 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / June 2006Which are the *worst*
Okay, it's about that time again. I need to cull some of the photos from my web site. So, which of these do you think are the worst (and why, if you're feeling especially helpful)? http://www.ericschreiber.com/photography/index.html Thanks! > Okay, it's about that time again. I need to cull some of the photos > from my web site. So, which of these do you think are the worst (and > why, if you're feeling especially helpful)? > > http://www.ericschreiber.com/photography/index.html All 'people', just not eyecatching, photographically spoken. all animals except the frog, skip the fireworks (not very nice), keep 'miscallaneous', they are ok. Rutger  Signaturehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/ > Okay, it's about that time again. I need to cull some of the photos > from my web site. So, which of these do you think are the worst (and > why, if you're feeling especially helpful)? > > http://www.ericschreiber.com/photography/index.html Start with the ones which are out of focus.... ;-)) R. > > Okay, it's about that time again. I need to cull some of the photos > > from my web site. So, which of these do you think are the worst (and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > R. I'd agree with the people shots - you need candids of ppl in different poses (standing, sitting, etc - and with different expressions. Lose all the fireworks - they're as cliche as waterfall shots - the thing you want to do with fireworks - you need something else in the shot a foreground or background element like a building in silhoette - a tree - etc. also lose Dead Tree. > Lose all the fireworks - they're as cliche as waterfall shots - the > thing you want to do with fireworks - you need something else in the > shot a foreground or background element like a building in silhoette - > a tree - etc. I really don't know that adding such elements makes a fireworks shot any less of a cliche - seems that Disney has made an entire industry out of exactly that sort of shot. And, being cliche doesn't necessarily make a photo bad. In any case, the Fireworks #1 shot is strictly cliche, I agree. Fireworks #2 has exactly what you suggest - surrounding elements, none of which include a castle or mouse ears :) The remaining fireworks photos are deliberately somewhat abstract. > also lose Dead Tree. Yeah, you're probably right about that one. Both of the dead trees, in fact. I feel like there's something there, but with my poor PS skills I can't salvage them. Thanks for the reply. Signaturewww.ericschreiber.com > > Lose all the fireworks - they're as cliche as waterfall shots - the > > thing you want to do with fireworks - you need something else in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > out of exactly that sort of shot. And, being cliche doesn't necessarily > make a photo bad. I'm only thinking that 'cause that's what I have found - just a shot of fireworks is out of context and boring to me - my next fireworks shots may involve the Phila Art Museum or a view down the Ben Franklin Blvd this 4th of july - a rather "zoomed out" composition - a shot that gets the fireworks, as well as a feel for the event, the location, the people, etc. - another one might be a similar type of composition down the Jersey Shore with the lit up Ferris wheel in the shot along with the Wildwood boardwalk. Just my thoughts. > In any case, the Fireworks #1 shot is strictly cliche, I agree. > Fireworks #2 has exactly what you suggest - surrounding elements, none > of which include a castle or mouse ears :) No mouse ears! > Okay, it's about that time again. I need to cull some of the photos > from my web site. So, which of these do you think are the worst (and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thanks! Why should we do that? Are you so f.cking lazy? Get a life, a.shole.... > Why should we do that? Are you so f.cking lazy? > > Get a life, a.shole.... UC - you're such an a.shole! > > Why should we do that? Are you so f.cking lazy? > > > > Get a life, a.shole.... > > UC - you're such an a.shole! ...who hates scumbag photographers.... >> UC - you're such an a.shole! > ...who hates scumbag photographers.... Well sure, who doesn't? But as far as I know, I've never photographed a scumbag. You wouldn't by chance be volunteering to sit for a portrait, would you? Signaturewww.ericschreiber.com > But as far as I know, I've never photographed a scumbag. You wouldn't > by chance be volunteering to sit for a portrait, would you? Don't hold him personally responsible for his outbursts. I believe that way back in the day some scaffolding fell down and whacked him on the head at a shoot he was working. Might have jarred a couple of things loose. Heck, I've read about guys having personality changes after foreign objects went into their brain - maybe a little piece of the scaffolding actually got into his skull and turned him into a bitter old fart. > > But as far as I know, I've never photographed a scumbag. You wouldn't > > by chance be volunteering to sit for a portrait, would you? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > scaffolding actually got into his skull and turned him into a bitter > old fart. What's amazing is that he was: 1. once a phtographer 2. thinks all photographers are scumbags 3. hangs out in photography discussion groups duh - what a confused individual Jimbo > duh - what a confused individual 'Broken' would be my first choice of words, but yeah. Too bad. Sounds like he might have actually been respected once. Goes to show how one can be one's own worst enemy. > What's amazing is that he was: > 1. once a phtographer Was he any good? > 2. thinks all photographers are scumbags Any idea what caused the disconnect he apparently suffered? > 3. hangs out in photography discussion groups Everybody has to be somewhere, I suppose :) Signaturewww.ericschreiber.com > Was he any good? Never seen any of his stuff, but he's never seemed shy about calling other people's work mediocre (without necessarily being specific) - so you gotta think he's brilliant. ...or something. > Any idea what caused the disconnect he apparently suffered? Search for his old posts. There's tidbits in there somewhere - I know, because I've seen them myself. > > Was he any good? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Search for his old posts. There's tidbits in there somewhere - I know, > because I've seen them myself. I have not been hanging around photo discussion groups very much lately. There's only so much stupidity one can take. The same stupid questions over and over and over. The same stupid sunsets, flowers, waterfalls, etc. I have not seen a good photograph in a long time. > I have not seen a good photograph in a long time. And? What do you NOT find stupid? I'm curious - any links to stuff that really DOES work for you? I'd love to see something that does turn your crank, and to hear why it does so. Not to mention some of your own stuff, but that's secondary. So? What Does UC Find Excellent? > > I have not seen a good photograph in a long time. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So? What Does UC Find Excellent? Oh, certainly not the puddle jumper.... Probably stuff by Eugene Smith, Salgado, and other reportage photographers > Probably stuff by Eugene Smith, Salgado, and other reportage > photographers Crikey. If you're going to insist on holding other people up to the same standard as Salgado, I suggest you unsubscribe from this group and never ever come back. I remember an old Far Side cartoon - the scene was inside a kindergarten classroom, and this big bug-eyed alien had opened the door and stuck its head in, as the kids and teacher all stared at it in disbelief... The caption read: "Whoa! Wrong Room!" Same deal. Wrong room. On 29/6/06 01:53, in article 1151542423.625225.60410@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> Was he any good? >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I have not seen a good photograph in a long time. I agree. There is only so much bickering anyone can take; and let's face it, most of the content here is exactly that. Thankfully, I just pass through here once or twice a year when I'm looking for something. I'm amazed some of them get through the day in real life! As for the original poster, I do like "La Rue Wisconsin 2000", but he should edit his own pictures - preferably in camera. > I agree. There is only so much bickering anyone can take; and let's > face it, most of the content here is exactly that. Thankfully, I just > pass through here once or twice a year when I'm looking for > something. I'm amazed some of them get through the day in real life! There's some solid irony here, considering what you're saying and who you're replying to :) > the original poster [...] should edit his own pictures > preferably in camera. That's certainly better than "Get a life, a.shole", but still not especially useful. I was hoping for the "here's what's wrong with this picture" sort of critique. Jimbo has been nicely chatty about fireworks photos, which I appreciate, but apart from that (and the low-grade amusement that UC has provided) this thread has proven to be something of a bust. I should probably know better by now than to expect much from Usenet. Signaturewww.ericschreiber.com On 29/6/06 04:33, in article 8fedned1KNeM1z7ZnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@giganews.com, > I should probably know better by now than to expect much from Usenet. That now makes three of us. ;] FWIW; I liked all your images, but thought the people shots a bit cluttered. > On 29/6/06 04:33, in article 8fedned1KNeM1z7ZnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@giganews.com, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > FWIW; I liked all your images, but thought the people shots a bit cluttered. Typical of most amateur work, and even some pros' work, is excessive clutter. > Typical of most amateur work, and even some pros' work, is excessive > clutter. Oh okay - big mister no it all - thatns for all that knowledge - NOT - so UC - you're unhappy all the time - aren't you? Always only wantind perfection - I'm more of a humanist and like viewing the art of my brothers and sisters. Jim > > Typical of most amateur work, and even some pros' work, is excessive > > clutter. