'Value' of C & C

[horrocks]

i'm going to get burned at the stake for this but - yes its HCB, but its still blurry , soft, and uninteresting ... it got slated on flickr because its not that good a photo (okay its composed on thirds but is that really all it takes to be great ?)

if one of us took it and posted it here it would rightly get ripped apart , but because its HCB some people think its compulsory to stroke their chins contemplatively while saying "oh yes, I can see what he was doing there"

some of HCBs work is certifiably brilliant - but this isn't one such , and I wouldn't give you £2.56 for it, 256k is bonkers

I was more than a little taken aback by this comment, and you will or you will not forgive me for my response. Assuming that BSM must be an extraordinary photographer to have justified such a comment, I took the liberty of looking at your stats to see some of your work. Assuming that the stats engine on the forum is accurate, of the small handful of photos that you have actually posted for critique here (of 6-7k posts!) all are technically faulty (you seem to specialise in blocked shadows) and at least two are out of focus (one of which is arguably your strongest image). More important than mere technicalities, all are emotionally uninvolving, and would most likely be considered snapshots in any serious critiques. There are a few examples of more proficient and emotionally engaging work your extensive gallery, but amazingly (in the light of your comments above) focus remains a recurring issue, as well as, judging by the number of apparent DOF test shots, an obsession.

Most of your posts seem to consist of chit-chat. One, in which you were kind enough to entertain us with how you threw up on your dog, has unfortunately lodged in my mind.

I didn't recognise Cartier-Bresson, but I immediately saw a stunning photograph, the apparent ease of that immaculate composition, the way the lines interplay and converge, the perfect placing of the cyclist, the dynamism, the gorgeous texture, and so on.

I am a bad photographer too, but I can generally recognise a good one!

 

[Pookeyhead]

Thank you, your first 3 words 'not at all are' enough for me and i do sort of get what you are trying to say (sort of),

One thing tho, and hoping i don't sound thick here but your last sentence... about effectively means fix it in processing, why will a pro cringe? why?

Because a professional who's technically proficient will not fix things post process, as they'll get it right in camera and have no need to correct anything.. unless it is literally unavoidable at the time. Many amateurs will shoot sloppily, and try to fix in in post.. particularly when it comes to lighting and exposure. Many amateurs will actually advise this, rather than learning the craft of photography.

 

[Cg_Girl]

i'm going to get burned at the stake for this but - yes its HCB, but its still blurry , soft, and uninteresting ... it got slated on flickr because its not that good a photo (okay its composed on thirds but is that really all it takes to be great ?)

if one of us took it and posted it here it would rightly get ripped apart , but because its HCB some people think its compulsory to stroke their chins contemplatively while saying "oh yes, I can see what he was doing there"

some of HCBs work is certifiably brilliant - but this isn't one such , and I wouldn't give you £2.56 for it, 256k is bonkers

no burning from me

I was more than a little taken aback by this comment, and you will or you will not forgive me for my response. Assuming that BSM must be an extraordinary photographer to have justified such a comment, I took the liberty of looking at your stats to see some of your work. Assuming that the stats engine on the forum is accurate, of the small handful of photos that you have actually posted for critique here (of 6-7k posts!) all are technically faulty (you seem to specialise in blocked shadows) and at least two are out of focus (one of which is arguably your strongest image). More important than mere technicalities, all are emotionally uninvolving, and would most likely be considered snapshots in any serious critiques. There are a few examples of more proficient and emotionally engaging work your extensive gallery, but amazingly (in the light of your comments above) focus remains a recurring issue, as well as, judging by the number of apparent DOF test shots, an obsession.

Most of your posts seem to consist of chit-chat. One, in which you were kind enough to entertain us with how you threw up on your dog, has unfortunately lodged in my mind.

I didn't recognise Cartier-Bresson, but I immediately saw a stunning photograph, the apparent ease of that immaculate composition, the way the lines interplay and converge, the perfect placing of the cyclist, the dynamism, the gorgeous texture, and so on.

I am a bad photographer too, but I can generally recognise a good one!

