Dance (To A Slow Shutter)

I've posted this in Critique and want to have it there for that purpose. But meanwhile, it seems to me to be a possible candidate here as well. Am I allowed to do that?

Tuna

Tuna, Steve made me do something in my post that REALLY opened my eyes, so I'll ask the same of you. (paraphrasing in my own words, of course.)

What does this photo mean to you? Why does it work for you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuna

I've posted this in Critique and want to have it there for that purpose. But meanwhile, it seems to me to be a possible candidate here as well. Am I allowed to do that?

Tuna

---

In the "what is art" topic, I suggested that art evokes emotion, that it moves you. I'd have to say that while many of the images you've posted move me, this one doesn't. I get the blur suggesting the fluidity of the dancer's motion, but it is a touch too much for me - it reduces the dancer to almost an unidentifiable, insect-like creature. Maybe that's what you wanted. What surpises me here is that almost everythng I remember of yours has a certain stillness to it - a frozen moment in time - that I don't find here. It's also more spontaneoous than the other stuff. I've had the impression that you are methodical in your approach. This feels more grab the camera and fire a few off.

Sorry to have posted the picture instead of the gallery followed by the link. I read the instructions after the fact.

A habit I picked up from constructing my children's toys at Christmas and birthdays.

Tuna

Tuna, if you notice, there's already a thread about the photo posting issue.

It's something we're gonna have to work out, because I for one would expect most to just assume they can post images, and not notice the "fine print".

For the time being, I wouldn't worry about it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuna

I've posted this in Critique and want to have it there for that purpose. But meanwhile, it seems to me to be a possible candidate here as well. Am I allowed to do that?

Tuna

---

This is meta-art! It's a photograph (i.e. art) that represents another form of art (ie. dancing).... wooow my head's spinning!

I love capturing movement with low shutter speeds. Great post Tuna!

I am not sure if I like this shot. I mean, shooting in a theater I would not consider an artistic excersise, merely a technical job. This is not an easy job by all means, but technical nevertheless. I know what I am talking about here because I toured with one Russian theatre across France and shot more than 3500 frames for their needs. About 2000 frames I took during performances, and I will never show them in my art portfolio. When you shoot actors/dancers doing their thing with stage lighting that you have not set, it is almost like shooting from a screen n a movie theatre. Please do not take it personally.

Irakly, does it make a difference if you DO set the lights? What exactly do you mean by that? I am designing the lighting for an upcoming theatre production, so what does that mean for me?

I know it's hard to get decent shots under theatre lights without flash. I thought that was the only issue.

you know... it kinda does... i mean, if you are doing candid photography it does not, but when you shoot something that was rehearsed without your participation for everybody to enjoy, all you have to do is just to press the button and make sure that your exposure is right.

actually, nobody shoots in the theatre wiith a flash for two reasons. first, you kill the lighting, and it looks plain, and second, it is just disrespectful to actors and spectators.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kellybean

Irakly, does it make a difference if you DO set the lights? What exactly do you mean by that? I am designing the lighting for an upcoming theatre production, so what does that mean for me?

I know it's hard to get decent shots under theatre lights without flash. I thought that was the only issue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irakly Shanidze

you know... it kinda does... i mean, if you are doing candid photography it does not, but when you shoot something that was rehearsed without your participation for everybody to enjoy, all you have to do is just to press the button and make sure that your exposure is right.

---

I don't think that's true. First of all, just like any photography, you have to know WHEN to press the button. There's a lot of movement on stage, and just because it's colorful doesn't mean your picture will be good. The right moment, the right composition, is still critical.

You have to position yourself so that you get an interesting angle. Very difficult in a theatre!

So I don't really see the difference between capturing a theatre event and capturing oh, say, a fire. They are both events, spectacles, that you've had no hand in creating. You still need to position, think, and act at the critical moment, just as in all photography.

