Subject: Re: Subject: Re: About PUG Commentaries
Stan wrote:
"Yes Tanya - I wasn't very clear in my comments, but in a back-handed way it
was complimentary. I agree with Mark's comments (which I alluded to) about
the marvelous shot you had on your page recently. ..."
Thanks Stan, MUCH appreciated!!
"If you are so blessed as to
be able to produce such a wonderful image, why denigrate it? No work
involved you say? Just luck you say? Nonsense.
I will grant that sometimes people get lucky. But people who seem to be
consistently lucky probably have something else going for them, like talent.
It wasn't luck that had you recognize the moment, that caused you to compose
and frame the shot the way you did, that led you to pick that frame from
among the 35 others on the roll, . . .
You and Shel both seem to belong to the old Puritan School of Photography
and Life: "if you don't work hard for what you get, then what you get is
nothing but a gift from the devil! You must work!" {Corollary: if you use an
auto-focus lens, a built-in light meter, a motor drive, and/or color film
processed by someone else then you haven't worked hard enough to "deserve" a
good image.}"
Point taken, I just sometimes feel that with so much yet to learn, I don't
know that I could honestly view anything I have thus far produced as a true
"work of art". I guess I will soon learn to accept thse things as time
progresses and I thankyou for trying to teach me!
TTYL,
fairy.
(who REALLY needs some sleep now!)
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Subject: Re: About PUG Commentaries
My father always preached to me, "The harder you work, the luckier you get."
Stan Halpin wrote:
> Yes Tanya - I wasn't very clear in my comments, but in a back-handed way it
> was complimentary. I agree with Mark's comments (which I alluded to) about
> the marvelous shot you had on your page recently. Your self-deprecating
> remark at the time about how little time/effort was involved made me want to
> thump you on the head (figuratively speaking). If you are so blessed as to
> be able to produce such a wonderful image, why denigrate it? No work
> involved you say? Just luck you say? Nonsense.
> I will grant that sometimes people get lucky. But people who seem to be
> consistently lucky probably have something else going for them, like talent.
> It wasn't luck that had you recognize the moment, that caused you to compose
> and frame the shot the way you did, that led you to pick that frame from
> among the 35 others on the roll, . . .
>
> You and Shel both seem to belong to the old Puritan School of Photography
> and Life: "if you don't work hard for what you get, then what you get is
> nothing but a gift from the devil! You must work!" {Corollary: if you use an
> auto-focus lens, a built-in light meter, a motor drive, and/or color film
> processed by someone else then you haven't worked hard enough to "deserve" a
> good image.}
>
> Stan
>
> > Stan wrote:
> >
> > "1. One part of the criticism I saw quoted was to the effect that it is
> > harder to take pictures like this that show peoples faces. Implied judgment
> > that harder is better. In this Shel is joining Tanya in a very strange world
> > view that equates quality of outcome to effort required. Remember Tanya's
> > reaction to Mark's positive judgment of her one portrait? He said: "you
> > could charge $500 for that one image . . .", she said "Oh, but I just took
> > that, it didn't take any time at all!" So what Shel? So what Tanya? I will
> > judge the image by what it does for me, thank you very much, not by what you
> > did or didn't do to put it in front of me. "
> >
> > Urrrm, thanks, Stan, I think?!? I guess I'll take that as a compliment (and
> > a wake up call) hehe8-)
> >
> > Tanya.
> >
>
> >
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Subject: Re: About PUG Commentaries
Don't paint me with the same brush as you paint Tanya. You know
squat about how I work and how I perceive photography. Your
comments below are just way off the mark.
Stan Halpin wrote:
> You and Shel both seem to belong to the old Puritan School of Photography
> and Life: "if you don't work hard for what you get, then what you get is
> nothing but a gift from the devil! You must work!" {Corollary: if you use an
> auto-focus lens, a built-in light meter, a motor drive, and/or color film
> processed by someone else then you haven't worked hard enough to "deserve" a
> good image.}
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are no rules for good photographs,
there are only good photographs.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Subject: Re: About PUG Commentaries
Yes Tanya - I wasn't very clear in my comments, but in a back-handed way it
was complimentary. I agree with Mark's comments (which I alluded to) about
the marvelous shot you had on your page recently. Your self-deprecating
remark at the time about how little time/effort was involved made me want to
thump you on the head (figuratively speaking). If you are so blessed as to
be able to produce such a wonderful image, why denigrate it? No work
involved you say? Just luck you say? Nonsense.
I will grant that sometimes people get lucky. But people who seem to be
consistently lucky probably have something else going for them, like talent.
It wasn't luck that had you recognize the moment, that caused you to compose
and frame the shot the way you did, that led you to pick that frame from
among the 35 others on the roll, . . .
