Re: Comparing Photos
Tom, I found the recent comments on the the three PESO's I posted quite interesting. I appreciate the feedback and naturally don't expect everyone's taste to be the same. I'm happy that they were generally well received. ... To me, judging one against the other is like comparing a Caribbean beach scene, to a northen California Big Sur coastal shot, to an Alaskan glacial fjord. It's difficult to compare three such photos, because aside from being water-related, they will have a totally different feeling to them. Here's my unsolicited, humble, hopefully not subjectively blind, thoughts on my own photographs: ... So what am I blathering on and on about? Hmmm... :-) I guess what I'm saying is that, personal taste aside, each photo is very different from the other, and was designed as such to present a different feeling to the viewer. You asked for it, so here it goes ;-). Tom, you are one of the stronger landscape photographers on PDML, at least to my eyes. Somehow I am certain I am not the only one who thinks this way. Therefore, it is only natural that your work will be judged with this in mind. So that each time I see a PESO posted by you I do admit I expect to see an excellent work. You're very good and you will have to bear that for time to come ;-). Really, each of three photos are very different but they are united by the fact that you posted them in close succession. And so this way you might have created a bit of serial thinking in the mind of your viewers here ;-). Again, this my own opinion. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comparing Photos
David Savage wrote: At 09:07 AM 16/02/2007, Tom C wrote: Yeah? Well this is what you get. Check your inbox. Tom C. For what exactly? Cheers, Dave He's sending you an (e)-letter bomb... From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Comparing Photos Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:53:40 +0900 Tom, None of the images were allowed to stand on their own merits, and they were judged as a series. That's what you get when you post several images depicting similar scenes in quick succession. I'm pretty sure if you had posted each shot a week or two apart you would have gotten different comments. Just my 0.02c Cheers, Dave At 03:10 AM 16/02/2007, you wrote: snip So what am I blathering on and on about? Hmmm... :-) I guess what I'm saying is that, personal taste aside, each photo is very different from the other, and was designed as such to present a different feeling to the viewer. -- -- The more I know of men, the more I like my dog. -- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comparing Photos
On 2/16/07, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Savage wrote: At 09:07 AM 16/02/2007, Tom C wrote: Yeah? Well this is what you get. Check your inbox. Tom C. For what exactly? Cheers, Dave He's sending you an (e)-letter bomb... What is it with crazy men living in the mountains bombs? Cheers, Dave ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comparing Photos
I wasn't gonna flag you on that, since I'm queen of typos but thanks for dropping the e anyway :) ann Tom C wrote: I mean Ann... :-) Tom C. From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Comparing Photos Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:09:06 -0700 No problem Anne. Tom C. From: ann sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Comparing Photos Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:58:49 -0500 Kenneth Waller wrote: I did find it, looking for the right word - puzzling - that the three photos were often judged in comparison to one another. Probably wouldn't have happened if they were posted many days apart. Kenneth Waller I was one who compared the first to the second (never saw the third until now, tom) - and I think Ken is right. But I have to confess to a habit of comparing everyone's photos to each other that are done by the same photograher - seems normal to me. I like the 1st of those three the best, the middle I don't like much, the third is nice - the geometry of it particularly, but makes me want to clean my glasses, too. ... which may partly be a function of my eyesight having a problem with low contrast - that is, the low contrast shots may not really be as low contrast as I am seeing them. just a couple of cents ann -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Comparing Photos
I found the recent comments on the the three PESO's I posted quite interesting. I appreciate the feedback and naturally don't expect everyone's taste to be the same. I'm happy that they were generally well received. I did find it, looking for the right word - puzzling - that the three photos were often judged in comparison to one another. Because, aside from being landscapes that contained trees and an element of fog, they were quite different from one another in composition, lighting and especially feeling. Neccessarily so because I had what nature presented me, and deliberately so because I think/hope I saw the potential in each of the circumstances and decided to work on making the image, hopefully conveying the feeling that I had, to the viewer. To me, judging one against the other is like comparing a Caribbean beach scene, to a northen California Big Sur coastal shot, to an Alaskan glacial fjord. It's difficult to compare three such photos, because aside from being water-related, they will have a totally different feeling to them. Here's my unsolicited, humble, hopefully not subjectively blind, thoughts on my own photographs: Inversion - Strong dramatic lighting, monotone, high contrast. Fog, tree silohouettes and tree shadows provide the interest in the shot. Based on responses I would describe it as 'Exciting'. Common Ground - Low light levels, low contrast, gray scale. Trees of differing shapes almost lost in the fog, create a soft two dimensional, somewhat old feeling. 