| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/11/2004 04:07:07 AM · #1 |
...hit this and scroll to Thomas Turk's thoughts on my purty little flower. There must be a run on some good crack.
my piccie on photo.net
|
|
|
|
12/11/2004 04:11:25 AM · #2 |
| Ha ha ha LOL, that's a pretty complicated response, for such a simple shot. I enjoyed reading that, thanks for posting! :) |
|
|
|
12/11/2004 04:19:53 AM · #3 |
| Should've just said it was too artsy for him :P |
|
|
|
12/11/2004 04:22:00 AM · #4 |
Sorry you jumped onto experimental techno junk when you wish to shoot a pretty flower, not just the new kitchen cupboard being installed.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2004 04:28:19 AM · #5 |
|
|
|
12/11/2004 04:29:58 AM · #6 |
:-)..
I sorta can see that the light was maybe a little flat, but the critique was way out there, that's for sure.
I had one like that a while ago on photo.net, but unfortunately I deleted the photo, and you loose the critiques etc when you remove an image. I suppose you'll always get some interesting comments if you ask the world...
Something that's common with here though, as some of the oddest ones of all don't have any of their own work online where it can be critiqued. I see you commenter dosn't have any photos on photo.net itself, and his own website dosn't allow critique..
Cheers, Chris H.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2004 06:29:50 AM · #7 |
I suppose the good thing about the likes of him being online is that it keeps him indoors away from the public...
|
|
|
|
12/11/2004 07:56:38 AM · #8 |
Perhaps this was the result of putting the comments thru babblefish?
Only thing I can really translate in his drivel is maybe that he thought the boken caused a really flat looking flower. He seems to think that technology cannot handle nature.
I like the blurring in the back, but it is So pronounced compared to the stem of the flower that the flower looks painted on. Perhaps this is the effect you wanted. I like how its somewhat impressionistic, but does need to be cropped much more closely leaving the petals more pronounced and in a direct third/two-thirds of the shot. |
|
|
|
12/11/2004 08:19:49 AM · #9 |
| i totally agree with him. |
|
|
|
12/11/2004 08:45:39 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Blackdog:
I suppose the good thing about the likes of him being online is that it keeps him indoors away from the public... |
keeping him indoors may not be enough, 1 of those great little white rooms where he can sit in a pretty white stright-jacket and bang his head aginst a padded wall, could be called for in this case.
j/k
he has an intusting writing style anyway....
_brando_
|
|
|
|
12/11/2004 09:04:13 AM · #11 |
Don't get me wrong -- I love gfunk and his work ... but I thought this comment of the strange... take a gander at graphicfunk's comment on my Low Tech shot...
Lee |
|
|
|
12/11/2004 09:28:42 AM · #12 |
| From his comments I would guees that Thomas Turk is the kind of person who just hates anything new. In his comments he is clearly bashing digital and loves film. I would bet that when he is not bitching about the evils of digital photography he is complaining about how bad CDs sound. There are a few people out there for whom film photography is no longer a hobby but a religion. |
|
|
|
12/11/2004 09:34:48 AM · #13 |
//%20tomturkphoto.tripod.com/
:D |
|
|
|
12/11/2004 09:40:40 AM · #14 |
It sounds like English is not his first language and the translation is what is weird. If you sort it into the basics and ignore the strange wording it is actually a good critique.
nevermind...I just looked at his web site...i'll go with the ingested substances theory instead.
Message edited by author 2004-12-11 09:44:15. |
|
|
|
12/11/2004 10:04:01 AM · #15 |
thomas turk needs to clear the dust from his lens...have you looked at his photography page?
|
|
|
|
12/11/2004 10:08:10 AM · #16 |
Nice flower...
The essence of the spirit of this flower is hovering just out of frame above and to the right where all of the RGB colorspace is located and thus failing to have captured the pixelation of the the RGB color space may have been this image's greatest achilles heel. Otherwise...
Nice flower!
|
|
|
|
12/11/2004 10:18:18 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Tranquil:
...I love gfunk and his work ... but I thought this comment of the strange... take a gander at graphicfunk's comment on my Low Tech shot.. |
Nothing wrong with that. Looks like GF was just musing that a modern sailboat might not be considered low tech by everyone, and he gave you a very good score. |
|
|
|
12/11/2004 10:29:29 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Tranquil:
...I love gfunk and his work ... but I thought this comment of the strange... take a gander at graphicfunk's comment on my Low Tech shot.. |
Nothing wrong with that. Looks like GF was just musing that a modern sailboat might not be considered low tech by everyone, and he gave you a very good score. |
Nopenothing wrong at all! And i do agree with him ... just hit me as "whoa!" in the midst of comments that i get like "bad colors" :) |
|
|
|
12/11/2004 10:44:29 AM · #19 |
| It would be scary to get him and Zeus Zen on the same page! |
|
|
|
12/11/2004 11:02:39 AM · #20 |
It was once said that a picture is worth a thousand words.
Nobody ever said which thousand.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2004 11:10:50 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by bestagents:
It was once said that a picture is worth a thousand words... |
Then the average comment here falls about 986 words short ... |
|
|
|
12/11/2004 11:13:53 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by moodville:
It would be scary to get him and Zeus Zen on the same page! |
They've been on the same forum thread (and it was scary), but seldom on the same page. ;-) |
|
|
|
12/11/2004 12:08:35 PM · #23 |
|
|
|
12/11/2004 12:17:31 PM · #24 |
It's the out of focus background gotten from a shallow depth of field. Different lenses produce different quality bokeh, some that look better than others.
Originally posted by koltrane75:
What does "bokeh" mean? |
|
|
|
|
12/11/2004 12:22:34 PM · #25 |
I'm prtty sure that Bokeh is the light effect that happens when the flanges of a long lens cause light to bounce around in the tube and cause strange artifacts/highlights etc on the image that were not actually there.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/14/2025 11:40:22 AM EDT.
