# Sand bars, tidal slants, and fuzzy clouds



## rob91 (Dec 13, 2007)




----------



## Sideburns (Dec 13, 2007)

huh?  All I See is an unfocused, high ISO image...


----------



## C.Lloyd (Dec 14, 2007)

Fuzzy* Sand bars, *fuzzy* tidal slants, and fuzzy clouds.*

Fixed!


----------



## Android (Dec 14, 2007)

You all forgot to mention that it's not straight! That makes all the difference...otherwise it would have just been an 'average' shot.
We should all try taking photos that ignore the rules of composition, framing, focus etc...ITS NOT EASY!


----------



## C.Lloyd (Dec 14, 2007)

Android said:


> *You all forgot to mention that it's not straight!* That makes all the difference...otherwise it would have just been an 'average' shot.
> We should all try taking photos that ignore the rules of composition, framing, focus etc...ITS NOT EASY!


 
I think that's what he meant by tidal _slant_. Come on people... keep up!!


----------



## Android (Dec 14, 2007)

oh! sorry. I thought he meant the tide was coming in at an angle/slant....I see what you mean now


----------



## C.Lloyd (Dec 14, 2007)

Android said:


> oh! sorry. I thought he meant the tide was coming in at an angle/slant....I see what you mean now


 

Well, now that you mention it, I guess he may have....

I don't like it as much as "green on rye", however.


----------



## Android (Dec 14, 2007)

I didn't know what to say about 'Green on Rye'....so I said nothing
I know that I don't know anything, as the title had me confused!


----------



## jstuedle (Dec 14, 2007)

Is that a beached whale in the fore-center? (at first I mis-took it for my mother-in-law sunbathing. the OOF thing I considered an act of random kindness on Rob's part)


----------



## Heck (Dec 14, 2007)

I see no value in a photo thats out of focus and dark and full of noise. You manage to dress it well with good titles but thats about it.


----------



## JESWAW (Dec 14, 2007)

hurts my eyes, lol


----------



## C.Lloyd (Dec 14, 2007)

I find it amusing that when people like a shot, thay say "nice shot! Like it a lot". But then Rob91 posts some blurry photo that they don't know what for, and let out a 4 or 5 line rant about why it shouldn't be posted and how bad it sucks and rattle through all the technical problems ad nauseum....

Yes, I'm easily amused. That's why I keep coming back. 

Keep on posting Rob91!!


----------



## Mr. Lou Garou (Jan 12, 2008)

I'm new to rob91's work, just discovering it, actually. I don't understand the criticism I'm finding. To all those who want rob91 to make his horizons rectilinear, and the photograph in sharper focus, I think you're mistaking a "photograph" with a "picture post card." Would you have told Picasso that a subject should not have had two eyes on one side of the nose? or have told Gaugin that South Sea natives should not have had blue skin? A photograph may need to distort the normally accepted parameters if, more than conveying the facts of a scene, it wishes to convey the essences.


----------



## Arch (Jan 13, 2008)

Mr. Lou Garou said:


> Would you have told Picasso that a subject should not have had two eyes on one side of the nose?



Im glad someone mentioned Picasso as there is something to be learned here. Im not against what rob does, However people calling this amazing creative work are massively deluded. If you had been to art school or self taught art history you would know why. 
Why?... because Picasso along with many artists like him could actually draw and paint VERY accurately. He was already established as a great painter and drawer, who could paint a figure with perfect proportions. He the CHOSE to develope the cubism movement, therefore giving his work a thought provoking twist.

Iv said this to rob before and he refused to answer me...  why is he choosing to take all his shots out of focus, what is he trying to achieve?
Looking into his past posts i find nothing but out of focus shots which says to me that he cannot use basic photography methods and techniques and has little understanding of them. Therefore i find his photos uninspired and based on nothing.
You must first learn to understand the camera before taking your ideas to another level.
Just an honest opinion.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 13, 2008)

Archangel said:


> Looking into his past posts i find nothing but out of focus shots which says to me that he cannot use basic photography methods and techniques and has little understanding of them.


I don't think it would be possible to consistently do what Rob does on accident.  I'm sure that he knows _how_ to use auto focus, he just chooses not to, lol.  Why, I'm not sure I'll understand unless he'd care to enlighten us.  I just find it very hard to believe that he doesn't know what all those buttons on his camera do.

