# The Joust! A Gentle Awaits Orders



## DGMPhotography

Deep in thought is he? Or perhaps he is admiring the fair maiden across the way?


----------



## Photographiend

I dunno... Great focus. Caught all the textures of everything very nicely, Shading is also lovely, but there is something about it that I am not loving and I can't figure it out. I think it is the square crop.


----------



## cgipson1

shot of some guys side / back? No interest for the viewer.... meaningless, no matter what title you give it!


----------



## DGMPhotography

cgipson1 said:


> shot of some guys side / back? No interest for the viewer.... meaningless, no matter what title you give it!



My friend, there is no way you can speak on behalf of every possible "viewer." Some people, like me, may find this very thought provoking. To me, Picasso's art holds no interest to me, but that certainly is just an opinion, like yours! And the title was not meant to be creative... it's literally what he was doing, and it was at a joust. Just describing the scene. But thanks for your input!


----------



## DGMPhotography

Photographiend said:


> I dunno... Great focus. Caught all the textures of everything very nicely, Shading is also lovely, but there is something about it that I am not loving and I can't figure it out. I think it is the square crop.



Yeah... maybe. Now that you mention, I don't think I like the square crop too much either..


----------



## charlie76

Well...can't really see any of his eyes, so can't really draw on his emotions. As an artist, it's your prerogative to portray images as you see them...I can dig it. Personally I don't see much of a story in this one, if you could see more of his face...maybe. But I like your use of BandW...exposure ain't bad.


----------



## PhotoWrangler

cgipson1 said:


> shot of some guys side / back? No interest for the viewer.... meaningless, no matter what title you give it!




agreed. although the tones are nice...


----------



## TwoTwoLeft

The problem is, there is nothing in the photo that suggests "jousting" or that he's anticipating anything. Looks like he's just standing there with his arms folded. Your title shouldn't have to explain what's going on in the photo. You get it because you were there. We obviously were not, so look at it from our point of view. 

I do like the B&W conversion. Nice tones and contrast. The only technical issue I have with the photo is that the "crowd" appears to be wearing normal clothes. If you had used a shallower DOF you could have separated you subject from the background. This would still make the the viewer aware of the crowd's presence with out them seeming distracting or out of place. You want to isolate your subject, not divert attention away from it.


----------



## DGMPhotography

Yeah, DOF is still something I'm working on. At the moment, my lens can't really get as low as I'd like. But anyways, I was thinking the guy's body language would convey something.


----------



## Bynx

It looks like a frame from an old movie of the 30s. That is until you look at the crowd and see the modern garb. As others have said there is nothing to indicate what this is about other than what you have told us. His dress and facial hair is interesting and period to the 1800's so from that point of view its interesting. A frame from a movie. But this one frame doesnt tell the story. His body language looks like he could be giving a patriotic speech with his hand on his heart. Or that he is thirsty and his hand is on his throat.


----------



## cgipson1

DGMPhotography said:
			
		

> My friend, there is no way you can speak on behalf of every possible "viewer." Some people, like me, may find this very thought provoking. To me, Picasso's art holds no interest to me, but that certainly is just an opinion, like yours! And the title was not meant to be creative... it's literally what he was doing, and it was at a joust. Just describing the scene. But thanks for your input!



I have just a tiny bit more experience than you do, son! Trust me.... no matter how hard you argue.. I would bin this one!


----------



## DGMPhotography

Bynx said:


> It looks like a frame from an old movie of the 30s. That is until you look at the crowd and see the modern garb. As others have said there is nothing to indicate what this is about other than what you have told us. His dress and facial hair is interesting and period to the 1800's so from that point of view its interesting. A frame from a movie. But this one frame doesnt tell the story. His body language looks like he could be giving a patriotic speech with his hand on his heart. Or that he is thirsty and his hand is on his throat.



I like the frame idea. And yeah, that's actually what I was thinking, the thirsty thing. In a way, he's longing for something.


----------



## SCraig

cgipson1 said:


> I have just a tiny bit more experience than you do, son! Trust me.... no matter how hard you argue.. I would bin this one!



