In My Den - Voters, What Were You Thinking?

Sigma 50-500mm f/4.0-6.3 EX APO RF HSM for Olympus

10/02/2002 10:28:48 PM · #51

Originally posted by inspzil:
When are we going to quit wasting our time on this and move on?

Were you forced to read it or reply ?

Personally I've just read through it all and find it quite refreshing.

CJ seems to have the self-confidence and will to defend and discuss
his work. That's good. and healthy. It is what actually makes this
site interesting, all the scoring and challenge nonsense aside.

At least I enter pictures here to learn about what I'm doing right,
what I'm doing wrong. What people like or don't. I find it odd the
various 'attacks' on CJ throughout this thread. People give their
opinion and he debates it with him. Perhaps he was slightly abrasive
towards Hokie, but I guess he can take it.

I don't see it as not listening, I see it as still questioning, trying
to actually understand - just because you have on opinion, doesn't
automatically make it unassailably correct - on both sides of the
debate.

On the image itself. I'm one of those insane or inane people that gave it a
low score.

It does meet the challenge. +1 for that. Maybe +2

Is it interesting or does it draw me in ? Well the lighting captures
my attention +1

Do I get rewarded for being drawn in ? - the colours are insipid, a
rather unpleasant green cast to the whole affair. The image is
blurred/ shaky, as if the tripod moved. The place is cluttered and
looks quite like where I'm sitting.

If I spend some time looking, I might find out that you smoke.

So maybe, all in all, if I was really studied in this I might find out
a few things about you. But the image doesn't captivate, it doesn't
reward me for the time taken, there is no inspiration, joy, horror,
pleasure, excitment in the shot. Yes technically most of it
is okay, aside from the shake/ blur/ colour cast. But its just that,
okay.

So I gave it an okay score.

The second piece of this is that the ratings are from
very bad 1 ... 10 very good. No other guidelines than that. Some
people vote from 1-5, as they don't think anything posted here is
ever very good. Others vote 3-10, as they don't believe anything that
someone takes the time to post could be considered 'very bad'

The scheme you use is between you and the radio buttons. Hope that
at least gives you some insight into the low score I gave.

inspzil

Olympus E-510

10/02/2002 10:39:44 PM · #52

If I thought that anybody was actually trying to learn from this, which I do not, I wouldn't have said anything. I too like to learn from my mistakes and improve upon them. If you read anything I have written here you will see I never "attacked" anybody. I do not believe cj is trying to learn anything. I believe he is trying to force his view on others, and I though art could be seen things from many perspectives. If this were simply the question "what were you thinking?" he would have been satisfied to hear what others were thinking and not "attacked" that point of view.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

10/02/2002 10:46:13 PM · #53

Originally posted by inspzil:
If I thought that anybody was actually trying to learn from this, which I do not, I wouldn't have said anything. I too like to learn from my mistakes and improve upon them. If you read anything I have written here you will see I never "attacked" anybody. I do not believe cj is trying to learn anything. I believe he is trying to force his view on others, and I though art could be seen things from many perspectives. If this were simply the question "what were you thinking?" he would have been satisfied to hear what others were thinking and not "attacked" that point of view.

Well, I guess that was what I was disagreeing with. I don't see that the
answers to 'what were you thinking' should be seen as a final, don't
question me again sort of thing, but the start of the discussion.

But then I enjoy a good argument/ discussion, when it is kept civil.

I understand that many people are unhappy with that, or with having to
try to explain their position more fully. But often under that sort
of intense gaze is when we actually really, truely learn things.

I've published 15 academic papers, each one I sweated over, argued over with
the other authors, fought, bitched, fell out, made up, honed our ideas
and opinions. If you don't focus or discuss, you don't really learn
anything new. Or you certainly don't understand properly what you've
actually come to know.

Now at work we have regular code reviews. We pick each others' work
to bits, argue over the mistakes or issues and then put it all back
together, better than it was before.

Neither of these processes would work well if someone stated their
opinion, and everyone just decided that they couldn't discuss it further.

I feel the same thing here - CJ has a lot of self-confidence - that's
good. I doubt he'll curl up in a ball and not be willing to defend his
picture - it makes it a good candidate for debate.

So to your first point - I'm trying to learn from this. If others
don't want to, nobody forces anyone to read or participate in any
particular thread. Its a free forum.

hokie

Nikon D2X

10/02/2002 11:17:09 PM · #54

I think debate, discussion, examination are all good. Perhaps at the very least we find out more about why we feel, as voters, the way we do.