Most of his work doesn't do anything for me (this one, for example), but I honestly do like a few of them ("Almost Hollywood" and "Look", to name two).

Sometimes I wonder how many of the people saying how much they like it honestly do like it, or if they're just messing with him.  I personally would not say I liked it unless I really did (but at the same time I can see why some people might think it would be fun to play with him).  If I didn't like it I probably wouldn't even comment at all.


----------



## rob91 (Jan 13, 2008)

Archangel said:


> Im glad someone mentioned Picasso as there is something to be learned here. Im not against what rob does, However people calling this amazing creative work are massively deluded. If you had been to art school or self taught art history you would know why.
> Why?... because Picasso along with many artists like him could actually draw and paint VERY accurately. He was already established as a great painter and drawer, who could paint a figure with perfect proportions. He the CHOSE to develope the cubism movement, therefore giving his work a thought provoking twist.
> 
> Iv said this to rob before and he refused to answer me...  why is he choosing to take all his shots out of focus, what is he trying to achieve?
> ...



I'm not sure what your point is. I've posted a few shots that are in focus, so yeah, I am able to focus a camera. Regardless, I would still ask you to look at this photo on it's own. If you think the quality of this shot, or any shot I post, is based off a previous history of formalist photography then I think your criticisms are way off base.


----------



## rob91 (Jan 13, 2008)

Mr. Lou Garou said:


> I'm new to rob91's work, just discovering it, actually. I don't understand the criticism I'm finding. To all those who want rob91 to make his horizons rectilinear, and the photograph in sharper focus, I think you're mistaking a "photograph" with a "picture post card." Would you have told Picasso that a subject should not have had two eyes on one side of the nose? or have told Gaugin that South Sea natives should not have had blue skin? A photograph may need to distort the normally accepted parameters if, more than conveying the facts of a scene, it wishes to convey the essences.



Damn dude, where have you been all my life :thumbsup:



O|||||||O said:


> I don't think it would be possible to consistently do what Rob does on accident.  I'm sure that he knows _how_ to use auto focus, he just chooses not to, lol.  Why, I'm not sure I'll understand unless he'd care to enlighten us.  I just find it very hard to believe that he doesn't know what all those buttons on his camera do.
> 
> Most of his work doesn't do anything for me (this one, for example), but I honestly do like a few of them ("Almost Hollywood" and "Look", to name two).
> 
> Sometimes I wonder how many of the people saying how much they like it honestly do like it, or if they're just messing with him.  I personally would not say I liked it unless I really did (but at the same time I can see why some people might think it would be fun to play with him).  If I didn't like it I probably wouldn't even comment at all.



Thanks, Almost Hollywood and Look are two of my favorites as well.


----------



## c_armsworthy (Jan 13, 2008)

I can see leaving a photo out of focus to achieve some desired expected end, either as a telling point about something in today's culture, or as an artistic tool; likewise with the underexposure. But if that was the intent here, I think I missed what you were going for.

I don't necessarily think that diamond-sharp focus is mandatory for a great photo, but I think if they photo is out of focus, then there has to be something else in it which forgives or is accented by the lack of focus - an interesting subject or angle or effect.

A beach shot is pretty standard, so I have to admit, I don't know what you were trying to achieve.


----------



## Mr. Lou Garou (Jan 13, 2008)

> A beach shot is pretty standard, so I have to admit, I don't know what you were trying to achieve.



Well, there you have it. A beach shot ~is~ pretty standard, and with this photograph, rob91 gives you a picture of a beach in a way that causes you to see the piling clouds, the ocean, the waves, the strand, in a new manner. The photograph also causes the viewer to be mindful of all the other, more pedestrian, beach shots he has ever seen, by comparing this photograph to them mentally. That is quite a lot to achieve with a picture!


----------



## c_armsworthy (Jan 13, 2008)

OK, but what makes this shot DIFFERENT from thousands of bad tourist shots of a beach which fill dozens of vacation photo albums? How has be done something which no one else could do?


----------



## Roger (Jan 13, 2008)

I have said this in other posts about Rob's work, ignore it and it'll go away!


