dustinhenry

Well, for Aldo's sake, I'm glad this week has come to an end. And I have learned a thing or two from this whole fiasco too!

 

1) Never post any of your work that's good enough to qualify for a PoW. You'll save yourself the week long pile of hurdles that Aldo had to leap over.

 

2) Never take what the elves say seriously.I think they mentioned something about being at a bar and consuming beverages before deciding on a PoW...and you know how the bar attending beverage consuming type are.

 

3)Seldom approach a homeless person, unless you're out to get a good photograph of him/her. At least that seems the consensus of this group. I think the man in this picture deserves a gratitous supper and a printed copy of this forum. He'd probably chuckle at what commotion he's caused.

 

4)The best kind of homeless person to photograph is the sort missing an appendage. Should we pity the two-armed homeless any less? What makes a person worthy of taking a picture? How pitiful they appear?

 

5)Never drive my SUV near other photographers. For the sake of being dragged out and beaten by a flaming ecologist, I'll just hike all my equipment up the next mountain I'm on.

 

6)Never take the rating system seriously on this website. Well, I never really did to begin with. I just hope everybody else understands why too.

 

7)Photo.net is an excellent source for essay writing. Just ask Dennis or Tris, they seem quite competent in it. I'd write one myself, but *gasp,* I have things to do for today!

 

 

Well I leave you all with this cheery note, hopefully, to wrap up this battle of the words. Let's pray this Sunday for a bit more maturity on behalf of both sides of the photograph from now on. Crap, I'm almost late for work! Make sure to play nice in the sandbox while I'm gone, Dustin

I like the effect you get with such a bright background illuminating the trees from behind, but that blown out upper right corner is a bit of a distraction.

As for photographing at a faster speed to capture the raindrops falling, as Philippe suggests, that's quite a difficult task. Trying to record raindrops is a cinematographer's nightmare, and they're using upwards toward 60 frames per second! That's why Hollywood's spent millions on huge water studios to produce rain effects with enormous shower heads. Water's transparent, and without some sort of light directly striking the droplets, you'll get nothing on your film.

If the effect you were going for was the blown out sky in the background, try some Black & White film next time, it'll be more forgiving on the midtones. Happy Shooting, Dustin

Dan, you forgot to post a picture of a mirror so we all could decipher your message!

I do find that this image works in so many ways. It tells the whole story just by seeing the facial expressions, and to see the strained muscles.

But the most mysterious part about this image to me is that person in the shirt in the right center background. It would appear that he's the superior to these subordinates. It leaves my mind thinking. What are these guys doing, why are they here...

Great job on making my mind think, it takes a pot of coffee to do that usually! - Dustin

"On a lighter note, I saw a photo last year (just after the dot.com death) with a note that said "will code html for food". Had a few laughs at that one!"

-- Jonas Bengtsson

 

Do you mean this photograph, Jonas? I remembered it was on my friend's website, Flophouse.org

I'd have to say this photograph doesn't bring about any real emotion that I haven't already experienced in my own life. If I want to experience beggars on my own, I'd just drive to Dallas, TX, (just a few minutes away,) at about 2 in the morning and spark up brief conversations with the folks who claim the underside of a bridge to be their home, which I've done. Or I'd volunteer at our nearest mission to pour soup for the homeless.

I'd like to see a new concept or original idea for a POW. Either that or an aesthetically near-perfect image.

A photo-journalistic picture like this is about as original as a picture of Fluffy the cat doing something cute.

And if the photograph doesn't tell a good story itself I usually prefer to hear one from the photographer, instead. I've personally received higher praises from people when I tell them how or why I took a picture, rather than simply showing it to them.

With Mr. De Fellipi, it seems he's more worried about covering his own reputation or bashing other people's, like Tris'

Finally, for the sake of being fair, would you discredit the opinion of any person who appreciates art, yet doesn't produce it themself? Who cares what the critiquer's photographs look like. If you wish to limit your comment intake to that of semi-professionals to professionals themselves then you're quite the narrow-minded person. If it is true that you care not for the amateur photographer like myself, then all I can say is you're a Poor Sport, Aldo!

you could always fuse the tips of the rope with a lighter, match or stove. It's only nylon, and can be formed into a little dark nub with a little patience and tolerance to heat on your fingertips.

Well, out of all your shots in this series, I'd have to pick this one as my favorite.