I think this is where everyone should be entitled to their opinion.(without slating) Pete his and you yours

But how many can go to an art gallery or whatever and see a photo and think damn thats pants but it will fetch ££££ purely because they are famous, yet to "some" of us it's blurry or like with some abstract paint splodges, looks like a 5yr old could have done it

 

[Phil V]

I disagree with that. Even film shooters post-processed. Pro or not. All that SOOC stuff grates on my nerves. There's groups for people whothink it's a great deal on Flickr ...


PRO - someone who actually gets paid week in and out.


Nothing to do with how they shoot or process.

I can see how it gets confused but there's a significant difference between SOOC and 'getting it right in camera'.

SOOC is either:
What all newbies believe we all ought to achieve, as anything else is 'cheating'
What volume shooters do to minimise their PP time .

Whereas 'getting it right in camera' means that our PP efforts arent spent doing work and making up for a lack of planning and thought when we took the picture. So fake background blur instead of a large aperture, fake movement blur instead of slow shutter speeds, excessive use of dodge and burn to change the lighting pattern etc. are all fudges that hide bad photographic technique.

If someone carefully lights and poses a subject to create a composite, that might be a massive amount of PP, but its all part of a photographic process, it's not the amount of work, it's the difference in attitude between 'sod the details we can fix it in post', and shooting accurately with purpose.

 

[a1ex2001]

A Few people in this thread seem to be of the impression you should only be allowed to critique a photo if you are a better tog yourself which I find very puzzling given that the majority of the worlds critics be they art, food or photography are not professionals in the respective fields! The fact I often take crappy outbid focus full compositions doesn't somehow mean I can't spot them in others shots!

 

[Pookeyhead]

A Few people in this thread seem to be of the impression you should only be allowed to critique a photo if you are a better tog yourself which I find very puzzling given that the majority of the worlds critics be they art, food or photography are not professionals in the respective fields! The fact I often take crappy outbid focus full compositions doesn't somehow mean I can't spot them in others shots!

I'm referring to technical crit though. That's a little different. Giving people technical advice when you're not even sure whether it's correct... something you've just read and disseminated... isn't very wise, and this is the main reason there is often conflicting opinion.

I don't understand why someone who doesn't really know if what they are advising is right or not through practical experience would even want to comment anyway. Are they just trying appear clever? I also go into car forums, and while I have read a lot of stuff, and feel I know the answer to someone's question, I'll keep my mouth shut, as I've no idea if what I've read was BS or not. I'll leave it to the qualified people to advise others.

Just seems the sensible thing to do.


Commenting on aesthetics is a free for all though... it's opinion, and open to debate. I'm not referring to that.

 

[horrocks]

A Few people in this thread seem to be of the impression you should only be allowed to critique a photo if you are a better tog yourself which I find very puzzling given that the majority of the worlds critics be they art, food or photography are not professionals in the respective fields! The fact I often take crappy outbid focus full compositions doesn't somehow mean I can't spot them in others shots!

A perfectly good point, but we all should take care of throwing stones when we live in glass houses, or at least be prepared to take some flak. Forgive the mixed metaphors.

We can critique, certainly, and objectivity is sometimes a difficult thing, but we have to accept that we might sometimes just be totally, searingly wrong!

One has the absolute right not to like the Cartier-Bresson photograph, and it may well not accord with the current fashion for ultra-sharpness, but neither prevent it (objectively) from being a great image.

 

[Phil V]

A perfectly good point, but we all should take care of throwing stones when we live in glass houses, or at least be prepared to take some flak. Forgive the mixed metaphors.

We can critique, certainly, and objectivity is sometimes a difficult thing, but we have to accept that we might sometimes just be totally, searingly wrong!

One has the absolute right not to like the Cartier-Bresson photograph, and it may well not accord with the current fashion for ultra-sharpness, but neither prevent it (objectively) from being a great image.

Sorry but there's no such thing as an objectively great image.

This is a piece of art under discussion and art is universally agreed to be subjective.