----------



## Arch (Jan 13, 2008)

rob91 said:


> I'm not sure what your point is. I've posted a few shots that are in focus, so yeah, I am able to focus a camera. Regardless, I would still ask you to look at this photo on it's own. If you think the quality of this shot, or any shot I post, is based off a previous history of formalist photography then I think your criticisms are way off base.



you mis-understand me. Im not sure how to explain any better then i did... i suppose a simple phrase i could use is learn to walk before you run... and im not just refering to the shot being out of focus.


----------



## rob91 (Jan 13, 2008)

Archangel said:


> you mis-understand me. Im not sure how to explain any better then i did... i suppose a simple phrase i could use is learn to walk before you run... and im not just refering to the shot being out of focus.



No, I didn't misunderstand you. In your first post you stated I failed to understand basic photographic technique because my shots were out of focus. You may have other criticisms but that is the only one you mentioned.

You then go on to say that because my shots are out of focus they are "uninspired" and "based on nothing", and also claim I don't know how to operate a camera - how on earth can you know any of this? You certainly have not seen every shot I have ever taken. I will iterate it again because I think it is important: if you truly believe that a history of formalist photography, from me, would make my current photographs any more worthwhile than your criticisms are way off base. Stick with the photo and judge it for what it is, and what the hell, maybe try offering up some criticism more substantive than "oh man, it's totally out of focus."


----------



## NikonLady52 (Jan 13, 2008)

rob91 said:


> No, I didn't misunderstand you. In your first post you stated I failed to understand basic photographic technique because my shots were out of focus. You may have other criticisms but that is the only one you mentioned.
> 
> You then go on to say that because my shots are out of focus they are "uninspired" and "based on nothing", and also claim I don't know how to operate a camera - how on earth can you know any of this? You certainly have not seen every shot I have ever taken. I will iterate it again because I think it is important: if you truly believe that a history of formalist photography, from me, would make my current photographs any more worthwhile than your criticisms are way off base. Stick with the photo and judge it for what it is, and what the hell, maybe try offering up some criticism more substantive than "oh man, it's totally out of focus."



Would you be so kind, Rob as to post some examples of your " in focus work"?  I think that may settle this difference of opinion.   It's ok if you want to be a bit creative but, it should be only a part of what you do.  No harm in trying everything you can, as it can only be a good thing.

  Now for the other thing I am seeing here. If you have posted an image for critique,  knowing there will be positive and negative feedback, you have to be prepared to take the good with the bad, otherwise you never grow in your experience level.  There will always be suggestions as to how you can make an image better and taking it as a negative instead of positive criticism is not why we are here.  It's like anything in life,  once you begin exhibiting your repetitive side (in this case the same kind of work over and over) people will either: 1) Tire of it very easily or 2)  Become  negative/critical of what you do. 3) love what you do and praise your work.  How you respond will be the overwhelming impression that is left behind.  You surely must realize that not everyone will share your enthusiasm for your creative side?  That is ok because everyone knows what he/she likes and if it doesn't fit in with  the posters' opinion, it isn't a personal dig at that person.  In the end it is what you feel about what you do.  No one says you have to agree with their assessment.  We are just your sounding board and what you decide to do with our suggestions is up to you.  So take everything your read here with a grain of salt or use it to expand your horizons.

Please understand what I am saying isn't a personal gripe at you, but an observance, that I have seen time again in this and other forums and I guess I needed to voice my opinion.  This one was just the icing on the cake , so to speak.  My understanding of critique is to give/receive a critique (good or bad) and then gauge for myself those suggestions and then use them to make me a better artist going forward.


----------



## rob91 (Jan 13, 2008)

NikonLady52 said:


> Would you be so kind, Rob as to post some examples of your " in focus work"?  I think that may settle this difference of opinion.   It's ok if you want to be a bit creative but, it should be only a part of what you do.  No harm in trying everything you can, as it can only be a good thing.
> 
> Now for the other thing I am seeing here. If you have posted an image for critique,  knowing there will be positive and negative feedback, you have to be prepared to take the good with the bad, otherwise you never grow in your experience level.  There will always be suggestions as to how you can make an image better and taking it as a negative instead of positive criticism is not why we are here.  It's like anything in life,  once you begin exhibiting your repetitive side (in this case the same kind of work over and over) people will either: 1) Tire of it very easily or 2)  Become  negative/critical of what you do. 3) love what you do and praise your work.  How you respond will be the overwhelming impression that is left behind.  You surely must realize that not everyone will share your enthusiasm for your creative side?  That is ok because everyone knows what he/she likes and if it doesn't fit in with  the posters' opinion, it isn't a personal dig at that person.  In the end it is what you feel about what you do.  No one says you have to agree with their assessment.  We are just your sounding board and what you decide to do with our suggestions is up to you.  So take everything your read here with a grain of salt or use it to expand your horizons.
> 
> Please understand what I am saying isn't a personal gripe at you, but an observance, that I have seen time again in this and other forums and I guess I needed to voice my opinion.  This one was just the icing on the cake , so to speak.  My understanding of critique is to give/receive a critique (good or bad) and then gauge for myself those suggestions and then use them to make me a better artist going forward.



You can find some of my in focus work by looking through my post history, I know there are a couple I posted on the People and Pets forum.

I receive negative criticism nearly every post I make, I am used to it. Everyone here is entitled to an opinion of course and for the most part I let it be - I would rather receive negative feedback than none at all. From time to time, however, I will take objection to certain criticisms, the "out of focus = bad" argument in particular as it is utterly ridiculous. In this case I also took special exception to Archangel's comments because not only did he berate my work with those baseless comments but also anyone else who found value in it.


----------



## Arch (Jan 14, 2008)

rob91 said:


> maybe try offering up some criticism more substantive than "oh man, it's totally out of focus."



i dont speak like that, nor would i ever give someone such useless feedback.



rob91 said:


> In this case I also took special exception to Archangel's comments because not only did he berate my work with those baseless comments but also anyone else who found value in it.



ok maybe i could have worded it better... (although i did say in my second post) its not just the focus im talking about. The above picture doesnt work for me in many levels, i cant find any asthetic value, shape or form, colour, contrast etc etc... this is what i meant by learning and using these skills. My comments are certainly not baseless... i have seen your post history, why do you think i brought it up in the fist place.

Rob, i have told you before what my main criticism is but you ignored me. That was when people wanted to know more about YOUR thoughts behind this shooting style but you refused to comment. This, coupled with the lack of skills in your previous posts, to me, devalues the work as it has no context and they certainly dont work as stand alone images. I could just as easily put my camera out the window now without looking at any of the settings then post results here... 

This is all just my opinion tho, it doesn't hold any more wieght just because im a moderator, if you disagree with everything i say then thats fine. When i first saw your posts i had to say something in case you were deliberatly posting these images and refusing to say anything just to get people to argue (and is why im reluctant to keep bumping this) but if its something you wish to continue then thats ok. My only advise is to at least learn about shape and form as i think thats what would benefit your 'random style' the most.


----------



## Rabieshund (Jan 14, 2008)

I agree with Archangel...

And I did look up your older threads with your focused pictures. They were pretty much out of focus too. I think you really should listen to Archangel. Learn to take decent pictures before you try to take it to this level, for at least I can't take you seriously...


----------



## Mesoam (Jan 14, 2008)

i look at the photo and think to myself...i just got up and can't see anything...but realize i haven't just got up...its nearly 9:00am....


----------



## rob91 (Jan 14, 2008)

Archangel said:


> i dont speak like that, nor would i ever give someone such useless feedback.



You sure about that? Because your argument has revolved almost solely around the fact that my shots are out of focus, yet you spectacularly manage to avoid any criticism that may be helpful and instead throw a handful of tired cliches at me. I know you don't speak like that as well, I was making light of how I feel about your criticism.




Archangel said:


> ok maybe i could have worded it better... (although i did say in my second post) its not just the focus im talking about. The above picture doesnt work for me in many levels, i cant find any asthetic value, shape or form, colour, contrast etc etc... this is what i meant by learning and using these skills. My comments are certainly not baseless... i have seen your post history, why do you think i brought it up in the fist place.
> 
> Rob, i have told you before what my main criticism is but you ignored me. That was when people wanted to know more about YOUR thoughts behind this shooting style but you refused to comment. This, coupled with the lack of skills in your previous posts, to me, devalues the work as it has no context and they certainly dont work as stand alone images. I could just as easily put my camera out the window now without looking at any of the settings then post results here...
> 
> This is all just my opinion tho, it doesn't hold any more wieght just because im a moderator, if you disagree with everything i say then thats fine. When i first saw your posts i had to say something in case you were deliberatly posting these images and refusing to say anything just to get people to argue (and is why im reluctant to keep bumping this) but if its something you wish to continue then thats ok. My only advise is to at least learn about shape and form as i think thats what would benefit your 'random style' the most.





