iancoxleigh
-
Posts
3,401 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by iancoxleigh
-
-
-
-
<p>Peter, that page is not out of date. See this posting here: http://www.photo.net/site-help-forum/00XEWa . However, I think Ray is speaking about the new voting on the helpfulness of comments. </p>
<p>Ray, there is has been a recent change to the just announced system and you will only be able to vote for helpful comments (no negative votes). I think the scale is simply endless within the approx/ six-month time-frame. So, your rating will go up one for one with each person who votes your comment as helpful. You can see more information and ask more directly here: http://www.photo.net/site-help-forum/00XFCT</p>
-
<p>I do not think I am able to anticipate that an image will 'spark something' in a viewer without also having/wanting some idea of what that 'something' will be.</p>
<p>If the presented image 'sparks something' that I didn't predict or consider, that is fine. But, I couldn't have come to the point of sharing the image if there wasn't something I was expecting. If no one shared my expected response, and I would be concerned. Of course whatever the response, it is valid. Perhaps I could come to see the image as a viewer did, but I'd still be concerned.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Even more strict graphics, when good, are usually more than they seem . . . Mondrian, for example.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I agree. However, I know Kandinsky, Malevich, and Klee certainly had preconceptions about the greater possibilities of their abstractions. I am fairly sure that Mondrian did as well. </p>
-
<p>Fred, I'm trying to wrap my head around this.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Had I thought it just dealt with mechanics, in a visually compelling way, yes, I would share it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You see, I would count being visually compelling as part of being 'effective', and you ascertaining that effectiveness for yourself as part of your own consideration of the image.<br>
Anyways, I'm not sure this requires a response at the moment. I'm going to dwell on these exchanges a bit more.</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Yes, and all my photos that had attributed ratings now do not have them.</p>
-
<blockquote>
<p>What is being communicated both is and is not related to what I was, specifically, feeling at the time.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>OK, I understand <strong>that a creative process can yield creative results even if those particular results were not explicitly sought</strong>. However, wasn't the effectiveness of the images the cause for you to share them? Isn't the editing and publishing of your images part of the creative process? Would you have presented these photos if you didn't think they spoke to more than mechanics of their creation?</p>
<p>I know sometimes people see things in my images well beyond my intentions and assume that I intended the result. However, my experience has been that either I still do not see this in my work even after they have expressed it, or, although such impressions were not the cause of the image's creation, they are the cause of its presentation. At some point I "thought philosophically" about the resulting image before making it public.</p>
<p>There may be happy accidents of creation. However, the choice to share them was no accident.</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>This is a most engaging little discussion with a number of tantalizing themes intertwined. I am going to try and tease them apart a touch.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What about good viewers? Do they think outside the box and therefore open themselves up to different visions? If one can become a "better" photographer over time, can one become a better viewer?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, absolutely. I very much think that appreciating and relating to photography or art is like many other things in life where experience matter tremendously. I could compare this to music appreciation or to becoming a more accomplished reader. However, I think maybe gastronomy is more relatable.</p>
<p>Let's say you are going out to eat food that is not of your own background (i.e. "ethnic" food). The more experience you have with that type of cuisine the more you will able to understand and enjoy it. You will be able to grasp what a given dish is trying to do and what it is related to within that food culture. You will come to understand the norms expected of food in that cuisine.</p>
<p>Now, maybe a truly great dish can transcend these sorts of barriers and be more universally appreciated by those without those experiences. However, that is a very rare thing to achieve, indeed (if it is even possible).</p>
<p>So, returning to photography, experience and interaction with all sorts of photography is important in broadening the breadth of our knowledge and understanding.</p>
<p>There are many subjects in my life that I have purposely undertaken an effort to better understand. These include such disparate things as dodecaphonic music, Dada, and offal. Some of these I have come to appreciate and understand, but still do not love, and others I now truly enjoy and can barely remember when I had a strong aversion to them. <em>In fact, the very type of photography I am now engaged in most frequently was one of those things where I took it upon myself to confront an aversion.</em></p>
<blockquote>
<p>And maybe it can take me <em>outside myself</em> to someplace new if I let it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I think my above discussion makes it clear that I am open to this approach. An attempt to understand an image from a position with as few rigid preconceptions as possible is the most likely to result in the photograph being viewed on its own merits. Perhaps, as much as is possible, such an approach will allow a connection with the image that isn't rooted in a material understanding of it, but in a response to it – an appreciation of it. However, sometimes a distracting element is simply distracting and sometimes an ineffectual image is just that (at least for you/I individually).</p>
<p>In reviewing images and responding to viewer responses/critiques, I think there are basically two competing issues.</p>
<ol>
<li>The photographer needs to divorce themselves, as much as possible, from their intentions with the image. They needs to try and see the image with as much of the distance of a new viewer as possible. Only in this way will they have a chance of seeing that there is too much 'noise' to see the sought-for signal.<br /><br /></li>