I'm a great fan of HCB but I've never particularly liked that shot either, that btw doesn't give you carte Blanche permission to offer unsolicited critique of my images., or my postings here.

 

[Deleted member 34016]

I disagree with that. Even film shooters post-processed. Pro or not. All that SOOC stuff grates on my nerves. There's groups for people whothink it's a great deal on Flickr ...


PRO - someone who actually gets paid week in and out.

Nothing to do with how they shoot or process.

NO so- if you did actually READ my post I said LITTLE or NO PP and as a Pro, you need to derive an income from Photography not get paid week in week out - Im a game keeper I get paid week in week out and earn from Photography too, be it little and often

Les

 

[horrocks]

Sorry but there's no such thing as an objectively great image.

This is a piece of art under discussion and art is universally agreed to be subjective.

OK, fair point. But there are objectively bad ones.

that btw doesn't give you carte Blanche permission to offer unsolicited critique of my images., or my postings here.

Oh, go on, pleaaase..

 

[big soft moose]

I think this is where everyone should be entitled to their opinion.(without slating) Pete his and you yours

That

I've no intention of getting into a ****ing contest with horrocks , he's perfectly entitled to his opinion as i am to mine.

(the old chestnut about the quality of my work is boring rather than agravating to be honest, I don't tend to post my best shots for crit - because if i think they are pretty damn good, whats the point ? - the ones i do post tend to be the ones where something went wrong and i want to discuss why. - also a lot of the shots in my gallery are either edits on other peoples, or photo manipulation for the 'how would you edit this photo' game (the dragons, sharks and 50ft women tend to give those shots away)

And yes a lot of my posts are chat - i'm a social guy, i like chatting to people - many of them like chatting to me, so sue me...

Its amusing that hooricks feels the need to attack my photographic ability because i dared to citicise the mighty HCB - But do I feel the need to respond in kind and go poring through horrock's shots looking for duffers to validate some point - no, because i'm a bigger man than that.


Back on topic, am I as good as HCB ? , Almost certainly not, but so what - i'm not as good a footballer as Beckham either , but i can still notice when he duffs a shot over the cross bar

I don't believe in reverentially stroking my chin and saying 'yeees' just because someone is famous - everyone takes crap at times (for example i really rate Andy Rouse , but he freely admits that he takes more duffers than keepers, ditto Cornish, Waite, Noton etc)

Why should HCB be an exception to that - and why should we get all reverential about his photos just because of who he is - i'm not seeng any subtle textures in that shot - its a blurry & soft , with a simple composure on thirds with a spiral stair case as a leading line - that doesnt make a great shot imo

Where HCB does shine is in documentary "definitive moment" shots of a lifestyle thats no longer exists - most of the shots arent technically perfect , but that doesnt matter because of the interest in what they record.

(its also interesting to speculate on what would have happened with HCBs work if he'd access to todays technology - would he have kept every shot that exists today - many of which have only become classics more recently - or would he have looked at them on the LCD and gone ' wonky, soft, crap histogram... nah, delete it' )

 

[Pookeyhead]

I disagree with that. Even film shooters post-processed. Pro or not. All that SOOC stuff grates on my nerves.

I never said straight off camera. I said fixing things post process due to lack of technical skill at the taking stage. I've nothing against post processing.


Why is it every time this subject comes up I have to explain this over and over again?

Fixing crap lighting in post is bad. Correcting poor exposure in post is bad.


Adding something extra to alter the reading or tone of voice is absolutely fine.

I can't but think you actually know this though... we've had this discussion several times, and you always think I mean anything other that straight from the camera is bad. I have no idea why.

 

[redhed17]

very few of Cartier-Bressons are critically sharp by digital standards... he clearly was not preoccupied with pixel peeping.
However all his shots show astonishingly good compositions and the tones always contributed to the overall work.

All his shots, really?

Now this is not Cartier-Bresson specific, because I like a lot of the pictures of his I've seen, but once fame enters the equation an image, or music, or any art is judged in a different way which may or may not be worth the praise or attention. I admit the art world baffles me, and maybe I can't see greatness, or haven't learned to 'see' what is great in a picture.