I see now you've rattled off a few photo buzz words, light, composition, etc...I understand it's totally subjective, I happen to disagree with you, I was just hoping you might offer up some criticism slightly more substantive. Those words are useless to me if you cannot at least go into the "why's".

What was your main criticism again, I'm not sure I remember it? Was it the fact that I'm not explaining my work?

And just so we're clear I know I have plenty to learn.


----------



## Arch (Jan 14, 2008)

Rob do not make personal attacks. I was quite clear with what i think you could do to improve your shooting, if you dont want to do that then fine. You keep insisting that i am repeating the 'out the focus arguement' i think you are the one who is hung up on this idea... read my posts again... i mentioned it in the first then not in any other. You are clearly very defensive about it.




rob91 said:


> I see now you've rattled off a few photo buzz words, light, composition, etc...I understand it's totally subjective, I happen to disagree with you, I was just hoping you might offer up some criticism slightly more substantive. Those words are useless to me if you cannot at least go into the "why's".



Buzz words??.... are you suggesting i dont know what they mean? And as for the whys... it took me 5 years of art college and several years more for me to understand some artistic concepts.. so no i cant explaine that to you now in a few sentances... i was recomending to you that you go and learn for yourself.


----------



## rob91 (Jan 14, 2008)

Archangel said:


> Rob do not make personal attacks. I was quite clear with what i think you could do to improve your shooting, if you dont want to do that then fine. You keep insisting that i am repeating the 'out the focus arguement' i think you are the one who is hung up on this idea... read my posts again... i mentioned it in the first then not in any other. You are clearly very defensive about it.




I am going back to the out of focus argument because that is where this began, yet in our discussion everytime I have brought it up you just brush it off.



Archangel said:


> Buzz words??.... are you suggesting i dont know what they mean? And as for the whys... it took me 5 years of art college and several years more for me to understand some artistic concepts.. so no i cant explaine that to you now in a few sentances... i was recomending to you that you go and learn for yourself.



No, I'm suggesting you haven't given them a context relevant to my photography.


----------



## c_armsworthy (Jan 14, 2008)

> I see now you've rattled off a few photo buzz words, light, composition, etc...I understand it's totally subjective, I happen to disagree with you, I was just hoping you might offer up some criticism slightly more substantive. Those words are useless to me if you cannot at least go into the "why's".



Actually, rob, you aren't responding to "serious" criticisms - for instance, I acknowledge that focus is not the be all end all of a photo, but asked you what made this shot different from hundreds of bad tourist shots in dozens of vacation albums? Archangel asked you for your thoughts on this shooting style, which you didn't comment on. 

If you cannot respond to the questions being asked, and respond intelligently, giving reasons for why you made the choices you made, then you don't have a piece of creative work. You have a bad photo you're trying to pass of as art.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I've spent years trying to learn what I do, and I would never presume that I still know everything. And when I break the rules of composition on purpose, I have a reason for doing so, and my photo makes that clear.


----------



## rob91 (Jan 14, 2008)

c_armsworthy said:


> Actually, rob, you aren't responding to "serious" criticisms - for instance, I acknowledge that focus is not the be all end all of a photo, but asked you what made this shot different from hundreds of bad tourist shots in dozens of vacation albums? Archangel asked you for your thoughts on this shooting style, which you didn't comment on.
> 
> If you cannot respond to the questions being asked, and respond intelligently, giving reasons for why you made the choices you made, then you don't have a piece of creative work. You have a bad photo you're trying to pass of as art.
> 
> Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I've spent years trying to learn what I do, and I would never presume that I still know everything. And when I break the rules of composition on purpose, I have a reason for doing so, and my photo makes that clear.



I never said this shot is any different, better, or worse than a tourist shot in a bad vacation album.