'Moody'. Hillcrest - Medium lighting, soft/cool pastel-like colors and tones. Foreground rolling grassy mounds, trees up close and more receding in to the distance and fog, providing some perspective. It feels a little ethereal to me and reminds me a bit of the grounds around Camelot as depicted in motion pictures. I find it to be 'Soothing'. - So what am I blathering on and on about? Hmmm... :-) I guess what I'm saying is that, personal taste aside, each photo is very different from the other, and was designed as such to present a different feeling to the viewer. Side-by-side: http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=341034 Again thanks for commenting. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comparing Photos
I did find it, looking for the right word - puzzling - that the three photos were often judged in comparison to one another. Probably wouldn't have happened if they were posted many days apart. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Comparing Photos I found the recent comments on the the three PESO's I posted quite interesting. I appreciate the feedback and naturally don't expect everyone's taste to be the same. I'm happy that they were generally well received. I did find it, looking for the right word - puzzling - that the three photos were often judged in comparison to one another. Because, aside from being landscapes that contained trees and an element of fog, they were quite different from one another in composition, lighting and especially feeling. Neccessarily so because I had what nature presented me, and deliberately so because I think/hope I saw the potential in each of the circumstances and decided to work on making the image, hopefully conveying the feeling that I had, to the viewer. To me, judging one against the other is like comparing a Caribbean beach scene, to a northen California Big Sur coastal shot, to an Alaskan glacial fjord. It's difficult to compare three such photos, because aside from being water-related, they will have a totally different feeling to them. Here's my unsolicited, humble, hopefully not subjectively blind, thoughts on my own photographs: Inversion - Strong dramatic lighting, monotone, high contrast. Fog, tree silohouettes and tree shadows provide the interest in the shot. Based on responses I would describe it as 'Exciting'. Common Ground - Low light levels, low contrast, gray scale. Trees of differing shapes almost lost in the fog, create a soft two dimensional, somewhat old feeling. 'Moody'. Hillcrest - Medium lighting, soft/cool pastel-like colors and tones. Foreground rolling grassy mounds, trees up close and more receding in to the distance and fog, providing some perspective. It feels a little ethereal to me and reminds me a bit of the grounds around Camelot as depicted in motion pictures. I find it to be 'Soothing'. - So what am I blathering on and on about? Hmmm... :-) I guess what I'm saying is that, personal taste aside, each photo is very different from the other, and was designed as such to present a different feeling to the viewer. Side-by-side: http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=341034 Again thanks for commenting. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comparing Photos
I was thinking that as well. :-) Tom C. From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Comparing Photos Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:42:14 -0500 I did find it, looking for the right word - puzzling - that the three photos were often judged in comparison to one another. Probably wouldn't have happened if they were posted many days apart. Kenneth Waller -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comparing Photos
Kenneth Waller wrote: I did find it, looking for the right word - puzzling - that the three photos were often judged in comparison to one another. Probably wouldn't have happened if they were posted many days apart. Kenneth Waller I was one who compared the first to the second (never saw the third until now, tom) - and I think Ken is right. But I have to confess to a habit of comparing everyone's photos to each other that are done by the same photograher - seems normal to me. I like the 1st of those three the best, the middle I don't like much, the third is nice - the geometry of it particularly, but makes me want to clean my glasses, too. ... which may partly be a function of my eyesight having a problem with low contrast - that is, the low contrast shots may not really be as low contrast as I am seeing them. just a couple of cents ann -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comparing Photos
No problem Anne. Tom C. From: ann sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Comparing Photos Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:58:49 -0500 Kenneth Waller wrote: I did find it, looking for the right word - puzzling - that the three photos were often judged in comparison to one another. Probably wouldn't have happened if they were posted many days apart. Kenneth Waller I was one who compared the first to the second (never saw the third until now, tom) - and I think Ken is right. But I have to confess to a habit of comparing everyone's photos to each other that are done by the same photograher - seems normal to me. I like the 1st of those three the best, the middle I don't like much, the third is nice - the geometry of it particularly, but makes me want to clean my glasses, too. ... which may partly be a function of my eyesight having a problem with low contrast - that is, the low contrast shots may not really be as low contrast as I am seeing them. just a couple of cents ann -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comparing Photos