I will admit to feeling a bit agitated at CJ at the start of the thread because (right or wrong) I felt as if he wondered if all the people that scored his photo lower were without reason. But then I realized I have felt the same in the past and so I wanted to show that there may have been some low scores coming from folks who might have some reasons other than ignorance to vote his photo lower.

Photographers need to realize very quickly...its only one type of site and if you want to score higher here you learn to cater to the audience here. If you shoot for Playboy you don't take photos of flowers and blue skies...unless there are some Nekkid Women in the photo :-)

Anyway...the thread has been interesting and maybe we all learned something..I did.

ambaker

Google Glass Google Glass

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

10/03/2002 01:49:22 AM · #55

Originally posted by cjmorgan59:
What were you thinking?

And this question is addressed specifically to those of you who voted "In My Den" with a mark of 4 or lower? And you know who you are -- all ninty odd of you.

Now if you don't like the image because you figure it will never make it into the Museum Of Modern Art, I can appreicate that. Deduct one mark.

And if it just doesn't turn your crank, I can appreciate that as well. Deduct another mark..... Oh when the heck, deduct two marks if you're feeling in a right bad mood that day.

But beyond this, I really gotta ask, what the heck were you thinking? And particularly to those of who marked it as being a 4, or a 3, or 2 (and some sleepy head even gave it a 1!)

Personally I gave you a 6. I start with 5 (average, neither like or dislike and go from there.) Yes it did capture your corner of the world. I thought it a bit dark. (The exposure not the mood.) I did not score it higher because there seemed to be no real focus. Yes it was you in a corner, but Michaelangelo did more than just paint people on the ceiling. Not that it takes that to get a 10 out of me, but I hope you can see what I mean.

lionelm

Canon EOS-10D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/03/2002 05:08:39 AM · #56

Gordon I understand what you're saying ... but self confidence is good when it's backed up by humility, not by arrogance. He eased up a little later but still ...
I do not think that the what-were-you-thinking-but-I-know-my-photo-is-good-anyway.
True it's good to stand on its position and to have faith ... but again ... backed up with some humility.
Maybe it's miscommunication but CJ writing skills seems to be very good so and often his opinions are expressed as facts. What about some 'I think' somewhere. And it's not a detail .... if he feels he is really trying to communicate ... then ... he should realize that not that many people understand it as 'communication'.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

10/03/2002 08:33:13 AM · #57

Originally posted by lionelm:
Gordon I understand what you're saying ... but self confidence is good when it's backed up by humility, not by arrogance. He eased up a little later but still ...
I do not think that the what-were-you-thinking-but-I-know-my-photo-is-good-anyway.
True it's good to stand on its position and to have faith ... but again ... backed up with some humility.
Maybe it's miscommunication but CJ writing skills seems to be very good so and often his opinions are expressed as facts. What about some 'I think' somewhere. And it's not a detail .... if he feels he is really trying to communicate ... then ... he should realize that not that many people understand it as 'communication'.

I remember being taught that when writing something that is quite obviously
your opinion, there isn't much point in adding things like 'in my opinion'
or 'I think'. It's obvious it is just your opinion, you are writing it
after all. In the same way you wouldn't start a letter with something
like 'I'm writing this letter to say....'

I look at it the other way, that unless someone really strongly claims
something is a fact, and maybe backs it up with alternative sources/
references, then it is all just their opinion and open to change,
question and debate. As everything about this sort of discussion is
entirely subjective opinion anyway, I don't ever take the view that
it is the final word.

Something to think about anyway.

* This message has been edited by the author on 10/3/2002 8:32:59 AM.

floyd

Canon EOS-5D

10/03/2002 09:20:44 AM · #58

BigSmiles

Canon EOS-10D

10/03/2002 09:22:30 AM · #59

Originally posted by cjmorgan59:
Originally posted by hokie:
[i]I don't mind talking about my scores or why I rated a photo.
I gave it a 4...and not to sound immodest..but I get paid everyday to "rate" photos.

Then all the more reason I would expect you, of all people, to let your marking be guided mainly by objectivity, not subjectivity.

*********

Why was "4" a right score for me on this photo?
The photo lacked any hook ..for me.

If this photo doesn't appeal to you on a subjective personal level, if it doesn't turn your crank, as it were, then fine, I can accept that. And if you wish to deduct a point or two for that, I can accept that as well.