I'm with Charlie.  Had you not said where he was I would have thought he was a streetcar conductor or something.  The hat doesn't look right for the 1600's, the sideburns don't look right for the 1600's, nothing really looks right for the 1600's.  I've been to the renaissance festival here a number of times and I've never seen anyone looking like that.


----------



## amolitor

Charlie's just being a negative Nellie.

The biggest problem I have with this one is that the arms are ambiguous. The big blousy sleeve makes the near arm uncertain (I THINK he has his hand up near his throat?) and there's a weird building over his right right shoulder that makes it look, at first glance, as if he has his right arm up and right hand shading his eyes. Then you realize that it's not an arm, it's the building, and what you think is maybe a hand shading the eyes is some weird thing about his hat.

Tonally, the background is pretty well separated from him, but geometrically it's kind of ambiguous and busy back there. You could try getting better visual separation of the man from the background, but I think we're always going to be a bit confused about what his arms are doing. The posture is quite nice, the textures are great. There's a lot to like here.


----------



## cgipson1

amolitor said:
			
		

> Charlie's just being a negative Nellie.
> 
> The biggest problem I have with this one is that the arms are ambiguous. The big blousy sleeve makes the near arm uncertain (I THINK he has his hand up near his throat?) and there's a weird building over his right right shoulder that makes it look, at first glance, as if he has his right arm up and right hand shading his eyes. Then you realize that it's not an arm, it's the building, and what you think is maybe a hand shading the eyes is some weird thing about his hat.
> 
> Tonally, the background is pretty well separated from him, but geometrically it's kind of ambiguous and busy back there. You could try getting better visual separation of the man from the background, but I think we're always going to be a bit confused about what his arms are doing. The posture is quite nice, the textures are great. There's a lot to like here.



Yea... OR you could just photoshop the hell out of it, and put an actual Joust in the background... then the title would sort of make sense. But IT would be totally fake.. instead of just being a snapshot!


----------



## amolitor

Titles are overrated. I think it's a potentially interesting photo of a dude leaning on a rail. Just some visual chaos that makes it not work for me.


----------



## DGMPhotography

amolitor said:


> Titles are overrated. I think it's a potentially interesting photo of a dude leaning on a rail. Just some visual chaos that makes it not work for me.



Like what?


----------



## Photographiend

I think if you cropped it down to a portrait shot you would remove all the things that pull your eye away from the key feature in the image which is the stunning detail and texture you captured on your subject. You would also loose any hint of the environment but your picture would be more successful.  

I can't say for sure that is what amolitor meant but that is my take on it.


----------



## DGMPhotography

Photographiend said:


> I think if you cropped it down to a portrait shot you would remove all the things that pull your eye away from the key feature in the image which is the stunning detail and texture you captured on your subject. You would also loose any hint of the environment but your picture would be more successful.
> 
> I can't say for sure that is what amolitor meant but that is my take on it.



Thanks! Could you post an edit of what you are thinking?!


----------



## amolitor

I described the visual chaos in an earlier post. There's a building over his right shoulder that is confusingly arm-like.


----------



## Photographiend

I dunno I like this better for texture alone. It does however bring out some curious point on his hat.


----------



## DGMPhotography

Photographiend said:


> I dunno I like this better for texture alone. It does however bring out some curious point on his hat.
> 
> View attachment 18315



Ha yeah, I just noticed that!! What's that pointy thing sticking up!?!


----------



## manaheim

DGMPhotography said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> shot of some guys side / back? No interest for the viewer.... meaningless, no matter what title you give it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My friend, there is no way you can speak on behalf of every possible "viewer." Some people, like me, may find this very thought provoking. To me, Picasso's art holds no interest to me, but that certainly is just an opinion, like yours! And the title was not meant to be creative... it's literally what he was doing, and it was at a joust. Just describing the scene. But thanks for your input!
Click to expand...


How many times can I like Charlie's comments in one thread?

No he certainly cannot speak for every possible viewer, but he most certainly can speak for what generally does and does not work in photography.  

