poetprince

"Photographs provide a way to demonstrate and discuss what is most important in photography, images, rather than idle words. It also lets

one know if comments come from someone who uses a camera or just puts it on display."<br>

<br>

dear jeff,<br>

<br>

i'm sorry if i read something into this statement that you never inferred or implied. as i stated, your work and your words are held in high regard by myself and many others as i can see. i do recall that i also stated that i was in no way attempting to put words in your mouth. the paraphrasing i was referring to was of the 'general notion'. that general notion is something i have gathered from reading other posts as well (i think i clarified this also). my intent is more an inquisitive one as opposed to an argumentative one and it is certainly not an accusatory one. i really am just curious as to how the members recieve eachother as it seems a little different from the website, which recieves my textual input without the requirement of a photo.<br>

<br>

daniel flynn<br>

victoria bc<br>

canada

marc,<br>

within this thread i only took an issue with a notion being put forth, that people who didn't post pictures had no right to make comments about other people's photos. (not trying to put words in jeff's mouth with this paraphrasing btw..) i am new here. i am not sure of the rules or protocol and so i have been interested in why this particular situation causes so many passionate responses. now that i am 'learning the ropes' i will round up some 'single photos' and figure out how a scanner works (still trying to figure out all the buttons on my cordless phone though, i admit, i've been a bit of a Ludite in that respect) and email them to myself transfer them to my desktop ( see?..i learn quick) so that i may upload them here. honestly, i stumbled across this site a few weeks ago from a search through google for some info on leica cameras. i have been fascinated and intrigued ever since. do i have an 'in depth knowledge of the works of picasso and hockney'?...no..i never claimed to. i read a book in high school (20 yrs. ago) that gave me a certain validation for the way i percieved the world visually..but no, i never followed up on his public career and any further influence is buried deep within my memory's hoard along with a ton of living. i agree with you that it is difficult to know what (my) photographs look like if you cannot view them but that is not really the relevent part in the particular statement i took issue with. i merely wanted to offer a perspective that perhaps there is but one person who may not be able to post works that can not be presented in this (photo.net) particular format. and i certainly never said my work was good or not, or even original..just BIG. i have other photographs that i will try to get here as quick as possible, but again, for where i am at right now, they would be completely out of context. although i am sure there will be those who like them and those who do not for varying reasons. i've yet to see anyone, here or anywhere, give an absolute definition as to what constitues good or not so good.<br>

<br>

my little confession about my personal vision was in direct response to your 'doubting' something about me. i thought if i would share something personal in a cohesive manner that you might understand me better and therefore not (mis)judge my comments as being on the same level as some of the ones that are unsubstantiated because those members have not posted photos. and i have seen for myself how hurtful some of them have been so i empathize with evryone concerned... i've not posted photos yet either though. does that mean that i'm not allowed to comment here? or that what i comment on won't be taken seriously? should i go back and study my history books before i take another photograph? if i want to market my work do i have to present it in the conventional and acceptable ways for it to be recognized? can i discuss my views on art/life whilst having only a degree in mathematics and a hand for a fine line? can i trade my hasselblad and nikon in on a decent leica so i can go see the world outside of my smalltown and not be weighted down by familiarity? can i touch base with some other leica enthusiasts who are not just collectors and who enjoy art in such a way that it is important enough to not consumerize everything about it? (more on that subject to come, i assure you)..<br>

again marc, i don't disagree with what you are saying, i just feel that most of these postulations concerning ones ability to comment are innacurate. but that is probably more due to trying to use the wrong set of standards here in photo.net. there are heaps of gallery owners and art collector's who have never taken a photo and yet there are photographers who value their comments highly. because they want something. money or recognition. the latter being proven in the form of 'alot of money'. this seems to be the standard on which people stand in their judgements (critiques) of people's art...and their own for that matter... i don't want money for my work. i seek no recognition. i make verbal comments based on my interpretations of how i feel. today, i felt like taking some pictures of grafitti. tomorrow, i will pound nails to buy more film.. whaddya know? one way or another, consumerism consumes us all.<br>

<br>

~poetprince

"Using your own logic back on you, I would ask why play out a thread of Cubist thought so deeply explored by notable artist from

Picasso to Hockney? Played out to the Nth degree, and then abandoned by them years ago. Of course, you may have discovered a new

angle these geniuses overlooked. But somehow I doubt it."<br>

<br>

i've been asked this question before. i'll attempt to answer without appearing too long winded. also, this may also reinforce jeff's statement that "in the end, their are just photographs"...for i believe in the reality as much as i see within the illusion.<br>

<br>

when i view a scene, whether large or small, my eyes do not follow as a video camera does, although i suspect that the result appears that way. it takes in sections at a time (or frames, if you will). especially to my everyday mind which is also affected by all of the stimuli i encounter on any given day, while being inundated with thousands upon thousands of images every second. so fast is this process, that i come to view it as reality. persistent and consistent.<br>

