Just playing around, so I throw this one out for discussion. Which is more important the so-called intentional creativity or the rules of technique that it ignores and to a small few, I would like to hear some positive, well thought out suggestions, if you don't like it.

Ronnoco

By the way, always feel free to edit, to demonstrate a point or suggestion.

I do like it Ron, it's different and creative. My three critiques are that it seems to be tilted left slightly and the shadow beside the left headstone seems out of place. I don't see anything that creates the shadow also the refection looks odd torwards the back where the reflection of the mountain range is?
Greg

I do like it Ron, it's different and creative. My three critiques are that it seems to be tilted left slightly and the shadow beside the left headstone seems out of place. I don't see anything that creates the shadow also the refection looks odd torwards the back where the reflection of the mountain range is?
Greg

You are right, Greg. It does look slightly tilted. The shadow certainly does look out of place, but I did nothing that would have caused that. I will have to take another look at my original. The reflection certainly does look odd as well, again not intentionally done, so I will check on that as well.

Good eye. Thank you

Ronnoco

I do like the concept, I like the fact that there is no info on the headstones and the colors almost looks like you are looking into another world. Please post an edit when you get one...
Greg

OK, Greg. The weird shadow that you noticed was actually another gravestone right on the ground. I cloned it out. I tried to correct the tilt but I discovered it was extremely close. The reflection problem was actually a cloud that needed to be "adjusted". Does this look better?

Ronnoco

That looks much better, I do see some clone stamp trails, but wouldn't notice them if I wasn't looking. Sometimes I run the healing brush over a cloned area to help hide the trails, nice work though...
Greg

Neither, both of them are equally important. Both areas have their flaws, including the cut and paste looking headstones, and the "created" looking mountain in the background. I think what bothers me most is the lineup of the objects in the foreground, especially the overlap of the headstones.

Then again, what do I know?

the whitness at the horizon bugs me, everything else I understand but what is that? If that transition was softened you might see some improvement.

Overall, a very interesting image.

Neither, both of them are equally important. Both areas have their flaws, including the cut and paste looking headstones, and the "created" looking mountain in the background. I think what bothers me most is the lineup of the objects in the foreground, especially the overlap of the headstones.

Then again, what do I know?

Well, I guess you don't know cut and paste, since none was done. :D :D I guess you also do not know about the "created" looking mountain in the background, since it was not "created" and not a mountain. :) :) As to the headstones, I don't think the priest would have appreciated me, rearranging them. :D

Ronnoco

They may not be "cut and paste", but in the first version, it is obvious that something was done around the edges. Read as it says I believe it was "cut and paste looking" looking being the key word in the sentence. No matter how you came across the effect, I stated why I did not find it particularly pleasing. That is my opinion, and I am entitled to such.

As I've always said, if you like it, print it big and hang it...
As long as you and your client/buyer are happy, congrats!

peace, love and hairgrease! :p

I really like the background of the image...it looks interesting. The gravestones do look a little odd...I can see why he'd say they have a 'cut and paste look' because they appear kind of flat (mostly the one on the left).

However, like I said...I really like the water, the trees and the sky.

My likes and Dislikes,

1- The blown out feel of the tombstones or headstones is a bit too much for me... alhtough, i too like the fact that there is no writing on them, a feeling of texture on them i would have liked...

2- The white top on the trees to the right, is giving me the feeling of a washed out top as opposed to the rest of the tree...

3- I have mixed feelings about the whiteness in the horizon, but after careful scrutiny :D i like it, specifically because it breaks between the darkness and the lightness of the image....

4- The composition and general feel of the image would definitely have improved without the tilt...but oh well...

5- The headstone at the right seems to melt into the bush... removing it or adding more "pop" to it would be better...

6- The clone trails do need fixing (keeping in mind many have been waiting for such an opportunity to critique your photos :D:D:D) but they are not that obvious, giving the over-saturated elements of the foreground pretty much cover it....

Yep...that being said, i am not a big fan of this style of images.... but that has nothing to do here...

