Yes, I piped up here (One of whom seems to always pipe up whenever Jim Fox makes a comment he disagrees with)...and so did you. I felt the OP's question was fair game, but Jim's and your comments offered little in the way of actual criticism of the work, and the basis why it didn't fit here. In other words, an even-handed and COURTEOUS response. Neither of you offered that.
We all deserve a bit of respect for our opinions, until they become The Law.
By the way: why do YOU pipe up whenever Jim comments on this "issue?" And almost IMMEDIATELY afterwards?
Have a nice summer...
And bobbytan- I don't believe Jim is the moderator/admin here any more; it's on Fred, now....Show more →
Ha ha, you are sure funny.
So what if I comment after Craig and write similar comments? Or if Craig comments after me and writes similar comments. Is there something so wrong with that? Just because the both of us are not afraid to speak up and offer something besides the "great photo" comment now that makes something wrong with us.
Myself, I wonder why if ever there will be a person that disagrees with something I say in the forums, guess who that is? It's this blueshadow guy. Now why is that? It sure seems odd to me that there is one person who always seems to be at the polar opposite of what I say. Do you have some hang up with me that would cause you to purposely disagree? Maybe you need to be looking in the mirror on this one before you start throwing stones.
And as to my initial comment, I did state why I felt this image wasn't a landscape. I didn't realize that I needed to write a 1000 word dissertation in order to make you happy.
dswiger wrote:
I would agree with most here that the image is not a landscape.
I think it fits more closely in City, Street & Architecture. Perhaps more "industrial"
I think if you look at the content on this forum, it is overwhelming "natural landscape".
Buildings are almost always old or deteriorating and set in a scene that is not man made.
There are plenty of categories to choose from.
David Baldwin wrote:
Perhaps it would be a good idea to change the forum's name to "Natural Landscape Photographer".
I don't think so.
We can readily identify most images posted here as belonging to the "landscape" genre in photography. On occasion we come across borderline cases where it is not immediately clear (or clear at all) that it belongs here. We must allow some latitude for such instances. Given how well this forum has worked all these years, I am sure it can withstand the occasional misstep.
Scott Kroeker wrote:
If this was my photo and I was submitting it to a stock photography site. of all the tags I'd give this image (farm, tractor, agriculture, stacks, etc) "landscape" is one I would not use. To me it fails to meet that criteria. YMMY
I would add a keyword of landscape, that would open up my stock audience considerably
I wasn't being funny… is that how you see this thread, or my comment?
I'd thank you for your reply… except you've flattered yourself by saying I'm the only person on this forum who's disagreed with you. We both know that ain't so
I think the opinions about what is landscape & not have been expressed.
Disagree or agree, the points have been made.
I think it's time to move on an not let this devolve into a FB rant.
As the OP I have been feeling guilty that I triggered a sometimes slightly acrimonious discussion by apparently treading on the toes of unknown (to me) previous strongly held disagreements - that was certainly not my intent.
In future I will attempt to tread more lightly and perhaps post more cautiously.
I have a high regard for the outstanding role that FM plays among photo sites which often do not maintain the high standards of information, assistance and Yes tolerant debate that are the norm here.
I have twice posted what I thought were emollient contributions hoping to lower the temperature ... surely now we can let this go - maintaining the right of everyone to their own views and tolerating polite dissent - and just get on with our art/craft in whatever way we interpret it.
"As the OP I have been feeling guilty that I triggered a sometimes slightly acrimonious discussion by apparently treading on the toes of unknown (to me) previous strongly held disagreements - that was certainly not my intent."
Don't feel bad, you just stumbled onto a debate amongst photographers that has been consistently raging just under the surface since Victorian times.
Namely is photography limited to fulfilling certain criteria that a group accepts, or is it about free expression that might sometimes irritate the group. My vote would incline to irritation being preferable, we all need shaking up as photographers from time to time, stops us all getting stale.
You shouldn't feel bad, and whether your image was landscape or not, it was certainly well seen.
Yes David I am aware of the underlying debates from the Pictorialists onwards what I was not prepared for was the extent of concern and commitment to categories and boundaries for posting images on this thread .... as I said I now know better and can be more cautious in future.
Perhaps my mistake was because - like you - I originate from the UK and as we do not have the glorious extremes of the West and South West USA we are more tempted to 'spice up' our work with unconventional approaches.
(One of whom seems to always pipe up whenever Jim Fox makes a comment he disagrees with)...and so did you. I felt the OP's question was fair game, but Jim's and your comments offered little in the way of actual criticism of the work, and the basis why it didn't fit here. In other words, an even-handed and COURTEOUS response. Neither of you offered that.