when i was a child (late 60's early 70's) people thought me to be (what they called it in those days) 'deaf and dumb'. my mother dragged me to every specialist and they poked and prodded me with every modern device you can imagine. all because i would sit for hours on end and just stare at things and not immediately respond to someones voice if it were directed at me. or so it appeared. in my mind, i was responding to them. visually. they were just so speedy (in their demand for a rapid response) that they didn't see it at the same speed i did. or perhaps the could not focus on the distances i was able to. i have never found out why. but i have a desire to communicate with them all the same. when i was a teenager i was exposed to the art world through my mother, an impressionist painter and art teacher..in those days she was just a weird hippie. she continued her dragging around sessions with me, only this time it was the wonderful world of galleries and artist's havens. at some point, a pentax K1000 came into the picture and the freedom to make my own 'art'. in those days it seems, everything was art. i would take photos of all the freaky friends my mom had at their colourful parties and no one seemed to mind that i just sat silently on the stairs 'staring' through the camera.<br>

i would cut up the pictures, glue them together in scrap books in comic book form... i would do school projects and put them on bristol board. one day, my mom gave me a book about the photographic works of david hockney. i was fascinated. there was evidence that someone else saw the world in a similar way. that they too had an awareness of a 'seperate reality'. the fact that he was a notable artist and his works were published in a book meant that this 'way of seeing' was also acceptable to the masses, and thus educational and informative. looking at 'reality' from a different angle caused people to 'feel' differently. some were even calling it art.<br>

growing up dependent on a starving (and dedicated) artist, i worked through high school and college as a carpenter. didn't take alot of photos but i did become a woodenboat builder. a craftsmen of sorts. i never wanted to be an artist. there was simply no money in it. and recognition was elusive and oftentimes was more dependent on marketing than talent.<br>

one day, i got invited to participate in the building of an old schooner (a replica of a real pirate ship !!). there was a fellow there hired to photograph every part of the construction process and every detail in the materials used. every joint, every fastener, everything. the purpose of this is to have a visual record for future boatbuilders, insurance people, coast guard officials, captains, owners, etc.. so that they may understand the ship in a deeper way. as long as she floats and looks good is really all that's important to most...but to some, there needs to be a documented visual presentation of how it came to be.<br>

the guy's pictures were horrible. which was a drag, because as the builders we would put them up on the wall (a very large wall 20 feet high by a 120 feet long) and use them as reference. they were nice 8x10 glossies, well composed and all. they told no story whatsoever. a large ship takes a long time and many hands to create. pictures would add up and the wall was a mess. it slowed down production and confused the process instead of aiding it. i brought my own camera in and began to make pictures that were made up of more than one 'single photo'. some were of actual boat parts, but many others were of the people i was working with. of course i love boatbuilding. it's magic. i portrayed people with smiles and looks of wonder...i caught sequence shots of an old bearded master twisting and bending a freshly steamed board into place. when put together in a photographic sequence it actually showed the movements clearly that it took to get that bloody board in place and soon people were emulating this and putting it into practice with their bodies. production improved. everyone noticed. no one spoke for hours at a time. they just moved about looking from time to time at the wall and then absorbing themselves in their own movements and tasks at hand. many of these people were volunteers and not trained woodworkers at all. i was amazed and began to explore different themes with my method. deeper ones even. i went to school for photography to learn more and even took some art classes. my motivation though was this physical effect that was caused by visual stimulus and presentation. that is why i follow this thread of cubist thought. it works for me. it also works for others in ways they may not even be aware of. that fascinates me. these days i am actually getting paid for some of my work although not in a conventional way. which is good, because in light of my upbringing and natural rebellion to my parental influences, i have come to loathe galleries and their unartistic approach to displaying people's works. my latest installation piece is for a play about road rage and will be shown through slide projectors on all the walls of the theatre while the play is being performed on stage. these highway and street images coupled with some great audio from two dj's will give the audience the 'feel' of being in a car moving through time and space. yet all the images are entirely static. i did a 'rave' once and the entry tickets were actual photos i took of our downtown core (victoria, bc, canada) and during the party everyone was asked to stick their photos on the wall like pieces of a puzzle. they were also free to place them as they saw fit. it wasn't how i saw it when i took the photos but the result was staggering. it lasted one night and then everyone took with them ALL of the photos. that was the most intense thing for me. i'd take that over a $5000 cheque from a gallery any day for any print.<br>

<br>

hockney never did anything like this. picasso neither.<br>

<br>

i kind of learn as i go. each piece leads to the next. or gives me new ideas. or new perspectives. or new angles that those geniuses may have overlooked. or simply, came to another understanding of their art and a need to express it in a different way, thus dropping the method. perhaps they had to do this once they became famous. i don't know, since i a not famous. nor am i trying to be.<br>

but to quote david hockney, "that's the way i see it".<br>

<br>

i apologize for my long windedness, but i do hope that answers the question posed.<br>

<br>

~poetprince

as some of the others have pointed out, i think that you have mistaken me with daniel taylor. as for why i posted what i did...it was more for jeff spirer as an offering of a different perspective as to why some people make comments whilst having no photos of their own on display in computerized form. although the more i read throughout this website the more i can see that i am a bit of an anomaly and i promise i will try to locate a scanner. afterall, i do love to share visuals and conceptuals. i am relatively new to this site (and extra-new to computers) jeff has hit the nail on the head and his words not only ring true for me, but they stay with me, at the very least out of respect for someone who works in the field and clearly knows what he's talking about. if i were to submit a photo for a 'critique' i would be honoured to have people such as jeff spirer, rob appleby and yourself share your knowledge and expertise. in fact, i would be honoured.<br>