The thing I really don't like about art, and the 'art world' in particular, is how the fame of the artist distorts the 'value' or quality of the art.

A lot of people would probably have said something similar as the comments in the link, about some very famous images, (if they didn't know it was by someone famous) and if it was by Joe Doe, unknown person, most would agree, at least about technical aspects. Say it is is a masterpiece and/by someone famous, and suddenly the image is not viewed in the same way.


Anyone can give critique. Whether you think the critique is valid is up to you as the recipient, or as a viewer of critique of someone else's work. The author of the work should have now influence on the work imho.

When someone has an opinion on my pictures, as when I've put pictures up here and people have been kind enough to take the time to comment, I take what they say as to whether I agree or not with the point they are making. If someone made a comment, I didn't go and see what their pictures were like to see whether I took any notice of what they said. :shrug:

 

[Yv]

The thing is, that whilst I can sort of agree and understand what David is saying about the value of technical crit [as opposed to aesthetic crit, which is a subjective opinion and everyone is entitled to their thoughts], how can or does a beginner know to check that the information they are being given is both advisable and what they need? Seriously, when I joined this forum years ago and having done some photography study many years before that, it would never have occurred to me to check the gallery, website, etc of the person offering the advice. How do you actively encourage beginners to do that, even if you could stop the 'nice shot, sort it in post' brigade?

You then have the problem of which advice you take on board when you can be given several pieces of information, which on the surface of it, especially to a beginner, will appear conflicting, even though they actually both achieve the same ends. For example, I know 2 photographers, both very successful studio photographers, who will advise two entirely different methods to getting the same end result, because the methods are the ones that they work best with. Now thats fine if you are already fairly experienced and knowledgeable, you can decide which will fit better with your own way of working, but a newish photographer will not have that experience to make the judgement. In theory, David is correct in his opinion, for me, but there are so many variables that can still create problems.




As an aside and in reference to the HCB being discussed, last month I visited the Salgado Genesis exhibition at the NHM here in London. The entire collection are black and white photos [I admit, not flavour of the month for me atm so that probably didn't help]. Now technically, I can see of lot of good stuff in those prints, certainly no signs of blurring or softness However, purely on a level of gut appeal, his work swung fully between 'loved it' and 'just why?' It was probably quite telling of my own work that the photographs that appealed were almost all his 'people' images, whereas those that really turned me off were the landscapes. Not exclusively, some of his landscapes were stunning, others just looked flat, dull and uninteresting to my eye and I couldn't help but think that the same scene in colour and far better light would have been better and that the print was simply 'space-filling' - the point is, that regardless of a photographers ability and reputation, there is no obligation to like everything they have ever done. Some of HCB's stuff is simply gorgeous, some less so and like Salgado, which pictures are which is very much down to the eye of the beholder

 

[Brian_of_Bozeat]

I think of it like the reviews on amazon etc. you need to decide for yourself if you think the advice is sound or not.

You David have helped me in the past and I was grateful for your forthright comments, stick around please.

 

[Pookeyhead]

The thing is, that whilst I can sort of agree and understand what David is saying about the value of technical crit [as opposed to aesthetic crit, which is a subjective opinion and everyone is entitled to their thoughts], how can or does a beginner know to check that the information they are being given is both advisable and what they need?

Well.. that's the problem isn't it?

I just feel that if I can back up the advice I'm giving with examples of my own work, I'll stick it in the TP gallery and link to it in the post. I often do that. You could include a web page link, or a Flickr page link. (shrug).

I just notice that a great many people who are very vocal about what you should and shouldn't do have empty galleries, no links.. nothing. Why is that?

Seriously, when I joined this forum years ago and having done some photography study many years before that, it would never have occurred to me to check the gallery, website, etc of the person offering the advice. How do you actively encourage beginners to do that, even if you could stop the 'nice shot, sort it in post' brigade?

I don't think you'd need to. It would be difficult anyway, as there may be the odd person who just thinks "Why should I".. and they may well be brilliant. Perhaps just by having conversations like this is enough to highlight the potential problems with having technical advice from a wide range of people with varying degrees of experience.