Tell me what you think of these:

http://forums.photographyreview.com/...ead.php?t=4478

Quote:

---

actually, nobody shoots in the theatre wiith a flash for two reasons. first, you kill the lighting, and it looks plain, and second, it is just disrespectful to actors and spectators.

---

This is absolutely correct. Not only that, your flash would pretty much be useless, except to get really blown out shots of the head in front of you.

Tuna, I for one think it's fascinating. I find it very much fitting the description of art. Did you know that photographers use to be called "Photographic Artists"? I learned that from the movie " Photographing Fairies", which was a good movie too. heh..
anyway, the second I saw your shot I was stunned by the beauty of it.
Kit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irakly Shanidze

I am not sure if I like this shot. I mean, shooting in a theater I would not consider an artistic excersise, merely a technical job. This is not an easy job by all means, but technical nevertheless. I know what I am talking about here because I toured with one Russian theatre across France and shot more than 3500 frames for their needs. About 2000 frames I took during performances, and I will never show them in my art portfolio. When you shoot actors/dancers doing their thing with stage lighting that you have not set, it is almost like shooting from a screen n a movie theatre. Please do not take it personally.

---

So Irakly, are you sayng that controlled lighting is a prerequisite of photography as art? That would seem to eliminate most photojournalism shots ala Cartier-Bresson, etc. I think I get your point and agree to some extent, but there would seem to be a big hole in the logic.

No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that you should create your art, not somebody else. Theatre is art, and shooting art is extremely tricky for the very reason that I tried to explain in my previous post.
Let me give you an example from Soviet history. We had this guy Brezhnev who ruled the coutry for lie thirty years until he died. He happened to like hunting. Here is how he was doing it. He would come in a national preserve closed to general public, given a scope rifle on a tripod. Then a special crew of huntsmen would direct a bison to a place where Brezhnev had a clear shot from about 50 feet. He used to kill about 25-30 bisons a day. He was having fun all right, but was it hunting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lava Lamp

So Irakly, are you sayng that controlled lighting is a prerequisite of photography as art? That would seem to eliminate most photojournalism shots ala Cartier-Bresson, etc. I think I get your point and agree to some extent, but there would seem to be a big hole in the logic.

---

I can relate to Irakly's viewpoint here. Using his hunting story....would you consider him a good hunter? Do you think he really udnerstand hunting and how to really achieve the results he wants? Chances are, he'd scare away all of the animals within a 200 yard radius and never get a shot off.

So with theatre, if I were taking a photograph, we all know someone other than I setup the lighting. And someone other than I choreographed (spelling?) the dancers/actors. The poses done by the dancers come from them and they know what they're doing. As a photographer in this kind of scenario I'm simply a bystander capturing a moment.

Now, capturing a moment is what photography is all about but when we're talking about photography as art I don't think capturing moments essentially setup by someone else would really cut it. And in the case that it did, who would be credited for the "vision"? It tastes a lot like plagurism (spelling?) to me.

The more I think about it the more I can see both sides of the argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuna

I've posted this in Critique and want to have it there for that purpose. But meanwhile, it seems to me to be a possible candidate here as well. Am I allowed to do that?

Tuna

---

Moving my comments over (from Critique)

It makes me wonder...
"is this one person, or two?"
I don't even want to know, because its the mystery that keeps me enthralled!

The guy was not hunting, he was simply shooting.