Ditto! To some extent it's like receiving the comment, not up to your usual standard. How high is my usual standard and compared to what? How high is up? IOW, you've shown me some that I liked better.(?) My feeling is that putting up images for review is done for that individual image and what it does for each individual viewer, not how it compares to one I may have offered previously. Maybe we should set up a 0 - 10 rating system. ;-/ Jack --- Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I found the recent comments on the the three PESO's I posted quite interesting. I appreciate the feedback and naturally don't expect everyone's taste to be the same. I'm happy that they were generally well received. I did find it, looking for the right word - puzzling - that the three photos were often judged in comparison to one another. Because, aside from being landscapes that contained trees and an element of fog, they were quite different from one another in composition, lighting and especially feeling. Neccessarily so because I had what nature presented me, and deliberately so because I think/hope I saw the potential in each of the circumstances and decided to work on making the image, hopefully conveying the feeling that I had, to the viewer. To me, judging one against the other is like comparing a Caribbean beach scene, to a northen California Big Sur coastal shot, to an Alaskan glacial fjord. It's difficult to compare three such photos, because aside from being water-related, they will have a totally different feeling to them. Here's my unsolicited, humble, hopefully not subjectively blind, thoughts on my own photographs: Inversion - Strong dramatic lighting, monotone, high contrast. Fog, tree silohouettes and tree shadows provide the interest in the shot. Based on responses I would describe it as 'Exciting'. Common Ground - Low light levels, low contrast, gray scale. Trees of differing shapes almost lost in the fog, create a soft two dimensional, somewhat old feeling. 'Moody'. Hillcrest - Medium lighting, soft/cool pastel-like colors and tones. Foreground rolling grassy mounds, trees up close and more receding in to the distance and fog, providing some perspective. It feels a little ethereal to me and reminds me a bit of the grounds around Camelot as depicted in motion pictures. I find it to be 'Soothing'. - So what am I blathering on and on about? Hmmm... :-) I guess what I'm saying is that, personal taste aside, each photo is very different from the other, and was designed as such to present a different feeling to the viewer. Side-by-side: http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=341034 Again thanks for commenting. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comparing Photos
I mean Ann... :-) Tom C. From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Comparing Photos Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:09:06 -0700 No problem Anne. Tom C. From: ann sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Comparing Photos Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:58:49 -0500 Kenneth Waller wrote: I did find it, looking for the right word - puzzling - that the three photos were often judged in comparison to one another. Probably wouldn't have happened if they were posted many days apart. Kenneth Waller I was one who compared the first to the second (never saw the third until now, tom) - and I think Ken is right. But I have to confess to a habit of comparing everyone's photos to each other that are done by the same photograher - seems normal to me. I like the 1st of those three the best, the middle I don't like much, the third is nice - the geometry of it particularly, but makes me want to clean my glasses, too. ... which may partly be a function of my eyesight having a problem with low contrast - that is, the low contrast shots may not really be as low contrast as I am seeing them. just a couple of cents ann -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comparing Photos
That rating system is going to make lots of friends fast! :-) Tom C. From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Comparing Photos Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:13:20 -0800 (PST) Ditto! To some extent it's like receiving the comment, not up to your usual standard. How high is my usual standard and compared to what? How high is up? IOW, you've shown me some that I liked better.(?) My feeling is that putting up images for review is done for that individual image and what it does for each individual viewer, not how it compares to one I may have offered previously. Maybe we should set up a 0 - 10 rating system. ;-/ Jack --- Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I found the recent comments on the the three PESO's I posted quite interesting. I appreciate the feedback and naturally don't expect everyone's taste to be the same. I'm happy that they were generally well received. I did find it, looking for the right word - puzzling - that the three photos were often judged in comparison to one another. Because, aside from being landscapes that contained trees and an element of fog, they were quite different from one another in composition, lighting and especially feeling. Neccessarily so because I had what nature presented me, and deliberately so because