The Merfolk

Pookeyhead said:
I wouldn't say so. I've not even replied to teh vast majority of what you posted. I'm curious as how they are poor technically. I genuinely do not see it. I'm just asking for an explanation. I was expecting a negative response to the aesthetic choices made... I'm neither surprised, not defensive... hence my lack of reply to your many posts.
Click to expand...

CBA
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
My many posts. That would be one by that point. Not 'many', unless you have some wildey different way of counting from the rest of us. Of course if you'd bothered to read the many you'd have noticed I never said anything about them from a technical perspective. So stop being quite so so defensive ;)
Click to expand...

I haven't said you have. I was just saying that I've not responded to your posts.... so I'm not being defensive. You have made three posts criticising the images. Only one was actually addressed to me, but that's irrelevant.

The only issue I've taken up with is the technical thing. How can you check focus on a 800 pixel JPEG? I understand you never said that... but that's actually the only issue I have with any of this feedback :) I fully expected the usual to respond exactly as they did.
 
I have no issue with any of this crit received. I'm not even making any attempt to. I have said quite plainly many of these are indeed snapshots. My only criticism of the crit was regarding how anyone can assess focus from a 800 pixel image? It's just not possible.

I was fully expecting the usual suspects to be critical of the work. It's perfectly fine.
 
Well done, David. Three pages... Not your best thread, but certainly actively memorable (and probably not over yet). You make me smile. :)
 
OK guys - Comment all you like on the photos, that's what we're here for and they're obviously generating strong opinions to one extreme or the other.
Enough with the comments about the models though.
Poses, expressions, angles are all fair game but let's leave the commentary on their body shapes out of it.

@BillN_33 - I suspect that some of those comments were made tongue in cheek, but they still overstep the mark of what's allowable with regards to commenting on models.
Thread now cleaned up.
 
Last edited:
SarahLee said:
OK guys - Comment all you like on the photos, that's what we're here for and they're obviously generating strong opinions to one extreme or the other.
Enough with the comments about the models though.
Poses, expressions, angles are all fair game but let's leave the commentary on their body shapes out of it.

@BillN_33 - I suspect that some of those comments were made tongue in cheek, but they still overstep the mark of what's allowable with regards to commenting on models.
Thread now cleaned up.
Click to expand...

Sarah she is not a model ...... she is a normal person

I need to loose a few pounds ......... we live in a "obese' society .........

sense of humour, arrogance, delusional spring to mind ......... but mainly comical

still 0 - 0
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
Sarah she is not a model ...... she is a normal person

I need to loose a few pounds ......... we live in a "obese' society .........
Click to expand...

Yep, I know.
Maybe wrong choice of words, but I used 'model' in the loosest sense in that she's the subject of the photo.

Either way though, comments about the subject's weight or other appearance that could be read as derogatory are still a no-no . . .
. . .and yeah. I'd like to loose a few pounds too!!!
 
Talking of typos: the word is lose. :)
 
Last edited:
SarahLee said:
Yep, I know.
Maybe wrong choice of words, but I used 'model' in the loosest sense in that she's the subject of the photo.

Either way though, comments about the subject's weight or other appearance that could be read as derogatory are still a no-no . . .
. . .and yeah. I'd like to loose a few pounds too!!!
Click to expand...

Isn't it sad when people think that what they produce is so good that they have no sense of humour or understanding of what they have or are producing

This is a very good forum, with some very good photographers who do not need to blow there own trumpet or intellectualise what they describe as "their work" when it reality is at best average in todays world .... there are some really "sad" people on here

average to me is good .................. but there is only one way to describe the images in this thread and that is "great shots"
 
Last edited:
I always thought that I would never have to use the ignore button on this forum, but as they say, there's a first time for everything.
 
BillN_33 said:
Sarah she is not a model ...... she is a normal person

I need to loose a few pounds ...
Click to expand...
You mentioned typos in a previous post- since deleted. I take it this wasn't a typo :D
 
Bythesea said:
I always thought that I would never have to use the ignore button on this forum, but as they say, there's a first time for everything.
Click to expand...

I love to be ignored especially because of the people that ignore me
 
In light of this

Pookeyhead said:
My research has shown that, like many escapist activities, exclusion, and bullying play a major role in why people choose to do embark upon such activities... so perhaps that you felt the need to mention their "buoyancy" hopefully will be one of the things addressed in the book.
Click to expand...