Seriously.  All of Charlies' comments are spot on, and all of OP's comments are what I would categorize as "excuses to muddy the water when shoddy work has been displayed".

Yes, I know that's a bit harsh, but let's cut to the bone here... the photo is meh at best.  There's not NOTHING there, but there's very little.  Without your title and little write-up there is even less... and what title and write-up you have given, is mostly confusing, because nothing about the shot shows anything of what you're talking about.


----------



## DGMPhotography

manaheim said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> shot of some guys side / back? No interest for the viewer.... meaningless, no matter what title you give it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My friend, there is no way you can speak on behalf of every possible "viewer." Some people, like me, may find this very thought provoking. To me, Picasso's art holds no interest to me, but that certainly is just an opinion, like yours! And the title was not meant to be creative... it's literally what he was doing, and it was at a joust. Just describing the scene. But thanks for your input!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times can I like Charlie's comments in one thread?
> 
> No he certainly cannot speak for every possible viewer, but he most certainly can speak for what generally does and does not work in photography.
> 
> Seriously.  All of Charlies' comments are spot on, and all of OP's comments are what I would categorize as "excuses to muddy the water when shoddy work has been displayed".
> 
> Yes, I know that's a bit harsh, but let's cut to the bone here... the photo is meh at best.  There's not NOTHING there, but there's very little.  Without your title and little write-up there is even less... and what title and write-up you have given, is mostly confusing, because nothing about the shot shows anything of what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


Excuses, excuses  I like this shot. And even if you're right, oh well. I did not ask for C&C, and this is not the beginner's forum. I'm just posting my work here as I see it.


----------



## cgipson1

DGMPhotography said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> My friend, there is no way you can speak on behalf of every possible "viewer." Some people, like me, may find this very thought provoking. To me, Picasso's art holds no interest to me, but that certainly is just an opinion, like yours! And the title was not meant to be creative... it's literally what he was doing, and it was at a joust. Just describing the scene. But thanks for your input!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times can I like Charlie's comments in one thread?
> 
> No he certainly cannot speak for every possible viewer, but he most certainly can speak for what generally does and does not work in photography.
> 
> Seriously.  All of Charlies' comments are spot on, and all of OP's comments are what I would categorize as "excuses to muddy the water when shoddy work has been displayed".
> 
> Yes, I know that's a bit harsh, but let's cut to the bone here... the photo is meh at best.  There's not NOTHING there, but there's very little.  Without your title and little write-up there is even less... and what title and write-up you have given, is mostly confusing, because nothing about the shot shows anything of what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses  I like this shot. And even if you're right, oh well. I did not ask for C&C, and this is not the beginner's forum. I'm just posting my work here as I see it.
Click to expand...


You don't have to ask for C&C.. if you post in a regular forum, C&C is allowed. You might try the "Just for fun" forum... C&C is more or less optional there! It is for non-serious work!


----------



## manaheim

DGMPhotography said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> My friend, there is no way you can speak on behalf of every possible "viewer." Some people, like me, may find this very thought provoking. To me, Picasso's art holds no interest to me, but that certainly is just an opinion, like yours! And the title was not meant to be creative... it's literally what he was doing, and it was at a joust. Just describing the scene. But thanks for your input!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times can I like Charlie's comments in one thread?
> 
> No he certainly cannot speak for every possible viewer, but he most certainly can speak for what generally does and does not work in photography.
> 
> Seriously.  All of Charlies' comments are spot on, and all of OP's comments are what I would categorize as "excuses to muddy the water when shoddy work has been displayed".
> 
> Yes, I know that's a bit harsh, but let's cut to the bone here... the photo is meh at best.  There's not NOTHING there, but there's very little.  Without your title and little write-up there is even less... and what title and write-up you have given, is mostly confusing, because nothing about the shot shows anything of what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuses, excuses  I like this shot. And even if you're right, oh well. I did not ask for C&C, and this is not the beginner's forum. I'm just posting my work here as I see it.
Click to expand...


Critique isn't handed out here only in the beginners forum.  It's handed out everywhere except in "Just for Fun".