Marc

I feel I am commenting on an image that once was a photograph in a previous life.
Grave yards and headstones are synonomous with feelings and thought. I would imagine that whatever mood or atmosphere, that may have been in the original has now been lost along the way to this end result.
I am not knowledgeable enough on individual computer manipulations that may have been used here but inmo the end result is unnattractive.
It's a good example to use for discussing the pros and cons of this type of work but it does nothing at all for me.
Tom

my thoughts kinda go along with overbeyond.. i will comment confidently on a "photograph".. but i like overbeyonds "image that once was a photograph in a previous life".. description.. if its "art" its "art" i do not like..

if its "art".. its poorly done.. if i can see the poor attempt at removing the gravestone in the bottom left corner at this small image size it leaves me with no confidence as to the quality of the rest of the work..

but where "art" is concerned all i know is that there is plenty of it i do not like.. there is some i do like.. why.. i really dont know..

but ron.. u being u especially.. take a big slap on the wrist for your poor clone brush work.. he he

and i see plenty of what i personally consider poorly done "art" presented on this forum.. but where "art" is concerned i am totally lost.. all i know about is photography.. which is why i have tried not to comment on this piece of "art".. i do not feel qualfied to do so..

photogrpahy has rules.. "art" does not have rules.. which kinda leaves anything other than "i like it" or " dont like it" somewhat meaningless..

trog

Trog - if art has no boundaries (and you have classified this as such) then why would you then point out that this was "poorly done" or had "bad clone work"? You completely contradict yourself, and in effect, are saying your critique is meaningless. Oy.

Ron - For me, it would take more than just a quick change of color/polarity/lighting to define this as creative. But again, that's me. To tell you the truth, I'd like to see what it looked like before it was fooled around with. I think if you cut off the bottom 3/4 containing the gravestones and grass, you might have something.

"Trog - if art has no boundaries (and you have classified this as such) then why would you then point out that this was "poorly done" or had "bad clone work"? You completely contradict yourself, and in effect, are saying your critique is meaningless. Oy."

i thought i tried to say pretty much that molaselake.. everything must have "some" rules thow.. i just have no idea of what they are.. so i am not qualified to pass comment even to say "poorly" done.. but i know poorly done clone brushing when i see it.. and based on the simple assumption it wasnt intentional on rons part.. i think i am correct in saying poorly done..

but if any thing is really wrong with my statement its the "art does not have rules" bit.. everything must work to some rules otherwise its undefinable as anything even "art"..

i think this entire forum is treading on dodgy undefinable ground.. it needs to redefine what the word "photo" means before it gets completely lost..

trog

Well, I have no issues with photo manipulation. I'm neither for or against. So let's look at the results:

The photo has a serious PP'd look to it. The gravestones are way too bright and look like they're not part of the original image (hence the probable reason some folks mentioned "cut and paste"). I see some artifacts inside them also, as I do throughout the photo. Perhaps you over sharpened the image?

The reflections of the trees in the graduated blue water is neat to me. Looks a little unreal, but neat. I find this the best part of the photo.

The very dark sky in the background and what DOES appear to be a mountain looks very unreal. Now this idea isn't nec. a bad thing - a dark sky against a light foreground can really look erie, wild, and/or threatening, esp with graves in the foreground. Was this the idea of the photo ....? Sort of a scary, horrific scene? I can see that forming here.

The grass and mid-area bushes look seriously oversharpened and unreal to me. Nothing wrong with trying a technique, but it looks like it might have been taken a bit too far - unless, that is, you were trying to cross that line into abstract art. But either way the grass looks wrong. So I'd say dump the grass technique, replace it with another.

Overall, I think the idea is worth pursuing. The implementation needs some adjustments and the twists on the original photo should be toned down (more discrete).

