EXIT STRATEGY

.

This has SOUL. Something about it!

Thanks. I suspect this will be one of those that they will stay away from in droves. Oh well.

No backscratching meant, David, but let me tell ya you're putting on a fine show today. I dare say that those who'll stay away from this beauty are damn fools. Composition and processing are great. (This time Fred and I agree, no doubt allowed here). I'll be back to give it a couple of 7s as soon as they let me.

Simply brilliant. Good title too.

 

You're on a roll these days, David!

 

Best regards,

Frank

Again, I'm deeply indebted to you guys. Pnet is such a strange situation. On the one hand we quite deliberately put this stuff out there to be commented upon and rated, yet when you get the ratings this one has, it does make you doubt yourself. I know that its foolish to let others dictate your vision to you, but there is that striving to improve, so you start to think that maybe this or that shot really is just so so. Conversely, those of us with a lot of self doubt, can't help but wonder if people are just being nice when you see such a disparity in ratings. Anonymously, not even average. Those putting their name out there, give it much higher ratings. Sometimes it hard to NOT strive for the average. I guess the trick is to know when you are doing it.

Who would see this? Who would shoot it? There are beautiful temples in Kyoto, I'm told, and photographers waiting in line for their chance to photograph them. What photographer spends time photographing exit signs in parking lots?

David, you told us the other day that our judgement may be biased at times because we want our friends to succeed with their images. I assure you, as far as I'm concerned and I bet I'm not gonna be the only one, such is not the case here. This shot is a real winner. Now who do you believe? Fred, Frank, Jack, myself, yourself and all the other commenters that will join us and express their view, or the anonymous down raters?

Yes, I know exactly what you are saying. I live two hours from Yosemite. You won't find a picture from there in my portfolio. There is a reason, and guys like you, Fred, Laurent (both of 'em), Jeff, etc., they all understand and can see that we have that need to express that which hasn't previously had expression, and to see it in a way that it hasn't been seen, and to stand off to the side of the world and assay it from the long view. But sometimes its a bit easier to be in the pond with all the other ducks. That's all kind of muddled, but I think you understand what I'm saying.

With the beauty you've brought to my life, I believe you implicitly. Thank you.

I say shoot everything if it makes you happy. Some of them will turn out really well. Some are based on a terrific concept that falls just a tad short in the execution.

 

I love the concept here - the staggered beams and signs of increasingly smaller size. The right half of each sign and beam is pretty overexposed though. And there's a lot of ceiling in frame that has some interesting reflections that we can barely make out and as such, produces no emotion.

 

If this were my shot, I would post process and increase the contrast a lot. But then I'm a drama queen.

 

Food for thought attached - I overlooked the black object at the very bottom of the frame about 1/3 in from the right edge. I should have cloned that out but no biggie.

 

Cheers ~

Where exactly do you live? Maybe I knew but forgot you were in the west.

 

Perhaps a visit to some big city galleries, like the ones South of Market in San Francisco and over in the artist districts of Berkeley would do you some good.

 

Most of the stuff that I see at the openings I go to would rate poorly on PN. PN anonymous raters are rating highly what they have learned is a good picture. That does not include what is off their radar screens and what is considered CREATIVE or in any way visionary.

 

Now I'd be lying if I said I believed that all the named ratings and comments I read were genuine. I think there's a lot of mate-rate b.s. that goes on on PN, probably equal to the amount of disingenuous low ratings that goes on by miserable people who have nothing better to do than bring average scores down and take the wind out of others' sails.

 

Come on now, look around at some of the more popular photographers on PN, those who get 50 or so comments on each photo, with as many high ratings on every photo posted. Then check their own commenting and rating habits. A simple "this is so well done" on about 20 photos per day will get you a regular stream of people doing the same thing in return. It's hard to imagine that these folks think they are learning or accomplishing anything but it is a regular occurrence. I don't think I'm taking that bold a step when I say that anyone who posts on the average of 10 photos a week and thinks they will all be above 4s is delusional. A 4 or 5 is average, and if you're posting hundreds of photos a year, most of those will be only average and a fair amount will be less than average. Of course, that's only if you're being honest with yourself and if others are being honest with you. And that is NOT happening on PN.

 

I think what you've done, and what I've done, and what some others have done is developed a circle of people we trust at least to an extent. I know each person's work so I take their comments in light of what I think they see in a photograph and what's important to them. Often, reactions to my own photos tell me as much about the other photographer as they do about my own work. When someone whose work I respect critiques me, I think a lot about what they've had to say. But, to be blunt, the ratings we give each other are a joke (why I pretty much stopped doing it). In the circle I regularly travel in, I rarely see anything less than a 6 given out by named raters. That's a joke. All it means is that we're down to a two-numbered rating system, either 6 or 7. If we each look at our last 20 posts, we better reckon with the fact that probably at least 25 per cent of them are average and should have gotten 4s.

 

If you actually thought that a photo like this would garner above 4s in the anonymous rate game, you haven't been paying attention. You know exactly what sells here on PN and you could produce that crap if you wanted to. Instead, you're actually defying that by posting more interesting, edgy, and personal stuff like this, which goes out on a limb just a little more than the birds with feeders and the pathetic homeless people with pathos in their eyes that garner the grades here.