I agree to a **point** with Irakly.. that is I see your view point, but I don't think it pertains to Tuna's Photo. Those people may have been dancing to a choreographed dance under lights he didn't set, but did they choregraph and set those lights with this vision in mind? No. He captured this vision. Studio Lighting aside, When is light **ever our own** anyway ?
I have thought about this subject before, If someone takes a picture, of lets say a wall with beautiful art / graffiti on it... People are going to think its beautiful . Was it the photo itself or the subject? It depends on if it is a straight on photo or if he worked other elements into the composition or not in order to make it his interpretation of it.
Plenty of people have taken well know art ( or even unknown for that matter) and "put a spin" on it.. I've heard plenty of times " this is my interpretation of this piece..." I think its fine, after all, we re-interpret in our minds anyway, Everyone had a different feeling or interpretation of " art" Taking a photo of it the way you see it, or taking a photo of sheerly because you thought that sculpture would look awesome with dark clouds and a rainbow behind it.. well its still your vision.. and on another note ( not sure if this fits in to this discussion, but it came to mind..) Photos of Plants : Landscaping could even be considered art as well, as it is an arrangement of plant life to gain a reaction from humans, butterflys, birds etc... So, if i take a picture of a flower dancing in the wind, is that okay? afterall a landscaper put it there in that arrangement, in a sunny spot.... lol.

Really, I think this discussion is fruitless, It should only be applied to one photo at a time, not photography as a WHOLE.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trevor Ash

So with theatre, if I were taking a photograph, we all know someone other than I setup the lighting. And someone other than I choreographed (spelling?) the dancers/actors. The poses done by the dancers come from them and they know what they're doing. As a photographer in this kind of scenario I'm simply a bystander capturing a moment.

---

Well then, by this definition, a shot of a mountain could never be considered "art". "Someone other than I" put the mountain there, set the moon in the sky, "built the stage and set the lighting" as it were.

Yet Ansel Adams is generally considered an artist. Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kellybean

Well then, by this definition, a shot of a mountain could never be considered "art". "Someone other than I" put the mountain there, set the moon in the sky, "built the stage and set the lighting" as it were.

Yet Ansel Adams is generally considered an artist. Why?

---

You're completely exaggerating. I think there's a difference between nature (which you can't control the same) and theatre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clicker

The guy was not hunting, he was simply shooting.

I agree to a **point** with Irakly.. that is I see your view point, but I don't think it pertains to Tuna's Photo. Those people may have been dancing to a choreographed dance under lights he didn't set, but did they choregraph and set those lights with this vision in mind? No. He captured this vision. Studio Lighting aside, When is light **ever our own** anyway ?
I have thought about this subject before, If someone takes a picture, of lets say a wall with beautiful art / graffiti on it... People are going to think its beautiful . Was it the photo itself or the subject? It depends on if it is a straight on photo or if he worked other elements into the composition or not in order to make it his interpretation of it.
Plenty of people have taken well know art ( or even unknown for that matter) and "put a spin" on it.. I've heard plenty of times " this is my interpretation of this piece..." I think its fine, after all, we re-interpret in our minds anyway, Everyone had a different feeling or interpretation of " art" Taking a photo of it the way you see it, or taking a photo of sheerly because you thought that sculpture would look awesome with dark clouds and a rainbow behind it.. well its still your vision.. and on another note ( not sure if this fits in to this discussion, but it came to mind..) Photos of Plants : Landscaping could even be considered art as well, as it is an arrangement of plant life to gain a reaction from humans, butterflys, birds etc... So, if i take a picture of a flower dancing in the wind, is that okay? afterall a landscaper put it there in that arrangement, in a sunny spot.... lol.

Really, I think this discussion is fruitless, It should only be applied to one photo at a time, not photography as a WHOLE.

:)

---

I'm not disagreeing wtih you here. You've done a good job of discussing the opposite view I was discussing.

That's all the compromise you'll get out of me :)

However, I would propose that in the case of this photo, the vision is "borrowed" and then a little "salt" is added for flavor, thus making it a "shared" vision. No matter what, I still think the photographers vision.....if he looks deeply and honestly enough at his self, may agree that it wasn't entirely his own.

I think I'm going to hate this forum because these arguments don't have right and wrong answers :)

I'm not completely exaggerating. I think they are exactly the same.

I understand the fears of "documenting" someone else's work. I think art would be extremely difficult to achieve in a theatre situation. But I don't think it's impossible, if you put your own signature on your photo. Don't just point and shoot, do something outside the realm of theatre, something that the theatergoers wouldn't see, something that the playwrite and director didn't intend.