But in as much as the image meets the criteria of the challenge, and in as much as by your own admission it is, as you put it, technically "well taken," then from an objective stand point you can't reasonably mark it as low a four.

And so it then calls into question who would be paying you to rate photos (not that you have to answer that question here) because for someone who claims to be a professional at doing such work, with all due respect Hokie, a heck of a lot more professional objectivity is expected than that.

But thank-you Hokie for your response and stating why you voted the way you did.

CJ[/i]

In all honesty, if your image were being rated for a serious photo competition (taking my school's competition standards as an example) your photo would not likely pass beyond 45%. Sure it is technically pretty good, improvable, but good, but what are you trying to say and how well did you get that point across? How well would the picture hold up without a title and not in a themed competition. Looking at the picture by itself it is a person, with no amazing facial expression, looking really bored, surrounded by computer monitors. Ok, so what? What are you trying to say? You're bored in the dark in a computer room?

now i didn't check your profile to see if you even do photography for a living, but even if you do, keep in mind that you need a purpose for the picture and I'm sure your photography will improve.... tell a story, convey an (active) emotion, showcase an object or isolate your purpose for the image. make it very obvious what you're trying to say and the rest of us will be more likely to relate to it.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

10/03/2002 09:24:11 AM · #60

Originally posted by floyd:

Originally posted by cjmorgan59:
[i]I didn't ask, "How come no one got it?" Rather I asked "What were you thinking." It is a small, but very significant difference because I don't at all question that it is a good image. It is a good image -- technically, aesthetically, and in terms of meeting the specific criteria of the challenge. And it is (at the risk of sounding immodest) precisely because I know that it is a good image that when I see marks of 2, or 3, or 4, it truly has me wondering about those who gave such marks: What were you thinking?

It's comments like this that have rubbed people up the wrong way. CJ here directly tells us not that "he believed" it weas a good image but that objectively and irrefutably is was a good image. This was stated as fact, not opinion and it brooked no dissent.

There is aparrently no room for subjectivity in CJs view of art.

This, to me, is so far from the truth as to be comedy. If art could be judged purely objectively then a machine could do it.

John
[/i]

Maybe it is just me, but what you see as a bold statement of fact, is
still just an opinion. He might hold it quite strongly, but no matter
how much he believes it, it doesn't turn it into a fact.

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

10/03/2002 09:30:14 AM · #61

Yes, but such a person will not easily learn. They are already convinced. Therefore it is rather pointless to debate with them : ) ...

Jak

Fujifilm FinePix S602Z

10/03/2002 09:33:26 AM · #62

He states it as a fact, not as an opinion. Whether you want to believe it as a fact is up to each of us, but to claim he STATES it as opinion not fact is simply wrong.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

10/03/2002 09:48:56 AM · #63

Originally posted by jakking:
He states it as a fact, not as an opinion. Whether you want to believe it as a fact is up to each of us, but to claim he STATES it as opinion not fact is simply wrong.

Well, like I said earlier, in all my time publishing work, I've had it
drummed into me that there isn't any point in adding fluff statements
like 'in my opinion' or 'I think' because people know it is your opinion.

It has your name at the top of the paper or at the side of the post. Even
if you are speaking with authority or as an academic work, it is still always
your opinion.

A lot of time on the 'net particularly, not enough care is taken to try
and see the other person's meaning behind the words they've hastily
typed. We could probably learn a lot from more measured and less
insulting discussion, if rather than looking for offense, people looked
for the content.

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

10/03/2002 10:03:41 AM · #64

writing papers for publication (im a published scientist) you arent debating about the value or subjective impact of art either.

you're (hopefully) presenting empirically derived data. and the more tenuous your inferences, usually the less adamant your language; you start to use terminology like 'may be', etc.

However, this really doesn't apply at all to a conversation like this. This is a 'why dont you like it, because you should like it because objectively this is a very good photograph'.

that's like telling someone they should like brussel sprouts. 'well, they're a good vegetable!' but maybe not everyone thinks so.

you will never grow if you do not listen to some degree to your critiques. You must know what to take and what to discard, but for example the statement about being 'technically flawless' - that's balderdash. the first thing i noticed when i looked at that pic was an 'astigmatism' as if the tripod shook, everything looks doubled. so that for starters is an obvious gap in the perception of this particular presenter with regard to their own work.

ya think if there is one , there might possibly be more? possibly????

iggy386

Nikon D600

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

10/03/2002 10:08:16 AM · #65

CJ,

I'm one of the many who gave your photo a 5. Even though your original post was aimed at people who voted at the lower end of the scale, I thought I'd throw my 2 cents worth in. I like the lighting and composition, but as others have said, there's no wow factor for me. Also, it seems to me that you are subject, not your corner of the world. If this was a self-portrait challenge I would have rated your shot considerably higher because I think the shot says a lot about you.