Some recent posts are unpleasantly nasty in the extreme.
 
sunnyside_up said:
Well done, David. Three pages... Not your best thread, but certainly actively memorable (and probably not over yet). You make me smile. :)
Click to expand...


My contributions are actually quite minimal, Just the cross examination of Bill's strange assessment ability of low resolution JPEGS :) The arguments started LONG before I started posting tonight, and were not even in response to anything I said. I didn't even respond to the vast majority of the crit Bethy. The state of this thread can almost certainly not be blamed upon me.
 
I wasn't blaming you, dude. I only attribute the length of the thread to you as you started it (the thread, that is) No offence was meant. :)
 
BillN_33 said:
Isn't it sad when people think that what they produce is so good that they have no sense of humour or understanding of what they have or are producing
Click to expand...

Dude.. I've not even responded to the vast majority of the crit in here except your bizzare comment regarding it's focus. I have no problem with the crit, except that which made assumptions about the work (the under-water shot being set up etc). Some of the images ARE snapshots by design, yes, yet despite saying o several times, it keeps being brought up as if I will have an issue with that. Why would I? some are indeed snapshots. Clearly that style is not appreciated by some, and that's absolutely fine. There was already an argument raging about the work before I even logged in tonight.

sunnyside_up said:
I wasn't blaming you, dude. I only attribute the length of the thread to you as you started it (the thread, that is) No offence was meant. :)
Click to expand...

I may have started it... I can't be responsible for what happens to it beyond that. There was already a full page of nonsense added to it before I even got home from work.
 
Sarah has already asked you not to comment on the subjects of the photo. So don't
 
kelack said:
Sarah has already asked you not to comment on the subjects of the photo. So don't
Click to expand...


I'm sorry.. who was that aimed at?
 
Bill. I have deleted the comment he made
 
Sorry... as it followed my comment, it was confusing.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Some of the images ARE snapshots by design, yes, yet despite saying o several times, it keeps being brought up as if I will have an issue with that. Why would I? some are indeed snapshots. Clearly that style is not appreciated by some, and that's absolutely fine.
Click to expand...

Why not explain why you shot them this way then? Maybe some would be interested to be educated on your approach and reasoning.
 
Jayst84 said:
Why not explain why you shot them this way then? Maybe some would be interested to be educated on your approach and reasoning.
Click to expand...

Well.. no one asked... LOL. They were too busy calling them snapshots :)

I didn't want aesthetics to intrude. I didn't want them to be saying "look at me... look how good I am". They're not shot to be admired as artefacts for their materiality and aesthetics. They're merely to place the viewer in the situations. I want them to be transparent. The photography is almost incidental. The images are just meant to accompany the writing. I did say in post 1 that this is also work in progress, and almost all the vernacular style shots are pretty much straight off camera apart from trimming gaps from the histogram. only the formal portraits are processed. No one seemed to notice that though. It was just the usual cynical reaction to anything that's not a pretty picture.

That did leave me with a problem though, as I didn't want a massive contrast between the formal portraits and the reportage shots. I aimed for as neutral as possible. This is not about me.... it's about them.

However... thank you for actually asking instead of jumping to conclusions about the images.
 
Last edited:
No worries.

Do you not think there is room for more 'artistic' / aesthetically pleasing / call it what you will, images in documentary though?

There are obviously plenty of great documentary photographers out there producing work that people on here would like looking at from a photographic point of view, that is also meaningful and focussed on the subject.

Take Jim Mortram, or Ash Gilbertson (for example), I don't think anyone could accuse them of making their work about them. But they certainly take a mean "pretty picture" as well.
 
Pookeyhead said:
The images are just meant to accompany the writing.
Click to expand...
Which provides a different way to look at them than posted here as stand-alone pictures. Perhaps you should have made that clearer in the first place. :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
Well.. no one asked... LOL. They were too busy calling them snapshots :)

I didn't want aesthetics to intrude. I didn't want them to be saying "look at me... look how good I am". They're not shot to be admired as artefacts for their materiality and aesthetics. They're merely to place the viewer in the situations. I want them to be transparent. The photography is almost incidental. The images are just meant to accompany the writing. I did say in post 1 that this is also work in progress, and almost all the vernacular style shots are pretty much straight off camera apart from trimming gaps from the histogram. only the formal portraits are processed. No one seemed to notice that though. It was just the usual cynical reaction to anything that's not a pretty picture.

