vuk_vuksanovic

"With language, ignorance of rules almost always leads to nothing better than poor description and thus worse communication."

Tris, you're obviously out in left field here and display remarkable ignorance of current research and understanding in the branches of cognitive science/psychology that deal with the issues at hand. One begins to wonder how many other things you merely think you understand well enough to lecture others about.

"Of course you have the 'right' to have it your own way if you so choose, but I'm here to tell you it won't get you any place beneficial fast."

Do you really fail to see how any normal person would find this an incredibly arrogant and offensive thing to say?

Tris.

Just to broaden your understanding a little more, this discussion of colour vs. shape is the sort of useless yawn-inspiring stuff that would make me give up photography altogether if I actually had to consider it seriously or routinely. Knowledge of rules is about as important in the production of language as it is in art: it looks to have played a part when analysing post hoc, but in reality has little to do with what actually occurred in the mind.

There are far more interesting and constructive ways to critique pictures.

Not much time on my hands at the moment, but (in light of certain critical comments) I just had to let everyone know that Ian does not have access to a decent film scanner. The one he uses is nothing short of appalling and it says quite a bit about his photos that they can survive the process enough to generate a considerable positive reaction among so many. I have seen the prints and the prints are very, very good--Ian is not just an excellent photographer, but a master printer, as well. It's too bad he insists on using that nasty, grainy Tri-X ;-)

 

More later.

Isaac.

 

I think this could have been improved had you waited for the woman to advance enough to the right to be beyond the red mailbox(?) on the wall . At that point, coming in a little bit and holding vertically to get the extra windows on the left out of the frame would have yielded a tighter, simpler and better balanced composition.

Hey Dennis,

 

I'll bet you one of those collector edition $7K Leicas this wasn't altered in any way.

 

Vuk.

Well, just in case you're willing to take "more than polite notice of [this] detractor," let me add a similar impression to the one Frank Jason has voiced.

I do like this sort of photography and I do "get" the picture. Unfortunately, it promises to give a lot more than it ends up delivering. At first glance, the nice balance of figures and the wealth of expressive elements successfully draw one inside with a desire to assemble all the pieces and unscramble the story. Once there, however, it doesn't quite fit together in the interesting way one expected and there really isn't a story beyond what was obvious at first glance: a group of people at a wedding celebration. I don't know if there was a better moment or angle, but the image captured here suggests that perhaps the photographer should have aimed for two photos. Of course this sacrifices the generally positive attribute of complexity, but the complexity has not been fully tamed in to a telling image: actually, it has in terms of the spatial relations between objects*, but not with regard to the psychological relations between subjects.

It's still a fairly good picture, but, to me, not outstanding or of the same quality as others in the folder. Congratulations on being selected--it was good to be alerted to your portfolio.

*the exception is the woman behind the central figure: it seems as if the man's arm was actually sprouting from her body--not the end of the world really , but quite distracting once you've noticed it)

Well, the elves do have a sense of humour after all!

My favourite in the folder. One of my favourites on the site.

Julia.

 

I can appreciate that English may be a bit of a struggle (it's not my first language either), but your reply is completely inadequate by any stretch. I'm also curious, all back-stabbing aside, how you can feel so comfortable in the #1 position. Regardless of whether or not the ratings are unbiased (which I believe they are), I would figure someone with only 4 pictures in their portfolio would feel more than a bit embrassed and undeserving to suddenly find herself at the top of the heap and in the spotlight. I believe the word is humility...

 

I suggest we all simply ignore the top-rated nonsense. It's simpy too late to fix--we have already contaminated the ratings by introducing a new variable (visibilty) half-way through. This works against older photos (ratings inflation and all that) and changes made at this point would bring along a whole new set of consequences/errors. These are fundamental measurement issues.

Julia.

 

Perhaps I have still not made myself clear, so let me say it again: I am not questioning the fact that the ratings you have received are valid/genuine/clean. Please do not group me with anyone who believes in some sort of fraud/conspiracy/scandal on your part.

"I still believe the majority of the viewers are honest and in earnest about their ratings and comments"--Julia Liu

Julia.

I agree with you and I don't believe you've interpreted my comment in quite the appropriate way. As for this not being a stage for comedians, have a look at some of those freeze-dried grashoppers super-glued to leaves. You'd figure with all those precautions, the brilliant top-25 photographer wouldn't need a flash. You see, Tony's got it all wrong. It's no longer desirable to be anywhere near the top of this list. Hence, my advice to you is to post many more of your shots. Stuff that you like.

Julia.

 

Let me add to the comments left by Tony and Bernhard on your other pictures by saying that we are all humbled by your skill as a photographer. Not that long ago, our #1 didn't even hit the 14 point mark and you are over 16 right now. Wow!

Matt.

 

Thanks for saving me the time to compose a reply. You've said all that needs to be said.

"And what is art, anyway? Is art parking your camera on a tripod, loading pro grade slide film, bracket 9 stops and select the best looking landscape image?"

No.

"Or the most professionally lit portrait?"

No.

Patrick.

It's more than a little disconcerting these are the two prototypic examples of photographic "art" you've come up with. I think it says a lot about Photonet.

As for PoW, I actually preferred the uncorrected version to this. Haluk, could you please restore the original (that was the picture selected after all) and simply upload the reworked one as an attachment? The cartoonish quality of colour cast/saturation and vignetting actually made an important contribution and it's now been turned into little more than a snapshot. What is really letting you down, as pointed out above, is the awkward pose of the hands--perhaps fingers outstretched in shock/pain would have worked better. The fallen shoe is also questionable, especially the way it is positioned and captured.

