# Model bailed on me 30 mins before shoot! Had to do a selfie instead!



## thepaulreid (Feb 22, 2012)

After days of prep, my "model" bailed on me with a last minute excuse.  I was really disappointed and decided to drive to the location and to shoot anyway.

Here is the result.  I am pleased as for me this is a good standard:




A leap of faith by The Paul Reid, on Flickr

Criticism and critique welcome 

Paul


----------



## gsgary (Feb 22, 2012)

Bloody Southern women, nice shot


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 22, 2012)

I like it...it is weird, but I like it for it's weirdness.


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 22, 2012)

Is selfie the "professional" term?  just kidding. Doing a "selfie" could sound really wrong


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 22, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> Is selfie the "professional" term?  just kidding. Doing a "selfie" could sound really wrong



You have a dirty mind!


----------



## petto (Feb 22, 2012)

Trever1t said:
			
		

> I like it...it is weird, but I like it for it's weirdness.



Me too. Any color work done on this?  Really like the blue flowers/veg.


----------



## chuasam (Feb 22, 2012)

Great Shot! Be sure to tell all the local photographers about this model who bailed.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 22, 2012)

NICE PHOTO!@ 

I just wanted to ask, are you _the_ Paul Reid, as in _the_ Paul Reid who the birds chased across an open field? As in_ the_ Paul Reid? lol


----------



## Bossy (Feb 22, 2012)

I like it too. Its kinda really strange, and you did a great job on the processing complementing the image.


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 22, 2012)

Bossy said:


> I like it too. Its kinda really strange, and you did a great job on the processing complementing the image.


This is not critique.

I've seen better images get destroyed here.

While others may call this artistic expression and jump on the  bandwagon like this is some image epiphany , complementing processing  and whatnot.
Head chopped completely off..........part of an arm hanging down into a frame.
Nobody can jump that high and if they could they should be playing for the Lakers , instead of photography.
Green cast which had to be intentional...........bla bla and on and on.

No offense OP.
You have other stuff that is far better than this.
FAR BETTER.


----------



## chuasam (Feb 22, 2012)

Hey Lightspeed,
Critique this:


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 22, 2012)

chuasam said:


> Hey Lightspeed,
> Critique this:



You did a great job on the processing complementing the image.


----------



## E-jeezy (Feb 22, 2012)

Kinda glad your model flaked out cuz this shot is SICK!!! great edit


----------



## Bossy (Feb 22, 2012)

LightSpeed said:


> Bossy said:
> 
> 
> > I like it too. Its kinda really strange, and you did a great job on the processing complementing the image.
> ...



He didn't ask for critique.  -
ETA **** your right, I didn't even see it below the pic and  I looked twice. My bad. I still like it. I don't know why it bothers you that I like it?


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 22, 2012)

thepaulreid said:


> After days of prep, my "model" bailed on me with a last minute excuse.  I was really disappointed and decided to drive to the location and to shoot anyway.
> 
> Here is the result.  I am pleased as for me this is a good standard:
> 
> ...





Bossy said:


> He didn't ask for critique.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh?


----------



## Bossy (Feb 22, 2012)

Too slow joe I already edited my comment.


----------



## Bossy (Feb 22, 2012)

Does C & C welcome now mean "C&C or die *****?"


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 22, 2012)

Bossy said:


> Does C & C welcome now mean "C&C or die *****?"



?


----------



## Bossy (Feb 22, 2012)

Meaning, is there a reason I can't just say I like the image even though it breaks "rules" and not give any further critique-


----------



## molested_cow (Feb 22, 2012)

"C&C Welcome", means he welcomes BOTH comments and critique. And being welcomed also means it doesn't have to be C&C. Seriously, stop being retarded.


----------



## molested_cow (Feb 22, 2012)

I like the way the subject is being cropped out. It must be pretty tough for you since you are both the one clicking the shutter and jumping. Remote or timed release?

Anyways, I like it because I can already picture what the rest of the body was doing, without it being in the photograph.

