Jump to content

bosshogg
  • Like 1

From the category:

Performing Arts

· 29,476 images
  • 29,476 images
  • 74,651 image comments




Recommended Comments

This was made for those of you who love to put your anonymous 3/3 on

images without even looking closely. I'm waiting.

Link to comment
Don't give them the attention they don't deserve. Hey, I live in San Francisco where this could be the real world at any moment. Touch of Magritte, dab of Dali, and such a pretty picture through the back windows. Talk about ironic juxtapositions! Now here's post processing put to some good use.
Link to comment

Can't thank you enough. I know it may not be your aesthetic, but I also know you would at least try to see what was going on and what was being said.

 

Actually, there was very little post processing involved in this. Not even a crop.

Link to comment

the 3/3 guy has been a problem here for many years David. i doudt anything will change. it makes it very discouraging to post photos here, and complainning to the administration will do no good,has been my experance.

it is very hard to get honest feed back on your photos, so you have to go on your own gut feelings and what you know about photography. a 7 for originality.

Link to comment
You are a real disappointment to me. LOL I expected this to get really crapped on. Thanks for commenting.
Link to comment

Yeah, I know the problems. I've said it a million times, I don't mind low ratings. I'll even take a two or one. But, I would like to know who is doing the ratings. Not so I can engage them in dueling low ratings, so much as see where they are coming from, and what quality their images have. Once I know that, I think I can make use of their ratings. Not having anything but a rating is simply not very helpful.

 

And, because this is not a formula type image, I would expect that it would get short shrift in the ratings mill.

Link to comment
True, it's not the kind of shot I often take (I'm new enough to taking photographs that there's much I still have to learn to look for), but it definitely is my esthetic. I've long been a fan of surreal images, especially indoor/outdoor juxtapositions. I also love the feel of abandoned rooms like this that still have some life and a lot of story left in them. If there wasn't much or any post processing involved here and you'd care to give an explanation of how exactly I'm getting to see what I think I'm seeing, I'd love to hear it. As for ratings, I've often said that sometimes, given the right photo, low ratings are indeed a badge of honor. Generally speaking, things that don't fit into a typical or already-done-to-death mold don't get a whole lot of recognition here. That's why kudos from someone with a decent portfolio mean so much to me.
Link to comment

Exactly why I so value your comments. Not very many people will take the time to discuss anything anymore. And Pnet is no exception. So thanks for being out there.

 

As for the image, the original right out of the camera is attached. Just some adjustment with "Shadows/Highlights," a tad with "Hue and Saturation," and then levels. Finally, a tiny bit of sharpening. That's all. Glad to share it with you. I'm not much of a PH wizard. I'd like to be though.

Link to comment
And at my age, I give everyone older than me a lot of slack 'cause I'm right behind them. I'm thankful for google every other night when I can't think of that actor's name and can look it up instead of laying awake thinking about it. OK. So thanks for the original but it doesn't help me, poor soul. The ceiling doesn't look like it's part of the structure, especially that rounded part in the upper left corner. It almost feels like it fades into the sky there too. And I almost feel as though I can see through what appears to be a white slightly open door on the left up front. I find it all very disorienting and keep studying it for a structure but can't get it. You getting me back for the guy with the oranges? And how am I seeing trees and sky there in the upper right, roof partially destroyed? Don't answer if you don't want. I don't mind being left wondering. Anyway this must rate a 10/10 on some scale of confusing-the-hell-out-of-Fred!
Link to comment
Sorry to be so confusing. It is shot through a window, and the darkened areas are my head and shoulders, or the camera. I don't know which. The sky and trees are reflections on the outside of the glass that were not minimized by the shadow. The ceiling slants, and adds more confusion. Hope that helps some.
Link to comment
Please, don't be sorry. Now I see it and it makes it even more special. All comes together and so simple! Interesting, there was a thread the other day about the effect that digital photography has had on our relationship as viewers to photography. Many, such as I did, will jump to the conclusion that something is photoshopped when often there is a more simple explanation or the photograph is more complex or better than we thought. Being so used to such effects being created with digital smoke and mirrors, it's enlightening to be reminded that the simple reflection of one's head in a window can have some pretty jarring and profound visual effects! How the mundane becomes the extraordinary . . . And now time for bed. Thanks!
Link to comment
I think this is a very very good and original image...you obviously shoot it through the glass and left some of the reflection right and left framing the main subject...the interior light and light through the second glass is well balanced so that we have details everywhere while preserving the dark ambiance of the main scene...I enjoy the fans on the ceiling as well as travelling across the entire image...more and more I like this kind of highly subjective PoV and original views....of course you'll get 3's for such an image, but it's rather good news in my opinion...do you really expect the vast majority to appreciate high subjectivity ?
Link to comment
Well, I'm glad that having such a simple explanation for it did not ruin it. I'm working on another one that was taken right next door, and also through a window, and it is worked over much more aggressively. I do look forward to hearing your opinion.
Link to comment

