vuk_vuksanovic

Also a good example that you don't need a lot of expensive equipment to take great photos. --Elves

Only about $1500 worth, right?

Nice picture, though far from the best in the folder.

Far too literal.

Paul.

 

Do you really think you're clever?

ratings driven--Mike C

Mike.

I can certainly accept criticism, but not when it's completely unfounded. I think the ratings are laughable and what I write on Photonet has nothing to do with them. If I wanted high scores on my photos (which I post here on a temporary basis primarily to share with friends), I would leave only positive comments and try really hard not to piss anyone off. Does that seem to be what I'm doing?

Dramatic, yet with a soothing/calming beauty at the same time. Well done.

Mary.

 

You're being way too nice and sensible. Remember that commercial in which John McEnroe tries to teach Pete Sampras how to slam his racket to the ground and yell at the umpires? Maybe you and I need a little session like that ;-)

Paul.

 

Are you drunk, ignorant, belligerent or illiterate?

Vuk! Help! How you you statistically evaluate for consistency?

The standard deviation of scores is one way, but someone with consistent low grades would be rewarded too. There is also a problem of "ceiling effects" where pictures/portfolios (depending on which variance you are measuring) at either extreme will have artificial lower variability because of the scale--a statistical artifact, so to speak.

Trying to turn ratings here into something meaningful is really hopeless. Yet, they do represent a fair reflection of the community's opinion and you can't really factor out that so many have such poor taste: as I write, the pimp hat has averages over 8 on both dimensions.

Speaking of standard deviation, some of the most interesting pictures here are ones that recieve a lot of extreme scores at both ends of the scale simultaneously.

Robert.

 

A few weeks ago. I tidied up my Photonet portfolio, keeping what I liked best from the year (in my "vuk2K1" folder), and it resulted in a partial plunge in the ratings, which I am glad for because I don't want to be part of the top-rated nonsense anymore. I will soon post a notice with all uploads asking for comments only and no scoring.

Ian.

 

I meant the next person to call the pimp hat graphic a portrait. I do, however, appreciate your attitude in evaluating the picture I posted. I'm so sick of people asking me to explain what this or that was in my more abstract photos. People in this city want to see a f***ing resumé before buying any works! Now how is that for critical impotence?

Geraldine.

 

I was speaking of things from the perspective of a viewer. To evaluate the quality of art, I do not need to know anything about it beyond the work presented before me and what it evokes or alludes to. Of course, most often I do know or end up knowing a lot more, which can add to my overall enjoyment but does not make the thing better. Art has failed when it requires crutches of the peripheral to convince the audience.

 

I own a couple of Tony's prints and I really wouldn't give a sh*t if I found out the so-called "candids" were actually elaborate stagings involving second-rate local actors. The knowledge would make the photos more amusing to me, but I wouldn't think any more or less of them as final products.

 

If I break my E-10 trying out your little experiment, you gonna be in big trouble girl...

Tony.

 

Peter Christoph clicked his mouse a few times. Michael Spinak examined 10 000 tendrils and then shot 2 rolls on a tripod for several hours. These facts are completely IRRELEVANT to me standing in front of either image in a gallery, though it's highly unlikely one or the other would ever find itself there. Both photographers came up with a black background and a kitschy end result (Michael's far less so) that's partly to do with the black background. It is the end result that a normal viewer sees. The image is everything. The process is something, but only for the creator and those seeking reasons to like/dislike a picture beyond what's in the bloody thing.

 

BTW--the next person who calls this a "portrait" will be flogged and hanged personally by the leader of Universe Zero's High Council.

Daniel.

 

I really wish you weren't so concerned with ratings.

Christian.

 

Your recent comments on my photos (although mostly ill-founded) suggested you were intolerant of any semblance of digital manipulation. Have you changed your mind in the last 48 hours?

 

BTW--Ian MacEachern will vouch for the fact that my impressions of this picture were formed well before I had any clue Mr. Christoph was at the top of the "member" list.

Paul.

 

If that's how you evaluate the worthiness of art, I suspect you've got about as much taste as your namesake in the photo who chooses to plonk a second-rate pimp hat on his head (though, ironically enough, in matters of fashion, it is sometimes useful to look around at what everyone else is (not) doing).

Don't hold back man, tell us how you really feel.--Dennis

 

Sorry dude, I have to hold back: new year's resolution to be a kinder, gentler contributor on Photonet.