Good luck in future challenges. I look forward to seeing more of your work.

Mark

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/03/2002 10:58:07 AM · #66

Originally posted by magnetic9999:
writing papers for publication (im a published scientist) you arent debating about the value or subjective impact of art either...However, this really doesn't apply at all to a conversation like this...

Gordon,

I agree with you in the context of tight, scientifc editing for publication. But I think you'll find in CONVERSATION with collegues and friends you DO add those "fluff" phrases out of politeness and habit, to reassure your partner that are expressing your (and listening to their) opinion.

We need to agree whether these posts are supposed to be a formal debate or a friendly conversation, and phrase our posts accordingly, or expect people to have a (negative) emotional response.

* This message has been edited by the author on 10/3/2002 11:02:48 AM.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

10/03/2002 11:55:41 AM · #67

Originally posted by GeneralE:

We need to agree whether these posts are supposed to be a formal debate or a friendly conversation, and phrase our posts accordingly, or expect people to have a (negative) emotional response

Possibly, but as I think I said before, we'd probably all get on
a whole lot more productively if we could learn to look for the content
rather than something to take offense at.

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

10/03/2002 01:08:16 PM · #68

I'm sorry but that's probably the most offensive thing I have ever read. : )

Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[i]
We need to agree whether these posts are supposed to be a formal debate or a friendly conversation, and phrase our posts accordingly, or expect people to have a (negative) emotional response

Possibly, but as I think I said before, we'd probably all get on
a whole lot more productively if we could learn to look for the content
rather than something to take offense at.

[/i]

10/04/2002 12:05:30 AM · #69

Originally posted by konador:
Put it this way:

A = Artist
B = Buyer

A: Hi, would you like to buy my new photo?

B: Let me take a look.

A: Right this way.

B: Hmmm, I dont really like it. I don't think I'll buy it.

A: What?! Are you mad?

Actually, what you say here -- althought witty -- is quite inaccurate. As I pointed to Hokie a number of post above had you been reading: "If this photo doesn't appeal to you on a subjective personal level, if it doesn't turn your crank, as it were, then fine, I can accept that." So quite unlike the script you've put here, I'm not at all expecting everyone to like it so much they've give it a 10 (i.e. good enough that you'd want to buy it). But that's a far cry from a marking of a 2, 3, or 4.

CJ

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

10/04/2002 01:11:05 AM · #70

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

Dear CJ, I did not intend to be flip. In fact, I was 100% serious in my exhortation that you do in fact 'deal with it'. Otherwise it will eat you up.

In that regard, I agree with you. And for the record -- inspite of the postings I've made throughout this thread -- it's really not eating me up too, too much. I've had some things in my life which were genuinely tragic, and those were things which genuinely threated my sanity. And the seeming desert of those things comparatively makes any of this seem like only a pail of sand. So inspite of all my seeming heartfelt commentary here, I do have a certain comparative perspective in how important it is in the whole grand scheme of life. Which is to say, it hasn't much dented my mental health.

Nevertheless, while I don't always take myself serious, I habitually take my work seriously. Indeed regulary so much so that even when I am just taking "snapshots", there is a habitual thoughtfulness and deliberate methodology to it. It is, simply put, it is the product of decades of habit and I would have to fight second nature at this point just to only point the camera and press the button. That is now as foreign to me as the idea of smoking in church.

And so at the risk of sounding immodest, nothing I put up for presentation these days is a 2, 3, or 4. Folks might not find an image I make turns their crank. And that's fine. I don't exepect to always present universal appeal, or to alway make images which are so much a "10" that I would be stunned if everybody didn't want to buy it. But they are not a 2, 3, or 4. After decades of shooting, I can assure you that those images get left behind on my editing room floor. And so if there is a marking of a 2, 3, or 4 after that, it's not the presented image which I question, but rather those who vote the way they did.

********

Should Michael Jackson feel bad that all of us could care less whether or not MJ exists?

Sidenote: It's "...all of us COULDN'T care less..."

Sorry, pet peeve.