 

I've recommended self editing. That's partly personal because I hate opening portfolios that have 300 photos in them. It's annoying to try to sift through all the average and below average shots that will naturally be in such a portfolio to try and find stuff that rises above. But the editing is not just for MY benefit. It's because you have to become your own best critic (along with those few you trust). You have to figure out what reaches you, yourself, in your work and what doesn't and, when you do that, it will change your shooting for the better. Otherwise you are likely to keep taking the same shot in the same way over and over again, perhaps with slight variation but likely with little actual growth over time.

 

I try to be honest with people but I'd be lying if I said I was completely so. People's feelings, including my own, get hurt rather easily. We all take our photos personally and it's hard, in an internet setting, to seriously criticize someone else's heartfelt work. I am lucky to have someone very close to me who's a much better and more experienced photographer than I am and even he says it's hard for him to be super critical even when he feels it's warranted. He seems to pick his spots with me and that's how I've mostly grown.

 

One of the reasons I've cut back a bit on PN is that I've spent more time shooting, more time with a group of photographers I get together with a couple of times a month to shoot and share with, and much more time devouring photo books and internet sites of other photographers to see what's out there and to compare myself with. I mean professional, well-known photographers as well as some amateurs I've found that I like. Again, if you are going to be honest with yourself, PN is a place of social gathering and camaraderie, which is a wonderful thing and which I enjoy considerably. Come on, though, go through your last month or so of uploads. Do a count of the total number of comments you've received and then do a count of the comments you've actually learned something substantial from about photography. Would the time have been better spent looking through a book of Eggleston, from a strictly learning point of view that is? Then, consider yourself lucky, because you actually get way more than the average of insightful, honest, and helpful comments. Look at the comments of some of the people who are supposedly well-respected around here, those who garner in the 50 plus numbers of ratings per photo. Then count how many insightful or helpful comments they get. It will be way lower than your own numbers. Yet their ratings will be high. Because they've put time and effort into developing a network of regulars who will push the 6 or 7 button for them and then quickly move on to the next.

 

Sorry, I woke up a cynic.

nicely seen and well presented - you have managed to show such a crude and dull subject in a pleasing way. I bet the signs are in French, 'cause "par king" means "for the royalty". So, then, does it mean that the king has so many ways to bail out? And BTW, did you see any chew gums on the ground there? Cheers, Micheal

 

I'm not sure if it is because I am Canadian or because I am left handed but this whole image seems ass backwards. The awkwardness is refreshing. There is an uneasy tension created by all that, somewhat reflective but otherwise empty, space up top when my brain tells me that space belongs on the bottom. Inventive photo for sure.

 

Here is my comment of some of the issues Fred has raised. I did not find it all that cynical which I suppose suggests that I wake up cynical every day.

 

The PN numbers game is exactly that, it's a game. In the absents of any likelihood of change I tend to ignore ratings , other than the occasion snide comment directed at low raters. Anything below 3 is no longer counted so we work with a scale from 3 to 7. Anything below 5, although legal, is generally considered rude, so if I want to be polite I am left with 5-7. When you also figure in all the 6/6 mate rating, my conclusion is this; 6 is average 5 is below average and 7 is above average. 4 is reserved for the truly hideous. I rate images to reciprocate with people who rate my images. Sometimes as in the case of Fred's most recent image I rate despite the fact that Fred and I do not normally do ratings on each others work. I want Fred's image to get more attention, it belongs in the TRP pages. I too have come to rely on a smaller group of individuals who I can trust to tell me straight up what they think but a part of me feels that if I just sit back and never rate the good work I see around here I will continue to have to look at nothing but sunsets and titmice. Every government that has been elected in my country since I was old enough to vote has been corrupt and stupid, but despite that I have voted in every election. At least I can say for better or worse I tried to change the system with my vote.

 

A good part of what I find addictive about PN is in fact the camaraderie. I live out in the woods, the nearest small town has no photo club and my wife gets pretty tired of critiquing my stuff. I would love to be blessed with a talented mentor such as Fred , that would be wonderful, but out here that is not going to happen so for the foreseeable future, I'm stuck with you lot and you're stuck with me :) I agree with Fred that the time would be better spent studying and I have in fact mentioned more than once that I should ween off PN a bit and spend more time studying. I do learn quite a bit around here both about my own work and about how other people approach photography. The place isn't perfect but then what is?

I'm a little out of my element in trying to deal with intellects the likes of you two. So let me say first off that I'm most grateful that you both took that much time on such a hopeless cause as myself. I cannot think of a single thing that either of you said with which I would have any fundamental disagreement. Having said that, I will state that I am a firm believer that there are many fantastic photographs to be seen on Photonet, so I'm not totally inclined to dismiss it all as sunsets and titmice (and tits, for that matter). That doesn't mean some of it isn't hit or miss, but that there are a lot of people here who will never make a dime from their art, who are damn good at it.