<li>The viewer needs to divorce themselves, as much as possible, from their preconceptions. They should try not to think about how they would approach such a subject (a very hard thing for an artist to not think about when viewing art – or for a dedicated cook not to think about when dining). They should try and respond to the image as presented/experienced – understanding its context not their own context.</li>
</ol>
<p>Now, a powerful piece of art can force the viewer out of their preconceptions to a certain extent and get them to have a genuine response without much effort from the viewer. And, in a similar manner, a good viewer, a dedicated viewer, can overcome the challenges of a weak work not communicating its own message clearly.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Because they see something in the work or because I may talk about something I see in my own work, there is often an assumption that that's what I intended. When I talk about a photo after the fact, people seem to imagine my having some sort of philosophical dialogue with myself while I was shooting or post processing. It doesn't quite work like that.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Interesting. Care to expand on this?</p>
-
<p>Oh John, God bless you (and I mean that from the bottom of my cold atheist heart)!</p>
<p>I wanted to write what you wrote but lacked the temerity.</p>
-
-
<p>I hope I am not overstepping my role when I try my hand at clarifying things here. Appologies in advance if I get something wrong.<br /> --<br /> Yes, you were allowed to write that blurb before. However, it never got shown in the anonymous critique interface and the title used in that interface was the image title not the critique forum posting title/heading.</p>
<p>Since the new system separates the rating from the critique forum, an image submitted for ratings will not automatically also go to the critique forum. As such, nothing has really changed about how the image is displayed in the rating interface once submitted.</p>
<p>If you want to write up that blurb and heading, submit the image for critique as well and you will get the chance to write that and it will be used in the critique forum posting.</p>
-
<p>I really do agree with this. If the explanatory text is deemed truly necessary, then the font size could be shrunk down 20-30% and the turned to about 80% gray (as a suggestion).</p>
-
<blockquote>
<p>As with other site submissions, there should be an edit window on ratings after which no changes are possible. Due to various changes/updates, it may not be consistent across the board. I will look into it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That explains it. I made the anonymous rating earlier in the day. I was simply unaware that there was now a time limit of revising ratings either way. I've gone and looked at other images that I rated before and the option to change my rating is now gone as you describe. I used to occasionally revise ratings a long time later (months). I can see why that might be problematic and understand the changes, but I will miss what was (as one usually does).</p>
-
<blockquote>
<p>Should be four of each, someone let me know if it is not.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I appear to be able to still submit either for ratings or for critiques from the image page. But, if I have just finished submitting for one or the other and I click the "submit another" link on the follow-up page, I am told I have reached my 4-per-day limit which I have if they are combined, but have not if they are individually.<br>
As I noted, I am still able to submit another. Just not from that 'submit another' link. Do you want a screen-shot? Or have I been clear enough.</p>
-
<p>Oh, one more thing, I have noticed that I am allowed to change a rating I gave from the critique page but I can not change a rating I gave anonymously from the rating interface. I assume this is intentional, but I sometimes I change my mind after a little while so I probably won't be using the anonymous interface again.</p>
<p>Perhaps this has been so for a while. I haven't used the anonymous interface in more than a year.</p>
-
<p>How does this effect the 4 per day limit? Do we get 4 ratings and 4 critique requests, or 4 of both together?</p>
-
-
-
-
<p>An isolated and barren landscape. Isolation. Plenty of time. Money to let it happen.<br>
<br />Example: <br /><br />A year living and shooting in SE Oregon. <br /><br />OR <br /><br />A year in Gros Morne NP in Newfoundland.</p>
-
<p>Congratulations on the addition to the family!</p>
-
<p>"I'm wondering if anyone simply reverses their square ND grad filters in order to get a harder edge?"</p>
<p>That won't work well because the edge of the filter creates a distortion just like the edge of a pane of glass would.</p>
<p>For those occasions when you want the darkest portion of the grad in the middle of the frame, Singh-Ray makes a reverse grad:</p>
<p>http://www.singh-ray.com/grndgrads.html (half-way down the page).</p>
<p>---</p>
<p>I use a combination of 4"x6" grads from Singh-Ray and Lee. I like Singh-Ray reverse (no one else makes these) and hard-edged grads (they are harder edged than others IMO). I like Lee soft-edged grads because they are really diffusely gradated.</p>
<p>I use 4x6" grads because I prefer to hand-hold the filters rather than deal with holders for most purposes.</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>I'm glad you had a good time and discovered a new avenue to explore. I have been doing night photography for a while now and enjoy it immensely.</p>
<p>Two quick suggestions:<br>
1. Even if you're shooting RAW files, you might want to make sure you're trying to set a WB that is close to what you want to use as that will help you to get a more accurate histogram display with which to judge your exposures.</p>
<p>2. Expect to overexpose/"blow-out" portions of your photo in order to get shadow detail where you want it.</p>
<p>Some photographers to investigate:<br>
<a href="http://www.kevincooley.net/nfn_01.html">Kevin Cooley</a> , <a href="http://troypaiva.com/">Troy Paiva</a> , <a href="http://www.tompaiva.com/">Tom Paiva</a> , <a href="http://www.adamkuehl.com/">Adam Keuhl</a> , <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/soviet/">Soviet</a> (on flickr), and <a href="http://www.jeffbrouws.com/">Jeff Brouws</a> .</p>
<p>Also, check out the night-photography resources at <a href="http://www.thenocturnes.com/">The Nocturnes</a> webpage (I believe Harold Davis has participated with them previously too).</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>I also agree with Fred.<br>
There is a remarkably narrow aesthetic range in the POW choices.</p>
Big Bird
in No Words
Posted