As Marc has in his footer, "Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep." Sounds perfect to me.

so basically GB1 u have no idea of what u are critiquing.. none of it looks "real".. i assume its not intended to.. how is one supposed to know when the bounds have been intentionally crossed between reality and abstract..

i assume ron is also tring to bring this kinda thing into discussion.. perhaps i am wrong..

trog

so basically GB1 u have no idea of what u are critiquing.. none of it looks "real".. i assume its not intended to.. how is one supposed to know when the bounds have been intentionally crossed between reality and abstract..

i assume ron is also tring to bring this kinda thing into discussion.. perhaps i am wrong..

trog

Well actually Trog, I have little idea what YOU are talking about. All elements in the photo are real, just manipulated. I chose to critique the different aspects of it from a photography standpoint, since it is a photograph...

From a 'surreal' art perspective, it looks somewhat crudely overprocessed. Again, I like the idea, just not the implementation (result). I guess I prefer not make abstract statements about art and boundaries... all that usually does is push all conclusions off downstream until everyone gives up. But such discussions do have their place.

Trog, please use this forum to provide a constructive critique of whatever photo/image a member has posted for such. I understand you are a "purist" when it comes to photography, and I respect that, but not everyone else holds those views and most of us like to engage in post processing after the capture. You have started a thread on such a debate in the Viewfinder, appropriately, and you may continue to argue your views in that thread.
Ron, my first impression when looking at this image was "somebody was messing around in Photoshop" It looks like there is a solarizing effect going on there, but I do not feel it works well. The picture, even without the effects, looks to me like it is too busy with it's shadows, reflections, layers of foreground land, water, background land, more water, and then sky. I think though, it would look far better in it's unmanipulated state than it does presently. I also notice the first post is sharpened quite a bit while the second edit is very soft and looking compressed. Intentional? The basic rules of composition seem to be met here, but as we know that does not guarantee results. Did you do this because you felt the original picture needed something more to be intriguing, or was this mainly for discussion?

"I chose to critique the different aspects of it from a photography standpoint, since it is a photograph."

thats where we differ GB!.. i dont think it is still a "photograph".. and gary i am certainly not a "purist" and u must know by now that i am not against pp as such..

i cant critique the presented image as a photograph because i no longer think it is.. and i cant critique it validly as a work of art because i lack the expertise and neccessary knowledge of the subject....

my mistake was to make any comment at all in this thread.. and gary if rons intent was disussion i am just following his lead.. discussion seemingly is not allowed in this forum.. which is something i should aready know..

trog

Hmmm.. thats a very tricky question. I think when someone is aiming at making a creative piece, they have to know where to draw the lines. In this work I can see a great deal of possibilities for a succesful photograph before photomanipulation comes in. I can asume that it is a beatiful landscape, but what the PP did was cross over into the absurd boundaries and you have created a completely different product than what you initially had. I am going to go ahead and agree with Trog that it really isnt a "photograph" anymore because all I can see is a very PP'ed image that appears to have come from a lack of experience in PS (not that im saying youre inexperienced). I know you are a talented artist, but the "creativity" part of this just isnt there for me.
I guess what im trying to say is that creativity and standards pretty much need to be balanced.

Thank you everyone. A very interesting discussion. To mention a few comments. One person said it was not their style of shot. The truth is that it is not my type of shot either.
The interesting struggle was the question: How do you look at a different, experimental, or creative shot, and of course all of those terms are open to interpretation as was shown.

To the suggestion that I added a "mountain", gravestone, or anything else which was an interesting criticism, the answer is NO. However, if some addition was done, WHY is that a problem? Does someone think that nothing can be added to a photograph? Also mentioned was that the gravestones were blank with no names or engravings as if I did that on purpose. Uh, NO, that was the state of the original gravestones. The "mountain" by the way was not added. It is an island and part of the original photo. No cut and paste was done either and no sharpening. Interesting however, that some are looking for photoshopping procedures as a criticism, even when they are not there.!!!!!