 

I don't think it bears a lot of debate, because ratings are inherently idiotic, but in my mind, average must take into account the group as a whole. On Photonet what is average, might be above average on Flickr, and way above average in the general population as a whole. Or below average on a site that was limited to professional (whatever that would be). So, a 4 on Pnet should not be a stigma. But we suffer from rate inflation for all of the reasons you guys pointed out. Perhaps part of the dilema is that we are not all in agreement as to what the purpose of Pnet is. Some think it's a place to put their kids on display, or their pet dog, etc. Others seem to believe that it is a place for art (whatever that is).

 

And, yes, the social aspect is a huge plus in my book. I've enjoyed talking to some of you so much. That's a big bonus. I live in a small town in the central valley of California. Farmers and ranchers. No art community. No art. Too many small town, small minded people. This community actually denied a person a business license who wanted to open a shop to sell her services as a psychic. Bush (any of them) is considered a god. Solely because they thought it was counter to the Christian faith. So, you can see that Pnet offers a grand opportunity to deal with a more rational and more artistic community.

 

I have even had the opportunity to meet and stay in the homes of more than one Pnetter. Those were treasured experiences that I would not have had were it not for Pnet. So social and intellectual intercourse is worth far more than the price of admission to me.

 

Having said that, I cannot deny all you've said about ratings and comments and our own accomplishments. I tend to run something up the flagpole all the time just to see which way the wind blows and hope for a little bit of praise and validation. Fred, tends to only put up his best whenever it's ready. Gordon, I suspect falls somewhere in between.

 

Fred, I used to go to San Francisco quite a bit. Now only rarely, although I have a very dear and longstanding friend in Palo Alto, who just bought a place in S.F. because he enjoys being there so much, and will probably be spending a little time with him when he is in the city. But, as an aside, I've found that while I appreciate the city, I have become less tolerant of it with age. Too much grime, too much panhandling, too much unpleasantness. That is why I seek the rural areas to photograph. But going there and looking at art at the right places would be worthwhile, and I shall try to do better at that. I do have a rather extensive collection of photo books, and have not taken 99 percent of them off the shelves for years. I should go back and revisit all those too.

 

Fred you are fortunate that you have a circle of folks who can contribute to your growth and betterment as an artist. Gordon and I are a bit more limited. That is not to say we (or at least I) could not do better at expanding our horizons.

 

Thanks again to both of you.

Thanks for the comments and the rendition. I greatly appreciate it.

No chewing gum at all. But then we're not in Canada here. Peace and V8 to the people.

I think the bit of color pulls the viewer in, and the picture has a feeling of motion, appropriately. Your title fits perfectly. This is a very creative, interesting capture that has drawn me back to view several times. Your style, done very well.

I've been called a lot of thing over the years, thankfully 'intellect' is not usually one of them :) Just for the record, I agree that there are a huge number of talented people on this site and subsequently quite a bit of excellent photography.

My point if I even had one was that I find it refreshing to find stuff like yours or Fred's or anything that takes chances. I do realise that this is just my preference and I would not impose it if I could. Hell! I like sunsets and Titimice and yes even tits. Any subject matter can be interesting to me. I did not mean to denigrate or exclude, these were only examples of subjects I see often here.

 

I am more of a 'run it up the flag pole and see what happens' guy myself. Sometime the shot is met with a barrage of 3s and the next image maybe a bunch of 6s. If I was interested in playing it safe, a lot of what I post I would choose not to post. I agree with Fred that we all know exactly what it takes to get to the top of the heap at PN. Some people feel a need to get on that treadmill and that's just as valid as my inclination to watch from the sidelines.

Thanks a lot. Not that it matters, but I'm pleasantly surprised that you like this. It's a bit different from my usual or yours. Us old farts do venture out of the circle every now and then.

Thanks again to you. You and Fred are a wellspring of intelligent thought.

I've read the comments above with great interest. All are worthy of note. I don't want to rehash what Fred and Gordon have stated so well about the various strengths and weaknesses of this site, so I'll simply say ditto. But I was particularly struck by Fred's first comment (echoed well and in various ways by others). and I agree with him. I'd merely add that this took a real shooter's eye and a fine sense of composition. You saw something intriguing in an unintentional pattern, one that I'm sure many thousands pass by regularly without taking note of at all. And you made it into a compelling image -- an image with a quality that evades easy description. "Soul" is a fine word for it. That's real photography. Good on ya, Dave. Regards...

Thanks again. Even though the intellectual level of some of the folks commenting here is pretty elevated, and just barely comprehensible to me, I've enjoyed this and some other discussions immensely. It is Pnet at its best IMHO.

You took a rather ordinary scene and presented it to us in a different and interesting way, without manipulation. You force us to look again at things we ordinarily don't give much attention to. Thats a talent I greatly admire.

Thanks, again. I find that a couple of times lately I've made comments to people that may have been somewhat offensive, by way of prejudging them and assuming I know what they would like and have a finger on the pulse of their aesthetic. I think I did a bit of that to you in my comment, and I apologize for that. Sometimes I come off differently than I intend.