Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: [SI] Pairs comments - Alan B.

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: [SI] Pairs comments - Alan B.

 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2012
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:14:11 -0400, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> As you know, my daughter and son-in-law submitted entries for the
>> first time. They don't read the newsgroup, so they don't know
>> anything about the background of the SI. All Cleary and Dave knew was
>> the subject of the mandate.
>> Since there were no objections to their participation, they intend to
>> look for "On the road" images. I hope this is acceptable to all.
>>
>>

> From my viewpoint, it should be encouraged. I also hope you will be as
>candid with your public opinions of their images, as you are with ours.


http://www.pbase.com/shootin/pairs_triplets_

I declined to comment here on their first submissions, but I did
comment personally to them. They don't read the newsgroup, so they
wouldn't have seen any comments I made here.

However, since you ask:

ClearyC - Bird Fight. I like the subject matter, the composition, and
the sharpness of the birds. Triplets fall in the mandate. It's a
little bit heavy to the right with much more interesting colors and
shapes than that on the left.

ClearyC - Pair of Lovers. Good catch for the mandate, and good
close-up for a 200mm lens. The sharpness of the material on the right
is unfortunate, but you catch these critters when you can. An attempt
could have been made to blur this out in PSE, but the one dragonfly's
legs would have presented a problem.

ClearyC - Sunflower. My favorite of the submissions. There's depth
to the green parts and delicacy to the petals. Uneven lighting and
shadows are pretty much unavoidable in daylight shots of flowers, but
that lightness at 11 o'clock could have been improved in post.

DaveC - Pair of Drops. While I like the drops, the blurriness of the
flowers themselves distracts me. If the eye could be contained by the
drops, it wouldn't be a problem. However, the magenta areas fight for
attention.

DaveC - Wave Pattern. This is difficult for me to evaluate. I'm the
one who suggested excessive sharpening to bring out the pattern of the
water, so the effect on the foamy part is part my doing. I would like
to see this carried a step further towards the abstract to avoid
viewing the foamy parts as a realistic representative of waves.

OK...do I come across as fair or biased, Peter?


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2012
On 7/25/2012 6:22 PM, Savageduck wrote:

..
<snip>

> What's new? We have regular commentators who chose not to contribute
> this time, other than responding to others comments on their work, and
> we had commentators who comment selectively on images they deem as
> worthy of their attention. Personally I believe that all images
> submitted are worthy of some comment, good bad, or indifferent.
>


True, but how meaningful is a comment such as: "I agree with _______ ."
And the commentator has nothing to add.


--

PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2012
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:19:13 -0400, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 7/25/2012 6:22 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>
>.
><snip>
>
>> What's new? We have regular commentators who chose not to contribute
>> this time, other than responding to others comments on their work, and
>> we had commentators who comment selectively on images they deem as
>> worthy of their attention. Personally I believe that all images
>> submitted are worthy of some comment, good bad, or indifferent.
>>

>
>True, but how meaningful is a comment such as: "I agree with _______ ."
>And the commentator has nothing to add.


I think that it is meaningful. It says that _____ is not the only one
who sees it that way. If X says the image is OOF, Y offers no more by
saying the image is OOF than he does by saying he agrees with X.

Just that statement, though, is not really enough. Adding something
would be good.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2012
On 7/25/2012 9:20 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012-07-25 20:43 , Robert Coe wrote:
>
>> I was. At first I thought it said "Paris". And I'm thinking, "What
>> does this
>> mandate have to do with the capital of France?"

>
> No, no, no ...
> http://tinyurl.com/2cq6oss
>
>



Still wrong.
This is closer to travelling:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Hilton>

--

PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2012
On 7/26/2012 6:44 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:14:11 -0400, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>> As you know, my daughter and son-in-law submitted entries for the
>>> first time. They don't read the newsgroup, so they don't know
>>> anything about the background of the SI. All Cleary and Dave knew was
>>> the subject of the mandate.
>>> Since there were no objections to their participation, they intend to
>>> look for "On the road" images. I hope this is acceptable to all.
>>>
>>>

>> From my viewpoint, it should be encouraged. I also hope you will be as
>> candid with your public opinions of their images, as you are with ours.

