Thanks Jpetty, I totally agree about the guns issues. I also might make some adjustments to the background, to make it more dramatic and dominant, like you said.
JPetty wrote:
The subject matter doesn't bother me nearly as much as the snarky comments and debate over said subject matter.
The debate bothers you? Or just the snarky comments?
For the record, I live where guns abound and the person who doesn't own one or more guns is the anomaly rather than the norm. It is a sad day when the gun is to blame for the pitiful state of current affairs rather than the attitude behind the gun.
I grew up in that environment too... even shot competitively for a while. To argue that a person's attitude can't be influenced by the presence or absence of a gun seems a little shortsighted. While most gun owners are lawful, many people I grew up around would do really terrible things to animals that they probably would not have been able to do if they didn't have access to guns. Emanuel Kant said that "[w]e can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." I know people who, outside of any hunting context, used guns to visit terrible cruelty on wild and domestic animals. Their bloodlust was matched only by their fetishism for firearms. Widespread access to firearms is not an unqualified good, regardless of what their advocates might tell you.
While I am not saying that weapons cause people to kill others, you cannot deny that the fundamental purpose of a firearm, especially a sidearm, is to fatally injure or kill another living thing. Shooting paper targets is an incidental, rather than fundamental, use. That purpose and capability can influence a weapon's possessor to act with a boldness that they might not otherwise contemplate.
Get real. It is a picture. The picture had the background replaced. Period! Look at and answer the question asked rather than create a diatribe on the subject matter.
I've never understood the urge on this forum to focus on the procedure rather than the substance. Critique of an image should capture both the perceived message conveyed by the image, and the technical artistry that underlies to its creation. To focus on the latter to the the exclusion of the former impoverishes the overall discussion. If you post a picture of a controversial subject, why should discussion of the controversy be off limits? Perhaps your self professed immersion in a "culture of guns" prevents you from realizing that, in most of the world, possession of a firearm is hardly perceived as ordinary or a fundamental right. Even in the United States, no court has ever successfully ruled that the "right to bear arms" is not subject to substantial regulation by the state.
As for a critique... I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with the shot, other than, as you say, experimentation or fun. It's a hairy arm with a gun, a watch, and a rather out-of-place muslin-like background. The background you've chosen would be appropriate for a yearbook picture, yet you've found a somewhat different use for it. While the juxtaposition might've been interesting, I'm not sure that it's working for me.
Thanks Arka. YES, just for fun... what a concept! I was shooting (photographing ) a friend, and decided to apply the same lighting that I used on him to this shot.
Mike, nice work on the image. And for Jordan, exactly how many souls have been saved because they had a gun? (I am sure you have no clue, because it is not a fact you care to even consider when spewing your rhetoric).......And since this is not a firearms forum, your remarks should focus on the artistic skill (or lack of, depending on how you see it) instead of sidetracking the discussion to something completely off topic. And Mike, be careful, some ignorant person might think you are supporting cigarette smoking, a deadly habit!
jjlmac wrote:
.......And since this is not a firearms forum, your remarks should focus on the artistic skill (or lack of, depending on how you see it) instead of sidetracking the discussion to something completely off topic.
I could be mistaken, but isn't this a Digital Art forum?
Images in an Art forum should cause us to think and consider, to react and converse.
You're suggesting that one should only comment on the artistic skill of an image and not the substance and meaning? !
How is the visual intent of an image, in this case a gun, and what that conveys and stimulates completely off topic?
Your not mistaken, it is a digital art forum. I'm sure you saw in the string that Jordan responds to Mike's before and after picture with a single line question that seems off point to me; he asked Mike what he thought of the school shooting in Finland. I might buy your point if he elaborated on how this image evoked something about this, but he didn't Since Mike was asking what people thought about his work, I would think he would get a comment about his work, not a question about something half way around the world.
A guy posts a before and after picture on a technical forum asking for a critique of his work, it just hardly seems to be the place for commentary on guns or a shooting that happened several days ago across the globe. Meanwhile, Jinny thinks the post might harm impressionable young people, she apparently doesn't watch any television. Yep, with those remarks I think we did get a bit off topic, but that is just MHO. This is the beauty of free speech, we can all post our opinion regardless of topic.
jjlmac wrote:
I might buy your point if he elaborated on how this image evoked something about this, but he didn't...