Posting your work as you see it?  What does that even mean?

Look... if you want to get something from this place, you're going to either need to be waaaaaaaaaaaay more receptive to what folks are saying to you, or just not post any of your images.  I'm not even suggesting you have to agree with what people say, but this defensive posture you're taking isn't going to do you any good and probably earn you a bit of a reputation to boot.

If you don't agree, a simple "Hey, thanks so much for taking the time to comment" acknowledges the poster and neither agrees nor disagrees with them.  It works well.  Honest.  I mean, honestly, I think you should actually take the advice a bit more to heart... but whatever.  Maybe you're the next Ansel Adams and we're all full of ****.


----------



## rexbobcat

DGMPhotography said:
			
		

> Excuses, excuses  I like this shot. And even if you're right, oh well. I did not ask for C&C, and this is not the beginner's forum. I'm just posting my work here as I see it.



Why post an image, and not want feedback?

Saying you don't want C&C makes me think you only want compliments or no comments at all.


----------



## Photographiend

Everyone's a critic. And I am still drooling over the precision on your focus. 

Was playing with the crop again and noticed there is a thread on his shirt that should have been trimmed by the seamstress. 



None of my photo's could survive that kind of cropping.


----------



## DGMPhotography

Thanks photographiend!  I appreciate the support. As for everyone else, ha, that was a joke xD I know C&C is pretty much expected. It's just everyone is saying pretty much the same thing, not offering much, unlike photographiend who has posted edits of what he thinks could be done, and it's not really helping. The first comment, sure, but after that, the same basic criticism gets annoying  IMO ;P


----------



## manaheim

DGMPhotography said:
			
		

> Thanks photographiend!  I appreciate the support. As for everyone else, ha, that was a joke xD I know C&C is pretty much expected. It's just everyone is saying pretty much the same thing, not offering much, unlike photographiend who has posted edits of what he thinks could be done, and it's not really helping. The first comment, sure, but after that, the same basic criticism gets annoying  IMO ;P



If the quiche is burned there is no better critique than "don't burn the quiche".

You didn't listen to anything anyone said.  The repetition should have driven home the point, but you're still suggesting the quiche is fine.


----------



## sleist

Photos of people's backsides are not usually very captivating.  Why have the person in the shot if there is no way for the viewer to connect?
He looks more like a train conductor than whatever it is you said he was.



> Titles are overrated. I think it's a potentially interesting photo of a  dude leaning on a rail. Just some visual chaos that makes it not work  for me.



I was thinking today how unimportant titles "should" be with respect to photos.  Too often they are attempts to explain what should not need to be explained.

To the OP - a technically fine, but boring shot.


----------



## DGMPhotography

sleist said:


> Photos of people's backsides are not usually very captivating.  Why have the person in the shot if there is no way for the viewer to connect?
> He looks more like a train conductor than whatever it is you said he was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Titles are overrated. I think it's a potentially interesting photo of a  dude leaning on a rail. Just some visual chaos that makes it not work  for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking today how unimportant titles "should" be with respect to photos.  Too often they are attempts to explain what should not need to be explained.
> 
> To the OP - a technically fine, but boring shot.
Click to expand...


Ha, well thanks


----------



## DGMPhotography

manaheim said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks photographiend!  I appreciate the support. As for everyone else, ha, that was a joke xD I know C&C is pretty much expected. It's just everyone is saying pretty much the same thing, not offering much, unlike photographiend who has posted edits of what he thinks could be done, and it's not really helping. The first comment, sure, but after that, the same basic criticism gets annoying  IMO ;P
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the quiche is burned there is no better critique than "don't burn the quiche".
> 
> You didn't listen to anything anyone said.  The repetition should have driven home the point, but you're still suggesting the quiche is fine.
Click to expand...


Question, how do you know I haven't listened? Just because I argue the point here doesn't mean I may not actually be taking the comments to heart. That's what happened with my step dad a few years ago. We always argued and NEVER got a long, but after him and my mom got divorced, I realized I actually did learn a few things from him, in between all the arguing!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

:roll:


----------



## cgipson1

Bitter Jeweler said:


> :roll:



Wassamatter, Bitter? You don't seem convinced!