The colours are appropriately "funereal" with black and white contrast and a somewhat bleak use of colour and light. There are technical issues and problems but IF I said like many others have in this forum, that I ignored technical quality issues on purpose and with intention, would that be acceptable??? It seems that it would be,...considering some of the photos chosen for attention by the moderators. I tend to disagree and say NO. Technical and compositional problems balance on the negative side whatever may be seen as creative or different on the positive side.

Another point to be made in this discussion is that somehow, some seem to think that post processing or Photoshopping is a "criticism" and look for anything that they can interpret in that light. I think that is stretched too far, when people are looking for cut and paste, sharpening, adding or changing position of items that has NOT even been done.
Even if it has been done, the point is whether it has improved the photo or not. It is even more silly when some who criticize postprocessing have done very little of it themselves and are criticizing a process that they have limited or no experience with.

I think that everyone needs to reassess their approaches to photography at times, which is why I played around with filter and presented a mildly interesting photo for discussion.
I can understand older photographers having a limited view or perspective but I can certainly not understand it when the restricted, partially or totally purist viewpoint seems to come from younger ones.

Ronnoco

ummm... wrong thread, sorry.

Oh, by the way, I checked with a line straightening tool and the horizon was totally straight although I have to agree that it does look a smidgen off visually. I am not sure why.

Ronnoco

"Another point to be made in this discussion is that somehow, some seem to think that post processing or Photoshopping is a "criticism" and look for anything that they can interpret in that light. I think that is stretched too far, when people are looking for cut and paste, sharpening, adding or changing position of items that has NOT even been done.
Even if it has been done, the point is whether it has improved the photo or not. It is even more silly when some who criticize postprocessing have done very little of it themselves and are criticizing a process that they have limited or no experience with."

Things appear differently to different people. If anything, this thread should have given you a glimpse into that. It doesn't matter what you ACTUALLY did, but rather how it is interpreted. The fact that you've done numerous quality pieces displaying your photoshopping capabilities should speak for itself. Whether or not someone has experience with post processing( I know I don't ), one can still view something as looking "pasted" in, sharpened, or the like. These kinds of things are visually obvious. Even when they're not purposefully done, we still may see it that way. That's just how it is. You can't open something up for debate and then become upset because it has taken a path you disapprove of.

"i think this entire forum is treading on dodgy undefinable ground.. it needs to redefine what the word "photo" means before it gets completely lost.."

i quote my earlier comment..

trog

ps.. your clone brush work removing the gravestone was still cr-p thow ron.. :) :)

Nicely put Ron...

And i think it feels a little off visually because of the slant of the trees....

Marc

PS: I only feel concerned in your last post, as regards my comment on the clone trails... and in accordance with your request...no...they do not add to the photo :D hehe

Nicely put Ron...

And i think it feels a little off visually because of the slant of the trees....

Marc

PS: I only feel concerned in your last post, as regards my comment on the clone trails... and in accordance with your request...no...they do not add to the photo :D hehe

Hey, please, don't get paranoid. :D :D I was not referring to the clone trails comment. I totally agree with you and Trog and whoever else mentioned the clone trails regarding the grave stone. I did too much of a "rush" job and got sloppy. What can I say?:blush2: :blush2:

I would show the original but I am having trouble with error messages when I try to upload it.... from this site...not my computer. I still might manage it, if I can figure out the why for the error messages.

Ronnoco

You can't open something up for debate and then become upset because it has taken a path you disapprove of.

Hey, Molly, you are really misinterpretting things rather badly. :D :D I was not at all upset and not surprised at all that it took that path. Various people have already equated technical excellence and composition with rules that they disregard in favour of creativity...and that is summarizing their point of view. I was just pointing out that you need to balance both creativity and technical excellence and composition.

I am hoping that the next "creative" photo that you see from someone who says that they purposely ignored poor lighting, poor framing, poor colour, poor background etc., that you point out to them, that despite the "imagination", impact, or whatever, it is still poorly done because some basic part of technique or composition was ignored.

Ronnoco

Molly is my sister's name, my name is Liz.

It's quite possible that I misinterpreted you. What I got from your post was indignation, and I replied in regard to that.