My problem with the photo is the spacial relationship between the subject and the background. It seems that the relationship needs to be either closer or further.
For example, the depth of field can either be more or less, but just not what it is now. I think it will be more interesting if you used a larger aperture to further offset the focus, or use a small aperture to capture all the details. Right now, it's borderline "out of focus" or "shaky hands".
For the color tone, I enjoy it because it does create a certain mood that goes well with the context. However, I do think it also flattens the image, which goes back to my previous point of confusing spacial relationship.


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 22, 2012)

molested_cow said:


> "C&C Welcome", means he welcomes BOTH comments and critique. And being welcomed also means it doesn't have to be C&C. Seriously, stop being retarded.



I think Light was just trying to make a point that everyone jumps on the bandwagon with CC on "good photo" "bad photo" without giving anything to back up why they feel what they feel about a photo aside from everyone's approves/disapproves. When one person says something, a flock goes with it. 

I personally LOVE the background and think it has an insane amount of potential, but not really sure as to what a random, poorly framed subject jumping through it adds to the photo.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 22, 2012)

Did you make it?  Looks pretty far, lol.

Cool Shot.


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 23, 2012)

LightSpeed said:


> Bossy said:
> 
> 
> > Does C & C welcome now mean "C&C or die *****?"
> ...



You know what he's referring to.


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 23, 2012)

molested_cow said:


> I like the way the subject is being cropped out. It must be pretty tough for you since you are both the one clicking the shutter and jumping. Remote or timed release?
> 
> *Anyways, I like it because I can already picture what the rest of the body was doing, without it being in the photograph*.
> 
> ...



You have to be kidding me with this.
You take that thing and hang it in a conference room and the board members are gonna be sitting there thinking someone was drunk when they took that photograph.
Finding artistic value in something is subjective and has nothing to do with a good photograph/image or a bad photograph/image. If I sit in a room with 10 people, all of us viewing this, I might say......" I find this image inspirational and artistic because I can tell what the rest of the body is doing without it being in the photograph, defeating the purpose of an image...........that's right an IMAGE, which is meant to be SEEN and that's why it's called an image...........8 people are gonna look at me like i'm crazy and then there is always gonna be one nutball who knows nothing, so will agree with anything. And then to suggest that I'm retarded, and delivering this load of CRAP in nearly the same breath, to justify the image. I mean that just takes the cake.

Depth of field being incorrect has nothing to do with this. Depth of field looks good to me.
There were NO "SHAKY HANDS" because it's a self portrait and was probably timed off a tripod.
I may be wrong, but I think that's what it is.

As to the color tone creating a certain mood that goes well with the context??
What context might that be? The head being chopped off, or the viewer wondering what size shoes he wears?
Since you can already picture what the rest of the body was doing, WHY NOT JUST IMAGINE THE REST OF THE PHOTO THE WAY YOU WANT TO SEE IT and leave no critique at all?
Or leave totally imagined critique.
I mean since you can imagine something you can't see, why not imagine something you CAN see?

That settles it. Artistic value apparently means, it doesn't matter what the image looks like. We can all just imagine how we want it to be and then justify our imaginations while giving critique on an image that's not there.
We don't even need cameras anymore. We can just type what we imagine and let the image form in our heads from thin air.


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 23, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> LightSpeed said:
> 
> 
> > Bossy said:
> ...



Proof or it didn't happen.
EDIT:
What I meant to say is no one pulled you chain.


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 23, 2012)

To the OP:

I looked at your image site.
What I saw was a guy who knows how to handle a camera.
Many of the images you have there are far FAR better than this, which was my point.
I'm sure that this was something you were doing just goofing around, for the fun of it.
Believe me, I would never try to take the fun factor out of photography.

I humbly apologize if you feel I have been harsh.
It's just that, to see this falling over backwards stuff with the silliest critique that I have ever seen, prompted me.
I've seen much better images get destroyed here, and some of it seems to be , the who's who of who made the first stupid comment that was then followed by..well, the followers.