----------



## amolitor

Why does TPF so often turn into some argument between some newbie and some more established member?

Let the guy have his rationalizations, geez. You don't teach by yelling at people to listen.


----------



## manaheim

DGMPhotography said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks photographiend!  I appreciate the support. As for everyone else, ha, that was a joke xD I know C&C is pretty much expected. It's just everyone is saying pretty much the same thing, not offering much, unlike photographiend who has posted edits of what he thinks could be done, and it's not really helping. The first comment, sure, but after that, the same basic criticism gets annoying  IMO ;P
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the quiche is burned there is no better critique than "don't burn the quiche".
> 
> You didn't listen to anything anyone said.  The repetition should have driven home the point, but you're still suggesting the quiche is fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Question, how do you know I haven't listened? Just because I argue the point here doesn't mean I may not actually be taking the comments to heart. That's what happened with my step dad a few years ago. We always argued and NEVER got a long, but after him and my mom got divorced, I realized I actually did learn a few things from him, in between all the arguing!
Click to expand...


Do you hear yourself?

You argued with him all the time, but you eventually realized you learned a few things.  What would happen if you had not argued with him at all?  Would you have learned less?  Or more?

The point isn't that you need to agree with everything anyone tells you, but if someone takes the time to explain something to you, the very last thing you should be doing is disagreeing with them.  Whether they are right or wrong, you close your mouth, nod your head, and take notes.  For really advanced listeners, you can (and should!) ask challenging questions.... but NEVER... and I mean NEVER....  should you argue.  Then you say thank you to them for offering their advice and move on.



amolitor said:


> Why does TPF so often turn into some argument between some newbie and some more established member?
> 
> Let the guy have his rationalizations, geez. You don't teach by yelling at people to listen.



Why?  Because it's maddening, that's why.  Because we care.

Think about it.  How many long-time members do you know that are on here, still fairly vocal, and don't get grumpy with situations like this.  I can think of two... Corrina and Overread... both of which are super-human or some kind of droids that feed on happiness and rainbows.  The rest of us are still here, but we're grumpy.  Why?  Because we care.  That caring goes both ways.  We care enough to help, and we care enough to get annoyed when someone doesn't even begin to know how to handle the help given.

You sit there and curse us again and again, but if you took all the grumps out of this forum you would lose a lot of knowledge and experience.  Whether you know it or not, the grouches are the backbone of TPF.  And sure, over time we will drop off... but guess what?  There will be a new crop to replace us... many of which will be the ones who cursed us previously... maybe one will be you.  Don't laugh.  I've seen it happen.  In 9 years I've seen it happen a lot.


----------



## amolitor

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Seriously. This "we're super frustrated, and so that makes it ok to yell at newbies" line is a MUCH MUCH bigger rationalization than the "well, my photographs must just not be for you" rationalization.


----------



## manaheim

amolitor said:


> If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Seriously. This "we're super frustrated, and so that makes it ok to yell at newbies" line is a MUCH MUCH bigger rationalization than the "well, my photographs must just not be for you" rationalization.



Um.  I didn't yell at anyone.  Not even close.  If you think that's yelling, you've lived a sheltered internet life.

I'm direct...  Occasionally pointed.  I rarely, if ever, "yell".


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Yay! Another thread devolving into members bitching about other members responses! 

The real backbone of TPF is it's consistancy, and predictability, on all fronts.


----------



## amolitor

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Yay! Another thread devolving into members bitching about other members responses!
> 
> The real backbone of TPF is it's consistancy, and predictability, on all fronts.




DRINK!


----------



## Photographiend

Let's change the subject. 

How about surfing Gorillas?