.
Click to expand...


It is a photography forum. If you'd wanted the photos to be treated as incidental this isn't the place to do it. Maybe.

It's not about a cynical approach to not a pretty picture. I'm a big fan of Martin parr. I'd hardly describe his work as'pretty' but they do draw one in - these don't.

A good photograph stands on its own merits without words, be that press, documentary or portrait. The words may well make the story stronger but it stands, invariably without them.

Being honest David, I'm still betting you would have slated these had someone else posted them. Would you not?
 
I have just "red carded" myself and taken my "meds" so that's me sorted and hopefully peace reigns on this over cast morning, (the suns coming out as I type) ........... I realise I was OTT ...... apologises for the offence that I have caused
 
Last edited:
Jayst84 said:
No worries.

Do you not think there is room for more 'artistic' / aesthetically pleasing / call it what you will, images in documentary though?
Click to expand...

Of course there is.. yeah. I just didn't want to. I'm getting a bit bored of being ruled by aesthetics if I'm honest. I can churn out eye candy without even thinking about it these days, and it bores me. I find it can be a distraction.. the photgrpahy is no longer a vehicle for something else, but the thing that is being admired rather than the subject. If this was a pure photo documentary, I may have thought differently.


Jayst84 said:
There are obviously plenty of great documentary photographers out there producing work that people on here would like looking at from a photographic point of view, that is also meaningful and focussed on the subject.

Take Jim Mortram, or Ash Gilbertson (for example), I don't think anyone could accuse them of making their work about them. But they certainly take a mean "pretty picture" as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah... sure.. I'm just really, really bored of pretty pictures. There's no challenge any more. I need a change.


boyfalldown said:
It is a photography forum. If you'd wanted the photos to be treated as incidental this isn't the place to do it.
Click to expand...

This is not the thread for you then perhaps. I'm sure there are others you'll find more entertaining.

Jayst84 said:
Being honest David, I'm still betting you would have slated these had someone else posted them. Would you not?
Click to expand...

Bet what you like... I'd have been intrigued and wanted to know the context before I made judgement, and not judged them as if they were an entry in a camera club competition.

BillN_33 said:
I have just "red carded" myself and taken my "meds" so that's me sorted and hopefully peace reigns on this over cast morning, (the suns coming out as I type) ........... I realise I was OTT ...... apologises for the offence that I have caused
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you've apologised too many times in the past. You're just a deeply unpleasant little man.
 
Pookeyhead said:
This is not the thread for you then perhaps. I'm sure there are others you'll find more entertaining.
Click to expand...

I dunno. It's pretty entertaining. I'm genuinely fascinated as to why you chose to post incidental photo on a photography critique board? Had you simply wished to plug your book you would have got nothing but best wishes
 
Actually, it's nice to see some work without a title or genre lable. What seems to have been lost here is that these are photos of some happy folk dicking around in fish suits.

You dont see that every day:)
 
boyfalldown said:
I dunno. It's pretty entertaining. I'm genuinely fascinated as to why you chose to post incidental photo on a photography critique board? Had you simply wished to plug your book you would have got nothing but best wishes
Click to expand...

Because the PROJECT isn't incidental, just that the photography, out of context doesn't really give the level of description it would without the supporting text.. NO photography would. Issues such as how this links to research upon how "Masking" ones identity has real, physiological effects on health and behaviour (studies show that masking someone with a stammer can actually cure them while wearing the mask - and how similar things like cosplay can bring about very real psychological changes to those with severe confidence or body image issues), or how it links to the inversely proportional relationship with economic downturn and escapism. There's a great deal to this project that NO photography alone could adequately speak of, so given that, I've opted for a transparent form of shooting that makes the photography act as a conduit to allow the viewer a glimpse into activities they'd otherwise never be able to fully appreciate without seeing them. A highly crafted approach would just be a barrier I feel. This is not a photo essay, or photo documentary, it's an ethnography. However, they are photographs, and it's an interesting, and unusual subject, and I think you're being unreasonable in the attitude that they don't belong in a photography forum just because relaxing formal values in favour of more vernacular approach is not to your liking. Anyone reading your comments without seeing the images would make the assumption that they are all out of focus, poorly exposed, really terrible images, which they clearly are not - I've just got absolutely no desire to try and impress people with craft skills. That's easy. They're just not to your liking is all. You know full well I COULD have crafted these to a very meticulous aesthetic standard, as everything else I've posted online clearly shows. You seem to be trying to capitalise on images you can identify what you deem to be flawed to score points for some reason. It's actually flattering, as you'd have probably not reacted in such a way to anyone else.