I took an objective look at this image. I'm no student of finer art, obviously.
The technicalities of the image look good to me. Good exposure, good depth of field etc etc.
In other words I could tell that the person who captured this image, knows what they are doing.
Then I thumbed thru your flickr, before I ever made comment. And that's when, I was like, " why did he post this?
I figured it was for fun, after having seen some of your other works.

Anyway, I thought I'd explain myself to you......
Figured it was the right thing to do........and sometimes that's hard to do.

Take care.


----------



## Bossy (Feb 23, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> I think Light was just trying to make a point that everyone jumps on the bandwagon with CC on "good photo" "bad photo" without giving anything to back up why they feel what they feel about a photo aside from everyone's approves/disapproves. When one person says something, a flock goes with it.
> 
> I personally LOVE the background and think it has an insane amount of potential, but not really sure as to what a random, poorly framed subject jumping through it adds to the photo.



Or heaven forbid some of us just like the photo. From my view Light doesn't want to make a point, he just likes to try to moderate what others post. Its immature. Constantly piping in and speaking for others is also immature. Don't be a toady.

I really suggest you take some art history classes, as well as some documentary and contemporary. Or read a book. Some of the worlds technically ****ty photos are also the most interesting. Not everything has to fit in a perfect box for someone to appreciate it or find it interesting. The picture isn't about the background. Its about the man jumping 5 feet over a creek. Its about some alternate place hes found. It has a story. You don't have to relate to it, or find it interesting. Berating someone for having an opinion other than your own isn't going against the flow, its just being closed minded.


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 23, 2012)

Bossy said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> > I think Light was just trying to make a point that everyone jumps on the bandwagon with CC on "good photo" "bad photo" without giving anything to back up why they feel what they feel about a photo aside from everyone's approves/disapproves. When one person says something, a flock goes with it.
> ...



*This coming from someone who jumped on a bandwagon , harping about drama queens.*
I think I've made my point fairly clear with regard to the silly critique. If you feel you've been singled out, you might want to read above.
No need to delve into that any further.

The picture is about an alternate place someone has found? What?
Are we talking different dimensions in time and space now? 
Jeez. It gets better.

Rose , just don't argue with her. It's pointless.
Yes Bossy, you're above Rose. I mean suggesting that she read a book. How benevolent of you.
You're obviously a professional photographer , making your living with a camera, and far be it from me or anyone else to challenge
your complete and absolute knowledge of photography. I bow before you and ask forgiveness , for ever mentioning the term " critique."
I know now that I'm not fit to stand in the same room with such photographic prowess.
Please accept my apologies for ever doubting you.
I think I speak for all when I say, " Just having you around makes us better photographers.
Thank you Bossy, from all of us, to you. We couldn't have done it without you dear.


----------



## thepaulreid (Feb 23, 2012)

petto said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



petto, colour work... you wouldn't believe it. I will post the original for you.


----------



## molested_cow (Feb 23, 2012)

I think Light's point is, he can't allow others having a different opinion from his.


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 23, 2012)

molested_cow said:


> I think Light's point is, he can't allow others having a different opinion from his.



All I can do is laugh at this little spin.

I mean dude, seriously : " *Anyways, I like it because I can already picture what the rest of the body was doing, without it being in the photograph*."

Admit it. You were being funny, right?

Wait!!!!
Hmmm......since you already pictured it, " What was the rest of the body doing?
lol


----------



## thepaulreid (Feb 23, 2012)

Dear all,

Thank you for your comments. I didnt realise it would spark a critique debate!!  But it makes very interesting reading. 

What is abundantly clear is that you are all very passionate about your photography and you know why you like what you like.  That is great as it means you have direction with your work and you will keep striving to make better images.

Regarding my photog, I split my time between film and digital.  I love both disciplines as with film I am learning classic photography and with digital I have the freedom to create without boundaries.  I am not sure I could compare my Rolleicord work with digital composities as the work is so different.  For me both are fun in the goofing around sense, but also both are serious as I am looking for a pleasing outcome (and I hate wasting film!).  