 

It's difficult to pinpoint why, but it seems these photographs don't tell a complete story, (hence the ignorant comments like "Why?" and "Again, Why?") Some people read your story as violent, not seeing past the playfullness and curiosity some people find in bondage. It's an irony, though, how placing somebody in such a restrictive way can be pleasing. Were you trying to capture the irony in it? The overall subject does not appear threatening or violent, so I believe. With such soft tones and satiny rope that's not tightly tied, your pictures don't give a harsh vibe. I mainly liked the above image because you saw more than just a bedsheet for the background, it gave more of an idea of what her surroundings were. It was balanced, as well, having a lighter bedsheet complement the dark upper right corner with her body as the main grey.

That's how I'd describe this image, if that is a real word, that is. It is an akward image, both subjects are heavily cropped, yet it still works, which intrigues me!

I think what is significant in it would be the composition: how the white stripes in the field basically direct your eyes toward the two runners and the person on the right is somewhat pointing at the left person. The detail: It's a crisp focus on the runners and deep enough in focus to catch the sports field in the background. And the color: It's a real rich and well lighted image. It just doesn't seem artificial, it looks like everything is supposed to be that way.

Well keep it up, it certainly got my brain going this morning, faster than my coffee will!

I think this photograph does quite a good job of bending the rules. I could grow bored of photography if every image I ever view had followed the rules you might find on an old Kodak manual from the 50's to an exact "T". Rules were meant to be broken, and in this case, he succeeded!

I do agree, though, that he photograph is lacking a bit of contrast between the detail of the ripples and the soupy greyness of the water; perhaps a bit of the extremes in white an black might perfect this image in my eyes. Other than that, like I say above, this one hits me right in the nose as a neat photograph!

I'd say don't crop it. I think the image isn't balanced enough with the sky cropped away.

I haven't seen your cropped version yet, but I disagree with the consensus. Cropping the lower part of the image would make the bridge fill up too much of the whole shot, in my opinion. I know it's the subject, but I fear it'd be over-powering if it took up the whole frame. That's just my opinion, though.

I love them textures, they make me want to reach out and feel the grittyness of the rock!

I've been desperate enough to use an old magnifying lens, or in some cases, I would use some old MF lenses from Nikon and shoot my digital camera through them. I got some pretty interesting results, though none were as successful as this one! Keep up the good work!

That's honestly the only thing that caught my eye about this particular image, is it a form of copyright?

Well I was implying the hoya Skylight (1B) filter that you mentioned in Equipment. I wasn't implying filters used digitally.

Great choice on the filtering of this image, I think it tied the sunset's color with the dark approach of night very well. Did you shoot this several times during the sunset? I'd like to see one with a little more sky around the top and righthand sides of the tree, maybe have the tree a little more straightened top to bottom.

I think you did a wonderful job with selecting on when/where to take this image!

Dave said: And - Tom - you really want a critique of this??

Jesus man...a freak, a sodding freak.

Well I'd imagine since this is a critique forum, I believe that Tom did want you to leave your honest opinion, and not call him a prick.

I'm guessing Tom didn't post this picture simply so that you could attack other people for giving their own opinions, (which you have yet to leave your own.) Tom noted: Don't take the critique I have in the comments too seriously :)

Dave, If you consider what you contribute, critique-wise, to this website is of Any benefit or relevance to the photographers who've had their luck to receive them, then by all means...classify me a "prick" now and don't bother to leave your word upon any of my photographs.

I've nearly given up on visiting this site because of folks like you. It's the great contributors, (there are many, including Tom), and the Elves, who of course keep this place so well maintained and worthwhile. Please don't ruin their hard work.

I leave this message with a question: Tom, haven't you posted this image previously on the Critique forum? That statue is very familiar to me, though I don't recall ever going to Amsterdam. There is some JPEG artifacting, though I'm sure it's probably an uploading issue, and that white thing in the background is a tad distracting, but sounds like you didn't have time to pose the little fellow.

Well, I don't want to school somebody on what Art "is" and what Art "isn't." There are dozens of definitions for it, and dozens more opinions on it. Art is, as far as I'm concerned, somebody's attempt at capturing something relating to life, the one thing we all have in common.

