Archive 2021 · Gracie in The River
p.4 #1Gracie in The River
A very beautiful portrait Daniel, I really like it.
Dave
Dave
Aug 12, 2021 at 03:16 PM
p.4 #2Gracie in The River
Mongrel wrote:
Fanboys gonna fan…haters gonna hate…
Agree and that is why I believe forum crits really add little value.
Fanboys gonna fan…haters gonna hate…
Agree and that is why I believe forum crits really add little value.
Aug 13, 2021 at 07:30 AM
p.4 #3Gracie in The River
airfrogusmc wrote:
Agree and that is why I believe forum crits really add little value.
Well…. Not sure I see it that way but…
I recently made a decision NOT to comment on any photograph I do not like. If there is some aspect to an image that turns me off I simply walk away. No need for anyone to hear what I have to say regarding “plastic skin”, unnatural poses or smiles, uninteresting compositions, “trail camera” street ‘photography’ etc. Subjective, objective, personal or otherwise.
Secondly, I made a decision TO comment on as many images I like as I have time for. However, I want the photographers to know *why* I like their image and so I try to include as many positive aspects as possible. I want to avoid the “fanboism” of “Great shot!” “Nice one!” “Good eye!” etc etc etc
This is where I believe a “positive” critique can be helpful-it gives the photographer direct feedback on specific aspects of their image and why it “works” for someone else. Maybe I will see something they didn’t. Maybe I will reinforce a part of an image they tried really hard to capture?
More specific to this thread and image-I like it. It is a solid portrait. It has *some* unique traits but it isn’t “the most fantastic photograph of a woman in water that I have ever seen” either. And I do believe, that like pretty much every other image I have ever seen, a similar portrait could have been taken by at least 100 other great photographers who post here on a regular basis. BUT they didn’t ‘see’ THIS image-Daniel did so he should absolutely get the credit he deserves for catching it.
My *only* issue was the reaction to input from some pretty decent members here who were tactfully trying to share their thoughts and got hammered for it like it was a personal attack.
And, I learned something too. I learned that I need to keep my mouth shut regarding issues that don’t concern me. It is not worth it.
So as stated above, my new approach is to keep it positive without being phony or sucking up, and to stay out of places I don’t belong.
All the best…
Mongrel wrote
Fanboys gonna fan…haters gonna hate…Well…. Not sure I see it that way but…
I recently made a decision NOT to comment on any photograph I do not like. If there is some aspect to an image that turns me off I simply walk away. No need for anyone to hear what I have to say regarding “plastic skin”, unnatural poses or smiles, uninteresting compositions, “trail camera” street ‘photography’ etc. Subjective, objective, personal or otherwise.
Secondly, I made a decision TO comment on as many images I like as I have time for. However, I want the photographers to know *why* I like their image and so I try to include as many positive aspects as possible. I want to avoid the “fanboism” of “Great shot!” “Nice one!” “Good eye!” etc etc etc
This is where I believe a “positive” critique can be helpful-it gives the photographer direct feedback on specific aspects of their image and why it “works” for someone else. Maybe I will see something they didn’t. Maybe I will reinforce a part of an image they tried really hard to capture?
More specific to this thread and image-I like it. It is a solid portrait. It has *some* unique traits but it isn’t “the most fantastic photograph of a woman in water that I have ever seen” either. And I do believe, that like pretty much every other image I have ever seen, a similar portrait could have been taken by at least 100 other great photographers who post here on a regular basis. BUT they didn’t ‘see’ THIS image-Daniel did so he should absolutely get the credit he deserves for catching it.
My *only* issue was the reaction to input from some pretty decent members here who were tactfully trying to share their thoughts and got hammered for it like it was a personal attack.
And, I learned something too. I learned that I need to keep my mouth shut regarding issues that don’t concern me. It is not worth it.
So as stated above, my new approach is to keep it positive without being phony or sucking up, and to stay out of places I don’t belong.
All the best…
Aug 13, 2021 at 07:53 AM
p.4 #4Gracie in The River
Lots to unpack here.
I'm familiar enough with Daniel's work to know that the decisions he made when capturing the image and processing it were intentional. Therefore, there is no need for me to offer my opinion.
Folks post their work for a variety of reasons. Some are fairly new to people photography and want some feedback and suggestions. I'm more likely to discuss if they post "C&C Welcome". Some post because they feel like they are members of this community and want to share recent work. If I'm so inclined, I might share "Nice Photo!" knowing we are familiar enough with each other than nothing else is needed. If the image is special, I might share what attracts me to it.