I posted the photo because it was my most recent shot, not because I thought it was my greatest work.  I am not looking to raise peoples perceptions of my skills, rather that they can gain a genuine understanding about where I am with my photography. 

Ultimately, the critique discussion that has no ending as everyone interprets an image differently and achieves enjoyment from different traits.  What is great about critique is that I can see my shot from the point of view of someone else and be challenged and hopefully broaden my viewpoint and photography vision.

Regarding the DOF comments, the shot was F4 and ISO800.  The ISO grain may make the background less defined. Also, I edited my body as a separate layer, so the subject has a different saturation and contrast to the background to make the subject more prominent. This would defo mess with the perspective.

Regarding the comment about what the poorly cropped subject adds to the photo; I believe the subject _IS_ the photo.  It creates narrative.  Without it the image would be a landscape shot. Also, I jumped too high!! But that adds to the charm for me.

For those interested here is the original image pre-edit. This is my true photography skill laid bare:







Comments and Criticism welcome


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 23, 2012)




----------



## jowensphoto (Feb 23, 2012)

I try to stay away from the dram dram. But I feel compelled to provide my two cents, and that'll be it.



> *Anyways, I like it because I can already picture what the rest of the body was doing, without it being in the photograph*."


Why do you find this to be such a dumb statement, Lightspeed? I too instinctively "saw" what the top half of the body was doing in my head. No one is going to have the same ideal in his/her head, which is the fun of it; it's kind of a mystery to work out yourself.

I have never addressed you specifically, but I have to say it seems like you cause more of a disruption to the forums than add to them. Sure, there have always been groups of people that are friendly and familiar with one another (as you call them, "cliques"), but I can remember a time (specifically, before you started flooding the boards with this crap) when these debates and childish arguments were minimal.

My mother used to have some expression about how when one person seems to have issues with almost everyone, chances are that person is the problem. Food for thought.


----------



## jowensphoto (Feb 23, 2012)

Also, OP - I dig the photo. I also think it's cool that you didn't let that flake of a model ruin your shoot. 

Thanks for showing the set up, I was scratching my head trying to figure it out!


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 23, 2012)

> My mother used to have some expression about how when one person seems to have issues with almost everyone, chances are that person is the problem. Food for thought.


 Love it. I don't think I have seen a photo on here get a grade of 100% A+ yet. There is ALWAYS something wrong with it. I personally like the photo, however, that looked dangerous that you had a home made "balance beam." I always relate photo's to something....this reminded me of Edward from Twilight going out to hunt....and I am not saying that to be rude because I already said I liked the photo. We all have opinions and ya know what they say about opinions....just like a$$holes....we've all got one.


----------



## jowensphoto (Feb 23, 2012)

> ya know what they say about opinions....just like a$$holes....we've all got one.



Hahaha my gym teacher used to use that one in middle school. He'd add, "And they all stink!" to the end.

ETA: You're right about the Twilight thing (I too mean this as a compliment). Always wowed by the color in the field/woods scenes in those movies.


----------



## jowensphoto (Feb 23, 2012)

Oh, just take out the / on the first quote tag.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 23, 2012)

jowensphoto said:


> Oh, just take out the / on the first quote tag.


 easy enough.....fixed it.


----------



## kundalini (Feb 23, 2012)

Nicely made lemonade.

Do you often carry a couple of sawhorses and a plank on your shoots?


----------



## MSnowy (Feb 23, 2012)

kundalini said:


> Nicely made lemonade.
> 
> Do you often carry a couple of sawhorses and a plank on your shoots?



It might have been the rope and the shovel that scared her away.


----------



## Bossy (Feb 23, 2012)

LightSpeed said:


> *This coming from someone who jumped on a bandwagon , harping about drama queens.*
> I think I've made my point fairly clear with regard to the silly critique. If you feel you've been singled out, you might want to read above.
> No need to delve into that any further.
> 
> ...



You're welcome  I'm happy to be here ​


----------



## slackercruster (Feb 23, 2012)

V Nice!!