To be honest.. I'm not expecting any outcomes from this debate.

 

[big soft moose]

I just notice that a great many people who are very vocal about what you should and shouldn't do have empty galleries, no links.. nothing. Why is that?
.

because when they put pics/ links they either get ripped apart by ill informed idiots who don't realise the context in which the link was posted (for example i posted a shot called 'stuffed' (for the avoidance of doubt) during a discussion of how we all cock up sometimes ... only to have it later pulled out as an example of "if thats the best you can do" ... erm no, its clearly a duff shot posted to illustrate a particular point :shrug:

or if your work is uniformly brilliant (which mine isnt) you get accused of show boating, or only posting inorder to promote your blog or gallery or whatever .. or of trying to hijack someones crit thread to promote yourself

 

[horrocks]

Its amusing that hooricks feels the need to attack my photographic ability because i dared to citicise the mighty HCB

I didn't. As I clearly stated, I didn't know it was Cartier-Bresson. Any 'attack' that I made on your photographic ability was purely contextual, in that I made the observation that many of the apparent 'faults' that you identified on the way to dismissing as worthless rubbish the piece of work in question appear to be your own stock-in-trade. OK, that may sound harsh and unkind, but you see where I am coming from. And you did dismiss it as worthless rubbish, albeit in slightly different words.

I looked at your work because, given the unequivocal nature of your comments, I was looking forward to seeing something inspirational, not in order to find the fuel to carry out that burning at the stake you mentioned!

 

[big soft moose]

in that I made the observation that many of the apparent 'faults' that you identified on the way to dismissing as worthless rubbish the piece of work in question appear to be your own stock-in-trade. .

but you made the naive and frankly daft assumption that whats in my gallery here is fully representative of my photographic ability. (which isnt the point of the thread so i'm not going to argue in depth)- but i've had the front page of "bird watching" , and a portfolio published in outdoor photographer ... so its fair to say that crap shots arent the only thing i can produce

I don't deny that i do sometimes - so do you, so does andy rouse, and so in fact does HCB - no one is perfect

 

[Pookeyhead]

because when they put pics/ links they either get ripped apart by ill informed idiots

I'm talking about posting images you've taken to illustrate what you're saying in technical critique discussions to demonstrate that you actually do have the ability and experience to back up what you're saying. I'm also talking about having a populated gallery, or link to a web page so people can make up their own minds as to whether you are the the kind of person who's advice should be trusted or not.

Nothing I'm saying in this thread relates to feedback on a aesthetic or conceptual level... as I've said, that's purely subjective and open to debate: There IS no right or wrong there. You may choose to accept one person's advice over another if they can demonstrate they've had critical acclaim on a professional level, or has a body of work that seems innovative, but it's entirely a personal thing. There's no one way to take photographs so far as aesthetics is concerned.. it's all opinion.

I don't deny that i do sometimes - so do you, so does andy rouse, and so in fact does HCB - no one is perfect

Indeed... everyone does. I don't show them though. They're the still birthed mutants of my creativity... I bury them in the cellar and hope no one notices It's incredibly rare these are caused by a technical issue though. Technically, I'm very good, as someone who's been shooting professionally for 28 years should be. That's not arrogance.. that's just obvious.


[edit]

Having said that, there's always some arse who'll say "Why did you shoot at F11 when there was no need"... like it actually matters if I shot at f8 or f11. Usually these are the people who have nothing in their galleries and have no links though. Pedants and weekend warriors.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

HCB is a red herring in this discussion. His photographs that we actually see have been selected from the more famous of his published shots, they are recognised as "great works" That of course does not mean to say that there are not thousands of lesser shots in the magnum archive that we never see.
I would divide criticism into two sorts... technical and artistic... In past years most experienced photographers agreed on what was considered technical excellence, but had more disagreements about artistic merit. Today as we have seen in this thread, there is a far more scope for disagreement, as the world view and education and background of those entering photography is also far wider and less formalised.
There is now almost no agreement about technical or artistic merit.

