California Poppy Reserve
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Poor Sony. Mini review versus full reviews for warmed over Canon and Nikon APS cameras
Next: Pornography: The secret history of civilization
From: Twibil on 27 Apr 2010 16:05 On Apr 27, 9:22 am, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u....(a)la.poste.net> wrote: > > > > 1. You don't count very well, and therefore lack a sense of > > proportion. There are several million flowers but only one bike in the > > field of view. A singular motorcycle is hardly impressive, but a poppy > > bloom extending to the horizon *is*; motorcycle or no. > > It's a picture of your bike because it's smack in the middle and in > focus in the first, and in focus, even bigger, and, by sheer luck, on > one of the rule of thirds points, in the second. Sorry, but the unique parts of pictures such as this -if any- are what draw the observer's eye, and there's a time-honored art technique which uses this fact for effect by placing a prosaic object at the center of focus and surrounding it with something utterly different by contrast. If you choose not to use this technique in your own work that's fine: you obviously haven't been aware of it until now anyhow, and since they're *your* pictures they should express whatever *you* want to see. My opinion doesn't come into it at all; and criticising you because you don't take the same pictures I would have taken under the same circumstances would be stupid and self-centered. It would mean that I thought *my* opinions of your work were more important than *yours*. As I pointed out above, (and you carefully ignored) motorcycles are a dime a dozen practically anywhere you can name, while multi-million flower poppy blooms are rather unusual to say the least, and the reactions I've had to the pics so far have mostly gone like this: "WOW! Those flowers are *AMAZING*! Where was that?........... Oh, is that your bike?" Of course these people are just normal every-day citizens who take photographs at face value: not self-appointed art critics whose first instinct is always to respond with "You should have done it the way *I* would have done it!" Lastly: had you actually been interested in making a useful comment on the composition of the photos you'd have done so by beginning with positives and politely working in suggestions for whatever you'd see as technical improvements later on in the post. That's just basic good manners and simple logic. But instead you began your post with "These aren't a picture of flowers but pictures of your bike.": an insult that intentionally ensured a negative response. Since such a beginning is an iron-clad guarantee that your advise will be give short-shrift, it's fair to assume that being helpful was not your intent: you were simply being arrogant and saying "Look at me! I'm so cool and you're not!" So if this sort of response comes as an unpleasant surprise to you, and you don't like it, I suggest you examine your own manners and motivations before repeating the same mistakes.
From: Ofnuts on 27 Apr 2010 17:11 On 27/04/2010 22:05, Twibil wrote: > On Apr 27, 9:22 am, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u....(a)la.poste.net> wrote: >> >> >>> 1. You don't count very well, and therefore lack a sense of >>> proportion. There are several million flowers but only one bike in the >>> field of view. A singular motorcycle is hardly impressive, but a poppy >>> bloom extending to the horizon *is*; motorcycle or no. >> >> It's a picture of your bike because it's smack in the middle and in >> focus in the first, and in focus, even bigger, and, by sheer luck, on >> one of the rule of thirds points, in the second. > > Sorry, but the unique parts of pictures such as this -if any- are what > draw the observer's eye, and there's a time-honored art technique > which uses this fact for effect by placing a prosaic object at the > center of focus and surrounding it with something utterly different by > contrast. > > If you choose not to use this technique in your own work that's fine: > you obviously haven't been aware of it until now anyhow, and since > they're *your* pictures they should express whatever *you* want to > see. My opinion doesn't come into it at all; and criticising you > because you don't take the same pictures I would have taken under the > same circumstances would be stupid and self-centered. It would mean > that I thought *my* opinions of your work were more important than > *yours*. > > As I pointed out above, (and you carefully ignored) motorcycles are a > dime a dozen practically anywhere you can name, while multi-million > flower poppy blooms are rather unusual to say the least, and the > reactions I've had to the pics so far have mostly gone like this: > "WOW! Those flowers are *AMAZING*! Where was that?........... Oh, is > that your bike?" > Of course these people are just normal every-day citizens who take > photographs at face value: not self-appointed art critics whose first > instinct is always to respond with "You should have done it the way > *I* would have done it!" > > Lastly: had you actually been interested in making a useful comment on > the composition of the photos you'd have done so by beginning with > positives and politely working in suggestions for whatever you'd see > as technical improvements later on in the post. That's just basic good > manners and simple logic. But instead you began your post with "These > aren't a picture of flowers but pictures of your bike.": an insult > that intentionally ensured a negative response. > > Since such a beginning is an iron-clad guarantee that your advise will > be give short-shrift, it's fair to assume that being helpful was not > your intent: you were simply being arrogant and saying "Look at me! > I'm so cool and you're not!" > > So if this sort of response comes as an unpleasant surprise to you, > and you don't like it, I suggest you examine your own manners and > motivations before repeating the same mistakes. > Looks like I have hit a nerve... So, I rephrase my first comment: next time, take out the distracting bike and get closer to the poppys (it will also avoid the unsightly poles in the background). For instance: <http://amolife.com/image/images/stories/Nature/Flowers/poppy_flower_12.jpg> -- Bertrand