Then there are few who need their ego stroked. There were a few who used to post here who didn't want to read anything but "Ooos" and "Ahhs". There was one especially notorious for this and was kicked off other photo forums for their combative attitude.
I have to admit that I'm confused by some images that receive positive feedback which are sketchy in my opinion. I thought maybe I'm the odd man out so I showed a few to my wife. She is my strongest critic and is not shy about putting her opinion in direct terms. I would share her reactions, but this is a family oriented forum and she used some words I don't think even sailors know.
I'm familiar enough with Daniel's work to know that the decisions he made when capturing the image and processing it were intentional. Therefore, there is no need for me to offer my opinion.
Folks post their work for a variety of reasons. Some are fairly new to people photography and want some feedback and suggestions. I'm more likely to discuss if they post "C&C Welcome". Some post because they feel like they are members of this community and want to share recent work. If I'm so inclined, I might share "Nice Photo!" knowing we are familiar enough with each other than nothing else is needed. If the image is special, I might share what attracts me to it.
Then there are few who need their ego stroked. There were a few who used to post here who didn't want to read anything but "Ooos" and "Ahhs". There was one especially notorious for this and was kicked off other photo forums for their combative attitude.
I have to admit that I'm confused by some images that receive positive feedback which are sketchy in my opinion. I thought maybe I'm the odd man out so I showed a few to my wife. She is my strongest critic and is not shy about putting her opinion in direct terms. I would share her reactions, but this is a family oriented forum and she used some words I don't think even sailors know.
Aug 13, 2021 at 03:35 PM
p.4 #5Gracie in The River
dmacmillan
Lots to unpack here.
I believe it's much simpler than that:
Don't like feedback? Either say so or don't publish your images on a forum that is dedicated to photography.
-Phil
Lots to unpack here.
I believe it's much simpler than that:
Don't like feedback? Either say so or don't publish your images on a forum that is dedicated to photography.
-Phil
Aug 13, 2021 at 05:21 PM
p.4 #6Gracie in The River
This forum is a strange realm where photographic gods post their images of perfection to taunt us poor mortals while we struggle in our attempt to achieve the serenity of achieving photographic god status. It then comes to pass that conflict and strife arise from the enormous disparity between the photographic works. There is also the inborn mortal desire to achieve greatness and arise atop the throngs of commoners. In that effort we struggle and squabble among ourselves, sometimes giving false or valueless testimony to the various works presented to our sight.
Should a mere mortal be allowed to question these works of perfection or is it blasphemy? Why is it that the gods show us these heavenly works? Certainly not for their own satisfaction. They are gods and should not need to seek our admiration because perfection doesn't require it! Perfection does not require judgement! Why then do they tempt us so, for we shall never achieve their status.
I could go on and have fun with this for a long while, but it boils down to this. Wether a god or mere mortal, if you post you can expect comments. Those comments can be good, bad, valuable or worthless. It's up to the original poster to decide what is valid or invalid. However, if they expect everyone to only hit the "Applause Button", they need to find a different forum.
The minute someone's comment says, "I believe.." or "in my opinion" they're only speaking for themselves and not everyone. Then the OP need to consider the source of the comment and take it for what its worth!
Once this forum becomes a mutual admiration society, handing out only "participation awards", the forum will quickly wither.
Should a mere mortal be allowed to question these works of perfection or is it blasphemy? Why is it that the gods show us these heavenly works? Certainly not for their own satisfaction. They are gods and should not need to seek our admiration because perfection doesn't require it! Perfection does not require judgement! Why then do they tempt us so, for we shall never achieve their status.
I could go on and have fun with this for a long while, but it boils down to this. Wether a god or mere mortal, if you post you can expect comments. Those comments can be good, bad, valuable or worthless. It's up to the original poster to decide what is valid or invalid. However, if they expect everyone to only hit the "Applause Button", they need to find a different forum.
The minute someone's comment says, "I believe.." or "in my opinion" they're only speaking for themselves and not everyone. Then the OP need to consider the source of the comment and take it for what its worth!
Once this forum becomes a mutual admiration society, handing out only "participation awards", the forum will quickly wither.
Aug 14, 2021 at 08:59 AM
p.4 #7Gracie in The River
dmacmillan wrote:
I'm familiar enough with Daniel's work to know that the decisions he made when capturing the image and processing it were intentional.