----------



## DGMPhotography

I just want you guys to know, I love you all :hug:: Good advice manaheim, I'll consider it, thanks!  And thanks for sticking up for the newbs a little bit, amolitor, but I suppose they're right. They're the ones with experience- if only everyone could be like Corrina and Overread whom I've never even seen xD As for Bitter Jeweler, I can un-regretfully come to the conclusion that you, sir, are a true troll. I've been wondering if I'm the troll or if you guys are, but I think it's none of the above - the troll is just you. Just as your name states, you're just Bitter  But perhaps we can see that "jewel" part of you one day as well, a diamond in the rough so to speak  Photographiend... I like your thinking- Gorillas ftw!


----------



## sleist

Web forums are really amusing sometimes.  I started using Linux about 10 or 12 years ago and, with only a dial-up connection, would get most of my questions answered in usenet newsgroups.
Those technical forums had strict posting rules and etiquette.  You were expected to lurk for a long time before posting so you could get the lay of the land, see who was who, learn who not to piss off, and how not to piss them off.
Usually, the seemingly nastiest people were the ones that had the most to offer in terms of technical knowledge.  Trolls were something else entirely ...

I think your definition of troll needs to be revised a bit.  Some skin thickener might be useful as well.

*plonk*


----------



## manaheim

^ what he said.


----------



## BlairWright

The Good: Tack Sharp
The Bad: Looks 1/3 to 1/2 stop under, no real story in the photo


----------



## Jaemie

[crank mode]

I've been looking at this thread for over a week, and I'm really annoyed. The photo is ho-hum. It just doesn't grab my interest. What really grabs my interest, however, and annoys me to no end is that damn title!



> *The Joust! A Gentle Awaits Orders*



A "Gentle" .....what?!??? A gentle train conductor? A gentle man? A gentle chihuahua?

Geez, people. Check your thread titles more carefully before hitting the Submit button.

[/crank mode]


----------



## ClickAddict

"Gentle" in older times  (rarely today) was also used as a noun to indicate of noble birth.  Considering the setting, this is actually correctly written.


----------



## amolitor

We still see the usage in the word 'gentleman'


----------



## cgipson1

DGMPhotography said:


> I just want you guys to know, I love you all :hug:: Good advice manaheim, I'll consider it, thanks!  And thanks for sticking up for the newbs a little bit, amolitor, but I suppose they're right. They're the ones with experience- if only everyone could be like Corrina and Overread whom I've never even seen xD As for *Bitter Jeweler, I can un-regretfully come to the conclusion that you, sir, are a true troll*. I've been wondering if I'm the troll or if you guys are, but I think it's none of the above - the troll is just you. Just as your name states, you're just Bitter  But perhaps we can see that "jewel" part of you one day as well, a diamond in the rough so to speak  Photographiend... I like your thinking- Gorillas ftw!



What a CHRIST LIKE response from one who makes the claim to follow him! Typical! 

Bitter has much to teach, and I suspect that you have just lost that privilege (although since Bitter is a nice, forgiving guy... he would probably offer help anyway!)


----------



## cgipson1

Jaemie said:


> [crank mode]
> 
> I've been looking at this thread for over a week, and I'm really annoyed. The photo is ho-hum. It just doesn't grab my interest. What really grabs my interest, however, and annoys me to no end is that damn title!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Joust! A Gentle Awaits Orders*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "Gentle" .....what?!??? A gentle train conductor? A gentle man? A gentle chihuahua?
> 
> Geez, people. Check your thread titles more carefully before hitting the Submit button.
> 
> [/crank mode]
Click to expand...


^^THIS! ( I am familiar with the usage, and it was usually used to indicate one of the privileged class, and not a poor, dumb worthless peasant / serf, in a very class bigoted society!)


----------



## rokvi

Photographiend said:


> I dunno I like this better for texture alone. It does however bring out some curious point on his hat.
> 
> View attachment 18315



Nicely done. But its still just a guy with his back to us. Only the outfit he is wearing gives us an indication of the era, but thats it. As someone has said, technically nice but lacking in a secondary (story telling) subject.


----------



## Jaemie

ClickAddict said:


> "Gentle" in older times  (rarely today) was also used as a noun to indicate of noble birth.  Considering the setting, this is actually correctly written.



