Stripes
by melismatica

Comment:
RECALL!

It was your private message to me defending your advertsiment entry against a comment I made which began the conversation about perspective. Do you not see the irony here? My comment on your entry was not an invitation for you to send me a private critique of my work and a lesson on barrell distortion. Since you did so, I replied in a very reasonable manner. My recollection of the message was that you suggested a vertical format instead of a horizontal one. Perhaps in my haste to get through the message I misread parallel as horizontal and thus the confusion. I don't know since I no longer have the message.

Your whole attitude toward me from the start has been one of condescension. Notice that I have not suggested you don't know what you are doing yet you continue to disparage my skills and experience because I disagreed with you regarding some comments you made. I was simply responding in the manner in which you have chosen to respond to my comments in the past.


You are giving me all lot of grief for very little. Can you not accept that I don't care for your method and move on? I'm not suggesting you don't have anything to offer someone who enjoys your style of commenting but it is an approach that doesn't work for me. You come off rather like a spirtual adviser. As if you have already experienced it all and are now imparting some of that wisdom to the rest of us ignoramuses.

Your comments suggest I don't put much planning or care into my composition. Your comments on this image suggested a studio approach when it seems quite clear to me that this isn't that type of shot. I was making it clear that I took the picture outside that kind of environment and further explained that the creative intent behind the image suggested something other than the studio approach. I felt that your critique ignored this type of approach and vision altogether. It is clear to anyone viewing your portfolio on this site and your personal web site that you are most comfortable in a studio environment. That is your style but you shouldn't ignore other methods out of turn when you are offering critiques to a varied population of artists. It is this type of narrow-mindedness that makes me reject your teaching. I certainly don't reject all teaching.

A Natural Twist
by melismatica

Comment:

Originally posted by graphicfunk: 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.

Nothing alchemical about it--I simply placed the subject far enough away from the white paper background, held the light somewhat downward at the subject and away from the background, and fooled the meter by using a -1.7 EV setting. Then I adjusted the levels a bit in photoshop to darken it a bit further.

To paraphrase your words, I envisioned the shot in my mind's eye and did what was necessary to achieve it by making decisions which required knowledge of my camera's manual functions. I proceeded to take 21 shots with varying points of view and lighting arrangements. That doesn't even take into account the hundreds of shots I took of alternate subject matter during that session. My beef with your crit has to do with the blatent disregard that I might have had a clue what I was doing when I made this photo. It is possible to phrase a comment about my choice of shallow DOF from the assumption that I made a choice.

Comments like the following completely disregard the effort I put into my photo.

Originally posted by graphicfunk: Always envision the shot in your minds eye and then do what ever is technically required. Normal shots and distant scenes differ greatly from the close up. A camera in auto mode, will never make this decision for you, so it is up to you to take care of this matter. The easiest way to do it is to make a test shot, check it in computer and then go back to finish.

You concede that my image is above average, yet you seem unwilling to concede some amount of competence went into it's production. It's as if you'd rather think I miraculously pulled a quality image out of my ass.

The laughable thing is you send me defensive private messages whenever I make a comment on one of you images during the voting.

Message edited by author 2004-08-19 18:39:39.

A Natural Twist
by melismatica

Comment:
In response to Graphicfunk's comment, so as not to repeat myself, let me just direct the reader here.

I will say that my defensivenes is partially in reaction to the defensive and condescending private messages he has sent me in response to comments I've made during the voting.

Message edited by author 2004-08-19 17:48:43.

Stripes
by melismatica

Comment:
Yesterday, I was editing some photos and decided to edit this one using the many suggestions that it was a bit soft focus and dark. I used the median filter on the original to soften some of the noise which was the result of a fairly high ISO rating due to late afternoon light and shade from the house. I figured the blur wasn't so important in an abstract and weighed that against the possible comments of 'too noisy' I anticipated receiving. ;-D

Anyway, here is the edited version and I think it is a bit better. It is still kind of dark but I couldn't seem to adjust that without losing some of the vibrancy in the colors.

Stripes
by melismatica

Comment:

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.

Glow Swirls
by kirtiebu

Comment:
This appears very noisy, especialy in the black background.

Welcome To Transylvania
by robtag

Comment:
This is interesting subject matter but I'm not getting a sense of neon colors from this scene.

Park the Motorbike and Let's Have Fun
by Tiberius

Comment:
This composition is a bit busy, IMO. The picture plane is very flat and compressed due to the infinite DOF.

Ghetto Gold
by chik0325

Comment:
The colors are a bit drab and faded looking. The reflections in the window are distracting. Next time if you don't have a polarizing filter, try shooting through glass at an angle. That cuts down on the glare and reflections considerably.

Tiny Dancers
by DarkRider

Comment:
Kind of an excessive border. Interesting shot, though.