As do I ... which was why I recognized it as a departure from some of his signature attributes. And yet, despite giving credence to my familiarity with his work ... the whole dang thing went way south from what I thought was my way of sharing with Daniel how strongly I'd been keen to his works, thus far.
In fact, I actually had (previous) discussions with Daniel, giving him support to him getting input from Doug (i.e. good hands). I knew also that Daniel was intentional and deliberate in his piece ... just I was rather surprised by the level of departure he took on it ... particularly given how much emphasis Daniel's other dialogues and comments were regarding the strength of his signature natural lighting usage. Heck, we even discussed it relative to his aspirations for magazine work, etc.
From where I sit ... it just seemed like Daniel had a MAJOR case of cyber-amnesia, in that he totally forgot that I was a fan of his work (and had been helping him offline, too), and couldn't see anything good in anything I had to say in the context of a forum (i.e. discussion).
Sad, sad, sad ... sad.
The whole thing bummed me out ... and I hope that Daniel continues to receive good counsel from Doug and others. Nothing but well wishes to his continued growth.
BTW ... thanks again to the FM'ers who offered me their support. It was, and is, greatly appreciated.
Now ... bring on the pics.
I'm familiar enough with Daniel's work to know that the decisions he made when capturing the image and processing it were intentional.
As do I ... which was why I recognized it as a departure from some of his signature attributes. And yet, despite giving credence to my familiarity with his work ... the whole dang thing went way south from what I thought was my way of sharing with Daniel how strongly I'd been keen to his works, thus far.
In fact, I actually had (previous) discussions with Daniel, giving him support to him getting input from Doug (i.e. good hands). I knew also that Daniel was intentional and deliberate in his piece ... just I was rather surprised by the level of departure he took on it ... particularly given how much emphasis Daniel's other dialogues and comments were regarding the strength of his signature natural lighting usage. Heck, we even discussed it relative to his aspirations for magazine work, etc.
From where I sit ... it just seemed like Daniel had a MAJOR case of cyber-amnesia, in that he totally forgot that I was a fan of his work (and had been helping him offline, too), and couldn't see anything good in anything I had to say in the context of a forum (i.e. discussion).
Sad, sad, sad ... sad.
The whole thing bummed me out ... and I hope that Daniel continues to receive good counsel from Doug and others. Nothing but well wishes to his continued growth.
BTW ... thanks again to the FM'ers who offered me their support. It was, and is, greatly appreciated.
Now ... bring on the pics.
Aug 14, 2021 at 03:43 PM
p.4 #8Gracie in The River
Ok, since folks are set on continuing this dialogue about me, I will speak up. I made it clear which exact statements I took issue with. I did not and do not take issue with every constructive criticism that I am offered on FM forum, proven by the many occasions when I have received constructive criticism in this forum and politely responded to it with gratitude in multiple of my other threads here. My issue was with being told by RustyBug that he and almost anyone else could have taken this photo because of the ambient lighting conditions, which I still believe to be completely false, and with another member taking the time to unnecessarily criticize my other work which isn't even posted in this thread ("finally a portrait which is not hit by a pesky silver reflector with a reverb on all your foreheads"). I still stand by the opinion that saying almost anyone could have taken this portrait is easily perceived as a low-blow, no matter who it is telling me this, and going on to say that I am ONLY here to have my ego stroked is not fair and proven to be untrue by the many instances when I have received constructive criticism well. In this instance I stood up to TWO particular comments that I felt were out of line. That's it.
Other than my response to Mongrel for calling me a prima-donna, I have been civil in this thread. In my defense, I felt as if I was being ganged up on for sticking up for myself which had me feeling quite defensive. In Mongrel's defense, I said I would be leaving this forum, which is absolutely prima-donna behavior, but the feeling of being ganged up on had me feeling pretty upset. Despite anyone who would be happy to see me leave, I'm not going anywhere.
I was accused of insulting folks here simply because I said their statements were untrue (ie "almost anyone could have taken this photo"). Saying that a statement someone is making is false is not an insult, and I still believe it to be false that almost anyone else could have taken this photograph. Making a comment like that is so unnecessary and to me it invalidates the work I put into this portrait, and I would NEVER say something like that to another photographer. YES, people are free to leave their opinions of my photos, and I expect it, but if someone leaves comments that don't sit right with me, I am just as free to give my opinions on said comments as well. People don't have to be "nice" when they leave their opinions of my work, so conversely I don't have to say "thank you" to every single opinion given about my work, or accept every criticism especially when perceived as backhanded or a low blow.