Isn't it obvious, without any elaboration, how the evocation was made?
If you posted an image of war torn Iraq or a heroin syringe in this Art forum and asked "What do you think?",
it would, I hope, garner more than comments about your technical skills.
This gun is no different; to quell discussion and disregard the subject, albeit controversial, seems absurd.
To begin with, he didn't post "A" picture asking for comments. He posted two different pictures, the second one being photoshoped with some lighting change and background change, then asked for comments. If he left it to the single picture, then I might agree. He posted it in the Photo Illustration and Digital Art forum, thereby leading the reader to infer that he was asking for comments relative to his digital skills. He did not post it in the forum for still lifes. What you suggest is not obvious, especially since he posted a picture of a BB Gun. No one was shot with a BB gun, but I am sure you can enlighten, since you seem to believe it is so obvious. Maybe it appears more obvious to people who don't know what they are looking at.
As I said before, this guy was just trying to get some feedback on his photoshop work, and he is deserving of that from the others in this forum, IMHO. Based on his before and after picture, his request for comments, as well as his other posts in the string, the only thing that is obvious is that he was trying to garner this type of feedback. If he was looking for content remarks, I would presume he would post the final image and not be making a comparison between them.
In any event, when you have to remark about what is "obvious" and requires no further elaboration, that usually means, you can't offer any. And I "obviously" wasn't quelling comment (since there have been other comments), I was merely pointing out how useless Jordan's remarks were to the poster since Mike admittedly wasn't looking for remarks about what the image evoked, but wanted remarks on his photoshop skill. But feel free to continue down the path of helpfulness and enlightenment for us all.
jjlmac wrote:
He posted it in the Photo Illustration and Digital Art forum, thereby leading the reader to infer that he was asking for comments relative to his digital skills.
Really? PI & DA is merely for technique critique?
I show work here and, believe me, doing so does not infer that I'm asking for comments relative to my digital skills.
jjlmac wrote:
But feel free to continue down the path of helpfulness and enlightenment for us all.
No problem Cheryl. Perhaps if you read the remarks as a whole instead of picking out of context portions, you would see my point. But of course, the difficulty is that you have taken the whole thing out of its context.
It is usually a bit easier to take things out of context and remark on those isolated excerpts than to examine the entire argument and formulate a cogent response.
You can continue to insist that he was looking for content remarks, but since he stated the opposite in another post, I guess you would be hard pressed to support your position. As I said in my previous post, taken in context a reasonable person would realize he was not looking for questions about a shooting in Finland, rather a remark on how well his background substitution worked. It seems rather clear in these types of compare - contrast postings.
So based on your position it seem clear that when someone posts a still life of a bowl of fruit and posts the same still life below with a substituted backgrounds asking for comments, you would find the most relevant and helpful remarks to be ones commenting on the most recent fruit crop of Florida or California. Perhaps Jordan could interpret the "personal cores" from the projected image. The absurdity of your comments is the one thing that is OBVIOUS.
Mike you did a great job, and as you may be able to tell I don't post that often on this forum but I cant let my thoughts go unspoken on this one. I want you to know that all the critics who have chastized you for having a bad title and portraying a bad message have no say in the matter. This isn't some activist website. ITS A PHOTOGRAPHY FORUM!!!!!!!!!!!! and we are supposed to be here to talk about photography and give you what you asked for, which is a recognition for a job well done with this picture, or constructive criticizm. Those who chose to go ranting on another tangent should best get off and express their opinions about guns to a forum THAT CARES ABOUT IT! Thats all, and i envy your courage to post! Please do in the future because its contributors like you that make this forum possible and keep it alive and well.
jjlmac wrote:
To begin with, he didn't post "A" picture asking for comments. He posted two different pictures, the second one being photoshoped with some lighting change and background change, then asked for comments. If he left it to the single picture, then I might agree. He posted it in the Photo Illustration and Digital Art forum, thereby leading the reader to infer that he was asking for comments relative to his digital skills. He did not post it in the forum for still lifes. What you suggest is not obvious, especially since he posted a picture of a BB Gun. No one was shot with a BB gun, but I am sure you can enlighten, since you seem to believe it is so obvious. Maybe it appears more obvious to people who don't know what they are looking at.