M. Ort.

 

You have presented us with 3 conceptual planes, so seamlessly integrated that it may be difficult for some to appreciate the end result.

Gene.

 

Looks as if this person has begun to melt from exhaustion and the empty boots along-side suggest someone else already has! Very well composed (minor quibble: you've cut off a few toes on the bottom).

Delicate and sublime. Works well rotated 90º counter-clockwise too.

 

Cheers,

Vuk.

Peter.

 

I like this one a great deal. It evokes the comfort of relaxing in a cozy victorian home and reading a good book while the rain falls outside. Meanwhile, far across the ocean, greater storms rage over suburban America as it tunes into the Jerry Springer show (see PoW) ;-)

Bernhard.

 

Yes, I understand the preference for being off-centre and accept it as valid, however, you are sitting on the fence with this one: either do the assymetry more radically or stay dead centre.

You may have all noticed the absence of Tris Schuler this week. Unfortunately, he's having trouble logging in to Photonet, but he has seen the PoW and asked me to forward these comments (in no way to be interpreted as my own) on his behalf:

"The reality of the aesthetic impact this photo wields is most easily summed up by considering what a minuscule fragment of grey cells (in which my enormous intellect resides) was sufficient to absorb it. I say this as a matter of fact, untainted by the sort of emotional contamination you are likely to perceive in almost all the feedback other members of this site shall bestow upon your work. Sir, you have not presented us with a photograph, but instead a party trick performed for bourgeois dinner guests feasting on a seven-course meal. Pay attention young man: the artist must starve, the artist must not rely upon tricks and, above all, he should NEVER oversaturate his picture--the violation of photorealism is so stark and vulgar here (I detect 2.79% added to red and yellow) I am shocked nobody has mentioned it. No, these are not comforting words. Do you really expect to grow as an artist by being coddled? Photonet will never succeed as an academy of artistic excellence until it exposes the weaknesses of your kind and weeds out the chreerleading sycophants who see every colorful postcard as something fit to hang in the Smithsonian. Before any of you character-assassinators reply, please try using your brain for a minute and READ exactly what I have written: if you take the time to perform this very simple act, you will see how I am merely presenting facts to simpletons incapable of seeing them on their own and not indulging in the sort of personal abuse you lot seem to thrive on." --Tris

Bernhard.

Since this is where you work, I can only assume it's not too much trouble to go back and do the shot properly (straight on). The fact that Lord Dummett makes serious technical errors from time to time (and is excused for it by his Photonet groupies) is not enough of a defense. This scene is simply too good for carelessness and impatience.

When you correct the problem, let me know and I will give you a very high score ;-)

Cheers,

Vuk.

You've made a series of excellent choices here (framing, angle, aperture, film, processing, etc.). Very well done.

You didn't just arrive on the scene with a new digital --Tris Schuler

Actually, that's precisely how it is, though I quickly bought film cameras thereafter.

Regarding the E10: I didn't know it had issues with reading light properly, but then I haven't boned up on it awful close, either. -- Tris Schuler

No issues with the E-10. An incident light meter is a more precise tool for determining exposure in most situations than any in-camera device. Tris, are you the sort of impatient novice who hasn't bothered to learn these fundamentals of photography? ;-)

Tris, the point remains unshaken that none of this is required knowledge for critiquing a photo.

David.

 

I did not mean to suggest my approach was haphazard. Far from it, I am methodical, obsessive and emotional when it comes to practising the art of photography. That said, looking at pictures and evaluating them as pieces of art is something completely different and doesn't even require you to have ever taken a photo in your life. That's why I don't give a sh*t about how hard it was or what kind of camera was used or what the photographer thinks or what he did when I'm judging the final result. Yet, I am extremely interested in all those things as a photographer. Are you unable to enjoy or evaluate dinner at a restaurant unless you know what kind of pot the chef used, if he actually tasted his broth along the way or whether the oven thermometer was digital?

 

BTW--for all those who think this photo is somehow devalued by all the comments it has attracted, may I remind you they are not being forever imprinted on the image. If all the text upsets you for some reason, then don't scroll down to it.

It is entirely reasonable to assume that users of digital cameras do not work as carefully as some guy does with his camera perched on a tripod worrying about light readouts and the dynamic range of the scene before him with regard to his film and a lot of other things. And as I've tried to explain, it is quite unlikely that many (if any) users of digital cameras are either aware of such subtleties or could care less to begin with. Their clear statement in buying these devices is that they don't want to be bothered. --Tris Schuler

Tris.

"Unlikely that any"???

Although I feel much of what has been thrown at you here is unfair, your comments above are best described as simplistic nonsense and you are the one now making blanket statements. Let me give you just one example--which is enough to refute your sweeping contention, right? You see, I actually fuss over precise exposure with my E-10 a bit more than my Leica, because film is way more forgiving. I even use an incident light meter instead of what's built into the Oly, while all of my Nikon SLR friends let their camera do the thinking. In the end, however, none of this has anything to do with critiquing a photo and I am not sure why you insist on bringing it up. I don't really give a sh*t if someone hands his camera over every morning to a pet monkey who roams the streets clicking away for him. It's not a very effective technique, but amidst rolls and rolls of wasted film, it's quite possible something rather excellent would emerge: something to rival all the top-rated members and something you'd have no clue was shot by an animal.

how about having a D-POW and a F-POW! It would probably create a better discussion atmosphere. I like the picture as a digital shot.--MEHDI K

This is just as absurd. I could shoot the picture above just as easily on film or CCD and you would never know the difference, especially if viewing it as a compressed JPEG on Photonet. Such comments are almost as rude (and certainly as ignorant) as the personal insults we've seen in this "discussion."