As you readily admit in the post above, you're here in this thread for entertainment, as you seem to get some childish pleasure from being derisive about the work. Clearly your motivations are more personal that genuine, which is another reason why I'm not taking your critique seriously.. or even paying it any heed whatsoever actually.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Because the PROJECT isn't incidental, just that the photography, out of context doesn't really give the level of description it would without the supporting text.. NO photography would. Issues such as how this links to research upon how "Masking" ones identity has real, physiological effects on health and behaviour (studies show that masking someone with a stammer can actually cure them while wearing the mask - and how similar things like cosplay can bring about very real psychological changes to those with severe confidence or body image issues), or how it links to the inversely proportional relationship with economic downturn and escapism. There's a great deal to this project that NO photography alone could adequately speak of, so given that, I've opted for a transparent form of shooting that makes the photography act as a conduit to allow the viewer a glimpse into activities they'd otherwise never be able to fully appreciate without seeing them. A highly crafted approach would just be a barrier I feel. This is not a photo essay, or photo documentary, it's an ethnography. However, they are photographs, and it's an interesting, and unusual subject, and I think you're being unreasonable in the attitude that they don't belong in a photography forum just because relaxing formal values in favour of more vernacular approach is not to your liking. Anyone reading your comments without seeing the images would make the assumption that they are all out of focus, poorly exposed, really terrible images, which they clearly are not - I've just got absolutely no desire to try and impress people with craft skills. That's easy. They're just not to your liking is all. You know full well I COULD have crafted these to a very meticulous aesthetic standard, as everything else I've posted online clearly shows. You seem to be trying to capitalise on images you can identify what you deem to be flawed to score points for some reason. It's actually flattering, as you'd have probably not reacted in such a way to anyone else.

As you readily admit in the post above, you're here in this thread for entertainment, as you seem to get some childish pleasure from being derisive about the work. Clearly your motivations are more personal that genuine, which is another reason why I'm not taking your critique seriously.. or even paying it any heed whatsoever actually.
Click to expand...


Shout as much as you like David. Great photography is great photography. All you shouting and personal comments don't change that. No amount of text will ever ,are these anything like great photography either. I'm unsure if you're on a wind up or not with these?
 
boyfalldown said:
Shout as much as you like David. Great photography is great photography. All you shouting and personal comments don't change that. No amount of text will ever ,are these anything like great photography either. I'm unsure if you're on a wind up or not with these?
Click to expand...

You clearly just do not understand. Which by itself would be no issue... only I just looked on your website, and it's full of snapshots. Now I'm really puzzled.
 
Pookeyhead said:
You clearly just do not understand. Which by itself would be no issue... only I just looked on your website, and it's full of snapshots. Now I'm really puzzled.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, cheap shots just sum you up David. At the end of the day you've posted a substandard set of photos. You feel the need to get so defensive cheap, personal jibes are all you can manage. I wonder why?
 
boyfalldown said:
I'm sorry, cheap shots just sum you up David. At the end of the day you've posted a substandard set of photos. You feel the need to get so defensive cheap, personal jibes are all you can manage. I wonder why?
Click to expand...

I'm just wondering how someone who places such high value on sheer craft skill above everything... to the extent that you feel my images do not even belong on the forum... can produce images that suffer from absolutely everything you've been accusing mine of. Can you explain that? I did it intentionally... you clearly didn't.

boyfalldown said:
I'm sorry, cheap shots just sum you up David. At the end of the day you've posted a substandard set of photos. You feel the need to get so defensive cheap, personal jibes are all you can manage. I wonder why?
Click to expand...

You;'ve been taking cheap shots for 2 pages dude... suck it up.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top