I comment how I want to comment and on what I want to comment. I use the rules o' Liz as my guide. If that doesn't work for the person I'm responding to, he/she is more than welcome to ignore me. If something resonates, then so be it. It's really not a big deal.

Molly is my sister's name, my name is Liz.

It's quite possible that I misinterpreted you. What I got from your post was indignation, and I replied in regard to that.

I comment how I want to comment and on what I want to comment. I use the rules o' Liz as my guide. If that doesn't work for the person I'm responding to, he/she is more than welcome to ignore me. If something resonates, then so be it. It's really not a big deal.

Sure it is, if you make a habit of reading into a post, what is NOT there. Try to realize that some people think, rather than get emotional and some people have the intelligence to minimize the assumptions and characterizations about others.

Ronnoco

Here is the unsolarized original shot with one "metal tilted gravestone" photoshopped out.

Ronnoco

Nice color. I much prefer the original, though I would have left a little more space in front of the gravestones to avoid cramping them.

GB

Ron , I think that I am seeing some kind of compression artifacts around the trees edges. Blow the compressed version up in PS and see if you see them I think that it is causeing the whole image to lose to much detail.
Greg

The first impression I get when viewing the first image is "ameteurish" & "too much photoshop work" . I don't mind the idea of working with an image in an image editing program provided that the person editing the photo knows what they're doing and doesn't over do it.

The original is much better, and not a bad shot to begin with. I notice a strong Cyan color cast to it, though. The picture improves when adding 12 points of Red to the midtones and to the highlights in the PS Color Balance tool.
btw, it looks like you tried to bring out too much detail in the tree in the fg, thus the "compression" looking effect Greg pointed out.

Ron , I think that I am seeing some kind of compression artifacts around the trees edges. Blow the compressed version up in PS and see if you see them I think that it is causeing the whole image to lose to much detail.
Greg

Well, yes, if you blow up the compressed version to about 250%, but that does not seem to be very relevant considering the compressed version is about 90 K and the original is 20 meg. needless to say without the compression artifacts.

So if I printed the uncompressed original, there would be no artifacts and if I keep the compressed version at 100% there would be no noticeable artifacts either.

Also, by the way, if I softened the area around the trees, the compression artifacts would disappear as well.

So, thanks for pointing it out, but unless artifacts are very obvious at 100% it is of limited importance and I can easily get around it. :)

Ronnoco

The first impression I get when viewing the first image is "ameteurish" & "too much photoshop work" . I don't mind the idea of working with an image in an image editing program provided that the person editing the photo knows what they're doing and doesn't over do it.

I think you mean "amateurish" and you are obviously NOT familiar with photoshop since there was not much done.

Ronnoco

Nice color. I much prefer the original, though I would have left a little more space in front of the gravestones to avoid cramping them.

GB

Not a bad idea, but I had a little problem with people, just out of the frame in various areas.

Ronnoco

The original is much better, and not a bad shot to begin with. I notice a strong Cyan color cast to it, though. The picture improves when adding 12 points of Red to the midtones and to the highlights in the PS Color Balance tool.
btw, it looks like you tried to bring out too much detail in the tree in the fg, thus the "compression" looking effect Greg pointed out.

Thanks, Garry. I measured the colours in the white gravestone on the ground and it averages out to only a difference of 3 points, which certainly does not a "strong Cyan colour cast" make. Moreover the gravestone certainly looks white without any cyan shade to it either. The tree problem is mostly due to compression and easily fixable.
I will go back and look at the uncompressed 20 meg version.

Ronnoco

Sure it is, if you make a habit of reading into a post, what is NOT there. Try to realize that some people think, rather than get emotional and some people have the intelligence to minimize the assumptions and characterizations about others.

Ronnoco

Looks like this thread got resurrected. Actually Ron, I'd think intelligent people would be able to think and be emotional at the same time. That being said, who are you referring to? Me? Because I don't recall getting emotional. Were you assuming I was?