I think/hope I saw the potential in each of the circumstances and decided to work on making the image, hopefully conveying the feeling that I had, to the viewer. To me, judging one against the other is like comparing a Caribbean beach scene, to a northen California Big Sur coastal shot, to an Alaskan glacial fjord. It's difficult to compare three such photos, because aside from being water-related, they will have a totally different feeling to them. Here's my unsolicited, humble, hopefully not subjectively blind, thoughts on my own photographs: Inversion - Strong dramatic lighting, monotone, high contrast. Fog, tree silohouettes and tree shadows provide the interest in the shot. Based on responses I would describe it as 'Exciting'. Common Ground - Low light levels, low contrast, gray scale. Trees of differing shapes almost lost in the fog, create a soft two dimensional, somewhat old feeling. 'Moody'. Hillcrest - Medium lighting, soft/cool pastel-like colors and tones. Foreground rolling grassy mounds, trees up close and more receding in to the distance and fog, providing some perspective. It feels a little ethereal to me and reminds me a bit of the grounds around Camelot as depicted in motion pictures. I find it to be 'Soothing'. - So what am I blathering on and on about? Hmmm... :-) I guess what I'm saying is that, personal taste aside, each photo is very different from the other, and was designed as such to present a different feeling to the viewer. Side-by-side: http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=341034 Again thanks for commenting. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comparing Photos
- Original Message - From: Jack Davis Subject: Re: Comparing Photos Ditto! To some extent it's like receiving the comment, not up to your usual standard. How high is my usual standard and compared to what? How high is up? IOW, you've shown me some that I liked better.(?) My feeling is that putting up images for review is done for that individual image and what it does for each individual viewer, not how it compares to one I may have offered previously. Maybe we should set up a 0 - 10 rating system. ;-/ If you put a picture up for comment, you kinda have to take what you get. Not up to your usual standard means just that. It's not as good as what you usually post. It doesn't matter how good what you usually post is. There are some people on this list who are building very impressive bodies of work. Bruce, Ralf and Godfrey come to mind. While it might be nice if each picture was stood on it's own, I think it can also be instructive and useful to look at a picture in the context of the photographer's other works to see how it measures up. This can tell us if the photographer is improving or not, if his work is getting stale or stagnant, if he is trying new techniques, or going after fresh subject material, or if he has found a comfortable old pair of shoes and is just shuffling along in them. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comparing Photos
Good is such a subjective term. I wouldn't have thought it necessary to point out, but each image plays off of a variety of tastes. I don't put up an image with the idea that it is one of my best nor do I look at any ones offering in that way. We must always allow individual style without a critical comment that does not carry the understanding that it is my own narrow opinion. I've read critiques that actually cause me to chuckle at their lack of artistic aptitude. Again, scored on my own scale. Identifying your photographer's of choice is a surprise. Omission can be a harsh rebuff and should have been avoided. Present company not included, BTW. Jack --- William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jack Davis Subject: Re: Comparing Photos Ditto! To some extent it's like receiving the comment, not up to your usual standard. How high is my usual standard and compared to what? How high is up? IOW, you've shown me some that I liked better.(?) My feeling is that putting up images for review is done for that individual image and what it does for each individual viewer, not how it compares to one I may have offered previously. Maybe we should set up a 0 - 10 rating system. ;-/ If you put a picture up for comment, you kinda have to take what you get. Not up to your usual standard means just that. It's not as good as what you usually post. It doesn't matter how good what you usually post is. There are some people on this list who are building very impressive bodies of work. Bruce, Ralf and Godfrey come to mind. While it might be nice if each picture was stood on it's own, I think it can also be instructive and useful to look at a picture in the context of the photographer's other works to see how it measures up. This can tell us if the photographer is improving or not, if his work is getting stale or stagnant, if he is trying new techniques, or going after fresh subject material, or if he has found a comfortable old pair of shoes and is just shuffling along in them. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comparing Photos