<br>

one thing i would like to add though...i've discovered that i actually attach voices (and tone !!) to the comments i read..does this happen for everyone?..anyone?..it seems that some responses to some comments come from an emotional standpoint and then rampant reactionaryism ensues. keeping that in mind, i think that from now on i will attach the voices of innocent and playful children to the usernames and in that way i will continue to giggle and have fun.<br>

<br>

once again marc, thank you for the thread..i am amazed at how much i learn from seeing the pictures within the run of comments. it is visually stimulating and interesting. i for one am glad that the photo.net people have included this feature. and again, i will try to locate a scanner and some suitable photos to submit here before i ask that anyone take my comments too seriously. (if i scan at the internet cafe, do i email them to myself so that i can save them on my own computer?)<br>

<br>

~poetprince

by the way marc, that is a great image. i often am captivated by the look of words on film and i like the subtle implications created by posting this particular image. i can see why writers would like it. i will concur with your wife on the matter of being able to pick out a leica produced photo out of a batch. i have done this for years and am seldom wrong. in one of my pieces i took over 3000 photos of the front facade of an old grand hotel. i used a canon AE1, a Nikon F2, a Hasselblad and two leicas over a period of 2yrs....yes..two whole years to capture as many changing light situations that the seasons could throw at me. some of the photos are rather mundane and bland as far as imagery goes (repetitve window shapes and bricks, atc.) but i may choose to display photos side by side to create an elongated effect or a make a seasonal statement within the piece. so in essence, there will be one window sill shot with the Nikon, and the exact same one shot with a Leica M3. not only is there a distinct difference between individual photos, but an interesting thing begins to occur visually as i start to mount larger groupings of photos. the Leica ones STAND OUT from the rest. you can stand there and allow your eyes to go out of focus and they will literally jump off the wall and draw your eyes to them in the same way distinct points of light (highlights or actual subjects) will do within any given image.<br>

again, thank you for the post..these are the type that interest me the most as i consider myself to be a visual artist and there is nothing more stimulating than exploring the myriad of views that others have of this world.<br>

<br>

~poetprince

i'd like to take issue with a comment i've seen in a few different threads here on photo.net. this one concerning the comments from members who have not posted pictures being personified as someone who only puts a camera on display and does not use it as a photographer would/should. now jeff, you are by far and wide one of my favourite contributors here and i truly love your work, and many of your comments concerning art in general keep me thinking for days. yes, i would go so far as to say that you are inspirational for me. but the associations people make concerning posting photos here on a website (and posting comments as well) cause me to feel a little defensive in regards to my own works. most of you here are what i call 'single photo makers'. i love the single photo..i just happen to use it differently in my artistic endeavors. i create reather large pieces that are made up of dozens (sometimes hundreds) of 'single photographs'. for my vision comes to me in the form of a zillion snapshots and partial images of the whole whenever i look into a scene. if viewed as individual pictures they will tell you very little and many have no formal composition. i can only express this 'feeling' or 'visual effect' by using whole walls or wandering labyrinths of pony walls to display my work as each image i create is broken up in a method not unlike that of photomontage or the works of david hockney. it is impossible to find a scanner that would portray my finished piece as a whole, thus making it impossible to show here on photo.net's platform. i could step back and take a picture but this would give absolutely no scale whatsoever and thus rob me of my artistic intent. i could submit any number of 'single' photos that are a small part of the whole, but again this would mean very little as it would be completely out of context. my camera is an indispensible tool. i use it daily. i have learned much about the technical aspects of photography and about the unlimited possibilities of art by using it in ways that are not conventional but certainly are effective visually. i would hope that any comments i make not be judged on my inability or reluctance to post a picture here. i am not in search of a critique of any single photo, as i am sure you are not interested in a critique regarding the method in which you hold your own camera. although i can relate to the problems created here by some of the searing and unsubstantiated comments made between members about the 'value' of their photos, i assure you that i weigh my words as carefully as i do my choices for film and aperture settings.<br>

i appreciate you considering my thoughts on this matter as it has been something that has been difficult to formulate and get across without offending someone.<br>

<br>

~poetprince

whether or not i am a photographer or not has very little to do

with my ability to critique a particular photo....especially on the

basis of Aesthetics and Originality. i happen to be one, and so i

can give a qualified view in regards to the use of technical skills

applied. in many cases this would seem quite simple. in many

more cases this would be irrelevent as i have no idea of the

'intent' of the photographer. maybe they underexposed on

purpose...maybe the underexposed 'effect' helped create the

'atmosphere' of the image. how am i to know this without some

input from the person submitting the photo.<br>

<br>

if i were to want a critique on a photograph i made, i think i would

ask for onethat specifically addressed my own issues. and then

again, there is always the surprising joy that one receives when

someone just likes a photo (or an image) and they don't really

know why. one can still learn through positive reinforcement.<br>

<br>

as more than a few members have stated, the numerical system

is not (and cannot be) a good tool for giving a proper critique. it is

a quick fix and can never be as valuable as a dialogue between

two people. the internet is fast. perhaps too fast to cater to

everyone's individual needs.<br>

<br>

BTW...i give 10/10 ratings based on my own standards of what i

believe a 1-10 scale to represent to me as an artist, as a human,

as a photographer. someone else could come along and

average out a rating based on their own personal taste by giving

a 1/1 rating. it's like comparing apples to oranges. period.<br>

<br>

~poetprince<br>

<br>

one more question in regards to the term 'beginner'. a beginner

photographer or a beginner photo.netter?