You and Shel both seem to belong to the old Puritan School of Photography
and Life: "if you don't work hard for what you get, then what you get is
nothing but a gift from the devil! You must work!" {Corollary: if you use an
auto-focus lens, a built-in light meter, a motor drive, and/or color film
processed by someone else then you haven't worked hard enough to "deserve" a
good image.}
Stan
> Stan wrote:
>
> "1. One part of the criticism I saw quoted was to the effect that it is
> harder to take pictures like this that show peoples faces. Implied judgment
> that harder is better. In this Shel is joining Tanya in a very strange world
> view that equates quality of outcome to effort required. Remember Tanya's
> reaction to Mark's positive judgment of her one portrait? He said: "you
> could charge $500 for that one image . . .", she said "Oh, but I just took
> that, it didn't take any time at all!" So what Shel? So what Tanya? I will
> judge the image by what it does for me, thank you very much, not by what you
> did or didn't do to put it in front of me. "
>
> Urrrm, thanks, Stan, I think?!? I guess I'll take that as a compliment (and
> a wake up call) hehe8-)
>
> Tanya.
>
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Subject: Re: About PUG Commentaries
Stan wrote: "1. One part of the criticism I saw quoted was to the effect that it is harder to take pictures like this that show peoples faces. Implied judgment that harder is better. In this Shel is joining Tanya in a very strange world view that equates quality of outcome to effort required. Remember Tanya's reaction to Mark's positive judgment of her one portrait? He said: "you could charge $500 for that one image . . .", she said "Oh, but I just took that, it didn't take any time at all!" So what Shel? So what Tanya? I will judge the image by what it does for me, thank you very much, not by what you did or didn't do to put it in front of me. " Urrrm, thanks, Stan, I think?!? I guess I'll take that as a compliment (and a wake up call) hehe8-) Tanya. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Subject: RE: About PUG Commentaries
Could you please direct me where to find out more about marketing dots on pages please. I would ever be so grateful. Tom C. > God, I have seen people pay gazillions of > dollars for a dot on a page that my 3 year old could have painted and yet > critics have called them "amazing, fantastic, inspiration works of art" etc. > > Just something more to think about > > fairy. > 8-) > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Subject: RE: About PUG Commentaries
Bucky wrote:
"I agree with you that honest critique is healthy and useful. Rude
critique,
however, is not. It is a trivial task to convey useful feedback without
being contemptuous ("This is just a typical, amateurish photograph,
something just barely worthy of a beginner photographer")."
All hail Bucky! Somebody finally gets my point! Of course we should only
offer honest critiques, there is no use in just trying to plump egos here,
but "rude critique" is simply not justified.
In his critique Shel said something along the lines of "This is just a
typical, amateurish photograph,
something just barely worthy of a beginner photographer". In subsequent
postings, he elaborated on this a little which put that particular comment a
little better into context for me, however, I don't understand why it would
have been so difficult to simply state, from the beginning, something like
this "This is just a typical, amateurish photograph, something just barely
worthy of a beginner photographer. I happen to know that John is an
experienced photographer, who I believe is capable of producing an image
which shows a greater level of technical expertise and emotion, blah, blah".
He would still have been honest, and constructive, and encouraging whilst
giving a critique that is relevant to the particular photographer and
without coming across as seeming so harsh and inconsiderate to some.
By the same token, if I were to submit a shot of a horse jumping, and
knowing that you all know that my experience and passion is with
portraiture/fashion, I would expect something along the lines of "Fairy has
tried to expand her expertise by trying a subject that is completely foreign
to her, as such this shot in particular could have several improvements
which would assist it in looking both more professional and in having more
impact to the viewer. Perhaps a sharper focus on the horse, a more even
exposure (especially the background) and overall a little more dramatic
lighting to increase dimension", rather than "that shot by fairy is such
total crap, I don't like it, the horse is out of focus, the background is
overexposed, and overall it is just flat and well, boring."
Of course, we are not always familiar with the particular photographer's
line of experience, and so in cases like this it would be much easier not to
assume anything and just attempt to be at least pleasant about a critique eg
"personally, I don't "feel" shots of horses jumping, however, this is a
totally subjective thing. I would however like to suggest a couple of
improvements. One could be to place the horse in sharper focus, secondly to
bracket the shot to ensure the correct exposure (particularly when the
background is so bright) and thirdly to attent to shoot from a different
angle to achieve greater dimension to the shot through different lighting.
I would however, like to comment that the composition is fantastic and the
timing is great, and that this was a great effort by the photographer in a
difficult situation and with a difficult subject".
BTW, my above example of a horse jumping was only used as it is about as far
away as I could imagine a subject to be from my usual stuff. Please no one
who has posted horse jumping photos here or previously, be offended or feel
that I am using them as an example!!
It's just a basic grasp of grammar really. As someone has already pointed
out, we don't have body language to rely on over the internet and as such, I
believe that we should take special care to phrase our words to prevent us
from being misconstrued or taken out of contextnow have I made myself
clear? ;-)
hehein saying all of this, I don't feel that we need to "sugar coat"
everything, just offer honest and constructive comments while being a little
considerate of the fact that the picture wouldn't have been submitted by the
photographer if he/she didn't feel that it had some type of merit or felt
some type of excitement about the shot.
And just remember that just because we personally don't like something, this
doesn't mean that it is "crap". God, I have seen people pay gazillions of
dollars for a dot on a page that my 3 year old could have painted and yet
critics have called them "amazing, fantastic, inspiration works of art" etc.
Just something more to think about
fairy.
8-)
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