>
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/pairs_triplets_
>
> I declined to comment here on their first submissions, but I did
> comment personally to them. They don't read the newsgroup, so they
> wouldn't have seen any comments I made here.
>
> However, since you ask:
>
> ClearyC - Bird Fight. I like the subject matter, the composition, and
> the sharpness of the birds. Triplets fall in the mandate. It's a
> little bit heavy to the right with much more interesting colors and
> shapes than that on the left.
>
> ClearyC - Pair of Lovers. Good catch for the mandate, and good
> close-up for a 200mm lens. The sharpness of the material on the right
> is unfortunate, but you catch these critters when you can. An attempt
> could have been made to blur this out in PSE, but the one dragonfly's
> legs would have presented a problem.
>
> ClearyC - Sunflower. My favorite of the submissions. There's depth
> to the green parts and delicacy to the petals. Uneven lighting and
> shadows are pretty much unavoidable in daylight shots of flowers, but
> that lightness at 11 o'clock could have been improved in post.
>
> DaveC - Pair of Drops. While I like the drops, the blurriness of the
> flowers themselves distracts me. If the eye could be contained by the
> drops, it wouldn't be a problem. However, the magenta areas fight for
> attention.
>
> DaveC - Wave Pattern. This is difficult for me to evaluate. I'm the
> one who suggested excessive sharpening to bring out the pattern of the
> water, so the effect on the foamy part is part my doing. I would like
> to see this carried a step further towards the abstract to avoid
> viewing the foamy parts as a realistic representative of waves.
>
> OK...do I come across as fair or biased, Peter?
>
>


Yup!
Somehow, I don't think you would mince words.

My younger daughter, is my severest critic, and her comments are usually
spot on.

--

PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2012
On 7/26/2012 6:58 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-07-25 17:22:11 -0700, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:03:47 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> <<< Le Snip >>>
>>
>>
>>>> They were also a bit perplexed about some comments that assumed
>>>> different equipment was used than was available to photographer. I
>>>> can relate to this because you just suggested that I adjust my flash
>>>> setting. My SB400 has no such feature.
>>>
>>> QUOTE
>>> Flash compensation is also available with optional SB-400,
>>> SB-800, SB-600, and SU-800 flash units
>>> UNQUOTE
>>> page 60. Fine Nikon D60 manual.
>>> http://finearts.uvic.ca/sim/equipmen.../Nikon_D60.pdf

>>
>> You expect me to RTFM?

>
> YES!!!
>
>> Hell, I'm a hip-shooter.

>
> That is no excuse.
>
>> I just recently
>> purchased the SB-400 and rarely use it. I just happened to have it in
>> the bag that day.

>
> Great! I carry all sorts of stuff in my bag, usually three additional
> lenses, sunscreen, SB-800, batteries, CF cards, WB card, Giottos Rocket,
> and a G11.
>
> RTFM!!! If you don't, then you are just guessing as to when you should
> use the SB-400, or not, and how to optimize the degree of adjustability
> available with your D60 + SB-400 combo. You might miss the time you
> really need a fill flash, or some other lighting change only appropriate
> use of an adjusted flash can give you, just because of your reluctance
> to use that handy SB-400..
>
>

Ther is no need to carry th FM. All the info is available on his smart
phone. Oops! I forgot........

--

PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2012
On 7/27/2012 10:26 AM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:19:13 -0400, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 7/25/2012 6:22 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>
>> .
>> <snip>
>>
>>> What's new? We have regular commentators who chose not to contribute
>>> this time, other than responding to others comments on their work, and
>>> we had commentators who comment selectively on images they deem as
>>> worthy of their attention. Personally I believe that all images
>>> submitted are worthy of some comment, good bad, or indifferent.
>>>

>>
>> True, but how meaningful is a comment such as: "I agree with _______ ."
>> And the commentator has nothing to add.

>
> I think that it is meaningful. It says that _____ is not the only one
> who sees it that way. If X says the image is OOF, Y offers no more by
> saying the image is OOF than he does by saying he agrees with X.
>
> Just that statement, though, is not really enough. Adding something
> would be good.
>


Yes. But, if IMO the commentator has said all that is necessary, what
can I add.