----------



## rob91 (Jan 14, 2008)

Rabieshund said:


> I agree with Archangel...
> 
> And I did look up your older threads with your focused pictures. They were pretty much out of focus too. I think you really should listen to Archangel. Learn to take decent pictures before you try to take it to this level, for at least I can't take you seriously...



For kicks...

http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=99417
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102188
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=100823
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=106203 #2


----------



## Ronman (Jan 14, 2008)

Rob, as I continue look at this, the obscurity of your statement persists.  However, the questions it poses continue to mount??? ron


----------



## rob91 (Jan 14, 2008)

Ronman said:


> Rob, as I continue look at this, the obscurity of your statement persists.  However, the questions it poses continue to mount??? ron



Smoke more weed Ron and I promise it will come into focus.


----------



## Mesoam (Jan 14, 2008)




----------



## Ronman (Jan 14, 2008)

Awe-man,  you mean that wasn't the right answer?


----------



## rob91 (Jan 14, 2008)

Ronman said:


> Awe-man,  you mean that wasn't the right answer?



Uhhh uhhhh :meh:


----------



## Ronman (Jan 14, 2008)

Well, I'm retired, I have plenty of time.


----------



## Rabieshund (Jan 14, 2008)

rob91 said:


> For kicks...
> 
> http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=99417
> http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102188
> ...



Well.. Congratulations, some of those shots was actually focused correctly. But instead you underexposed them. The first bird photo I do like because it has some composition and nice contrasts. Your other shots don't have this.. There is so much basic stuff for you to learn and control. Why do you ignore all the basics and go directly to developing a style? Seems stupid to me. I mean, by looking at your "normal" photos I can easily see that you don't know sh1t about photography. Not trying to be rude but if you don't know what you're doing then why the hell do you try to take it to the next level already?! It's like writing avant-garde music just because you can't write "real" music...


----------



## Arch (Jan 14, 2008)

rob91 said:


> No, I'm suggesting you haven't given them a context relevant to my photography.



Now im thinking you are a troll... you are just trying to continue the arguement. You want me to give you the context in which i stated i dont find this image to have aesthetic value, shape or form, colour, contrast?

ok, here it is then for you seeing as tho i suggested you find out more but you want me to spell it out for you.

aesthetic value - the image is dull, colourless, vague and overall holds no aesthetic values. It is certainly not being displayed for how pretty it is.

shape or form - The image has no defined shape or form and is not abstract enough to hold these values in thier own right.

colour - The image doesn't convay a strong or decisive colour range, Its washed out in a way which seems unintentional.

contrast - The image has no contrast. There is also no display of trying to interpret contrast in an artistic way by juxtaposing light and dark shapes, or in giving depth to the image.

So there you have it... i was suggesting to you that you would already know what my criticisms mean having advanced yourself into the artworld already, but i spelled it out for you anyway.

Rabieshund is absolutly right, you can only make progress in the artworld or the world of creative photography if you at least try and begin to understand the art form which your trying to progress in. Ignorance of this will get you no where fast.


----------



## Hill202 (Jan 14, 2008)

Archangel said:


> Now im thinking you are a troll...
> .


 
Ding,Ding,Ding... we have a winner!!


----------



## rob91 (Jan 14, 2008)

Archangel said:


> Now im thinking you are a troll... you are just trying to continue the arguement. You want me to give you the context in which i stated i dont find this image to have aesthetic value, shape or form, colour, contrast?
> 
> ok, here it is then for you seeing as tho i suggested you find out more but you want me to spell it out for you.
> 
> ...



That's not what I meant. I didn't need for you to define those words for me, as I hope you know that's not what criticism actually is. If you want to be helpful to me, or instead simply criticize this as the poor shot you believe it to be, then I suggest you try thinking about how those ideas relate to the photo. Anyone can rattle off a list of terms like you just have, it's when you actually connect them to aspects of the work that they take on meaning. By the logic you present a lack of contrast or a "strong or decisive color range" would always be a bad thing, which is something I hope you don't believe. I will iterate what I have already said again: if you don't go into the "why's" then the criticism is useless.


