I would like to have more constructive criticism of the photos which don't get voted on and the reasons why. The site is great but a little too nicey nicey. Some times what I think is a great photo gets no votes while others that I am not so impressed with get several?? I would welcome any comments both positive and negative on my own photos (and belive others would as well) and not just the positive ones which are of course nice to hear and are very encouraging but I am also interested in where I can improve.
Sadly, Roger, it's just a few of the regulars that post, it seems. Surprising how many post photographs up on their galleries, many are good, far too many are pretty poor.
It wouldn't be too bad if once a thread got started on a picture it stopped other threads from also starting, but I've seen pictures already with 4 threads attached. Don't know if the Magicalia techies can do something about that.
The problem might be that some people do think of themselves as being extremely good with a camera and would get upset if any constructive criticism was offered. If that's the case then my response would be, don't post pictures unless you can stand the critcism. And that goes for anywhere, on the gallery or in an exhibition.
If I offer any comments, it's usually from a compositional or subject angle based on what I've learned in art lessons over the last 10 years. I gained more from that than I ever did from reading photo mags over all the years I read them for. I suppose because as artists we can moved things around, leave them out or include them from other areas.
I think photography should be a record of what it there in the scene and the challenge is to get the very best out of it. The two are quite different and the worst compliment someone can ever pay an artist is to say "That's looks just like a photograph."
Personaly I welcome any feedback for me its the main point of posting. If I want I can show my friends and family my photos and get lots of nice comments but as none of them know much about photography it does not mean much. When some one here votes on my photo it feel more of an achievemnet but I would also like to hear if they think there is too much post production or the exposure/focus/composition was off.
Its also the same when I see a photo I like I am interested to see how the person shot it and wish they would leave at least small comments on their own work (I try to but must admit I am guilty also of simply posting).
There are huge range of tastes in art as well as photography and the art of photography, whether it is with film or digital work? We all have different reasons why we feel good about a picture or why something repulses us as an image? If we want to aim for the commercial best and reach the top? Then a lot of work would be scrapped because they just do not sell life style to impress upon the unsuspecting buyers. But for most, art and photography is pleasurable and it reflects on who or what we are. It is difficult to criticize some one's feeling or mood when that has become the result of it? Sometimes art or photography is about sharing and being accepted? People may relate to it, or not? I don't think there is just one standard that is the absolute way of being productive? Otherwise someones creativity could be stifled because of what one person thinks photography is about? This is think camera. Modern technology gives us so much to think about and there is so much to learn too from any one's experience. I think it is lovely when people want to share what they know about their art in photography and the technique not just with camera, but also the abundance of software that is on the market. Not everyone can afford Photoshop without holding an illegal copy? But there are many alternative to photoshop which is almost as good as photoshop, but miles cheaper and more affordable. As well as some free ware. I have learned a lot from people who didn't mind sharing their skill and technique and for those who would love to know how tools work in software can expand on what they've learned and create their own style with it. I am just getting a little tired with the attitude that photographs should not be touched by software, as long as it is photoshop of course, is it? It is a bit like saying, that girl shouldn't ware make up or go to the hairdresser she is ruining herself. But how many people would pay attention to a girl who doesn't take care of herself and makes sure that her hair and skin is at its best and the dress compliments her figure? That is what a photograph is to me.
WOW!! What a great answer to those people who think a photographer is not allowed to create a masterpiece using the tools that are available to him/her. I judge a photo as I would a woman, nice, great, Magnificant!. This week I went on the 'Ara Libertad' an Argentinian sailing ship in Cape Town harbour, lots of photos, from stem to stern. Well done Sylvia.
As a novice I fully agree with Rodger that coments can be most helpfull especially for the less experienced photographers (me). Photoshop post production I think that it falls into 2 camps the record of what was actually there or as Sylvia so superbly expresses using photography as a form of art, both are right it depends what you are looking for.
Sorry I am digressng from the thread personally I like the website as it is and have found many of the reviews / advise helpfull as well as members in the forums being willing to offer advise on questions .
Oh and more comps and although i've never won anything its fun to enter.
That's right, Wally - you can use your old OM flashes with your E-510, either with an optical slave trigger (cheap), or a radio flash trigger (£20-£300). Just don't physically connect the two with any cables or you'll fry your camera. Maybe not on the first exposure...
As for criticism and comments, I have something of a love-hate comment with them. While they can be useful for those instances where you've got a little too close to a picture (took it very recently, are tired, it's of your child/pet/granny) I do find that there's a forum-specific tendency to pull every picture towards a safe, moderate middle ground. Consensus gravitiates towards: wide tonal range, good (superhuman hence the development of HDR?) highlight/shadow detail, adherence to the rule of thirds, biting sharpness. Internet forums specifically seem to have created an aesthetic standard that's completely different from anything that either a casual snapshooter or a great artist would recognise. In some ways, it's a bit like photography clubs in the late eighties and their strange rules for slides which only they understood. Something to be concerned about surely?
Thanks Dennis, as far as post adjustments using software, I think everyone before and after Sylvia's comments must accept her definative answer, or be more erudite.
