received by me on this service in ten years, but I find it one of my finer works, just not in my mainstream.
I think if someone posted this photo who produced different expectations (I do that now, but not years ago) some might have rated it differently.
What's most important however, is that a few people DO like this, including YOU and my gifted friend (with deficit) who made the first short comment above, and that sets you in a special, elevated class.
You see, I trust my judgment for some things, and posting this is one, where regardless of rates, I trust in my photo, and since you do too, I embrace and welcome your comment. If you denigrated 'the photo' I also would welcome your comment, however, as that would clarify why it seems not very popular.
All the rest is just talk; let's be friends.
Rate my photos high or low as you honestly and intellectually feel you can do, and that will elicit no adverse comment from me. A high rate also will not get accolades, though an expressed comment (either way) will almost always elicit a remark in return . . . and if clearly expressed, I'll try to be polite and fair but not congratulate otherwise for congratulatory comments; 'atta boy' comments carry less value than carefully thought out critiques, and you'll find the largest number of my commenters recognize that's so, making my comments received some of the finest on Photo.net.
Welcome, and let's disregard all prior 'stuff'.
Four exclamation points!
For you that' loquacious.
And high praise.
You know how to spot the less prominent 'good ones' (at least in my estimation).
I often have 25 to 100 worked up good enough ones for each one I post, and you have an preternatural ability to hone in on the ones that are not so popular always, but which I find some of my best and more unusual work.
For that I am very pleased.
I always welcome your visits.
One more clarification, if I may. My comment was not meant to refer to all captions or all viewers, only to my personal reaction to this particular image and its caption. Moreover, I wouldn't have commented at all if I hadn't liked the picture as much as I did.
All the best, ed
'Idle Feet on the Metro' These two wandering, pigeon-toed feet and old-time shoes reflect their owner's idleness and fashion values as she whiles away a long ride on the Kyiv, Ukraine Metro. Your ratings, critiques and observations are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly, very critically, or wish to make a remark, please submit a helpful and constructive comment; please share your photographic knowledge to help improve my photography. Thanks! Enjoy! john