While it might be nice if each picture was stood on it's own, I think it can also be instructive and useful to look at a picture in the context of the photographer's other works to see how it measures up. This can tell us if the photographer is improving or not, if his work is getting stale or stagnant, if he is trying new techniques, or going after fresh subject material, or if he has found a comfortable old pair of shoes and is just shuffling along in them. William Robb In this case it seemed to work opposite of what you state above. All three photos were much different than the other and deliberately so and probably could stand on their own, yet they were often subjectively compared to one another, which of course is a human trait that is almost unavoidable. (I'm not complaining, BTW.) Feedback good, bad, or indifferent can be enlightening. Even the Common Ground photo which did not have quite the appeal to some, I think could be saleable in some format, as I see similar images being marketed commercially. It's all very subjective. One man's treasure is another man's junk and vice-versa. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comparing Photos
- Original Message - From: Jack Davis Subject: Re: Comparing Photos Good is such a subjective term. I wouldn't have thought it necessary to point out, but each image plays off of a variety of tastes. I don't put up an image with the idea that it is one of my best nor do I look at any ones offering in that way. We must always allow individual style without a critical comment that does not carry the understanding that it is my own narrow opinion. I've read critiques that actually cause me to chuckle at their lack of artistic aptitude. Again, scored on my own scale. Identifying your photographer's of choice is a surprise. Omission can be a harsh rebuff and should have been avoided. Present company not included, BTW. In this case, a cigar is just a cigar. The three people I mentioned came to mind simply because they are regular posters and their work is mostly dissimilar to each others' work. No insult intended or entertained in this instance. Judging photographs is a subjective activity. There are no goal posts to tell if a point has been scored, no real way of objectifying the quality of the image. If you like it, you like it, if you don't, you don't. One may be able to say why they like or dislike an image, one may be able to apply the classic rules of composition and use that as a measuring stick to say whether the composition works or not, but this isn't necessarily a reliable measure. What happens though, if an image breaks every compositional rule, and still works? Is the image wrong?, or are the rules wrong? Or is the viewer wrong? I've worked as a contest judge. I don't know if this makes me better at deciding if a picture is worthy or not, but it does give me some practical experience at doing it. Does it mean I know every rule there is to know? Hardly. Does it make me a better photographer than the people whose work I was judging? Maybe, maybe not, though I think not for the ones who 's work I liked. It just meant that a group of peers decided that I was qualified to look at a bunch of pictures and put ribbons on the ones I liked best. We saw an image from Tom C a few days ago, a picture which is as good as anything I have seen anywhere anytime, by anybody. Did it obey the rules of composition? Frankly, I don't know or care. All I know was that I was gobsmacked when I saw it, and I didn't see any point in dismantling it to see if it followed the rules. A while later, he posted another one which I thought wasn't as strong an image, but I thought it had some potential, so I took it and played with it a bit. In turn, this caused Tom to revisit it himself. Personally, I didn't like either of his renderings as much as my own, but this is just one man's opinion. Does this mean I think he is getting worse, rather than better? Not at all. Growth happens over time, years, not days is the measure for this. Even the descriptives we use is subjective, and open to interpretation. I will use excellent as a descriptive, Jens will use brilliant. Is one more descriptive than the other? It's hard to say, as it depends on the vocabulary of the reviewer as much as anything else. One person will politely say the image leaves them cold, someone cruder will just say the picture sucks. Ultimately, they are saying the same thing, and may be saying it with the same degree of conviction as well. Well, that was a bit of a ramble. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comparing Photos
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] In this case, a cigar is just a cigar. The three people I mentioned came to mind simply because they are regular posters and their work is mostly dissimilar to each others' work. No insult intended or entertained in this instance. Judging photographs is a subjective activity. There are no goal posts to tell if a point has been scored, no real way of objectifying the quality of the image. If you like it, you like it, if you don't, you don't. One may be able to say why they like or dislike an image, one may be able to apply the classic rules of composition and use that as a measuring stick to say whether the composition works or not, but this isn't necessarily a reliable measure. What happens though, if an image breaks every compositional rule, and still works? Is the image wrong?, or are the rules wrong? Or is the viewer wrong? Nope. I've worked as a contest judge. I don't know if this makes me better at deciding if a picture is worthy or not, but it does give me some practical experience at doing it. Does it mean I know every rule there is to know? Hardly. Does it make me a better photographer than the people whose work I was judging? Maybe, maybe not, though I think not for the ones who 's work I liked. It just meant that a group of peers decided that I was qualified to look at a bunch of pictures and put ribbons on the ones I liked best. We saw an image from Tom C a few days ago, a picture which is as good as anything I have seen anywhere anytime, by anybody. Did it obey the rules of composition? Frankly, I