so many wonderful suggestions...and such awesome attention

to it's members..applause to you Brian and all the photo.net staff.

i enjoy making comments about photos that i like and or ones

that either intrigue me in some way or just simply catch my eye. i

very seldom give a numerical equivalent to my emotional

response of any one particular photo. the main reason is i find

the two completely un-related. as at least one member pointed

out..for them, and for many others, photography is an art form

and it is difficult, nay...near impossible... to deduce (and reduce)

the value of an art piece by assigning a mere number. and

sequential reasoning does not always aid a photographer in

developing an understanding as to how they could improve.<br>

as fabian suggested, there needs to be an expansion of the

'rating categories'....there is a definite need for a technical

assessment. in many instances, proper application of technical

skills (or the tweaking of them) can vastly improve aesthetics,

and a better understanding of composition and basic elements

of visual design may even be practiced to help achieve a more

original image.<br>

although no photo seems to be original anymore, there is

always a new angle to look at things, a new take on subject

matter is always right there in front of one's camera and themes

that move people can always be presented in a fresh

fashion.<br>

i have refrained from posting any pictures here for two reasons

mainly....1) i have no access to a scanner...and 2) i am not really

interested in a critique on any individual photo as they are but

one part of an artistic process for me...3) i have found that the

way the present 'critique system' is established causes people

to 'judge' a photo and the value of a critique is lost in the fray.<br>

<br>

~poetprince

discovering this place could not have happened at a greater time

for me. intelligence abounds and courtesy seems to be the

common bond. people like to interact here. and i love to interact

with them. i'm in the process of selling off all of my personal

possessions, strapping my leica over my shoulder, and heading

out into the world with my artistic visions and notions. it feels

good knowing that i will always have a 'home' i can come and

visit. i swear, i could write a book on Leica Users.<br>

<br>

on a technical note....i too have a mac...a toddler really..(2yr. old

iMac) and i notice at certain times when i attempt to respond or

add a comment to a photo critique that the cursor doesn't show

itself in the box provided, nor can i see any of the words unless i

click my mouse outside of the box provided. at that point, the

words will appear, but still no cursor (tab, indicator) which

means if i discover a spelling mistake it is almost incorrectable

insomuch as i have to delete every letter to get to the one that i

want to remove. also..if i type under the 'plain text' heading, no

matter how i structure my paragraphs, the finished text comes

out in one long line. even in HTML i have to type in an actual

'page break' code.<br>

all in all though..a fabulous site that is helping me learn new

things and discover new ways of seeing in a most joyous

way.<br>

<br>

~poetprince

one breath<br>

is all it takes<br>

that one<br>

just before release<br>

it has destiny<br>

precision<br>

timing<br>

response<br>

it is full of wonder<br>

anticipation<br>

and knowing<br>

you are the eyes of the world<br>

one breath<br>

to help you see<br>

there is no automation<br>

just you<br>

and your own autonomy<br>

with but one moment<br>

unfolding before you<br>

<br>

~poetprince

a Leica collector was standing on the street one day when a

speeding car was coming straight for him. a young photographer

pulled him from the imminent danger and saved his life and his

newly acquired collector's leica.<br>

<br>

"nice M6 you got there, mister", noticed the photographer<br>

<br>

"are you a collector?", asked the wealthy man<br>

<br>

"no, but i love to make pictures"<br>

<br>

years later the man came to pass and at his funeral gathered the

three people whom the man had mentioned in his will. leaving to

each of them a part of his most valued Leica collection. his

lawyer, his accountant, and a certain young photographer...<br>

his one stipulation was that they bury half the value that he left to

each of them with him in his grave so that he could rest in peace

for all eternity knowing that he had done well with his

investments in this life.<br>

<br>

each man then went to the casket and placed a package inside

of it, the casket was sealed, and the man was buried. gone.<br>

<br>

the young photographer noticed afterwards that the lawyer and

the accountant were having an animated conversation coupled

with laughter and squeels of delight. he approached them and

asked what was so funny.<br>

<br>

the lawyer said, " i threw him back a couple of lenses because

the serial numbers didn't match and i'll fetch an awesome price

on Ebay for the rest." <br>

<br>

the accountant, just as pleased with himself. responded, "i too

threw him back an M3 body and kept the ones i knew to be most

valuable as they were still in their original boxes."<br>

<br>

the young photographer looked at them with disgust and

scolded them, "you guys are just aweful !! upstanding pillars of

our society and you act like such selfish children"<br>

<br>

defensively they retorted, "we suppose you sold it all and put 'half

the value back in with him...are you a fool?..do you know what

that collection was worth??"<br>

<br>

"yes, i do know exactly what they are 'worth', and no, i am no fool,"

he coyly replied..."i cut him a cheque for the whole outfit."<br>

<br>

he then turned, lifted an M4-P to eye level, and captured a rich

image of the two of them with their mouths agape. he turned and

jauntily went on his way.<br>

<br>

~poetprince

hey TT<br>

<br>

everyone here has given you some amazing advice and i would

take all of it to heart and keep all of it in mind when making a

final decision. especially with introducing a new format to your

work. each camera model mentioned is highly regarded

somewhere by someone but all will tell you that it depends on

'how' you are going to shoot and so i will share with you some of

my experience with medium format.