Okay, Back to the original thread purpose. I like to see a list of peoples favourite photo locations which are lesser known.
I like to see less HDR and other rubbish manufactured under the excuse of "I like it therefore it is Art"and more emphasis on photographic articles. eg. Lenses-long,wide,fast,slow,VR/IS/OS Why and how, DOF, perspective, chromatic abberration etc.
The original thread is what we would like from think camera is it not? All I want is that there is room for people who do want to know more about the different aspect of what is available for those who do enjoy the art of photography? It is obvious that there is a little tolerance with people who have a limited view on other peoples pleasure?
As it happens, I also like the technical side of photography which helps me to get the best out of my work, which is photography. I have nothing against learning about Chromatic Aberration and I didn't know much about it until Simon mentioned it and I researched it and come across this interesting article that explains it to people like me? chromatic aberration A link for those like me
There is no need to be rude about what other people like or to even slap them down! My point is there should be room for all kinds of photographers who are technocrats and those who are arty?
I just want to share something with you all because I feel this work is absolutely beautiful!
Daniela M. Casalla Please do look through her portfolio and you may understand where I am coming from? And something that someone wrote about her work Andrew Nawroski
I think you hit the nail firmly on the head with this statement Sylvia
"there should be room for all kinds of photographers"
No one would disagree with this statement
Now what is photography? well it's essentially
the process of recording images on sensitized material by the action of light.
Not changing the photo beyond all recognition by the use of photo editing suite's
The "ART" side of photography is the actual setting up of the subject, such as angles, props, lighting and composition, plus the use of shutter speeds and in particular aperture for creating subtle DOF.
Edited
Sylvia have just looked at the link you posted, sorry, but it does nothing for me.
I have said it before, I like your gallery and some of your images are outstanding!. But I also dislike a lot of them! My comment is not a personal attack on your images, but on a genre of images that is widespread on the photography forums and in magazines of late. I just do not like to see this site going that route. The last thing I want is to force my opinion down other peoples throat, but the OP asked for opinions and thoughts. I asked to see less of it, not to be banned forever. Your link is a good example of what I mean. That style is completely photoshopped imagery, which is to me something a graphic artist would play with, but is miles away from photography. At least it is done with a good amount of skill and creates wild and wondrous visions, but photography NO!! There are some very good websites with forums for these images. Off late there is a lot of this type of imaging on the web, and a lot of it is absolute cr*p. People seem to have found some plug-ins and filters and hey-presto we have Art. That is what I dislike with a vengeance. Your "Compassion" picture is still a picture, and the toning done to it resembles some old darkroom techniques. So you guessed it, I like it. But I like it mainly for what it is, a creatively coloured picture. The picture you did in your excellent tutorial is not for me, but hey, I am the last person who complains about it, because I just started teaching at the local college "creative Craft in Digital Imaging" and yes, that is the sort of stuff I teach. So again: What I like to see in ThnkCamera is a bit less of Digital Imaging and a bit more of Digital Photography! If you think that is a limited view and of little tolerance than I like to know why?
You obviously feel this with a passion But it was Mike Lowe who asked the question and I am sure he is taking note of what you have said and your feelings towards your statement
Dear Mike Lowe
I also hope that my feelings towards your question has also some weight in your eyes and is worthy of your consideration? It is obvious that there are many who would love to learn all there is to be learned about photography which to me includes the technical side as well as everything that goes with photography in a modern sense. To me, you can't be in control of your photographs unless you understand how a camera works and what all the controls and settings are for in a camera. But what then? All those photographs, are they going to be left on the computer or in a shoe box? What can be done with pictures that we take to make them something special that would look good hanging on a wall or as a gift to friends or relatives? It is just another way to get pleasure out of what we take isn't it? Dear Mike, seeing you have asked the question, this is really to you and if others hate what I am saying? I feel the complaint should go to you and not to those who respond to your question, other wise this will end up very much one sided until one argument gets completely slapped down? You are the editor are you not?
I feel also that it would be very nice for everyone to show a little more respect towards a wider audience so that no one should have to feel intimidated, because of strong opinions?
I am always learning and enjoy learning all there is to learn about photography? And if there is something that I like, I would love to learn how the image was produced, whether through the camera or the computer?
Right, first of all and in line with the theme of this thread "What would you like from ThinkCamera?", I would like that front page sorted out.
I mean just look at the top four "Highlights" - one of which directs you to - "POTY - People - Voting now open". HELLO!!!!!!!! Voting has not only closed, but the winner has (hopefully) had his prize by now, how out of date do you want your news?
Of course, no.2 slot in the "News" sections tells us there is a winner so why is the highlight still active?
There doesn't seem to be any rotation of articles (not that there are many articles, but that's up to you lazy schleppers - come on!) New articles don't appear in the list sometimes, is TC forever on the back burner as regards updates?
No onto the points just made. Personally, I am sick to the back teeth now of seeing HDR pictures, sorry Syl. Every one looks the bloomin' same heavy over burdened skies and rocks that look like they'll jump out of the picture and hit your head.