----------



## Mot (Feb 23, 2012)

What's just as amazing is you managed to do a half naked photo shoot in Kent during the winter without dying.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 23, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> that looked dangerous that you had a home made "balance beam."


Yeah - I'm not trying to bust your balls, but you really could have busted your balls...


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 23, 2012)

jowensphoto said:


> I try to stay away from the dram dram. But I feel compelled to provide my two cents, and that'll be it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I see.
Well, we'll just chalk that up to experience.
Mine and yours.

Aside from that, I'll do me best to answer your question.
I propose, " why do we need cameras if this is the case?
Why is it that if we can imagine images in our heads, from thin air, that a camera is needed to record a photo?

I mean I understand when things get deep in all the artistry stuff, but no one seems to want to answer this, above question.
There are many artists out there with these ideas. Most of them are starving, nearly about all of them.
Thus , " starving artists events."
Do you think maybe some of them may be starving because they don't have a clue?
That, just because they can justify what they term " art" with ideas as to why people should like their work, conjured from nothing?
Words work really well to describe things. Photos work really well to bring an image in your face.

If I write, this : *I was and then I went over to the park and while I was doing that it fell off the edge of the table, and I picked it up but then they came over and knocked it down.*
Does this make me an effective writer?
Can I justify my writings with, " well the spatial  bla bla implemented in the last sentence leads one to his own imagination of what the hell I was writing."
Does this mean I'm a literary genius and have just written a best seller?


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 23, 2012)

Mirror break


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 23, 2012)

LightSpeed said:


> I propose, " why do we need cameras if this is the case?
> Why is it that if we can imagine images in our heads, from thin air, that a camera is needed to record a photo?


I may have a wonderful imagination, capable of creating all sorts of fantastic things - but nobody would have a chance to see that if I didn't have a camera.

(Not saying I'm awesome or anything, just illustrating the point.)


----------



## APHPHOTO (Feb 23, 2012)

I read these posts to mostly learn. But sometimes I get a good chuckle over all the sarcasm. My wife looks over at me and asks, Isn't that a forum for photographers? What the heck are you laughing at? I guess thats what keeps me coming back. You guys are awesome.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 23, 2012)

OP nice pic.

Hi *drama* factor in the thread too heh


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 23, 2012)

LightSpeed said:


> jowensphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I try to stay away from the dram dram. But I feel compelled to provide my two cents, and that'll be it.
> ...



Well?
*Someone answer this*

Yeah, I'm pushing it now aint I?
I want to see a valid explanation to all this, I imagined it in my head stuff , pertaining to something ( A RECORDED IMAGE)  that's intended to be A VISUAL AID, where all of a sudden,
because of artistry, is overlooked COMPLETELY as such, in favor of imagining the visual aid.

What is this? The freggin Twilight Zone?


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 23, 2012)

Suddenly silence.


----------



## Bossy (Feb 23, 2012)

I'll be honest, I'm not replying to your tangent because I don't know what the hell you're going on about. You're mad because people like a photo that you don't like. Thats not the thought process of a reasonable person, and I don't see the point in trying to have a logical discussion on someone like that. ​


----------



## thepaulreid (Feb 24, 2012)

LightSpeed said:


> LightSpeed said:
> 
> 
> > jowensphoto said:
> ...


Dear Lightspeed. I am off to work now, but when I am back this evening I will do my best to answer this in a way that will make sense to you. cheers Paul


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 24, 2012)

Dear Lightspeed. I am off to work now, but when I am back this evening I will do my best to answer this in a way that will make sense to you. cheers Paul[/QUOTE]

Good deal Paul.
Look forward to it.
Be safe.


----------



## jowensphoto (Feb 24, 2012)

I apologize for not responding as quickly as you would like, your Highness. I happen to have a life outside of TPF and the internet.

Sometimes it's not what is in the photo (or the story), but what was left out. The mystery that makes us think, and imagine. When ever has there been something wrong with a piece of art or literature making the viewer think?! I thought that was the purpose.

This really is the last thing I will say to you, on this thread or any other, simply because I think you're a pompous nitwit not worth the gear you shoot with.