RustyBug, you claim to have helped me out offline multiple times. I have never met you offline. If I have met you offline, then you have kept your online identity a secret from me if we truly have met offline, but I am pretty certain that we have never met. There was no "MAJOR case of cyber-amnesia" here. You have commented on my threads in the past and have given me feedback, which I have always politely accepted, except for this one singular time when you made a comment which I perceived to have been a low blow. Even when you send me private messages to tell me you don't like my sharpening technique or my color grading, I have been polite in my responses and have even applied your suggestions to my work since then. This one time that I took issue with something you said does not constitute me having "amnesia" of some sort, and it does not mean that I am only here for positive comments.
I will also say that I am thankful for those members who have also offered me their support in this thread and in private message regarding the dialogue that has taken place in this thread. I am not the only one who interpreted these comments this way.
Edited on Aug 16, 2021 at 02:24 AM · View previous versions
Other than my response to Mongrel for calling me a prima-donna, I have been civil in this thread. In my defense, I felt as if I was being ganged up on for sticking up for myself which had me feeling quite defensive. In Mongrel's defense, I said I would be leaving this forum, which is absolutely prima-donna behavior, but the feeling of being ganged up on had me feeling pretty upset. Despite anyone who would be happy to see me leave, I'm not going anywhere.
I was accused of insulting folks here simply because I said their statements were untrue (ie "almost anyone could have taken this photo"). Saying that a statement someone is making is false is not an insult, and I still believe it to be false that almost anyone else could have taken this photograph. Making a comment like that is so unnecessary and to me it invalidates the work I put into this portrait, and I would NEVER say something like that to another photographer. YES, people are free to leave their opinions of my photos, and I expect it, but if someone leaves comments that don't sit right with me, I am just as free to give my opinions on said comments as well. People don't have to be "nice" when they leave their opinions of my work, so conversely I don't have to say "thank you" to every single opinion given about my work, or accept every criticism especially when perceived as backhanded or a low blow.
RustyBug, you claim to have helped me out offline multiple times. I have never met you offline. If I have met you offline, then you have kept your online identity a secret from me if we truly have met offline, but I am pretty certain that we have never met. There was no "MAJOR case of cyber-amnesia" here. You have commented on my threads in the past and have given me feedback, which I have always politely accepted, except for this one singular time when you made a comment which I perceived to have been a low blow. Even when you send me private messages to tell me you don't like my sharpening technique or my color grading, I have been polite in my responses and have even applied your suggestions to my work since then. This one time that I took issue with something you said does not constitute me having "amnesia" of some sort, and it does not mean that I am only here for positive comments.
I will also say that I am thankful for those members who have also offered me their support in this thread and in private message regarding the dialogue that has taken place in this thread. I am not the only one who interpreted these comments this way.
Edited on Aug 16, 2021 at 02:24 AM · View previous versions
Aug 14, 2021 at 04:34 PM
p.4 #9Gracie in The River
Yes ... you have always been polite with me. Thank you for acknowledging our PM correspondence ... which is what I was referring when I said "offline". I should have said "online, in private". You are correct that we have not met "offline". My bad, poor choice of terminology.
Thus, my confusion as to why think I would serve you a "low blow" when all I've ever done is try to help you. I understand that you didn't find my comment in the spirit it was intended. I tried to explain it, but it never came across well for you.
Sorry for the angst for which I've caused you and the others.
Again, nothing but the best for you. I do hope that somewhere along the way, you'll come to understand I meant no malice for you. Maybe not today, but hope springs eternal.
Thus, my confusion as to why think I would serve you a "low blow" when all I've ever done is try to help you. I understand that you didn't find my comment in the spirit it was intended. I tried to explain it, but it never came across well for you.
Sorry for the angst for which I've caused you and the others.
Again, nothing but the best for you. I do hope that somewhere along the way, you'll come to understand I meant no malice for you. Maybe not today, but hope springs eternal.
Aug 14, 2021 at 05:25 PM
p.4 #10Gracie in The River
RustyBug wrote:
Yes ... you have always been polite with me. Thank you for acknowledging our PM correspondence ... which is what I was referring when I said "offline". I should have said "online, in private". You are correct that we have not met "offline". My bad, poor choice of terminology.
