On 5 Jun 2004 at 23:12, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Hi ... > > I sometimes don't know what you're looking for in the way of comments, Rob. This > photo is an example of that confusion. Are you wanting a comment on the > technical merits of the photo, or the artistic and photographic value? When you, > and others, post all the technical information about a photo, the details often > get in the way of seeing the photo.
Hi Shel, As always I value your comments, you've no problem cutting to the chase. I simply asked for opinions yours is as valuable as any other persons. If you want to discuss technicalities or composition I'm all ears, I wasn't specific in my request so as not to stifle comment. I always try to include technical information as I'm often asked if I don't. I certainly don't see it as "getting in the way of seeing a photo", this isn't a gallery it's a photography discussion forum, if you in particular aren't interested in the technicalities I'd suggest you try to read past them. Other people may well be interested, they might not have considered it possible or may want to try something similar, the technical details can only help in those instances don't you think? > Here we have a technical problem, dealing > with the sun, which you seem to have handled pretty well. Yet it's the sun that > ruins what might have been a fine photograph. The pattern of the sprinklers > catching the sun is the photograph. The sun, as a visual element, is a major > distraction, and technically the flare degrades the best part of the photo. > What I'm trying to say is that the sprinklers are strong enough to stand alone > as a photo. The sun, in every way, artistically and technically relegate the > photo to little more than a snapshop. OK I can definitely see where you are coming from here, I would definitely liked to have walked away with more photos with the sun in and out of the frame however what you see is pretty much what I had time to get so unfortunately I can't do a great deal about it now. I don't mind the flare so much as I feel that it imparts a degree of reality on the image, looking into the sun without the camera I saw pretty much the same thing. > And, since I mentioned it, and speaking just for myself, the technical info > means nothing and often takes away from the image. Good art should be seamless. > The viewer should only be concerned with the image, not all the details and > work that went into making it. It's the final result that counts. When i see a > fine piece of carpentry, it matters not a whit what hammer and grit sandpaper > was used. What matters is the result. Along the lines of my previous comment, this ain't no art gallery :-) > What I sometimes feel is that by posting all the technical stuff, the > photographer is saying "Look at how clever I am, how I was able to use this tool > or technique to make this photo." And, I suppose, for some people that's > important. Do you not do just that WRT photo technique by showing us how clever you are with your people photography? Often for me you photos contain little more than an indication that you are more willing than I to violate other peoples personal space, this is just my perspective of course. Other of your images I really enjoy and I tell you so. > Anyway, lose the sun. Too late in this case. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