Thank you. I love learning these kinds of things!



> *gen·tle*
> _
> n. Archaic
> __One of good birth or relatively high station.
> _



 I guess I should take back the chihuahua comment.


----------



## cgipson1

Jaemie said:


> ClickAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Gentle" in older times  (rarely today) was also used as a noun to indicate of noble birth.  Considering the setting, this is actually correctly written.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. I love learning these kinds of things!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *gen·tle*
> _
> n. Archaic
> __One of good birth or relatively high station.
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I guess I should take back the chihuahua comment*.
Click to expand...


Not necessarily!    lol!


----------



## Jaemie

:Joker:  hehehe...


----------



## zombiemann

I personally think the shot would have been a thousand times better if the "Gentle" in question had actually been in at least an attempt at period appropriate garb.  It might just be me, but the clash between the title and the reality kills it for me.  I am a student of Medieval and Renaissance history so it's glaring things like this that bug me the most.  It's not his out of period hat, his potentially out of period doublet (I'd need to see the front to know for sure) or anything like that.  It is his complete lack of armor lol.  That stuff was heavy and it took multiple people a good deal of time to put it on.  No "Gentle" who expected to joust in a tourney would go anywhere near the list (technical term for jousting field) in his daily wear clothing.  Armor was a status symbol.  

Yes the photograph could use some technical improvement, but for a relatively new photographer, this is an OK early offering.  Not prize winning by any means, but a decent attempt.  Don't forget folks, not all of us were born with a camera in our hands.


----------



## rokvi

zombiemann said:


> Don't forget folks, not all of us were born with a camera in our hands.



Which is why we post photos here for critique.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

reshoot


----------



## DGMPhotography

Ha, "reshoot," good idea! ;D Yes, "gentle" is what they called them, they even called us, the audience that. So, as you can expect, the renaissance fair I went to was not 100% accurate to the medieval era- I know you worked with them zombiemann so I'm sure you know how it's supposed to be. People mostly go there wearing pirate costumes, this guy sorta did a later period, but it's unfamiliar enough I suppose people would fall for it. And Jaemie, I know you know better now, but perhaps you should check your history before you go making "crank" comments. Thanks!  Cgip, I'm not really sure where you're coming from talking about my religion, so I'm just gonna disregard it for now xD


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

https://www.facebook.com/DGM7Photography

Nice pro photographer link though


----------



## sleist

rokvi said:


> zombiemann said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget folks, not all of us were born with a camera in our hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why we post photos here for critique.
Click to expand...


Well, some people post here for a pat on the back.  These are the usually the same people that get their panties in a bunch when their work of art is not universally loved.
I'd rather hear my photo sucked and why it sucked than have people tell me "great shot" with no additional verbiage.  Good C&C is hard.  It takes practice and effort.  And it's worth learning because self critique is far harder.
This is the main reason I post.  To learn how to critique - other people's work as well as my own.  Giving good feedback is hard, and those that are willing to do that should be respected and not flamed.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Yeah, cuz it sucks when you suggest a different camera orientation would have been better, and why...and all you get back are excuses, excuses, excuses. I can accept someone defending their decision, but to repeatedly dismiss suggestions...*pffft* I ain't got time for that. 

Best ignored.

Feel free to call me a troll, OP.
I have words to describe you as well.


----------



## amolitor

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Yeah, cuz it sucks when you suggest a different camera orientation would have been better, and why...and all you get back are excuses, excuses, excuses. I can accept someone defending their decision, but to repeatedly dismiss suggestions...*pffft* I ain't got time for that.
> 
> Best ignored.
> 
> Feel free to call me a troll, OP.
> I have words to describe you as well.



You're a huge loss to this thread, too. Your commentary has been very in-depth and insightful, I'm sorry the OP is so dismissive of you.


----------



## cgipson1

amolitor said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, cuz it sucks when you suggest a different camera orientation would have been better, and why...and all you get back are excuses, excuses, excuses. I can accept someone defending their decision, but to repeatedly dismiss suggestions...*pffft* I ain't got time for that.
> 
> Best ignored.
> 
> Feel free to call me a troll, OP.
> I have words to describe you as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a huge loss to this thread, too. Your commentary has been very in-depth and insightful, I'm sorry the OP is so dismissive of you.
Click to expand...