--

PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2012
On 7/27/2012 12:59 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-07-27 08:08:05 -0700, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On 7/27/2012 10:26 AM, tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:19:13 -0400, PeterN
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/25/2012 6:22 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> What's new? We have regular commentators who chose not to contribute
>>>>> this time, other than responding to others comments on their work, and
>>>>> we had commentators who comment selectively on images they deem as
>>>>> worthy of their attention. Personally I believe that all images
>>>>> submitted are worthy of some comment, good bad, or indifferent.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> True, but how meaningful is a comment such as: "I agree with _______ ."
>>>> And the commentator has nothing to add.
>>>
>>> I think that it is meaningful. It says that _____ is not the only one
>>> who sees it that way. If X says the image is OOF, Y offers no more by
>>> saying the image is OOF than he does by saying he agrees with X.
>>>
>>> Just that statement, though, is not really enough. Adding something
>>> would be good.
>>>

>>
>> Yes. But, if IMO the commentator has said all that is necessary, what
>> can I add.

>
> There is always a different take on things.
>
> Take the following:
> My comment;
> "Tim Conway:
> Pairs-01:
> The Conway socks. A nice pair and good idea for employing the shadow
> created pattern. However there remains a major OOF issue which cannot be
> ignored. So great potential spoilt by bad focus."
>
> Alan Browne's comment:
> "Tim Conway http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/144705061
> I like the shadow laying diagonally across the socks. But overall it's a
> bit of a soft and dull image. Too deliberately contrived."
>
> Similar thoughts behind the comments, but with a decidedly different
> take regarding phrasing, and possible reception by Tim, or others who
> might read both. Now you might agree with one, or other, or both of
> those, but you might have seen something slightly different.
> Alan was able to make his unique and similar comment for this image
> without resorting to the worthless, "I agree with ___."
>
> In the case of one of your images you would have found this difference.
> My comment favorable because I liked the shot, but empty of technical
> critique, Alan's more detailed.
>
> My comment:
> "Peter Newman:
> Pairs-01:
> Fishing net reflected on wet beach. Nice."
>
> Alan Browne's comment:
> "Peter Newman http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/144738873
> A very strong composition and of course speaks to my fetish for narrow
> colour palettes that are well set off in the areas of light, shadow,
> silhouette and reflection. Interesting symmetries as well. The most
> poetic of the SI this turn and a case where cropping was used very well.
> Technically seems a bit off - lots of JPG artifacts suggesting this was
> a deep crop, then resized down to minimize softness or camera shake."
>


I understand what you are saying, anmd see your point, but, Had Alan
made his comment prior to yours, and assuming you agreed with him, Your
comment: "Fishing net reflected on wet beach. Nice." while making me fee
good, woulld not help me to improve the image.

Also, there are times when I am motivated to comment, and times when I
am not. I feel that I have an ob;ligation to try to make a constructive
comment, simply because that is the purpose of the group. If I can I
comment on most. There are some images that I feel I cannot comment on
in a constructive manner. Others As I've said earlier, I feel I have
nothing to add. I would rather say something in a reasonable time, then
hold all my comments back until I have something to add to all.

--

PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2012
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:18:22 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>I know that is the way I learn when I read constructive criticism of my
>submissions from others. However, when when somebody says something
>negative, without providing reasons for their thoughts, with, or
>without a path to a fix, the comment is diminished in value. Now if
>that vapid comment is followed from another commentator by, "I agree
>with _____" and there is an added personal reason for the agreement
>regarding interpretation, and/or adding a capture, editing/adjustment
>suggestion, it becomes a useful constructive comment.
>

The one unsupported negative comment that I feel is both acceptable
and understandable is the one that goes something like "This image
doesn't do much for me".

There are images that are neither good nor bad, properly or improperly
framed or processed, and/or with and without significant flaws. They
are just without interest to the viewer.