Thus, my confusion as to why think I would serve you a "low blow" when all I've ever done is try to help you. I understand that you didn't find my comment in the spirit it was intended. I tried to explain it, but it never came across well for you.
Sorry...Show more →
At this point I am not in the same headspace as I was when this all started, and I don't think you intended the comment to be received the way I took it in. At the time I felt as if I was being ganged up on here for standing up for myself, so it was difficult for me to see your further comments objectively when you were further explaining yourself.
Edited on Aug 14, 2021 at 05:37 PM · View previous versions
Yes ... you have always been polite with me. Thank you for acknowledging our PM correspondence ... which is what I was referring when I said "offline". I should have said "online, in private". You are correct that we have not met "offline". My bad, poor choice of terminology.
Thus, my confusion as to why think I would serve you a "low blow" when all I've ever done is try to help you. I understand that you didn't find my comment in the spirit it was intended. I tried to explain it, but it never came across well for you.
Sorry...Show more →
At this point I am not in the same headspace as I was when this all started, and I don't think you intended the comment to be received the way I took it in. At the time I felt as if I was being ganged up on here for standing up for myself, so it was difficult for me to see your further comments objectively when you were further explaining yourself.
Edited on Aug 14, 2021 at 05:37 PM · View previous versions
Aug 14, 2021 at 05:29 PM
p.4 #11Gracie in The River
DanielScott wrote:
I am not the only one who interpreted these comments this way.
Yes, cyber-comms can be a tough gig, sometimes. Again, never any malice intended. Some saw it half-empty, but I can assure you it was sent half-full. I can't control how folks drink it, any more than we can control how folks perceive our images. Some will see it as intended, others will see how their frame of reference depicts it to them. That's just part and parcel to communication, visual and verbal. Take care, and again ... wishing nothing but the best for you.
I am not the only one who interpreted these comments this way.
Yes, cyber-comms can be a tough gig, sometimes. Again, never any malice intended. Some saw it half-empty, but I can assure you it was sent half-full. I can't control how folks drink it, any more than we can control how folks perceive our images. Some will see it as intended, others will see how their frame of reference depicts it to them. That's just part and parcel to communication, visual and verbal. Take care, and again ... wishing nothing but the best for you.
Aug 14, 2021 at 05:32 PM
p.4 #12Gracie in The River
DanielScott wrote:
Thus, my confusion as to why think I would serve you a "low blow" when all I've ever done is try to help you. I understand that you didn't find my comment in the spirit it was intended. I tried to explain it, but it never came across well for you.
Sorry for the angst for which I've caused you and the others.
Again, nothing but the best for you. I do hope that somewhere along the way, you'll come to understand I meant no malice for you. Maybe not today, but hope springs eternal.At this point I am not in the same headspace as I was when this all started, and I don't think you intended the comment to be received the way I took it in. At the time I felt as if I was being ganged up on here for standing up for myself, so it was difficult for me to see your further comments objectively.
Most graciously, understood.
Edited on Aug 14, 2021 at 05:34 PM · View previous versions
RustyBug wrote
Yes ... you have always been polite with me. Thank you for acknowledging our PM correspondence ... which is what I was referring when I said "offline". I should have said "online, in private". You are correct that we have not met "offline". My bad, poor choice of terminology.Thus, my confusion as to why think I would serve you a "low blow" when all I've ever done is try to help you. I understand that you didn't find my comment in the spirit it was intended. I tried to explain it, but it never came across well for you.
Sorry for the angst for which I've caused you and the others.
Again, nothing but the best for you. I do hope that somewhere along the way, you'll come to understand I meant no malice for you. Maybe not today, but hope springs eternal.
Most graciously, understood.
Edited on Aug 14, 2021 at 05:34 PM · View previous versions
Aug 14, 2021 at 05:33 PM
p.4 #13Gracie in The River
RustyBug wrote:
wishing nothing but the best for you.
Same to you.
DanielScott wrote
I am not the only one who interpreted these comments this way.Same to you.
Aug 14, 2021 at 05:33 PM
p.4 #14Gracie in The River
DanielScott wrote:
wishing nothing but the best for you.Same to you.
Thank you.
RustyBug wrote
DanielScott wrote
I am not the only one who interpreted these comments this way.Thank you.
Aug 14, 2021 at 05:35 PM