Stripes
by melismatica

Comment by melismatica:

Originally posted by graphicfunk: A reply ro your 8/10 posting on this page. You suffer from a simple problem: you do not know how to take criticism. When I first commented on your cathedral image I said you needed to hold the camera perpendicular to the ground, or keeping the film or sensor parallel to the building. Your reply was, "I held the camera parallel, it is the fault of the lens." If you study the lens subject you will find that two of their faults are pin-cushioned and barrel distortion. The cheapest lens will not converge the lines in an image.

Let me refresh your memory a bit. When you commented on the photo you are referring to it was in a private message defending your entry after a comment I made during the voting. My comment on your entry for the Advertisement challenge, was to the effect that the frame was a bit tilted. You defended your entry and went on to explain how I could make a past entry better. My photo in question had a problem with converging lines at the top of two buildings. You suggested it was because I framed the image horizontally and went on to suggest that I should have framed it vertically. My response to this suggestion was that I didn't, in fact, frame the subject horizontally, rather I had framed it vertically. In short, you were telling me I should have done something I had actually done.

The comment you have quoted me with is bogus. It isn't even in my style of speaking or writing. What I actually said, in paraphrase, was that my camera (a Nikon at the time) had a fairly wide angle lens which creates a certain amount of distortion, including the convergence that was evident in my photo. I also commented that I was interested in the software LensDoctor which is used post-processing to fix that type of convergence, since I can't afford a perspective lens and my camera isn't one with interchangeable lenses even if I could. At any rate, my comment on your picture wasn't even about barrel distortion it was simply that the frame was a bit tilted. It certainly didn't merit a defensive private message from you.

The incident in question is only one of the times you have sent me a private message defending your entry to me. They have frequently been condescending in nature. Why is it acceptable for you to defend your work in private messages to me (not to mention by criticising my portfolio) but when I defend my choices on my own image I am
failing to 'take criticism with grace'. No, I simply can no longer graciously accept criticism from you who has time after time done me the same discourtesy in private messages. Worse, you've defended your work by dispariging mine. The only difference is, I responded more openly.

In closing, my problem is not with criticism, it is with criticism which is offered without taking into consideration the circumstances in which the photo was made and from the point of view that very little thought went into the process.

Originally posted by graphicfunk: you need only expend the extra time to make it a unique image, not one that the next photographer can come by and easily duplicate.

Explain to me, please, just how any photographer might happen to see this window box in my home, see its potential for an abstract image, shoot it from a very specific angle, thereby reducing a familiar object to pure line and color, and finally rotating the image 90 degrees because they felt the vertical lines made a stronger statement than horizontal lines would have?

Can you not see how my irritation is not that you dared to criticise my photo but that you did so in such a condescending and dismissive manner---even to go so far as to explain to me that my image 'falls into the abstract realm', as if I needed to be informed. BTW, I disagree that abstract images are primarily about color. Have you never seen a black and white abstract?

As for handling criticism graciously, I have since edited the original version to make a sharper, brighter image in response to some of the other comments I received.

Message edited by author 2004-08-19 17:32:05.

Stripes
by melismatica

Comment by graphicfunk:
A reply ro your 8/10 posting on this page.

You suffer from a simple problem: you do not know how to take criticism. When I first commented on your cathedral image I said you needed to hold the camera perpendicular to the ground, or keeping the film or sensor parallel to the building. Your reply was, "I held the camera parallel, it is the fault of the lens." If you study the lens subject you will find that two of their faults are pin-cushioned and barrel distortion. The cheapest lens will not converge the lines in an image.

From what you write below it is apparent to all that you show a disdain for the prerequisite and basic photography techniques. It is like you want to play the violin without doing scales. The basic technique is table top or studio or set up as you call it. What the basic teaches is the qualities of light and shadow and the zone system. It teaches the inverse square law of light. These simple lessons prepares the photographer to look at any image with an eye to accept or correct any existing light. To find or help make the ideal model by selecting the right time of day, if natural light and employing light deflectors.

You ask for a critique and it is also apparent to all that you have thought out the details of your image down to the last detail. A person this thorough, does not really need an opinion outside of, "Wow, another masterpiece."

You have a reply to every detail. The member from the critique club and the final vote on your image is wrong. They misunderstood you and failed to see the gem you have produced.

But then, who am I to talk. My work is inferior to yours because you say so, so there is nothing I can help you with. I am even tempted to say why you did not include the entire toe shoe and fixed the wrinkle on the sheet on your ballet shoe image, but, I know, I am too narrow minded to appreciate tight cropping and the crease, well you studied it carefully and shaped it to have a diagonal line tie the two images.

There is maybe one thing I can say with complete authority: You do not take criticism with grace. To accept criticism does not mean that you are guilty of what is proposed. If it should affect your emotions so deeply that you feel the need to lash back with a defense then the problem is in your personalty. Such an attitude will only serve as a catharsis for your feelings, but it will do little to advance your photography. But then, you have let us all know that that department of photography needs no advance because you are there and all you do is tease others by asking for advise so that you can then crush them and tell them how stupid they are. Yes, on second thought, I do look at your images and I was so blind to see that you are familiar with the inverse square law of light, that you faithfully adjust your white light with a test shot and that you are aware of all the finer nuances of the art.

Neon Gothic
by melismatica

Comment by thunderbug:
how did you do that? a little too much glow though

A Natural Twist
by melismatica

Comment by graphicfunk:
Melissa, I know: you are master that has tricked a poor student like me by altering the zone value in your image to make it look like metal. You then when a step further, as you describe below, you had this entire shot under tight control, you were assured of all your convictions and you even did the alchemical wonder of changing absolute white to absolute black with mere camera technique, a feat that I am unable to perform. The next step is to trick the critique club amateur, because, after all, the unenlightened masses always misunderstand you with their crude sum total of their voting.

In this case I owe you a very hefty apology. You created a masterpiece and requested a critique and you got a terrible student to make an ass of himself by daring to insult the deftly camera technique that is apparent in all the images in your port. Silly me.

Message edited by author 2004-08-19 08:57:55.

Neon Gothic
by melismatica

Comment by computerking:
What's with the odd upside-down reflection? Is it the Church of St. Peter?

Neon Gothic
by melismatica

Comment by JJacobson:
It feels like short, student horror film.

Neon Gothic
by melismatica

Comment by ShadowSpirit:
none

Neon Gothic
by melismatica

Comment by jmsetzler:
This is incredible... i'll try to come back later and comment on this more :)

Tiny Tree Dwellers
by melismatica

Comment by t_online:
hey ... fungi are technically not plants (don't worry, does not affect my voting)

Tiny Tree Dwellers
by melismatica

Comment by brunas:
plants or fungi?