if you want one that you can put to your eye and click away and

not have your camera impede your movements then perhaps

consider the Contax with autofocus. it has all the quickness that

a Nikon has and then some. the lenses are supreme, the feel of

the camera is incredible and the quality of the lenses is backed

by Zeiss..only drawback is that it does produces a 6x4.5cm

negative and for magazine submissions you may find this

troublesome. it's counterpart (for an MF SLR) would be the

Pentax 6x7 which is an excellent camera and has been the

mainstay for many fashion photographers through the years, but

you may find that hefting that around will make a hasselblad

seem light as a feather. and i mean the kind of lifting from your

waist to your eye a 100 times an hour or more..i'm sure your car

could lift any of them to the jobsite.<br>

<br>

as for the box style systems: the choice will come between the

hasselblad and the mamiya RZ67 pro2. hasselblad is by far and

wide the most universally recognized one and you can get things

everywhere for it as was previously mentioned. sometimes i

pride myself on always being able to spot a Leica photo out of a

stack of any of the 'others'. the only times i am mistaken, i am

pleased to discover that they are produced with a hasselblad.

again..Zeiss lenses and supreme quality and being a 6x6, one

never has to turn the camera for a good vertical shot because of

it's square results. an easy camera to use on or off the tripod

and a choice of lenses and accesories that cannot be

surpassed. i love my hasselblad.<br>

that brings us to the Mamiya..have you checked out their

website? again..an awesome camera and the choice of many

pros simply because it is so well designed and appeals to

anyone who wants a rugged, high performance camera with the

ability to move the entire lens forward (towards the subject) when

focusing. it also offers a rotating film back (negating the need for

turning the camera on it's side for verticals) which is very handy

in deed. if i were getting paid consistently to do fashion work and

could afford such a tool then this would be one i would give

serious consideration to. although, i have found that the quality of

the picture when standing next to a hasselblad is only matched

when a tripod is used and a longer exposure applied. hand held,

the hasselblad would beat a mamiya in an arm wrestling

competition hands down, anytime, anywhere.<br>

<br>

~poetprince<br>

<br>

*my previous offer still holds*

hey TT<br>

<br>

sounds like things are going good for you there and that you are

settling in with a career type arrangement with fashion

photography..congratulations..i have enjoyed some fine fruits

from the tree of stability. these days though, i am really wanting

to lighten my load and head off around the world and taste the

fruit of different trees..so i got to thinking...<br>

<br>

i will gladly send you my hasselblad, which has been completely

serviced, including an 80mm sonar and various work necessary

accesories (Tripod, quick release, polaroid back..). while you are

busy learning all the wonderful quirks that only hasselblad can

offer you, and growing stronger from carrying it to your new

assignments, and having endless hours of enjoyment reviewing

the true glory that a 6x6 negative surely will give you, i will gladly

take care of your unused Leica...and hey, i even have time and

space for a lens or two. i am very careful and i will feed it fresh

film everyday. i would treat it as i would my own and show it the

world. in fact whenever you wanted it back, all you would have to

do is give me a call...in europe..or china..or australia...or maybe

by then we will both be making enough money in our chosen

fields that we can just call it even...<br>

<br>

*come to think of it* i also have a beautiful Nikon F2

(professional model) and a quiver of lenses including the much

coveted portrait lens that andrew mentioned. i have a beautiful

shot of the collector i bought it from gasping for air when i stuck a

roll in it and he realized i was going to actually use it. now that my

friend...was a Kodak Moment.<br>

<br>

~poetprince

in reading back through the many posts i think i can safely derive

that photography is an art 'form'. and that 'technique' is a method

of procedure in which the art is both applied and expressed.

technical skill can be a part of a technique as can aesthics.