From: Charles Chase on 27 Apr 2010 20:15 On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:05:13 -0700 (PDT), Twibil <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Apr 27, 9:22�am, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u....(a)la.poste.net> wrote: >> >> >> > 1. You don't count very well, and therefore lack a sense of >> > proportion. There are several million flowers but only one bike in the >> > field of view. A singular motorcycle is hardly impressive, but a poppy >> > bloom extending to the horizon *is*; motorcycle or no. >> >> It's a picture of your bike because it's smack in the middle and in >> focus in the first, and in focus, even bigger, and, by sheer luck, on >> one of the rule of thirds points, in the second. > >Sorry, but the unique parts of pictures such as this -if any- are what >draw the observer's eye, and there's a time-honored art technique >which uses this fact for effect by placing a prosaic object at the >center of focus and surrounding it with something utterly different by >contrast. > >If you choose not to use this technique in your own work that's fine: >you obviously haven't been aware of it until now anyhow, and since >they're *your* pictures they should express whatever *you* want to >see. My opinion doesn't come into it at all; and criticising you >because you don't take the same pictures I would have taken under the >same circumstances would be stupid and self-centered. It would mean >that I thought *my* opinions of your work were more important than >*yours*. > >As I pointed out above, (and you carefully ignored) motorcycles are a >dime a dozen practically anywhere you can name, while multi-million >flower poppy blooms are rather unusual to say the least, and the >reactions I've had to the pics so far have mostly gone like this: >"WOW! Those flowers are *AMAZING*! Where was that?........... Oh, is >that your bike?" > >Of course these people are just normal every-day citizens who take >photographs at face value: not self-appointed art critics whose first >instinct is always to respond with "You should have done it the way >*I* would have done it!" > >Lastly: had you actually been interested in making a useful comment on >the composition of the photos you'd have done so by beginning with >positives and politely working in suggestions for whatever you'd see >as technical improvements later on in the post. That's just basic good >manners and simple logic. But instead you began your post with "These >aren't a picture of flowers but pictures of your bike.": an insult >that intentionally ensured a negative response. > >Since such a beginning is an iron-clad guarantee that your advise will >be give short-shrift, it's fair to assume that being helpful was not >your intent: you were simply being arrogant and saying "Look at me! >I'm so cool and you're not!" > >So if this sort of response comes as an unpleasant surprise to you, >and you don't like it, I suggest you examine your own manners and >motivations before repeating the same mistakes. They are neither good snapshots of flowers nor of your bike. The clutter with the construction, the lighting, the composition.... They're nothing but crapshots taken by some amateur snapshooter with an Instamatic who couldn't find an image worth capturing if it was staring him in the face (which it was). Get over yourself.
From: tony cooper on 27 Apr 2010 21:02 On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:05:13 -0700 (PDT), Twibil <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Lastly: had you actually been interested in making a useful comment on >the composition of the photos you'd have done so by beginning with >positives and politely working in suggestions for whatever you'd see >as technical improvements later on in the post. That's just basic good >manners and simple logic. That doesn't work with you. I tried. I said it would be a good entry for the SI "wallpaper" theme (compliment) and then worked in the suggestion that the road and motorcycle add nothing to the composition. You had a hissy fit. > But instead you began your post with "These >aren't a picture of flowers but pictures of your bike." An accurate assessment except that what was not stated is that the flowers are incidental background and not in focus. : an insult >that intentionally ensured a negative response. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Val Hallah on 28 Apr 2010 14:39
On Apr 26, 9:53 pm, Twibil <nowayjo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Was riding my bike back home from Tehachapi yesterday afternoon and > almost ran off the road as I crested the saddle leading down into the > Antelope Valley: the entire twenty-some miles of hillside stretching > between Palmdale/Lancaster and Gorman was painted with huge orange > swaths of color. (And this was from 30 miles away, mind you.) > > I'd seen the California Poppy Reserve in bloom before, but this year > the flowers absolutely outdid themselves. > > So I continued due south until I ended up on a tiny winding dirt road > surrounded by several thousand acres of blooming Poppies, and parked > the bike long enough to take a couple of snaps: > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/33885727(a)N03/4553183353/sizes/o/ > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/33885727(a)N03/4553799196/sizes/l/ > > Something that I couldn't photograph but wanted to: a pair of Basset > Hounds who were taking turns chasing each other around through the > flowers at their best speed. > > Why no photos? > > Because when Basset Hounds are running around through fields of > Poppies, all you can see are two madly wagging tails zig-zagging back > and forth among the blooms. > > Short legs. > > ~Pete theres a bike in the way! |