----------



## JDS (Jan 14, 2008)

rob91 said:


> That's not what I meant. I didn't need for you to define those words for me, as I hope you know that's not what criticism actually is. If you want to be helpful to me, or instead simply criticize this as the poor shot you believe it to be, then I suggest you try thinking about how those ideas relate to the photo. Anyone can rattle off a list of terms like you just have, it's when you actually connect them to aspects of the work that they take on meaning. By the logic you present a lack of contrast or a "strong or decisive color range" would always be a bad thing, which is something I hope you don't believe. I will iterate what I have already said again: if you don't go into the "why's" then the criticism is useless.



Wow..I'm curious if you actually read the post.  He didn't exactly define the terms - he connected them precisely to your image.

I'm also curious as to why you don't go into the "why's" yourself.  You've been asked a few times what you're trying to achieve with your photography, and why you shoot the way you do.  In previous threads all you answer is "I'm not going to explain myself."  If people here don't know why you intentionally take an out of focus shot, how can they provide true, honest criticism?

So I'll ask you again here - what are you trying to achieve with this photo, and in a broader sense, with your photographic style?


----------



## rob91 (Jan 14, 2008)

Rabieshund said:


> Well.. Congratulations, some of those shots was actually focused correctly. But instead you underexposed them. The first bird photo I do like because it has some composition and nice contrasts. Your other shots don't have this.. There is so much basic stuff for you to learn and control. Why do you ignore all the basics and go directly to developing a style? Seems stupid to me. I mean, by looking at your "normal" photos I can easily see that you don't know sh1t about photography. Not trying to be rude but if you don't know what you're doing then why the hell do you try to take it to the next level already?! It's like writing avant-garde music just because you can't write "real" music...



You're jumping to conclusions. I never said I was intent on ignoring basic photography. Above I admitted I still had a lot to learn.

And I don't see any problem with doing avant-garde music because you can't do "real" music. In fact, that seems entirely logical.


----------



## Arch (Jan 14, 2008)

rob91 said:


> That's not what I meant. I didn't need for you to define those words for me, as I hope you know that's not what criticism actually is. If you want to be helpful to me, or instead simply criticize this as the poor shot you believe it to be, then I suggest you try thinking about how those ideas relate to the photo.



omg i cant say it any other way!!!... im NOT defining those words that IS the discription of YOUR post!!!11111



rob91 said:


> if you don't go into the "why's" then the criticism is useless.



AGAIN.....



rob91 said:


> aesthetic value - *the image *is dull, colourless, vague and overall holds no aesthetic values. It is certainly not being displayed for how pretty it is.
> 
> shape or form - *The image* has no defined shape or form and is not abstract enough to hold these values in thier own right.......etc etc



only YOU can answer the question why you chose to have flat contrast, colour etc..... i have told you in the above discription WHY i think the image fails.

You are testing my patience, if i have to repeat myself again or you try to force an arguement that doesn't exsist i will presume you are a troll who is just looking for attention.


----------



## rob91 (Jan 14, 2008)

I think you are amiss as to what the concept of art criticism is, and placing "your image" in front of the definition of contrast certainly doesn't not qualify.

But it doesn't matter now. I will let it die out here. I'm sorry this got dragged into such a mess. More than I wanted, just your initial post offended me very much (and I think you know why). Anyways, I will try not to get so caught up in it all next time.

Peace.


----------



## Rabieshund (Jan 14, 2008)

rob91 said:


> I never said I was intent on ignoring basic photography.


No you did not, but since most of your photos look like this...

Many people here dig your pictures and that's cool. But you should take what has been written in this thread as tips even if you feel offended. If you want to improve as a photographer then you won't get anywhere by taking photos like this. It's art to you and to many of the people who have commented but... I have no idea how ambitious you are about your photography, but if you really want to become a good photographer then the only way is the same way as everyone else goes. Or if you just think that normal photography sucks ass or you just want to do your thing or whatever, then that's fine. I guess me and Archangel will just not post much in your threads anymore.

Like you said, peace.


----------



## unnecessary (Jan 14, 2008)

i dont approve.  =\


----------



## c_armsworthy (Jan 15, 2008)

> Many people here dig your pictures and that's cool. But you should take what has been written in this thread as tips even if you feel offended. If you want to improve as a photographer then you won't get anywhere by taking photos like this.



He doesn't want to improve. He wants to take his photos, receive praise form those who like it, and dismiss the rest of us as obviously too plebian and unsophisticated to "get it." Becasue when I look at that photo, all I see is a bad snapshot of a beach.


----------