some people (whole cultures even) put more value on one than

the other yet it seems the general consensus is that the two

working in conjunction can produce what most would call

'mastery'. when art is created it causes an effect and that effect in

turn illicits a response. whatever that response it seems to rest

mostly on personal taste as to whether or not it is judged

appealing or not. if the judgement is made with a heavier

emphasis on technical acheivement than there is a seeming

danger that the value of the aesthetics will be greatly diminished

and therefore the critique will come across as harsh. <br>

<br>

it would appear as though the critique submission process itself

needs to be improved.<br>

<br>

perhaps the person posting the photo could request in more

detail the type of qualities they wish to review. (ie: impact, mood,

saturation, tone, line, texture, focus, ad infinitum)<br>

i do enjoy when a caption is added (when i am asked for a

critique) because not every photo appeals to me but sometimes

in knowing what the photographer was trying to capture, or what

they are trying to convey to me, i can help to give a more informed

critique based upon other merits i know to be valuable.<br>

the website itself could add more categories with which to

choose from when giving numerical values. *personally, i find

that whole thing completely crude* besides, my mom always told

me that my pictures were #1...<br>

<br>

ummmm..that's all i can think of for now<br>

oh..one more thing..not sure if this lateral or lineal..but i would

agree with any one of any cultural influence that there is a

definite difference between 'art' and 'fine art' and that the former

may be acheived by anyone by any means endearing it to me as

a human endeavor...and that the latter is almost always arrived

at (and associated with) a high level of skill and/or

craftsmanship that helps me merge with something larger than

myself...humankind.<br>

<br>

~poetprince

being new and all<br>

i have to ask<br>

are we beginning to have<br>

a heated agreement?<br>

<br>

btw doug..took me all day to formulate those self-same thoughts

you presented all lickety split like that<br>

*snaps fingers*<br>

you succinct little so-n-so..<br>

*grins...runs off to critique photos*<br>

<br>

~poetprince

control??<br>

leica uses mind control<br>

they sent some thought agents to me<br>

locked me in<br>

my own camera obscura<br>

each day they came<br>

reconditioning me<br>

and the way i see<br>

and that's not all<br>

they made me work<br>

harder and harder<br>

longer and longer<br>

feeding me bits of info<br>

M3's and M6's<br>

danced in my head<br>

to have one<br>

would allow me some small freedoms<br>

but i would need the aid<br>

of the brothers summicron and summilux<br>

and so they made me work<br>

all the more<br>

i began to sell off treasures<br>

in order to pay my dues<br>

and escape<br>

from their prison<br>

their temple of doom<br>

of never ending desire<br>

with each day that passes<br>

i see that they have compassion<br>

and reward me<br>

with simplicity<br>

and liberate me<br>

with light<br>

helping me move<br>

with precision<br>

and clarity of vision<br>

leica has helped me find<br>

freedom<br>

of expression<br>

<br>

~poetprince

rob and doug

<br>thank you<br>

for rescuing me<br>

from the clutches<br>

of verbosity<br>

and showing me<br>

that brevity<br>

truly is<br>

the soul of wit<br>

<br>

~poetprince

that's an interesting definiton Oliver, only i'm not sure if you are

implying that art and technique are inseperable and therefore

difficult to expound upon or categorize..or whether you are

implying that 'technical skill' is equal to technique and therefore

is part and parcel to what art is or how it is qualified.<br>

<br>

i agree wholeheartedly with Rob in his explanation and

exclamation of wonder as to why HCB receives so much praise

for his work as a skilled photgrapher. for he was obviously not

using those skills to produce many of his photographs. it seems

as though people use the term photography as a catch-all

phrase and for those of us who indeed hone our craft to become

highly skillfull this is an extremely degrading feeling. they take

away honour and meaning from those deserving fair mention for

true talent and exemplory work and heap it upon someone who

looks like they just snapped a picture...and then the process of

idolizing them occurs and they become bigger than life..bigger

than their photography even. every word they say becomes

authoritative in some way and the masses gobble it up and it

becomes something that further masks the efforts or even steals

the light from those less fortunate in the fame department.<br>

perhaps though, i have to take into account that there is a power

to the masses that i myself have no control over. something may

appeal to them that helps them relate to the photographer in the

moment. as a photographer i have the ability to appeal to them

on many many levels, whether or not i apply the use of every one

of my skills to do this or i distort some of the effects by my

practiced ways and keen observance(ie: stopping down to create

a mood), or i stumble upon it accidentily through circumstances i

can not describe in words, am i not creating art? do i even need

another person to validate this for me? is it not art for the simple

reason that i say it is for the simple fact that i created it? perhaps

HCB did it on purpose. perhaps he was trying to convey to the

established art world and to the masses themselves that "life

indeed imitates art", and in so doing empowered the masses to

be able to create art and see art by enabling them to see

everyday life in a way they could relate to. this was his art. this

was also his technique. this had very little to do with his technical

abiltity<br>

to keep things in context here, perhaps we should ask the

makers of this here fine website, if they could add a category for

'photographic quality' along with the ones for aesthetics and

originality since this would aid greatly in giving much more detail

to a critique, thus enabling those who receive the criticism to

better apply it to their own individual work. it could possibly allow

for those who have a craftsman's eye (doer and non-doer alike)

to participate in a more recognized way.<br>

<br>

*again..i am loving this whole thread and my mind has been

active all weekend..thank you thank you thank you*<br>

<br>

~poetprince

first off i would like to say how incredibly grateful i am to even be

involved in a conversation of this callibre with people, like jeff

spirer, rob appleby, bob flores, doug thacker et al..,who can

express themselves in ways that are eloquent and academic

and thoughtful and intellectual and concise and and and...<br>

<br>

on one level, us being alive at the same time and all, i could refer

to us as 'contemporaries'...i could reinforce this by pointing out

that we are all working with the same medium. at this juncture

though, i must concede, that to me, your are my mentors. i am

learning more here than i ever was in school. period.<br>

<br>

i would like to contribute more on the subject at hand though,

which in a nutshell would seem to be 'people's value systems in

regards to offering critiques'. but then again, nothing ever

remains in a nutshell and this one has cracked wide open and i

find myself exploring some pretty in-depth conceptualism. each

point made is opening another world of thought for me. i need to

know something though. i need to know the various definitions

that each of us has for the term 'photography'. <br>

okay..me first<br>

it is one of those terms that covers alot of ground...and so i too

am having a difficult time defining it in simple (quick?) terms. it

means various things at specific times and/or modes of thought

and is accentuated by my many moods and feelings about each

of those modes. when i feel like a struggling artist (most days) i

have a particular 'take' on the world and depending on whether i

am in good sorts about my position in life or not that 'take' can

swing from positive to negative and can even swirl around and

become, as Rob stated, quite complex.<br>

when i am in the vaulted position of being able to critique

someones photography i try to receive what they are offering me

in the broadest perspective possible and usually offer them in

turn a little prose that best expresses the result of our exchange.

they show me a photograph, a result of their act of photography.