Wanting a bit more information on the latest DSLRs I unfortunately bought 3 magazines, 2 Digital Photo and a Digital Camera. I shall not be buying any more! They're full of the same and though I will admit that taken singularly, each can look quite stunning, after the tenth it's a bit like "Click, click, I can do that too." I have always said that the credit for this work does not lie (IMO) with the photographer, but with the team of people at Adobe (or wherever) who cleverly coded the software in Basic or ML to do the job when the user presses the mouse button.
Some examples I have seen have been performed on pictures that quite frankly are the pits and wouldn't get a look in normally, but because the sky is a heavy brown some geek thinks it's great. Well I'm sorry, but there is an old saying "You can't polish a t*rd." (not an expression I would normally use, but you can blame my friend Rory Bremner for that, fits rather well though.) It's new and shortly will have had it's day and then the clean unadorned pictures will start to please once again.
So long as they're not all full of misty water shot with very slow shutter speeds, that's another fad that keeps coming in and going out. A bit like the hideous use of IR (sorry Harry, I know you're getting into it), who always wanst their grass to look like it's just snowed for heaven's sake? Wait untill it's winter and hope we get some snow or go to bloomin' Lapland, at least you can enjoy their cutural dancing as well.
All these fads have their day and it will be the same with HDR, but please don't take offence Sylvia (and everyone else), just take more naturally beautiful pictures that are simply "tweeked" a little.
And whilst we're at it (back to thread) for goodness sakes can we allow only one thread per blooming picture? I am sick to death now of someone starting a thread with the comment "Lovely shot." and a reply from the taker saying "Thank you, your comments mean so much." And that's all there is to the thread.
It sounds all so schmoozy and patronising. I am really looking forward to reading one like "What an absolute disaster! You should have done us all a favour and left the bloody lens cap on rather than have us look at that. It would help if you poked the lens in the right direction for a change and kept the bloody camera straight and still. I'd have you put into rehab for alcoholism with shakes like that."
Now that would be funny! Come to think of it, I've had worse than that myself from that Harry Jones!
Got that wrong Syl, Alan Sircom is the Editor. Hahaha!
Pandering to Mike is a waste as well, he's off to pastures new soon.
Dear Mike,
How about handing out all that expensive camera equipment you've been sent to "Evaluate" eh? I bet your shed's full of Nikons and Canons and lenses galore. Come on, tell us where you live and we can help ourselves.
all said in jest of course.
On a slightly more serious note, Syl has just said "no one should have to feel intimidated,"
Now I get the impression, and I may be wrong, that seeing too many photos that have been doctored so much that those are the accepted standard is what will make newcomers feel a little intimidated. They are probably only now learning how to press the shutter release button and have still to learn of ISO, speeds, the affects of aperture, depth of field, and a hundred and one other things. Long before they can even think of digesting stuff about HDR.
I'm one of them that feels intimidated by HDR and I've been taking photos for .... well, a bloomin' long time!
Lol, that may be so Woody about the Editor business? But when we go back to the beginning of this forum, it was Mike the production editor who has posed this question? As for anything else? It is to whom it does concerns I imagine?
"Additionally, he suggested combining two negatives to properly expose the sky and then the landscape or building, an idea known as combination printing which began being used in the 1850s."
Well just to add to Woodys points about front page etc my recent newsletters 2/5/08 have said
<a href="http://www.thinkcamera.com/news/article/mps/uan/735/v/1/?source=weeklyemail&attr=highlight2pic" title="http://www.thinkcamera.com/news/article/mps/uan/735/v/1/?source=weeklyemail&attr=highlight2pic"><img title="http://www.thinkcamera.com/news/article/mps/uan/735/v/1/?source=weeklyemail&attr=highlight2pic" src="http://www.thinkcamera.com/news/images/CS3.jpg" width="60" height="60" /></a> <a href="http://www.thinkcamera.com/news/article/mps/uan/735/v/1/?source=weeklyemail&attr=highlight2" title="http://www.thinkcamera.com/news/article/mps/uan/735/v/1/?source=weeklyemail&attr=highlight2">Adobe Photoshop: The Complete Guide: Part 5b</a> Healing Brush, Patch or Clone Stamp Tool? <a href="http://www.thinkcamera.com/news/article/mps/uan/720/v/1/?source=weeklyemail&attr=highlight3pic" title="http://www.thinkcamera.com/news/article/mps/uan/720/v/1/?source=weeklyemail&attr=highlight3pic"><img title="http://www.thinkcamera.com/news/article/mps/uan/720/v/1/?source=weeklyemail&attr=highlight3pic" src="http://www.thinkcamera.com/news/images/TC-clive-TH.jpg" width="60" height="60" /></a> <a href="http://www.thinkcamera.com/news/article/mps/uan/720/v/1/?source=weeklyemail&attr=highlight3" title="http://www.thinkcamera.com/news/article/mps/uan/720/v/1/?source=weeklyemail&attr=highlight3">Landscape Photography</a> ThinkCamera member Jeff Woodhouse walks us through his way of taking a landscape photograph...
Well I can only find up to section 3 of Woody's Landscape photography from a few weeks ago, so has it been put into invisible print. Coz the Adobe Photoshop is there as large as life.
