Home Products Download Order Contacts

rec.photo.misc

Subject: Re: Opinions of my photo please



Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:47:25 -0800, "Randy Stewart"
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
>>news:ok3nt11o2kk820g8qp0jq87e7po0jidjcv@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 14:51:38 GMT, "aussie bongo"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"John H" wrote in message
>>>>news:3lsmt1to8u69hvnq8nb9r74dp36k6oarfr@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>On 27 Jan 2006 18:03:51 -0800, b.ingraham@shaw.ca wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>My apologies. Even I don't have permission! The correct URL:
>>>>>>http://www.ingraham.ca/bob/bobsinterpretationweb.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bob the Foggy
>>>>>
>>>>>You can't be serious. That picture is horrible.
>>>>>
>>>>>John H
>>>>
>>>>john ,,
>>>>beauty is in the eye of the beholder :)
>>>
>>>If that picture is judged good, then it's more likely that there's a
>>>cinder in the eye of the beholder.
>>>
>>>Tony Cooper
>>>Orlando, FL
>>
>>While I agree that the photo is not a good picture by any conventional
>>standard I would apply, I also think that a reply of "horrible" without
>>further explanation or constructive comment is totally pointless, not
>>warranting any reply at all. Unhappily, many photos, individually or whole
>>galleries, posted in the web evidence a great lack of skill by the poster,
>>who fails to recognize their considerable shortcomings, and most replies are
>>the slap in the face evidenced here.
>>
>>So "John H", let's hear why you think this photo is "horrible" and what you
>>would have done to correct or avoid its problems. OR, let's not hear from
>>you at all in the future.
>>
>
> You've asked John H, not me, but since my Photoshopped credentials are
> at hand I'll comment. I don't see this as "horrible". It's just
> lacking. It's one of those photographs of a scene that seemed like a
> good idea when shot, but just doesn't come out as expected.
>
> I've taken one or two of those. One or two thousand, that is.
>
> It's not so much a matter of what was done wrong that needs
> correcting, but just a matter of the whole not being better than the
> sum of the parts. You've got the sky, you've got the profiles, you've
> got that little edge to the horizon, and you've got the water. They
> just don't add up to anything with impact.
>
> A good photographer sees a scene that, in his mind's eye, is a good
> photograph. He does everything right with the settings, and he crops
> and prints. If the resulting photograph misses, it's not necessarily
> a result of problems or lack of skill. Some photographs just don't
> grab the viewer.
>
> This is one that doesn't grab mine.

Very well said, Tony. I've got several gigs of digital shots exactly
like you describe... and several boxes of old prints suffering from the
same phenomenon.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0604-4, 01/27/2006
Tested on: 1/28/2006 12:30:49 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com




Reply


View All Messages in rec.photo.misc

path:
Opinions of my photo please =>Re: Opinions of my photo please =>Re: Opinions of my photo please =>Re: Opinions of my photo please =>Re: Opinions of my photo please =>Re: Opinions of my photo please =>Re: Opinions of my photo please =>Re: Opinions of my photo please =>Re: Opinions of my photo please =>Re: Opinions of my photo please =>

Replies:

Copyright 2006 WatermarkFactory.com. All Rights Reserved.