my first reaction is based upon my initial response to my own

feelings and my relationship to the essence of the photo. does it

make me happy, sad, scared? i then look to see if i can discover

'how' the photographer achieved such an act. i determine these

things through analysis. my own personal process is like a

series of lens elements..light, tone, hues, lines, as well, focus

and exposure..etc..<br>

again, depending on the filter i am looking through (an artist's

eyes, an editor's eyes, a tradesman's eyes, a gallery owners

eyes, an average joe's eyes) i will 'see' this photographer's

product with that added effect. if i lose sight of my own

responsibility in this exchange then i am not truly able to offer a

'fair' critique, and my analysis may come across as merely a

critical opinion. i am human..it happens...i accept that this is

probably true for most people. i have periods of my creative life

though, where i need positive reinforcement for my efforts and i

know others do as well and so i mostly offer critiques based

upon my overall feelings. sometimes, technical proficiency (or

lack there of) is an integral part of 'how' a photographer made

me feel something. sometimes it is the subject matter.

sometimes it is the scene and the use of lines and texture or

some other abstract. in the end, it is the overall sum of where i

place value that determines for me whether or not the photo

receives my thumbs up or my thumbs down.<br>

for instance..if i view a photo of a dog with his mouth open and

the lighting is perfect and the focus is sharp and the telephone

pole is removed from the frame i really have a lot to imagine to

determine how this photo makes me feel. could be some dog

waiting patiently for it's owner to return or it could be an

abandoned or abused pet who is trapped without food in a

private yard. it could be barking or panting. approaching me or

about to pounce at me. too many variables. i am confused.<br>

if the photo is blurry and a big pole in the way it suggests to me

that this dog may have startled the photographer, surprising

them, the open mouth now becomes menacing...an attack

perhaps. click. moment captured. feelings conveyed and shared

through the act of producing a photograph that i am now viewing

at my leisure. i can identify this as a form of 'street photography'

and i am pleased with the results i am being offered.<br>

<br>

i find many of HCB's photos like that..moments captured on the

fly, in the way i see life happen through my artist's eye, and i am

pleased because the feeling of that is conveyed to me

specifically because of their imperfections. their value then

increases for what they are..'street photographs'..he has others

that are in focus from the foreground of a park and through the

subjects looking down to the boat in the water. doesn't move me

in the same way but it does make me feel something..placid

perhaps..how did he achieve this?..by bringing the entire scene

into focus and composing things simply, geometrically and

effectively. both great types of photography but neither of them

define for me what 'photgraphy' really is. can HCB? can

anyone?<br>

<br>

~poetprince

looking at the box<br>

in it's prominence<br>

over there<br>

best corner of the room<br>

a vcr fits snugly<br>

beneath it's throne<br>

i think i'll transform it<br>

create a new shape from it<br>

and change it's name<br>

from trinitron<br>

to noctilux<br>

on second thought<br>

i may have to throw in the stereo<br>

such is the price<br>

of my true desire<br>

<br>

~poetprince

i am enjoying this thread so much that i am coming back to it

more and more. each time i read a comment it adds to my

perspective, although i am continually coming to the same

conclusion that bob flores did in that i find art to be truly

subjective. each person's standards are their own and i

appreciate technical viewpoints as much as i do aesthetic ones.

i do not think that there really is a definitive description for what

"photography is all about"...unless of course i put forth the notion

that photography, like life itself, is all about diversity. better

yet...photography is all about 'perspective'.

if your personal perspective is attained through viewing a

photograph from a technical standpoint then those parts that

reinforce that viewpoint will stand out more for you (either

positively or negatively).

if it is a perspective that is based more on aesthetic preferences

then things like blurr may actually add to the overall effect that a

particular photo has for you, and may even enhance the value of

the print itself.

when i make a picture (hey! i used to just take 'em) the print itself

is but one part of the process of photography for me. on a

personal note, i actually prefer the 'act' of photographing my

subjects and oftentimes the actual print is anti-climactic (even if

it is technically perfect or aesthetically pleasing).

yes, for me (and i am my own best/worst critic) i see photography

as a 'process'. i have discovered that this is true for most people,

whether they be a professional, amateur, hobbyist or what have

you. in reaction to one of the statements i read about HCB doing

more harm than good for photography shows me how pointed

and limited our perspectives can become when we adopt an

extremified view. don't get me wrong, i am not a big fan of HCB

from a technical standpoint either, but i do recognize that his

photos and contributions to the 'world of photography' have

inspired millions of people over many decades, who have in turn

contributed countless images to our collective medium and in

turn have fuelled more and more people to develop what is now

considered the 'fine art of photography'. in HCB's time,

photography was considered a joke in comparison to traditional

art and he stretched beyond those limitations to produce a body

of work that stands today as a monumental testament of his love

and vision of the world around him, in spite of apparent technical

shortcomings. without which, the world (and the world of

photography) would truly suffer.

btw..i always thought the cat WAS the subject.