As for the original photograph, I think the colors are lovely, but I find the presence of the gravestones unnecessary. They don't add to the mood at all. I see the beautiful background, and then I see gravestones plopped at the bottom that compete with what should be the main focus.

I think you mean "amateurish" and you are obviously NOT familiar with photoshop since there was not much done.

Ronnoco

"not much done to it"

lol. Are you kidding yourself?

"too much" doesn't necessarily ONLY mean running a million filters on your shot. It could also mean nuking it one time as you've demonstrated in the first shot you've shared. Yes you've done "too much photoshop work" on it whether you see it or not. In case you don't see it, I'd have to question your vision itself.

Please don't argue with me over semantics or spelling. You knew and know the point I was making.

As far as me not having "familiarity with photoshop" goes. Please. I use photoshop for a living and have been for over a decade. :) Let me teach you one of the first rules of photo retouching "know when enough is enough" . Now go & flip between your two shots. You'll see that, sadly, you've let yourself go on this image.

Another rule is "there are no halos around trees in real life" lol. Honest. Trees are one the great challenges in photo retouching. But there are techniques to go about and 'select' them using the channels palette.

Anyways.

You give lots of critiques that are 'blunt' and to the point but you sure can't take one without getting hissy fits. That's just a bad bad combination.

Looks like this thread got resurrected. Actually Ron, I'd think intelligent people would be able to think and be emotional at the same time. That being said, who are you referring to? Me? Because I don't recall getting emotional. Were you assuming I was?

As for the original photograph, I think the colors are lovely, but I find the presence of the gravestones unnecessary. They don't add to the mood at all. I see the beautiful background, and then I see gravestones plopped at the bottom that compete with what should be the main focus.

OK, so you are saying it is a good scenic, so forget the gravestones! I have to admit, I never considered that view. My initial view was that someone in the 1800s because of the peaceful view considered it as the perfect location for a graveyard and church, so I was trying to add some history into the view.

Nevertheless, I probably should have looked at it both ways and taken more photos without the gravestones. Good point.

Thank you.

Ronnoco

"not much done to it"

lol. Are you kidding yourself?

"too much" doesn't necessarily ONLY mean running a million filters on your shot. It could also mean nuking it one time as you've demonstrated in the first shot you've shared. Yes you've done "too much photoshop work" on it whether you see it or not. In case you don't see it, I'd have to question your vision itself.

Please don't argue with me over semantics or spelling. You knew and know the point I was making.

As far as me not having "familiarity with photoshop" goes. Please. I use photoshop for a living and have been for over a decade. :) Let me teach you one of the first rules of photo retouching "know when enough is enough" . Now go & flip between your two shots. You'll see that, sadly, you've let yourself go on this image.

Another rule is "there are no halos around trees in real life" lol. Honest. Trees are one the great challenges in photo retouching. But there are techniques to go about and 'select' them using the channels palette.

Anyways.

You give lots of critiques that are 'blunt' and to the point but you sure can't take one without getting hissy fits. That's just a bad bad combination.

Why do you have LIBAN which means the country of Lebenon at the end of your postings?

Ronnoco

"not much done to it"

lol. Are you kidding yourself?

"too much" doesn't necessarily ONLY mean running a million filters on your shot. It could also mean nuking it one time as you've demonstrated in the first shot you've shared. Yes you've done "too much photoshop work" on it whether you see it or not. In case you don't see it, I'd have to question your vision itself .

Oh, please, stop being silly! You sound like a high school kid. :D :D

"
Please don't argue with me over semantics or spelling. You knew and know the point I was making. .

Young people should realize that their credibility is directly related to their literacy and spelling. If you are sloppy in your sentence structure and basic spelling, then your eye for photography is probably equally sloppy.

Perhaps more time in your school work is warranted.