----------



## thepaulreid (Feb 24, 2012)

Dear Lightspeed, 

I have managed to knock off early so have more time to devote to your reply! I appreciated your comment be safe as I do a lot of driving in my line of work so it was very relevant thank you.
Looking at the posts, I realise that this is a very large topic for one man to attempt to clarify, however, bear with me and I will do my best in answering you. In order for me to feel I am making a valid point, I am going to have to start at basics please do not take this as a sleight on you, it just helps me think clearer.


LightSpeed said:


> molested_cow said:
> 
> 
> > I think Light's point is, he can't allow others having a different opinion from his.
> ...


When we are born and growing up, we are learning about our environment and our bodies within that environment.  The human brain is bombarded with huge amounts of information everyday. In order for humans to function effectively when carrying out our day, our brain generalises to save time and energy.  Eg, learning to open a door.  A toddler will learn how to do this consciously, and then after repetition, this will become a subconscious learned skill. So as the toddler approached different doors, this generalisation will mean that they do not have to consciously think what is this and then how can I interact with this.   When you or I approach a door, we dont even think about it, we just operate it easily.  These generalisations help humans exist in an information rich environment.  As we experience more stimuli, patterns form and more generalisations are established. Eventually we subconsciously assume the reality of our environment based on these experiences and learnings.
When I look at this picture I cannot see any bullets:





I did not see the gun being loaded, I do not even know if the gun is real, I do not even know that this is not some roleplay that the guy and his wife like to do before getting it on.  But based on my experiences and learnings, when I look at this image, I assume that the gun IS loaded with bullets even though I cannot see them. To me this appears to be a reasonable assumption based on the information in the rest of the image. I am generalising to make sense of what I see.

Now look at this picture of a magic trick:




Do you just see a cartoon man and 3 cups? Literally of course you do.  But do you also have the expectation that a ball is likely to be under one of the cups?  Based on a generalisation this is what I expect.  It seems reasonable as in all my experiences with three cups in similar situations, a ball or an object of some kind has ALWAYS been present.  I cant see a ball, but my imagination is filling in the gaps based on my experiences.

Final example:




Now, can you see the driver of the green car? No.
Based on this image, is it reasonable to assume that the green car has no driver?
Do you think that, even though you cannot see the driver, you can think how he is feeling in this photo?  Ballpark will do.

Now lets look at my original photo:



A leap of faith by The Paul Reid, on Flickr
So when Molested cow said 





molested_cow said:


> Anyways, I like it because I can already picture what the rest of the body was doing, without it being in the photograph.


They are actually saying that based on their experiences of people jumping, they can generalise and assume that a) The person in the photo has a head. This is reasonable as in order for a person to jump, they need a brain to tell their muscles to execute the movement. In order to have a brain you need a head to keep it in so it can function correctly. B) the person in the photo has two arms.  This is hard to prove from the photograph, but not unreasonable to believe.  So it is logical that molested cow can indeed picture what the rest of the body is doing.  They cannot guarantee that the jumping person is not in fact headless wearing an invisible rocket pack whilst holding a frankfurter in each hand, but it is a reasonable assumption to make based on the rest of the image.  If the viewers assumptions about the rest of the body are inaccurate, it is unlikely that this will be out by an order of magnitude. And if so, no harm done!


LightSpeed said:


> I propose, " why do we need cameras if this is the case?
> Why is it that if we can imagine images in our heads, from thin air, that a camera is needed to record a photo?


This is harder to answer. We do not need cameras to be able to communicate images, although it is much more efficient. Ultimately, they provide the photographer the ability to create a 'baseline' image which will then be interpreted by the viewers.  We then know that everyone is interpreting the same baseline image.

I record images with a camera because I enjoy the process. I accept the fact that the resulting photo will be interpreted in many different ways by all viewers.  Even the with the exact same image each viewer will find their own likes and dislikes. I realise this could be potentially frustrating as,  if the photo stays consistent, how can there be such varied views and opinions from it? Surely it is good or bad. I will come to this in a moment.