don't know or care. All I know was that I was gobsmacked when I saw it, and I didn't see any point in dismantling it to see if it followed the rules. Hey thanks. I didn't know you were gobsmacked! :-) A while later, he posted another one which I thought wasn't as strong an image, but I thought it had some potential, so I took it and played with it a bit. In turn, this caused Tom to revisit it himself. Personally, I didn't like either of his renderings as much as my own, but this is just one man's opinion. I'm glad you did. Actually I'm still going back to it and reprocessing it all over again starting with the RAW conversion, in case I messed myself up along the way. I think there might be more there than I got out of it... hopefully. Does this mean I think he is getting worse, rather than better? Not at all. Growth happens over time, years, not days is the measure for this. Decades. Then why am I getting shorter? Even the descriptives we use is subjective, and open to interpretation. I will use excellent as a descriptive, Jens will use brilliant. Is one more descriptive than the other? It's hard to say, as it depends on the vocabulary of the reviewer as much as anything else. One person will politely say the image leaves them cold, someone cruder will just say the picture sucks. Ultimately, they are saying the same thing, and may be saying it with the same degree of conviction as well. Well, that was a bit of a ramble. William Robb You're just a ramblin' man. Comments interspersed by Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comparing Photos
I simply enjoy the process of making images, evaluating them and the works of others, in the glorious freedom of a simple mind. Jack --- William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jack Davis Subject: Re: Comparing Photos Good is such a subjective term. I wouldn't have thought it necessary to point out, but each image plays off of a variety of tastes. I don't put up an image with the idea that it is one of my best nor do I look at any ones offering in that way. We must always allow individual style without a critical comment that does not carry the understanding that it is my own narrow opinion. I've read critiques that actually cause me to chuckle at their lack of artistic aptitude. Again, scored on my own scale. Identifying your photographer's of choice is a surprise. Omission can be a harsh rebuff and should have been avoided. Present company not included, BTW. In this case, a cigar is just a cigar. The three people I mentioned came to mind simply because they are regular posters and their work is mostly dissimilar to each others' work. No insult intended or entertained in this instance. Judging photographs is a subjective activity. There are no goal posts to tell if a point has been scored, no real way of objectifying the quality of the image. If you like it, you like it, if you don't, you don't. One may be able to say why they like or dislike an image, one may be able to apply the classic rules of composition and use that as a measuring stick to say whether the composition works or not, but this isn't necessarily a reliable measure. What happens though, if an image breaks every compositional rule, and still works? Is the image wrong?, or are the rules wrong? Or is the viewer wrong? I've worked as a contest judge. I don't know if this makes me better at deciding if a picture is worthy or not, but it does give me some practical experience at doing it. Does it mean I know every rule there is to know? Hardly. Does it make me a better photographer than the people whose work I was judging? Maybe, maybe not, though I think not for the ones who 's work I liked. It just meant that a group of peers decided that I was qualified to look at a bunch of pictures and put ribbons on the ones I liked best. We saw an image from Tom C a few days ago, a picture which is as good as anything I have seen anywhere anytime, by anybody. Did it obey the rules of composition? Frankly, I don't know or care. All I know was that I was gobsmacked when I saw it, and I didn't see any point in dismantling it to see if it followed the rules. A while later, he posted another one which I thought wasn't as strong an image, but I thought it had some potential, so I took it and played with it a bit. In turn, this caused Tom to revisit it himself. Personally, I didn't like either of his renderings as much as my own, but this is just one man's opinion. Does this mean I think he is getting worse, rather than better? Not at all. Growth happens over time, years, not days is the measure for this. Even the descriptives we use is subjective, and open to interpretation. I will use excellent as a descriptive, Jens will use brilliant. Is one more descriptive than the other? It's hard to say, as it depends on the vocabulary of the reviewer as much as anything else. One person will politely say the image leaves them cold, someone cruder will just say the picture sucks. Ultimately, they are saying the same thing, and may be saying it with the same degree of conviction as well. Well, that was a bit of a ramble. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comparing Photos
Tom, None of the images were allowed to stand on their own merits, and they were judged as a series. That's what you get when you post several images depicting similar scenes in quick succession. I'm pretty sure if you had posted each shot a week or two apart you would have gotten different comments. Just my 0.02c Cheers, Dave At 03:10 AM 16/02/2007, you wrote: snip So what am I blathering on and on about? Hmmm... :-) I guess what I'm saying is that, personal taste aside, each photo is very different from the other, and was designed as such to present a different feeling to the viewer. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comparing Photos