~poetprince

i became a photographer because for me it is the most diverse

way to express my artistic notions. these notions however have

been developed over a lifetime of looking at the world not only

through my own eyes, but also through the eyes of others, who

may or may not be artists...or photographers for that matter. i've

always had a 'good eye' and this has helped me make informed

decisions about whether or not a photgraph is 'good or not'

which is different from 'likeable'. whether or not this 'eye' of mine

will ever make me a better photographer is yet to be determined

as i am constantly 'seeing' things in a different light. in fact, most

of what each individual has stated in this thread (and others like

it) seems completely valid and is helping to alleviate my 'dislike'

of criticism. as i learn more about the technical aspects of

photography i am sure that my ability to critique is becoming

more honed, not only in regards to other's works, but to my own

as well. as i live and look more deeply into myself and the world i

live in i find that my ability to 'judge' a particular photo is being

determined by whether or not the image makes me 'feel'

something...those 'feelings' run the gamut of human emotions

from elation to disgust. basically, if it makes me 'feel' something,

then i call it a good photo, whether i like the image or not has no

relevence. sharp...blurred..traditional or avant garde..street or

studio staged..makes no difference. all photgraphs therefore are

'good', even if none of them are marketable or meet my own

personal criteria for technical/compositional perfection.

~poetprince

once again Doug, you have inspired me to think a little deeper

and a little longer....like many here, i am finding it difficult to

name but five of my favourite photographers and so, like others, i

reserve the right to ammend and extend my list. whether or not

they are Leica users is a mystery to me, but their influence on

me is akin to the feeling i get when i myself use a Leica. most of

my favourites were black and white photographers whose works

were of an era where modern photography was relatively new

and some even pioneered styles and perspectives that are today

considered common. of course ansel adams and edward

weston epitomize mastery of the art, and so naming them as 'my

favourites' doesn't say alot. so i will name each photographer in

my list as a 'favourite type' of artist, and in so doing my list

reflects my varied interests and tastes and is in no way a

sequential list of importance. each one is important and stands

alone in my reverence for them.

1) david hockney...his juxtapositioning of many images to depict

a singular scene and convey visual perception had the most

influence on me as a teenager in the 70's and i often adopt his

style to do larger works that otherwise would not have the same

effect as a single framed print...see "Camera Works"

2) ilse bing (i know she used a leica) because she was just

sooOOOoo curious and her camera was her vehicle to the realm

of self-expression..mine is as well

3) albert renger-patzsch who made beautiful pictures..glowing

images of the most mundane industrial objects which taught me

that technical ability is indeed an art unto itself and i am

continually learning from his works as some are embedded in

my memory and come running to the forefront of my mind each

time i raise a camera to my eye.

4) toto frima...who constantly reminds me what it takes to be an

artist in this day and age with her polaroids and her clean

understanding of the parameters of a photgraphic frame and

how everything outside that frame is covered by the concept of

individual imagination.

5) gordon parks who struggled with american prejudice and

worst of all racism on a professional level. who in spite of these

cultural afflictions that our entire world seems to suffer from

persevered and through the production of potent imagery

affected (and still does) everyone who viewed his photos

regardless of their gender, race or creed.

most of the others have already been mentioned, such as

alexander rodchenko and yousuf karsh but i feel that i have to

add to the list margaret bourke-white who helped humanize the

subjects of her photos whether they were public figures or

everyday folks.

thanks again doug, for making me think.

~poetprince

...and my apologies to Mr. Thacker for misspelling your name..a

funny thing happened today on my way to the film lab....i noticed

that some reprints were not the same vibrancy as the originals

and i was curious as to how i could fix this problem and prevent

it from happening again...so after taking full command of the

service desk and spreading out all of my so-called reprints and

pleading with the wonderful girl at the counter to please 'correct'

my images, she smirks at me!

at first i took this to be a look that stated, "you have no idea what

you're talking about, dan"...and in a way i was partially right.

she spoke to m e in a genuine tone (she really is quite nice,

despite her haunting smirk) and informed me that my problem

was not in the reprints at all and that no amount of printing

adjustments would ever bring me the satisfaction i

desired...feeling a little dazed and confused by such an insightful

statement and feeling a little sarcastic, i asked, "and exactly what

will fix my problem?"

she never lost her smirk and spoke quite clearly and in a very

matter-of-fact way and responded with, "YOU will fix it easily once

you accept the fact that you are a Leica Head"

she then placed one roll of slide film on the counter and said,

"and this one is on the house"

it was the nicest thing anyone has said to me in a long

time...speaking as an artist, i would have to admit that i felt

something that is elusive to most artists and something we all

search for and work towards. i felt RECOGNIZED.

i felt understood

i felt goofy

i felt like magic was occuring all around me

ya..i felt like dancing, but don't tell my girlfriend that or i'm

doomed!

and so i marched over to the camera sales department and

asked to look at 'my' Leica..i pulled it from the clutches of the box

and just held it for a moment, admiring the way it felt in my

hands..familiar, like an old friend..i put my eye to the viewfinder

and played with the focus..in focus..out of

focus...mmmmmm...how smooooothe...i've made some

decisions in my life..some good and some not so good...but

when i left that store today i knew that deep in my heart i had

made the right one.

~poetprince

i turned 39 in march...good gawd that looks strange in print..i've

been a carpenter/wooden boat builder since i was a

teenager..who am i kidding?..i'm still a teenager..i'm supposed

to start school in the fall but i have been taking my tuition

payments and ducking into the camera store to pay for a leica

M6. it'll take another couple of months to pay it off with one good

lens. the next thing will be to sell my '72 vw van and buy an

around the world-ticket and finish writing that book i started so

many moons ago.it's a story about a boy and his camera...wish

me well...

many thanks to all the people here who have given me so much

artistic encouragement..i know that i am an artist and i think i

need to take a little time to discover what that means.

thanks also to doug thatcher, whose response has helped

temper my resolve.

~poetprince