LightSpeed said:


> If I write, this : *I was and then I went over to the park and while I was doing that it fell off the edge of the table, and I picked it up but then they came over and knocked it down.*
> Does this make me an effective writer?


I think the point that you are making here is that if a photo or text or whatever, is too ambiguous then is it really saying anything at all?  -Have I got your drift??

You are correct in that if we look at the text you wrote, the information content is poor. What were you doing? What fell off the table? And who knocked it down again?  For me I do not think this means that the text is a poor story. It comes down to people types. Some people like to have a very prescriptive photo, booketc some people like ambiguity like the text you wrote.  First off, all people are unique, we have unique physiology and have all had different learnings, upbringings and experiences of life.  These things shape our preferences. You like barbecue beef flavour chips, I like salt and vinegar. But thats cool we have different palettes!   
So for me (I am an ambiguity guy) when I go to a restaurant I like to avoid the set menu and pick different things. I like the surprise and the not knowing if this is going to be nice or not. And because of this I find it more engaging.  And this is the crux of any artform, does it engage YOU?
Some people need a very prescriptive artform for them to feel engaged and gain value from it.  I prefer ambiguity and the freedom to generalise and daydream about what an image is and what the story _could_ be. Lets take it to the extreme, what about those people that look at splashes of paint on a white canvas. They see animals in there and all sorts! Are there really animals there? NO!! But the fact that they think they can see a humming bird engages them and they enjoy it. Do you want to look for humming birds in paint splashes?? Probably not, but thats OK as you are probably engaged by more prescriptive types of work.


LightSpeed said:


> Can I justify my writings with, " well the spatial bla bla implemented in the last sentence leads one to his own imagination of what the hell I was writing."
> Does this mean I'm a literary genius and have just written a best seller?


You can justify things any which way you want to. Its what others derive from your work that will define whether you are a literary genius. Personally I really liked the text you wrote. 

Its the start to a best seller.

Cheers

Paul


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 24, 2012)

OP, great pic.

This thread delivers, the bait is being sucked up at a rapid pace


----------



## bazooka (Feb 24, 2012)

Haiku is beautiful because it communicates an entire scene via the imagination while only being limited to few words.  Much "work" is left to the reader.  It is engaging instead of passive.


----------



## jowensphoto (Feb 24, 2012)

Implied nudes. IMPLIED nudes!


----------



## bazooka (Feb 24, 2012)

jowensphoto said:


> Implied nudes. IMPLIED nudes!



Humorous, but excellent example.  Often times, some clothing is more exciting than none, as it causes the mind to generate what is not there.  It exercises the imagination instead of feeding everything to the eyes.  I believe a more interesting photo is one that engages the imagination... not one that only feeds the eyes.


----------



## jowensphoto (Feb 24, 2012)

> It exercises the imagination instead of feeding everything to the eyes.



Exactly the point I've been trying to make the entire time. Thank you!


----------



## kundalini (Feb 24, 2012)

thepaulreid said:


> Dear Lightspeed,
> 
> << snip >>
> 
> ...


This is the best post I've read in a long time.




Out of curiosity Paul, in a previous life, was your moniker Job?


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 24, 2012)

thepaulreid said:


> Dear Lightspeed,
> 
> I have managed to knock off early so have more time to devote to your reply! I appreciated your comment be safe as I do a lot of driving in my line of work so it was very relevant thank you.
> Looking at the posts, I realise that this is a very large topic for one man to attempt to clarify, however, bear with me and I will do my best in answering you. In order for me to feel I am making a valid point, I am going to have to start at basics please do not take this as a sleight on you, it just helps me think clearer.
> ...



Sir you have earned my respect, regardless of the image.
As stated previously, you certainly are capable of better.
Very well written, very well explained.

I have one objection, however. No one could possibly like or find interest in that babble, I wrote. lol
Furthermore, I find you to be a gentleman.
In light of this, I prefer not to argue this with you. I'd rather keep my arguments with some of the clowns here
that I'm accustomed to arguing with, rather than a seemingly decent fellow having fun with a camera.
Accept my apologies for anything you may feel was harsh, on my part.