Yeah? Well this is what you get. Check your inbox. Tom C. From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Comparing Photos Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:53:40 +0900 Tom, None of the images were allowed to stand on their own merits, and they were judged as a series. That's what you get when you post several images depicting similar scenes in quick succession. I'm pretty sure if you had posted each shot a week or two apart you would have gotten different comments. Just my 0.02c Cheers, Dave At 03:10 AM 16/02/2007, you wrote: snip So what am I blathering on and on about? Hmmm... :-) I guess what I'm saying is that, personal taste aside, each photo is very different from the other, and was designed as such to present a different feeling to the viewer. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comparing Photos
Hunker down everyone, Toms mad. ((-; Jack --- Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah? Well this is what you get. Check your inbox. Tom C. From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Comparing Photos Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:53:40 +0900 Tom, None of the images were allowed to stand on their own merits, and they were judged as a series. That's what you get when you post several images depicting similar scenes in quick succession. I'm pretty sure if you had posted each shot a week or two apart you would have gotten different comments. Just my 0.02c Cheers, Dave At 03:10 AM 16/02/2007, you wrote: snip So what am I blathering on and on about? Hmmm... :-) I guess what I'm saying is that, personal taste aside, each photo is very different from the other, and was designed as such to present a different feeling to the viewer. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comparing Photos
At 09:07 AM 16/02/2007, Tom C wrote: Yeah? Well this is what you get. Check your inbox. Tom C. For what exactly? Cheers, Dave From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Comparing Photos Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:53:40 +0900 Tom, None of the images were allowed to stand on their own merits, and they were judged as a series. That's what you get when you post several images depicting similar scenes in quick succession. I'm pretty sure if you had posted each shot a week or two apart you would have gotten different comments. Just my 0.02c Cheers, Dave At 03:10 AM 16/02/2007, you wrote: snip So what am I blathering on and on about? Hmmm... :-) I guess what I'm saying is that, personal taste aside, each photo is very different from the other, and was designed as such to present a different feeling to the viewer. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Comparing Photos
Hello Tom, In my perspective, it was not so much comparing your photos against each other, but rather, comparing my reaction and interest in each photos. So it can be said that I prefer one more than another. I saw them each as very different just as you did. -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, February 15, 2007, 10:10:05 AM, you wrote: TC I found the recent comments on the the three PESO's I posted quite TC interesting. I appreciate the feedback and naturally don't expect TC everyone's taste to be the same. I'm happy that they were generally well TC received. TC I did find it, looking for the right word - puzzling - that the three TC photos were often judged in comparison to one another. Because, aside from TC being landscapes that contained trees and an element of fog, they were quite TC different from one another in composition, lighting and especially feeling. TC Neccessarily so because I had what nature presented me, and deliberately so TC because I think/hope I saw the potential in each of the circumstances and TC decided to work on making the image, hopefully conveying the feeling that I TC had, to the viewer. TC To me, judging one against the other is like comparing a Caribbean beach TC scene, to a northen California Big Sur coastal shot, to an Alaskan glacial TC fjord. It's difficult to compare three such photos, because aside from TC being water-related, they will have a totally different feeling to them. TC Here's my unsolicited, humble, hopefully not subjectively blind, thoughts on TC my own photographs: TC Inversion - Strong dramatic lighting, monotone, high contrast. Fog, tree TC silohouettes and tree shadows provide the interest in the shot. Based on TC responses I would describe it as 'Exciting'. TC Common Ground - Low light levels, low contrast, gray scale. Trees of TC differing shapes almost lost in the fog, create a soft two dimensional, TC somewhat old feeling. 'Moody'. TC Hillcrest - Medium lighting, soft/cool pastel-like colors and tones. TC Foreground rolling grassy mounds, trees up close and more receding in to the TC distance and fog, providing some perspective. It feels a little ethereal to TC me and reminds me a bit of the grounds around Camelot as depicted in motion TC pictures. I find it to be 'Soothing'. TC - TC So what am I blathering on and on about? Hmmm... :-) I guess what I'm TC saying is that, personal taste aside, each photo is very different from the TC other, and was designed as such to present a different feeling to the TC viewer. TC Side-by-side: TC http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=341034 TC Again thanks for commenting. TC Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