I think we may have another case of counter-dependency here!


----------



## Jaemie

*heats the oil.. reaches for the corn*


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

Jaemie said:


> *heats the oil.. reaches for the corn*



uh huh its the 'net


----------



## deeky

DGMPhotography said:


> As for Bitter Jeweler, I can un-regretfully come to the conclusion that you, sir, are a true troll. I've been wondering if I'm the troll or if you guys are, but I think it's none of the above - the troll is just you. Just as your name states, you're just Bitter  But perhaps we can see that "jewel" part of you one day as well, a diamond in the rough so to speak



Actually, far and away, the best and most thought- and growth-provoking feedback I have gotten on this site was given by Bitter.

On something of a tangent:  It is physiologically impossible to talk and listen at the same time.


----------



## manaheim

I'm kind of fond of bitter, myself... smacking him in the face strikes me as... an error.  But then our OP has smacked quite a few folks.


----------



## Trever1t

There's honor in just receiving critique for what it is without rebuttal. Try it.



I read through all the posts of this thread, this thread that I looked at when it was posted and didn't comment on. I have a message for all those lurkers reading.....if you post an image and don't receive favorable review, be grateful for even receiving a response. A response that took the author time to type. Be grateful and listen to what is said. Take what you want from it and leave what you don't.


----------



## Photographiend

Bitter Jeweler a Troll... 

Sorry, he is one of the ones I have taken a liking to. I am not going to debate it with you but I don't see him as a troll. 

I think of him as the Wise one. He walks into a thread and sees everyone slinging poo and says "Oh great everyone is slinging poo again." 

I know you are new here and speaking as someone who has had some experience with forums I would just say, don't be too quick to formulate opinions. How you perceive people now, a week from now, a month and so on will continue to evolve. 

That said. This didn't end nearly as badly as other Newb threads so 'grats!


----------



## rokvi

Trever1t said:


> There's honor in just receiving critique for what it is without rebuttal. Try it.
> 
> 
> 
> I read through all the posts of this thread, this thread that I looked at when it was posted and didn't comment on. I have a message for all those lurkers reading.....if you post an image and don't receive favorable review, be grateful for even receiving a response. A response that took the author time to type. Be grateful and listen to what is said. Take what you want from it and leave what you don't.



I would also like to say that I have been guilty of reading threads without saying anything. Im not blowing my own trumpet here, but if I see potential in what the OP has produced, I might comment if my thoughts haven't already been portrayed by someone else. I also feel that there are more worthy photographers that do exactly the same. If I see something that lacks in mostly every aspect, including the OP's perceived attitude, I say perceived because this is an internet forum. I will not comment. So as said above, "be grateful and listen to what is said". You may not agree with what is being said but as some are slowly learning there is a learning process that goes with photography as with anything. We don't just pick up a D/SLR camera and become photographers, Its a learning process and with that we need to remember that people who have been involved with photography for longer than ourselves know what aspects make or break an aesthetically appealing image. Some say "but I'm being creative." You may very well have been going for something different. However, if it is not an appealing image then it is not. It may only lack some minor tweaking but that is where the trained photographers eye comes into it. They can see what it may be missing and comment on it. We need to learn also that the world is made up of many personalities, some are blunt and lack tact but thats part of life, surely we can all say we've dealt with less tactful people? In conclusion to my little rant. Tactful or not we need to listen to experience if we are going to learn this skill we call photography!

edit: I will endeavor to proof read for punctuation before sending...


----------



## DGMPhotography

Ok, so my question is, why are we still arguing here? I've already agreed that you guys are right, case closed right? The only reason I call Bitter a troll is because he hasn't offered any useful advice to me, just commentary on the comments... Bynx, however, if you guys know of him, seemed to have some "troll" aspects, but in the end I've learned to respect him and he gives me great advice and feedback.


----------