As I said before, this guy was just trying to get some feedback on his photoshop work, and he is deserving of that from the others in this forum, IMHO. Based on his before and after picture, his request for comments, as well as his other posts in the string, the only thing that is obvious is that he was trying to garner this type of feedback. If he was looking for content remarks, I would presume he would post the final image and not be making a comparison between them....Show more →
jjlmac: I think that's a sound argument, and makes a lot of sense; indeed, context is key, as you very lucidly point out. Where I disagree with the general tenor of the argument, however, is that a request for commentary on photoshop skills precludes commentary on the subject of the picture. While the former may be what was solicited, the latter is bound to emerge, whether you ask for such comments or not. I think that the OP should be willing to entertain both types of commentary.
Connor W wrote:
I want you to know that all the critics who have chastized you for having a bad title and portraying a bad message have no say in the matter.
They have as much say in this matter as you do I'm afraid... that's what an opinion's worth on the internet.
ITS A PHOTOGRAPHY FORUM!!!!!!!!!!!! and we are supposed to be here to talk about photography and give you what you asked for, which is a recognition for a job well done with this picture, or constructive criticizm.
Last I checked, substance was part of what PHOTOGRAPHY is. Ignoring the subject at the expense of the technique hardly makes for meaningful critique.
Those who chose to go ranting on another tangent should best get off and express their opinions about guns to a forum THAT CARES ABOUT IT! Thats all, and i envy your courage to post! Please do in the future because its contributors like you that make this forum possible and keep it alive and well.
For someone who doesn't post here much to begin with, it takes no small amount of chutzpah to tell others to express their opinions elsewhere. What is it about anything that you just said that privileges your procedural point of view above the more substantive concerns raised by the posters above? At least jjlmac had some reasonable basis for his perceived inappropriateness of the anti-gun comments... Caps Lock (shouting) does not make an argument for you.
Arka, I don't disagree that someone posting an image should be open to critiques about their work, in both artistic style and content. I believe the intent of the original post was to get some technical comment on his background substitution and lighting changes. I think somone choosing to post here should keep the spirit of their remarks to the subject matter at hand. While I am not opposed to comments about the content of an image, in my view, jsdill's remarks were not even close. I think the purpose of this forum is to offer help to one another through positive critiques of the imagery.
jsdill's intital remark -- or question rather -- was:
"So...what do you think of the recent event in Finland?"
This was the post in its entirety. Hardly a "remark" about anything.
Then a few posts later jsdill wrote:
"Hey Mike...you've drawn people in here with your pistol that have not appeared before.
Some have even suggested they might bring out their rifles for spite.
Personally, I am not seeing this draw as good...despite their support for you, for it.
What I think is, since you appear to be someone who is promoting his artistic ability via his website, you could do better elsewhere subject-wise.
fwiw, the 45 cal. pistol (what your image emulates) appeared in this world for one reason and one reason only...that, to hammer one in his/her tracks. The round travels at 802 ft per second. Such a slow speed effectively hits a target with a massive hammer. hammer = massive trauma = dead.
I speak of these things as one who has used the 45 cal pistol to stop people in their tracks.
Your use of the pistol/image colors you (in ignorance perhaps)...period.
Maybe you and your girlfriend should make better artistic choices on which to hone your skills?...or, perhaps you both might take a stint in the Marine Corps. You seem to be young enough to still give that a shot."
Clearly this didn't lend much to the discussion of his image. It appears to be a diatribe about guns. Of course, the final remark, encouraging Mike to join the Marines has nothing to do with the picture, its content or a helpful critique of the imagery on this site.
So, in the end, while image content is important, jsdill's remarks were far askew of what this site is about.
I thank you for your thoughtful and analytical remarks.