Well, actually the raters stymied me here. I figured they hit it hard with the infamous 3/3 s, but they defied my challenge, and simply stayed away in droves. So, which is worse? Low ratings or no ratings. Well, I've become way too obcessed with the issue, so shall try to leave it.

 

As far as the image goes, it is not very profound, but, as you say, just a piece of subjective spur of the moment photography. I do love the concept of covertly peeking through the window. In this case, it should be fairly safe, and not cause me to be criminal. I think a lot of good photographers do make you feel as if you are seeing the world from the Peeping Tom perspective.

Link to comment

IMHO the answer to the 3/3 guy,is to only allow a rating with a comment. this has been proposed to the folks who run this site many times, they prefer it the way it is for some reason unknow to me, i would guess it has something to do with money.

keep on shooting fotos and posting, the world needs to see your work. every once in a wile some good photographer will give you the critique worthy of your efforts.

sincerly Joe B.

Link to comment
Only problem with that is the comment could be anything. One word or not even that. I think we should just take anonymous out of ratings. Yes, that will likely cut down on the willingness if some people to rate, but that's okay. Better to have fewer rates than to have meaningless ones.
Link to comment
I was going to accuse you of breaking into a mausoleum but then I saw the reflections off the glass on each side. When I take images through glass I use a lens hood that fits flat against the glass and eliminates 100% of the reflection. However, in this case I do understand that showing the reflection was 100% of the purpose and I think that you did a good job of it. I'm tempted to go give you a rating of 3/3 only because you expect the such, but I'll just settle for acknowledging your image with this comment. You succeeded in your purpose Tom. OOPS! Make that Peeping David!
Link to comment

I would welcome a 3/3. I complained before I ever got a rate, and then nobody even bothered. Oh well. The image was somewhat serendipitous, but as it happened, I was pleased with the result of the reflections because it helped to create a voyeuristic sort of viewpoint. Otherwise, it would have been just boring. As is, it just missed that mark. (barely) (maybe??) LOL

 

 

BTW, are you old enough to know who Mr. Peepers was? That's your trivia question for the day.

 

Link to comment

I am old enough to remember Mr. Peepers, but I don't. We did not have a television in our house until about 1954 so our evening pastime was to listen to the radio shows that included: "Inner sanctum"; "The Shadow"; "The Lone Ranger"; and others that I don't remember right now. My first recollection of a TV show that I watched at a neighbor's house was "The Bennie and Cecil Show". I loved LIVE television in the '50s because it was wide-open, uncensored, and unregulated. Those days will never happen again.

 

Link to comment

I think it was about 54 to 55 when Wally Cox portrayed Mr.Peepers. I don't remember the show itself except that Mr. Peepers was kind of a bumbling but likable wuss. He kind of got branded with that characterization for the rest of his career.

 

As for your early memories of television, I think it's pretty interesting about your thinking it was freewheeling. They could not even show a toilet or a bed until somewhere in the sixties, and heaven forbid if anyone said the cursed hell, damn or shit word (or worse). But, I will concede that maybe there was more creativity and spontaneity back then.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...