*******

Assuming your vision has some merit, there will always be those who harken to it and those to whom it means nothing.

And that's fine. As I've said, I don't exepect to always present universal appeal, or to always make images which are so much a "10" that I would be stunned if everybody didn't of course want to buy it.

But even if I see somebody elses image and it holds not personal subject appeal to me, nevertheless, it is unreasonable to mark an image just on personal tastes (even my son at age four had personal tastes) and to otherwise ignore any more objective merits the image might have either technically or aesthetically. I might not be keen about certain classical music, for example, but I can not reasonally grade it all very low marks if it objectively meets a degree of technical and aesthetic mastery. Or perhaps I can. But then it is not so much the music I am grading, but rather revealing something less than shineing about myself.

**********

Quality is one thing; universality is yet a completely different other.

And this is the one line of your which will make my quote book. Quite genuinely, because in very few works it gets to the very heart of the matter -- quality and universality, as you rightly point out, are completely different things. And it is unreasonable to too sharply mark down an image simply because it does not appeal to universality or only to one's own personal tastes.

If someone wishes to say "This image of yours really didn't appeal me personally," I can accept that. But it is unreasonable to ignore more objective quality factors... unless the voter is ignorant of such things... and thus only reveal more about him or herself in the voting than truly saying anything about the image itself.

In any event, you line here about "Quality is one thing; universality is yet a completely different other," is gem in and of itself; something worthy of the quote books, and certainly a line which will be found in my own collection of worthwhile quotes.

So kudos for that one. Sincerely.

*********

*******

Knowing and accepting the difference, and not thinking it reflects upon your abilities and competence, is really key here.

Well, I can certainly appreciate that. Or at the very least perhaps I'll just say that after more than a quarter century of shooting, my confidence as an image maker is not too easily shaken.

**********

And that's what I meant by 'deal with it.' We all must. If we do not, we leave, get angry, or go insane :) ..
[/i]

Well, I've sort of been there in the past. And to my experience, it's rather a combination of all three: (1) we do usually leave; (2) we do get quite angry; (3) and it can lead to an eventual breech of sanity. And those who have genuinely been on that path can often well recognize others who have been on it because we often give it away with one line: "I've been to hell and back."

And I've taken that excursion. And you are quite right that things felt too deeply can lead us to an eventual breech of sanity..

But I don't imagine anything any of us say here will too much do that for me. As I've said, after more than a quarter century of shooting, my confidence as an image maker is not too easily shaken these days.

In any event, thank-you for your follow up message, and most particularly for one very fine sentance which will now make the quote book.

CJ

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

10/04/2002 02:07:55 AM · #71

Originally posted by cjmorgan59:
Actually, what you say here -- althought witty -- is quite inaccurate. As I pointed to Hokie a number of post above had you been reading: "If this photo doesn't appeal to you on a subjective personal level, if it doesn't turn your crank, as it were, then fine, I can accept that." So quite unlike the script you've put here, I'm not at all expecting everyone to like it so much they've give it a 10 (i.e. good enough that you'd want to buy it). But that's a far cry from a marking of a 2, 3, or 4.

CJ

It wasn't meant to be totally accurate, but was simply an exaggurated example using other scenarios to emphasize my points.

10/04/2002 02:21:52 AM · #72

Originally posted by dimitrii:
I was one of the people who gave you a low score (and I do have a den and can relate).
What I think your picture lacked (as some others I see from the comments would agree with me)
is the main subject; is it you or the room?

You're asking if the main subject is me or the room? Well, neither both and neither. Neither the room nor myself alone well express "my corner of the world."

Deminish the importance of my den and it's basically a picture not so much about my space, but rather me.

And yet if you take me out of the picture, this den is not so much different than many other people's work spaces. Even you yourself say you have a den and can related. And that's been a comment made more than once or twice when people look at this image.

So what makes it uniquely "my corner of the world?" Almost nothing at all. Indeed, just about everything in that image could be bought at one store or another; none of the items there are unique.

Except one.

And it is that one unique item, the one which was deliberately most highlighted, which makes this particular space truly "my corner of the world."

And so is not just myself or the den which is the subject
of this image, but all of it, and the relationship between the parts, and any space between which is the
main subject of the image.

*********

If it was the room (or den whatever your preference for working might be),
then that's what should've been accented; and not you in the middle of it.

The lighting was selectively directed and balance to
show all the key items, with the one unique items most highlighted which makes this den uniquely "my corner of the world."