I don't see attempting to ascribe the lack of interest to flaws when
the image fails because viewer doesn't see anything of interest in it.
Nor, do I see trying to find something good about that image.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2012
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:37:48 -0400, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
: On 7/27/2012 12:59 PM, Savageduck wrote:
: > On 2012-07-27 08:08:05 -0700, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
: >
: >> On 7/27/2012 10:26 AM, tony cooper wrote:
: >>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:19:13 -0400, PeterN
: >>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >>>
: >>>> On 7/25/2012 6:22 PM, Savageduck wrote:
: >>>>
: >>>> .
: >>>> <snip>
: >>>>
: >>>>> What's new? We have regular commentators who chose not to contribute
: >>>>> this time, other than responding to others comments on their work, and
: >>>>> we had commentators who comment selectively on images they deem as
: >>>>> worthy of their attention. Personally I believe that all images
: >>>>> submitted are worthy of some comment, good bad, or indifferent.
: >>>>>
: >>>>
: >>>> True, but how meaningful is a comment such as: "I agree with _______ ."
: >>>> And the commentator has nothing to add.
: >>>
: >>> I think that it is meaningful. It says that _____ is not the only one
: >>> who sees it that way. If X says the image is OOF, Y offers no more by
: >>> saying the image is OOF than he does by saying he agrees with X.
: >>>
: >>> Just that statement, though, is not really enough. Adding something
: >>> would be good.
: >>>
: >>
: >> Yes. But, if IMO the commentator has said all that is necessary, what
: >> can I add.
: >
: > There is always a different take on things.
: >
: > Take the following:
: > My comment;
: > "Tim Conway:
: > Pairs-01:
: > The Conway socks. A nice pair and good idea for employing the shadow
: > created pattern. However there remains a major OOF issue which cannot be
: > ignored. So great potential spoilt by bad focus."
: >
: > Alan Browne's comment:
: > "Tim Conway http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/144705061
: > I like the shadow laying diagonally across the socks. But overall it's a
: > bit of a soft and dull image. Too deliberately contrived."
: >
: > Similar thoughts behind the comments, but with a decidedly different
: > take regarding phrasing, and possible reception by Tim, or others who
: > might read both. Now you might agree with one, or other, or both of
: > those, but you might have seen something slightly different.
: > Alan was able to make his unique and similar comment for this image
: > without resorting to the worthless, "I agree with ___."
: >
: > In the case of one of your images you would have found this difference.
: > My comment favorable because I liked the shot, but empty of technical
: > critique, Alan's more detailed.
: >
: > My comment:
: > "Peter Newman:
: > Pairs-01:
: > Fishing net reflected on wet beach. Nice."
: >
: > Alan Browne's comment:
: > "Peter Newman http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/144738873
: > A very strong composition and of course speaks to my fetish for narrow
: > colour palettes that are well set off in the areas of light, shadow,
: > silhouette and reflection. Interesting symmetries as well. The most
: > poetic of the SI this turn and a case where cropping was used very well.
: > Technically seems a bit off - lots of JPG artifacts suggesting this was
: > a deep crop, then resized down to minimize softness or camera shake."
: >
:
: I understand what you are saying, anmd see your point, but, Had Alan
: made his comment prior to yours, and assuming you agreed with him, Your
: comment: "Fishing net reflected on wet beach. Nice." while making me fee
: good, woulld not help me to improve the image.

Only if you weren't paying attention. The Duck told you that he saw your
picture as a well executed piece of art with no deeper or hidden meaning
(e.g., as an allegory for your take on the human condition) and little or
nothing to teach the viewer, other than that a fishnet on a beach rendered
that way looks good. And that's independent of whether Alan spoke first, last,
or not at all. Whether that take on your picture is correct or not, only you
can judge. But at least he's telling you how another person saw it.

: Also, there are times when I am motivated to comment, and times when I
: am not. I feel that I have an ob;ligation to try to make a constructive
: comment, simply because that is the purpose of the group. If I can I
: comment on most. There are some images that I feel I cannot comment on
: in a constructive manner. Others As I've said earlier, I feel I have
: nothing to add. I would rather say something in a reasonable time, then
: hold all my comments back until I have something to add to all.

This thread is degenerating into a murky, inconclusive analysis of analysis -
the sort of thing you might get in a prolonged debate between an Orthodox
rabbi and a Jesuit. I think we should simply acknowledge that comments are
good (at least they demonstrate interest), well thought-out comments are
better, and deep, penetrating insight is as valuable as it is rare. Then go
ahead and take the comments we receive for what they seem to be worth,
remembering always that pride and defensiveness are often a creative person's
worst enemies.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: [SI] Pairs comments - Alan B. Robert Coe Digital Photography 1 07-27-2012 06:53 PM
Re: [SI] Pairs comments - Alan B. Robert Coe Digital Photography 1 07-27-2012 01:20 AM
Re: [SI] Pairs comments - Alan B. PeterN Digital Photography 0 07-26-2012 10:12 PM
Re: [SI] Pairs comments - Alan B. tony cooper Digital Photography 0 07-25-2012 08:50 PM
Re: [SI] Pairs comments - Alan B. tony cooper Digital Photography 0 07-25-2012 08:40 PM



Advertisments