Mr. Menegatos here captured a tounge-in-cheek moment he experienced in Amsterdam, it may not be in Dave's opinion that it's Fine Art or Traditional Art, but it is art nonetheless. I completely agree with Tom, which is something he'll remember I don't often do, but in this case I believe he's right!

I had already given my two cents above, though someone mentioned in an e-mail that I neglected to give my own opinion about the photograph. Here goes my other two cents:

I think the photograph is well balanced and properly centered given the complicated subject. I do find the heavy top left corner is a bit of a distraction, perhaps you could dodge it slightly for the next print. My eyes trace down the woman's face down the cord of the microphone, (which does look a bit odd, as someone mentioned earlier.) My only quirk is the guitarrist on the right, too bad he's not left-handed, that neck of the guitar makes my eyes look off the edge of the photograph, which is well cropped, I might add.

Someone mentioned earlier that he could tell that the photograph had been edited in Photoshop by zooming in on the pixels that make up her dress?!? With such expert advice could you explain to me how you can discern an edited pixel from an un-edited pixel? I can understand if the dress was a solid tone of black with no variating value of pixels, but it could have easily been burned via darkroom before being scanned. If Alen did touch up the image in Photoshop, which I'm not saying he did, then why does it matter? It's not like he broke any law. Quite a lot of touching up is done in a darkroom and is never criticized.

In response to Tom Menegatos' question as to why people like myself hardly bother to leave our comments on photographs: it's because I feel as though the comments are usually not received, the questions are generally not answered. Or, if they are acknowledged, like in Tris' case, they are butchered, misinterpreted and often times enough not answered by the person intended to be from.

 

I leave with this final note: If you people whine and pout enough as to desire the banishment of a person simply because he participates in discussions and defends his own name, as well as posts his own photographs for discussion, let me know. If this is the general consensus for the members of Photo.net, then I shall delete all I have posted here and resign my membership. It may be free, I won't claim to be a member of a group that can best be described as a child's "Clubhouse for cool people who agree with me."

If somebody disagrees with me, at least there is grounds for a conversation and a debate. Nobody wants to associate themselves with people who whine and complain all the time. It's like having the window seat on an 8 hour flight next to a hungry three year old brat...it's just not fun.

Well, not wanting to be classified in the crowd of people who "never leave a comment," (check my profile if you think thats so,) I've decided to leave my two cents worth."I'm here to talk photography and learn something if I can."

Tell me, then, what you have learned about this weeks POW? Or about last weeks POW? Or about the e-mails in your Inbox I'm sure you've gotten from a few of our sharp-tounged peers.

Can anybody honestly say, aside from Alen Borovicanin himself, that they've learned something pertinent to photography while reading or posting on this thread?

You people [largely being the general population of Tris bashers] accuse each other of not staying on topic, yet you yourself rarely leave your own comment on the photograph. At least Tris, though sometimes snide and ignorant, has left his own opinion about the photographs and asked questions of the photographer. I, myself, have scrolled down the scores of comments only to find that a miniscule ammount of detail has actually been revealed about the photo or photographer himself. Let's not be hypocrits here, please.((You'll have to excuse me, I felt like poking at both sides of the argument))

Makes me wonder how many of us here at Photo.net would have simply zapped those little ants with some bug spray, yet you've snapped them with your digital camera instead!

Anyhow, it's unfortunate your camera doesn't have a better macro option, because the image looks a little out of focus. Ever thought of holding up a magnifying glass to enlarge the ants a little bit? Worth a shot.

So where exactly where you, in Paris? Reminds me of the Catacombs...climbing down those eerie stairs seemed like it took half an hour! I think it's a great angle, given the rush of people below you and the anticipation you probably felt of getting to the top/bottom. I would have walked the entire flight of steps without thinking to photograph from the position you did.

hit it on the nose. You were shooting with ASA 200 film, my guess is handheld. Though the light might have looked available enough in your eyes, the Olympus P/S might have choosen a slower shutter speed for a correct exposure. At the mercy of your own equipment! Regardless, take your wonderful friend back there to that wonderful scene and if at first you don't succeed, try try again!

Not until I read your description did I understand completely what this was. Clouds first popped up in my mind, but I had never experienced such a phenononym before. Well lit image, I'm glad you waited until that moment.

In haste to rush off to work I completely forgot to post my question: What, in your opinion, could be done to improve upon my subject here? Also, of the four photographs I've uploaded, which ones do you prefer and why?