**********

Some other aspects of it could have been hi-lighted as well; for example if the camera was pointing strait down and you used a fish-eye or wide angle attachment, the image might�ve conveyed more of the constraints of your work space.

Yes, other items could have been highlighted as well. But
they deliberately weren't because what's lit is what I most whated to show and what's not lit was, for what I wanted to express simply subject matter clutter and distracting to what I wanted the viewer to pay attention to.

If the viewer's eye first goes to me, and then to the TV and monitor and then to the keyboard or the junk on the desk and then lastly to the areas and objects on the back wall, then my intension of directing the viewer's attention succeeded. And if not, then my effort at guiding the view have failed. And each person would have to say for themselves how their own eye quickly meandered through the image.

By the by, the image was shot with a wide angle attachment. Which now perhaps give you a better idea
of just how confined the space is in real life. But that's okay. We just moved here. This is just my temporary den (before I slowly start taking over more of our home for my work space... and hope that my wife doesn't notice the creeping expansion of my stuff all over the place beyond these immediate den walls. LOL)

*******

All in all, I think it was a great idea, however not very well executed.

(Shrug). Then perhaps we'll find we just have to agree to disagree because I'm quite please with the final image.

**********

This is nothing personal, just an honest OPINION.

And I can appreciate that. So thank-you for your honesty.

CJ

lisae

Olympus C-720UZ

10/04/2002 02:46:23 AM · #73

Originally posted by cjmorgan59:
And so at the risk of sounding immodest, nothing I put up for presentation these days is a 2, 3, or 4. Folks might not find an image I make turns their crank. And that's fine. I don't exepect to always present universal appeal, or to alway make images which are so much a "10" that I would be stunned if everybody didn't want to buy it. But they are not a 2, 3, or 4. After decades of shooting, I can assure you that those images get left behind on my editing room floor. And so if there is a marking of a 2, 3, or 4 after that, it's not the presented image which I question, but rather those who vote the way they did.

What you're ignoring here is the nature of this site. It's half photography club, half "amihotornot.com". There are loads of people here who just rate based on their own criteria, who know nothing about photography past having some idea of the supposed difference between a "snapshot" and a "photograph", who have such conviction invested in their own judgements of good and bad photography that they'll rate anything they don't like a 1 or a 2. It's not as systematic or objective as you may think. The people you've gotten responses from here are the ones who really matter; the people who vote and never submit, or vote and submit but don't comment or discuss anything in the forums are kind of a black hole to us. We don't know what their opinions or motivations are, and we have to take their votes in that vein - take what's useful and ignore the rest.

Doing well on this site means having the ability to really push people's buttons graphically, and that's a great thing. But the scores are just a small part of what goes on here. Don't fret about them.

Almost everyone goes through this kind of process, of finding their niche and readjusting their priorities, during their first couple of submissions. This was my compulsory first submission whiney thread :). Just get it out of your system and have fun from now on!

10/04/2002 03:02:19 AM · #74

Originally posted by hbunch7187:
I find this thread amusing. VERY amusing as a matter of fact. The guy asks what we were thinking...and then he doesn't want to hear it.

Well, I must hearing at least some of it Heather. Otherwise, I couldn't have responded to a good number of post in a detailed point by point basis (just as I'm doing right here).

*******

Don't ask how we feel, if you're not ready to accept it.

I didn't ask how you feel, but rather what were you thinking. And specifically, what were you thinking when you voted. And to hear the answer to that question does not presume that I'll agree with thinking. Or at least not any more than you have to accept the reasoning whne you ask one of your siblings "What were you thinking?" when they turn up late for Thanksgiving dinner, and they just say "We just didn't feel like being in any rush." That you hear their reasoning doesn't necessarily mean that you are either going to agree with it or except it as sound decision making on their part.

*********

That's my opinion. And on that line...if you don't REALLY want to know how people feel about your photos, then simply don't post them here.

I don't have to ask how people "feel." The voting itself well addresses that question for any of us and how others are responding to our images. The question, however, is in the title of the thread, and that is a different question than "How do you feel?"

**********

Because...trust me, we'll tell you.
I told you honestly how I felt about your photo, as did many others, and you shot US down for being honest.

Uh no, I took no issue with anybody's honesty. Their opinion, perhaps. Their reasoning, perhaps. But not with their honesty. And if I was delinquent in thanking you for your honesty before, then I apologize for not mentioning it, but I thank-you now for at least that.

CJ