Ronnoco

"one of the first rules of photo retouching "know when enough is enough"

sadly few that post here seem to know that.. i try not to start in the first place.. knowing when to stop is easier then..:

purely my opinon of course..

trog

"one of the first rules of photo retouching "know when enough is enough"

sadly few that post here seem to know that.. i try not to start in the first place.. knowing when to stop is easier then..:

purely my opinon of course..

trog

Well, first of all, Trog, I did not do as much retouching as people seem to think, which is interesting because it shows that few who look at a photo know what or how much retouching has been done. I noticed one person suggested that I added a mountain which apparently looked artificial. The mountain was an island and had NOT been added at all. It was part of the original photo. Someone else obliquely suggested that I added the gravestones, which also shows that either they have no eye for detail or perhaps they just want to be negatively critical, whether accurate or not. Really amusing that Leels indicated that I used a million filters etc. Again silly and untrue.

Second, I have been accused of being for "rules" of composition and technique and against "creativity". To site another example, one moderator suggested that heavy grain, blown out highlights and looking up the nostrils of a subject, actually was positive and creative. Interesting and amusing to me, that some of these same people go hyper and suddenly pro technique when I push the opposite Photoshop creativity approach. It demonstrates that a lot of photographers here have no legitimate concept of Critique and that is surprising since there is a lot of valid information on the subject on the Internet, in magazines, books, and even through information on competitions. I learned it through considerable experience, but then no one has my experience.

Third, I did a stunt similar to what someone else did using a duotone filter which produced an unrealistic midday pink sky with loss of detail in the foreground and ended up with the photo of the week. This tends to show how skewed and off-base even the moderators are in the area of Critique.

Fourth, this is not my typical type of shot. I tend to shoot straight to film or in digital for colour in the first place. I never add and seldom find the need to subtract very much either.

Fifth, the approach I used has been done frequently in black and white and proclaimed as having good contrast and creating a mood. (Not that I agree with that assessment.)

Contrary to what anyone thinks, I am not suggesting this is a great photo but the comments indicate a need to drop prejudices toward photographers, styles and techniques and really learn how to look at a photo with a good eye and critique it in a professional objective manner.

Ronnoco

Well, I see that you still must try with all your might to belittle others.

Can you honestly say that the "island" in the distance does not rise in elevation? Can you honestly say that the headstones in the very first version posted did not have rough edges?

You are 100% correct, I know VERY little about all the wonderful things that can be done in photoshop. However, I can certainly state that something looks unreal to me. It does not matter what it is, real or not.

So, you speak of your great experience and talent. Please do us all a favor, and share some of this grand knowledge so that we may become better. An excellent example of this can be found in Loupey. He writes pieces all the time to try to help others. If you put half of your energy in teaching, as opposed to trying to belittle, we would all be better off.

OK, so now it's your turn to belittle me more. Go ahead and say I have no eye, talent, etc. Tomorrow, I will rise and live, smile, and thank everyone I come in contact with. I will attempt to make some photos, and all the while I will be enjoying the beauty surrounding me, and the company of friends. One thing I WILL NOT do is cry because someone thinks that the way of enlightenment is to belittle others.

Oh yeah, don't forget to tell me that I'm off topic. :D


I do agree with that last part. Speaking for myself, I could certainly become better at critique, which in turn would help to become a better photographer.

:)
So, you speak of your great experience and talent.
Oh yeah, don't forget to tell me that I'm off topic. :D
.

Gee, I did not say anything about "talent" whatsoever. As a matter of fact to contradict your "spin", C.F, GB1, Allison, and several whose "handles" are too easy to forget have demonstrated considerable talent. Despite a demonstrated emotional problem, even you have good talent.

However talent is not always good enough to be good or successful particularly in professional photography. You need to know your field thoroughly and have an excellent and OBJECTIVE eye and a thorough knowledge and understanding of the process of Critique.

You also need to express yourself well. You know very well that you made a mistake by suggesting that I artificially added the "mountain", so why continue a silly argument. A slight elevation on an island does not make a mountain and the point was that it was not artificial.

The problem at this point is your "spins" have reduced your credibility. Keep it objective, without the characterizations and the spins and you will get your points across much better. :)

Ronnoco

I simply invited you to state things which you have wanted to.