It was a pleasure to meet you and correspond with you, via this medium and I look forward to seeing more of your work.
I have taken the liberty of adding you as , friend.
I hope you don't mind.

I am LightSpeed,
And I approve this message.


----------



## thepaulreid (Feb 24, 2012)

LightSpeed said:


> thepaulreid said:
> 
> 
> > Dear Lightspeed,
> ...



Friend request accepted. Where can I see your work??

Cheers

Paul


----------



## kundalini (Feb 24, 2012)

thepaulreid said:


> Where can I see your work??
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Paul


It's not too difficult. Look towards the shallow end of the pool, you know.... where the water wings are abundant. Affectionately know as the Beginners Forum on TPF.



EDIT:
Sorry I forgot, the Macro section also.


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 24, 2012)

thepaulreid said:


> LightSpeed said:
> 
> 
> > thepaulreid said:
> ...



Hey Paul,
KunLini is correct.
Most of my stuff was in the beginners forum.
Then I kinda sorta got kicked out of the beginners forum.
There was somewhat of a rukus about my having a good time in that forum.
It seems the forum kinda of transformed into a place where if you knew how to capture a sharp image, or use shutter , ISO and aperture in conjunction ,
that one might not any longer be considered a beginner. Thereafter , my posting images in that section was frowned upon.
The rally lasted about a week and I was converged upon in a bloody battle,from what seemed like all corners of the forum.
Battle scarred and weary, out of ammunition, and on the verge of starvation, I complied with the wishes of the townspeople to keep from being lynched, my body quartered, by the robust mob that had gathered over this time.


----------



## kundalini (Feb 24, 2012)

LightSpeed said:


> KunLini is correct.


Of course I'm correct, but get the name right you jackass. It's kundalini.

Let me spell that out for you ...

kuun-dah (duh for you) lee-knee

:er:



EDIT:
I forgot to add........


> Most of my stuff was in the beginners forum.
> Then I kinda sorta got kicked out of the beginners forum.
> There was somewhat of a rukus about my having a good time in that forum.
> It seems the forum kinda of transformed into a place where if you knew how to capture a sharp image, or use shutter , ISO and aperture in conjunction ,
> ...







 [/quote[k[


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 24, 2012)

kundalini said:


> LightSpeed said:
> 
> 
> > KunLini is correct.
> ...


Sir , I'll get to you soon enough.
Think of me as a big ole Pizza.
Everybody gets a piece.


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 25, 2012)

kundalini said:


> Of course I'm correct, but get the name right you jackass. It's kundalini.
> 
> Let me spell that out for you ...
> 
> ...




Dear KunLini,
I humbly apologize for having misspelled your name.
Thank you for pointing out the error of my ways.
In lieu of this I have taken the initiative of researching this , Godly name, that I have mismanaged.

Interesting name considering I have happened upon "stuff" suggesting , godly and sexy.....as well as some forms of Yoga.
Fitting considering some of your half naked photos which I feel somewhat repulsed by. I'm certain I'm not the only one, but that's an entirely different segment of "KunLini teaches me how to spell."
It was like , let me close this really quick.........this is not what I want to look at.
Certainly this can't effect your ever expanding ego, and I should hope it doesn't.
And here is why. Ego's , such as yours need to be popped from time to time.
Think of it as a housing bubble and incorporate fannie mae and freddy mac, this only if you comprehend " financial crisis" of 2008.
Which I'm sure you're oblivious to and have no earthly clue. But here again, this is another episode in the " KunLini chronicles" whereby, spelling correction makes the correcter feel superior.
" I JUST TOLD HIM!!!!! limme pat myself on the back"
You'll find , as we get along, famously, that I'm quite capable with the Kings English.

So there we have it Kundalini. A picture is worth a thousand words.
An assumption, on the other hand, worthless.

Thank you for your attention in this matter, sir.

Sincerely,
I am LightSpeed
And I approve this message.

PS - Looking forward to your future comments.


----------