 

no digital photography expert but the 'broadsword of the roaring Photoshop mouse' Tony uncovered looks more like jpeg compression to me.--Mark Meyer

 

I suspect the same, but let it not take away from the historical importance of Tony Dummett's first stab at digital imaging, though his choice of scarlet red really exposed him for a novice. Only time will tell.

Tony.

 

I don't give a sh*t how he got there--it's still a piece of kitsch. I do object, however, to the severe cropping. If you've made such an enormous framing misjudgment (at least 33% here), try again and don't waste our time. Please correct me on that last point if the Finepix is actually a medium/square format camera.

 

BTW--who the hell wears sissy hats like that? Certainly not a cannibal.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

Please show a bit more respect for our community's #1 rated photographer. People of Universe 1 obviously love his pretty pictures enough for him to sell a whole range of calendars (containing 12 each, I assume) for a mere $9.99 and still turn a profit. The Kenny Rogers and velvet oil painting comments sum up the popularity of this efort and there is little else to add.

 

BTW--this is definitely NOT a portrait and I would really love to know who picked it as one (I'm pretty sure the elves have handed over PoW duties to other people for the past few weeks).

I don't like sports photography very much and this is essentially sports photography dressed up in B&W jazz. It's still a decent shot in terms of composition and mood, but let down on the technical side by the out-of-focus singer (the guitarist seems to be the subject in this regard) and weird, organic grain. The microphone is very ugly/clumsy and somewhat distracting because of it. Almost.

Seven.

 

If my opinion means anything to you, I would suggest ignoring the praise this picture is generating. It really seems to me the influence of our little Photonet community has made you take inferior pictures over time. For what it's worth, my ratings keep dropping, although I'm quite sure I'm actually forging ahead. If you're happy with the path you're pursuing, please ignore these comments. If you think I'm on to something, then send me an e-mail message and we can discuss it further.

Tris.

 

It's quite remarkable, with all your intellectual posturing, that Brian's clever hypothetical went entirely over you head.

 

Brian.

 

You've made an excellent point which utterly demolishes so much photographic dogma.

I will be in England for at least 2 months starting around the middle of Feburary. If I can survive my own personal problems, maybe we can hook up. --Daniel Bayer

Daniel.

Ian (and I) live in the fake London (Ontario, Canada), not the one in England, though you're still welcome for a visit--this place is quite a challenge for any photographer.

Tony.

 

I spoke to Ian a little earlier and he's just out of the darkroom and now spotting a series of proofs (some naughty underground stuff), but well aware of the questions that have been asked and keen to reply later this evening or tomorrow. Just to make sure he does, I have offered to provide clever answers on his behalf ;-)

 

Tris.

 

No offense, but I really doubt there's anything worthwhile Ian has to learn from you. In fact, I don't think he's even learned anything from me--well, except for details concerning the tatoos, piercings and other strange habits of contemporary women in their early 20s. I, on the other hand, have learned a tremendous amount from him (in real life, not Photonet), even though I just love to break his silly "falling out of the bottom right corner" rule. BTW--could you try to be little more arrogant in the next reply? You're so close to breaking some sort of international record.

Someone else just delivered himself to the peculiar opinion that the very discussion of the tecnicalities might only stand in the way of an "artist's vision," and while he didn't come right out and say so Vuk for all intents said the same thing last night. --Tris.

Please DO NOT put words in my mouth. Technical knowledge is critical, but it stops at things like getting the correct exposure and tonal effects (film/filter choice) in your shot. The rules you have in mind go beyond the straighforward realm of the technical. They are at best ambiguous, at worst stifling and generally, if concrete and sufficiently far-reaching, merely the sort of thing that can help a complete novice avoid taking bad snapshots. That said, specific compositional advice or criticism about a particular photo is another matter altogether.

By the way, why are you so fixated on this idea about people coming here to learn? Maybe it is a big cocktail party for most. Do you have anything to teach Ian?

Your remarks re art and language and "rules" are hogwash. But go ahead and prove me wrong.

Tris

I am not going to bore everyone here with what's required to explain this to you, but I can point you to articles in peer-reviewed journals. You see, I've actually studied the "hogwash" in graduate school with some of the most respected experts in the field (and carried out a bit of related research of my own, though it was not my area of specialization).