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > perfection - I'm more of a humanist and like viewing the art of my > brothers and sisters. Photography is not and cannot be art. > Jim > Photography is not and cannot be art. Oh, f*ck off. You're saying that photography offers no avenue for self-expression? The very choice of _subject_ is an exercise in self-expression. And art _is_ (arguably) self-expression. You're a rather pretentious, _extremely_ negative grouch, who will be pleased by next to nothing, and will never offer an encouraging word. In other words, you _beg_ to be mocked. I will seek out every opportunity. *WHAP!* How's the noggin, mister? > > Photography is not and cannot be art. > > Oh, f*ck off. You're saying that photography offers no avenue for > self-expression? What the f.ck has that to do with a criterion for being art? >The very choice of _subject_ is an exercise in > self-expression. And art _is_ (arguably) self-expression. Nope. > You're a rather pretentious, _extremely_ negative grouch, who will be > pleased by next to nothing, and will never offer an encouraging word. Not likely in this culture. > In other words, you _beg_ to be mocked. I will seek out every > opportunity. As will I, to mock and deride every a.shole who takes sunsets, flowers, and waterfalls. > *WHAP!* How's the noggin, mister? > >The very choice of _subject_ is an exercise in > > self-expression. And art _is_ (arguably) self-expression. > > Nope. Yep. > > >The very choice of _subject_ is an exercise in > > > self-expression. And art _is_ (arguably) self-expression. > > > > Nope. > > Yep. You obviously know less about what art is than most amoeba.... > You obviously know less about what art is than most amoeba.... Sure, whatever makes you happy... > > You obviously know less about what art is than most amoeba.... > > Sure, whatever makes you happy... f.cking retarded photographers... > > > You obviously know less about what art is than most amoeba.... > > > > Sure, whatever makes you happy... > > f.cking retarded photographers... Yup, that's me, sitting here with my eyes glazed over, tongue sticking out slightly, and bapping my forehead with the back of my wrist. We're all retarded. You know better, without exception. You go, guy!! ;) > > > > You obviously know less about what art is than most amoeba.... > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > We're all retarded. You know better, without exception. You go, guy!! > ;) You moles.... > > We're all retarded. You know better, without exception. You go, guy!! > > ;) > > You moles.... Retarded moles - even better. You do it to yourself, dude. ;) > > > We're all retarded. You know better, without exception. You go, guy!! > > > ;) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You do it to yourself, dude. ;) Voles...rats...skinks...slime molds....vermin of all sorts... > Voles...rats...skinks...slime molds....vermin of all sorts... With big pointy teeth. But they can all be dispersed with the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. Or, at least, that's what Tim says. > > Voles...rats...skinks...slime molds....vermin of all sorts... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Or, at least, that's what Tim says. Nice - at least us stupid scumbags are funnier than UC! "one, two, five..." "Three sir" "THREE" > > > Voles...rats...skinks...slime molds....vermin of all sorts... > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Nice - at least us stupid scumbags are funnier than UC! As an indication of your collective ignorance, it's "Nice - at least WE stupid scumbags are funnier than UC!" > "one, two, five..." > "Three sir" > "THREE" > > Nice - at least us stupid scumbags are funnier than UC! > > As an indication of your collective ignorance, it's > "Nice - at least WE stupid scumbags are funnier than UC!" You're not incorrect - but the possibility that you have better grasp of grammar than others doesn't change the sad, simple truth... BD > > Oh, f*ck off. You're saying that photography offers no avenue for > > self-expression? > > What the f.ck has that to do with a criterion for being art? UC - everytime you write something, you further prove the point that you are not very intelligent - certainly not articulate - so enlighten us UC - what is art? What criteria is necessary for something to be art? Since you know so much and we stupid photographers of flowers, sunsets and waterfalls know so little. And I agree - why would anyone want to take a picture of pretty things - much better photographing ugly subjects, like a turd - like UC - hehehehehehe (This should be good!) > FWIW; I liked all your images, but thought the people shots a bit > cluttered. You're quite right, they are. I don't really have a knack for people shots, and those were all just 'shots of opportunity', with no setup or preparation. Perhaps once my PS skills have improved I'll revisit them to reduce the background clutter. Of course, in two of the Ran Faire shots, the clutter was kind of the point :) In any case, I put on a critical hat last night and culled the photos myself. The removed ones are here: http://www.ericschreiber.com/photography/removed.html I think the remaining collection is much improved. For an amateur, naturally. I have no illusions of being anything else. Signaturewww.ericschreiber.com > Don't hold him personally responsible for his outbursts. No worries. I've been playing on Usenet a long time, and aside from the occasional amusement of having such people tell me *I* should get a life, I'm pretty much indifferent to them. Signaturewww.ericschreiber.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.