 

[dod]

I just see green now, and look no further, sorry. I have no confidence in the moderation of this forum.

Okay. I'll humour you. Exactly why is it that you have no confidence in the moderation of this forum?

 

[Pookeyhead]

Okay. I'll humour you. Exactly why is it that you have no confidence in the moderation of this forum?

That very question makes my point for me. You really wanna open this can of worms in a public forum? Really? You really want to derail a really interesting thread to satisfy your own curiosity? Start a new one in the Forum Feedback bit.. or whatever it's called.

If you value a particular member's feedback, why not PM them?

 

[big soft moose]

I'm talking about posting images you've taken to illustrate what you're saying in technical critique discussions to demonstrate that you actually do have the ability and experience to back up what you're saying. I'm also talking about having a populated gallery, or link to a web page so people can make up their own minds as to whether you are the the kind of person who's advice should be trusted or not.

trouble with that is that posting your own images on someone elses crit thread is an infractable offence - there was a big thread about it a little while back

and the latter point comes back to the idiot thing - for example suppose you tell someone that they've blown their whites , theres also some prat (usually a third party not the OP) who will trawl through your gallery until they find an image with blown whites - for example in your gallery that lee picture - and be all like " ooh you've got blown whites too , you're such a hypocrite why should we listen to you etc" (and yes i know that that image is exposed as you intended - but then i'm not a muppet with a rampant ego and a point to prove at any cost)

Having said that, there's always some arse who'll say "Why did you shoot at F11 when there was no need"... like it actually matters if I shot at f8 or f11. Usually these are the people who have nothing in their galleries and have no links though. Pedants and weekend warriors.

I suppose that depends - in your case probably not, but if the image being critiqued is suffering from camera wobble and some numpty is spouting about how they couldnt get a faster speed because of the light , then why did you shoot at f11 when f8 would have done is a valid point - because the difference could have been between 1/60 and 1/125 and elimnated the wobble

 

[Pookeyhead]

trouble with that is that posting your own images on someone elses crit thread is an infractable offence

No it's not. Only if you're doing it to say "You're crap, and I'm not... look at THIS".. then yeah.. you're being a dick. However, if someone has a genuine query about how to improve their shots, and you can demonstrate how by posting a useful example... well... if that is an offence, that's just another reason why I have no confidence in the moderation of this forum.

 

[Steve]

I have to agree with David on this and when he posted something similar a few months back, that was when I added a link to my flickr photos, for the sole purpose that if I'm making a comment or critique of someone elses work, they have the right to look at my work and make a judgement on whether to listen to me or not.

Conversely, being able to see someone elses work when they are commenting on mine gives me an indication as to how much weight to attach to their comments.

I would never dream of using their work as a counter attack, and anyone who asks for criticism should not go on the defensive once it is received.

 

[Yv]

No it's not. Only if you're doing it to say "You're crap, and I'm not... look at THIS".. then yeah.. you're being a dick. However, if someone has a genuine query about how to improve their shots, and you can demonstrate how by posting a useful example... well... if that is an offence, that's just another reason why I have no confidence in the moderation of this forum.

No, its not an offence and never has been. It IS an 'offence to use someone elses thread to gratuitously pimp your own work, which is the way some have done it, but just to use your own image to demonstrate a point is not a problem.

 

[Pookeyhead]

No, its not an offence and never has been. It IS an 'offence to use someone elses thread to gratuitously pimp your own work, which is the way some have done it, but just to use your own image to demonstrate a point is not a problem.

Common sense prevails. Thank you for clarification. I didn't think it was.

 

[big soft moose]

No, its not an offence and never has been. It IS an 'offence to use someone elses thread to gratuitously pimp your own work, which is the way some have done it, but just to use your own image to demonstrate a point is not a problem.

um, not that i'd ever doubt you Yv - but thats not what another moderator told me.

The way i was told it if you want to put your own image on someelses thread you should pm them and ask for permission (which rather defeats the whole point of forumsas it depends on them being on line at the same time)

I was specifically warned that doing it without permission could be an infraction.