You used:
Silly - exhibiting a lack of wisdom
could come across as harsh

You stated:
Obviously you don't know.

While true, your posts tend to come across very harsh.

Would it have been less silly suggesting that you added a hill?

hill - n. a small heap, pile, or mound

You stated:
Which also shows they have either no eye for detail...negatively critique

The only reason for my previous reply is that you feel the need to repeatedly bring up and correct what others state. How many times does it take to explain that someone is wrong?

The sad part is that for the most part (about 95%) of the time I completely agree with what you post. However, it is in your delivery. There is an arrogance in many of your statements. What you certainly don't seem to understand is that there's at least one person (probably more, I can only speak for myself) that would like to learn from any experience you may have.

True teachers do not talk down to students in ANY form.

There's no need to respond, I'm through. I do hope you take this post as I intend it. As a request for your help and insight in the future, but in a manner befitting a fellow human.

I simply invited you to state things which you have wanted to.

You used:
Silly - exhibiting a lack of wisdom
could come across as harsh.

Well, payne to describe a comment that I used "a million filters" as "silly" is probably understating it. What term would you use?

You stated:
Obviously you don't know.

While true, your posts tend to come across very harsh. .

What you are saying here, payne is that it is OK and not "harsh" to make a criticism that is silly in the case of "a million filters" or not based on any knowledge of Photoshop, but it is "very harsh" of me to respond with the same bluntness. (Does this sound reasonable and objective?)

Would it have been less silly suggesting that you added a hill?

hill - n. a small heap, pile, or mound.

Gee you have a hangup on this. :rolleyes: How many times do I need to repeat that neither a mountain a hill or an island was added?

The only reason for my previous reply is that you feel the need to repeatedly bring up and correct what others state. How many times does it take to explain that someone is wrong?.

Obviously a lot. See the statement immediately above your quote.

As I said before, like my photos, stop reading into my posts what is not there. About the only thing that you will find in some of my posts is an intolerance for less than intelligent attitudes and sloppy illogical thinking. (That comes from my experience with teaching gifted and talented students.)

Ronnoco

Ronnoco, you have turned what should be a simple debate or constructive dialogue into a mud slinging fest, with you throwing much of the mud. You have even taken shots at me in post #48, unprovoked. My comments and opinions are my own, I stand by them, and so there is no need to defend them. They are simply how I feel and you can agree or disagree. I find myself in disagreement with much of what you critique, and I'm sure it goes vice-versa.
Please find it within yourself to be more tactful and less offensive in your dialogue with the members here.
btw, Leels did not claim that you used a"million filters" if you re read what was written.

Okay, I'm going to go the other way...

I like the first version of this, as is. PS'd and all. It'd look great on a t-shirt. And that right there, is the definition of art. Can you put it on a t-shirt? Yes? Then it's art!

Neither image does it for me. I don't find that they evoke anything in me, either aesthetically, emotionally or artistically. And I can't say the composition or effects grab me.

That said...

I'm going to jump in here and say that I, too, don't care for your "critiques". You may offer some good points but your delivery and lack of diplomacy are so demeaning, that I've decided I'd rather not know those good points than read the form they take. I've actually placed you on my ignore list after seeing how this thread was developing. I don't care to ever read another of your opinions again! You could do much to discourage a beginner because you lash out so ruthlessly. It takes a while for someone to grow a thick enough skin to take the hard "truths" you put out, but you aren't taking that into consideration. You are simply too harsh. And yet when you are critiqued, you take offense that we lesser folk would dare to find fault with you. Your work is good but it's not THAT good, if your gallery is any example. You say that your mother was a great artistic photographer, and so you know what good photography is. My sister is a great opera singer but that does't mean I can carry a tune. In spite of being exposed to her work for most of my life.

You have so much to offer. I wish you would simply bring yourself down a notch or two and soften the blows a wee bit. Take into consideration the person's skill level, and present your view as appropriate.