 

[Yv]

That very question makes my point for me. You really wanna open this can of worms in a public forum? Really? You really want to derail a really interesting thread to satisfy your own curiosity? Start a new one in the Forum Feedback bit.. or whatever it's called.

If you value a particular member's feedback, why not PM them?

A little unfair David, you have mentioned your lack of confidence in the moderation twice now in THIS thread, but at the same time don't think it should be discussed here in case it derails - in that case, perhaps stop mentioning it yourself and possibly even use the contact us, so ALL the staff can see it, to express your concerns. Just a thought.

 

[Yv]

um, not that i'd ever doubt you Yv - but thats not what another moderator told me.

The way i was told it if you want to put your own image on someelses thread you should pm them and ask for permission (which rather defeats the whole point of forumsas it depends on them being on line at the same time)

I was specifically warned that doing it without permission could be an infraction.

I can't comment on that as I don't know the specific circumstances, very possibly the thread in question was a matter of context. Again it can be that fine line between help/pimp and of course, simple good manners too.

 

[Yv]

Just to add to previous post, I think I have found [ok, another mod did ] the thread to which Pete refers and the general staff concensus was that its ok to add a picture or link to a picture in the context of helping, but good manners to ask first, mainly to prevent the 'photobombing' and thread hijack scenario - which we all know happens too often. Nothing about it being infractable per se, but yes a picture will be removed if the OP RTM's because they don't appreciate it. [though if they don't appreciate something that is genuinely helpful, it really is their loss imo humble opinion] So hopefully that sort of clears it up, albeit that there will be context and opinion taken into account on a case by case basis.

 

[big soft moose]

fair enough Yv - that isnt exactly what another mod told me after that thread, but i'm not going to argue (the circumstance you describe is a lot closer to what i was arguing for on that thread anyway)

 

[Yv]

fair enough Yv - that isnt exactly what another mod told me after that thread, but i'm not going to argue (the circumstance you describe is a lot closer to what i was arguing for on that thread anyway)

I think you misunderstood, the person meant specifically YOUR pictures were infractable

 

[Pookeyhead]

I have to ask if I can help before I offer help in a thread where people want help?

Holy crap.. LOL

This place is so politically correct it's debilitated. I'm out of this thread.. and I just can't be arsed helping anyone any more. It's a minefield.

Whoever runs this place needs a long, hard look at what purpose it actually serves.

 

[Hacker]

I have to ask if I can help before I offer help in a thread where people want help?

Holy crap.. LOL

This place is so politically correct it's debilitated. I'm out of this thread.. and I just can't be arsed helping anyone any more. It's a minefield.

Whoever runs this place needs a long, hard look at what purpose it actually serves.

If I don't like somewhere I usually just leave and don't come back.

 

[big soft moose]

I think you misunderstood, the person meant specifically YOUR pictures were infractable

:Oi: - just because you're smaller than me doesnt mean i won't put you over my knee

 

[Pookeyhead]

No way. I'll speak my mind. Want rid of me, then all you have to do is ban me for no real reason, publicly because I've made you angry. Very professional.

 

[kelack]

Professional?? Have you been banned? No, because we use a real reason to ban people (and not amount of rtm's), after it's been to a vote in the staff room.

 

[woof woof]

AaaaaaaaaaaanyWay...

I like old photos.

I remember years ago I posted two pictures of Alf and Tess (two black labs) on the beach on another forum. One shot was taken at f1.4 and although I couldn't at the time be 100% sure how a shot of dogs running would turn out at f1.4 it turned out perfect with the lead dogs head in focus and the DoF falling away. Perfect. The other shot was at f8 for front to back DoF and that's what I got. I was very very happy with both shots. They turned out just as I'd hoped although as I said there was a bit of luck with the shallow DoF shot.

Anyway, along comes some random bloke and posts that there's too little DoF in the first shot and too much in the second... and here was me thinking they were both perfect. In that moment I realised that it's what I think of my own shots that matters and I don't really need some random bloke on t'net telling me I've get too little or too much DoF, or anything else for that matter.