I think Tuna attempted to do that, with his slow shutter speed. I don't think it's quite there yet ... I'd like to see a better shape in his photo. In my opinion, if the shape was perfect, his shot would be art.

It seems the argument some of you have goes like this:

If there were another photographer sitting in the rafters above the one that posted this photo and took a photo at the same time but from a different vantage point then both photographers would have different visions.

With exception, I think for the most part that would be complete hogwash. Generally, the difference between the photographs isn't going to be "vision" it's going to be composition or viewpoint. Now, you can argue that different composition or viewpoint is the same as having a different vision if you want but for most photographs I'd probably disagree with you.

So, what would the exceptions be?

Well, when two photographers TRULY have something in mind that they want to accomplish in terms of "vision" and they each individually success in their own apparent vision, and the two photographs are accepted by others as having a separate vision.

I guess there's not an easy way to explain what I'm thinking so I'll just come out any say it....hopefully I'm not offending anyone too much......

If I were at that theatre at the same time as this photographer my photograph would probablt look much the same even though my intentions were different. Based on this particular photo, I think the photographer just took a snapshot that ended up being a very interesting photo. I don't think "vision" had anything to do with it.

Damn, I just took many paragraphs to state what someone already stated which you can only discuss a question like this for an individual photo....it's not something you can discuss that covers all photographs like I (we) were trying to do.

I'm going to eat my lunch now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trevor Ash

I'm not disagreeing wtih you here. You've done a good job of discussing the opposite view I was discussing.

That's all the compromise you'll get out of me :)

---

lol, Thank you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trevor Ash

However, I would propose that in the case of this photo, the vision is "borrowed" and then a little "salt" is added for flavor, thus making it a "shared" vision.

---

"shared Vision" Wonderful choice of words... I agree.


As I was driving home just now, I thought of another example...Using Irakly's photo of people on a dock / pier...(one in which there is a violin and a woman) Would this be a "shared vision" as well? As someone chose that spot for the dock for its " picturesque" qualities, and he came along added some "salt" and made an image.

Irakly, I think I know the reason for your comments, but it sounds very odd coming from you.

IMO, using dancers or theatre people as "models" is about as artistic as you can get. Good stage lighting only adds to the mood.

Sure, it is easy to create a cliche photo, one that we have seen many times, but the truth is when you shoot this way, you start with a subject trained to move and have them immersed in dramatic lighting. I'll take those elements any day.

I think it's the fact that you shot this type of photo so many times that is affecting your judgement. Of course YOU are tired of it, but that certainly isn't true for many others.

Personally, I like this shot a lot. Yes, it isn't technically perfect, but it paints the graceful, colorful movement of the dancer. The slow shutter speed is the perfect way to capture this feeling...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irakly Shanidze

I mean, shooting in a theater I would not consider an artistic excersise, merely a technical job.

---

I'm surprised a few of you guys (and I'm not singling you out, Trevor) seem to be dwelling on the CIRCUMSTANCES of the shot instead of its artisitc merit.

I don't think the circumstances (ie sitting in a crowd at a performance) are important at all in this discussion.

Ok, say I RENT this theatre out. I hire this dancer, set up all the lights myself, have him or her perform, and take the shot. Suppose my photo looks JUST like Tuna's.

Are you trying to tell me mine is more legit and has more artisitc merit because of the circumstances of the setup?

Sure, on a certain level you can make that argument (that the process is a big part of the artistic aspect). Still, if we're simply discussing the creative visuals and whether they work or not, both our shots would be the same...

My point earlier is that a theatrical environment with dramatic lighting and trained performers will always be a fertile place to create photos...

Steve - Lots of good points here

Irakly, I'm going to be honest with you; you made some great shots, you're a well known and respected photographer, but why do you have such a conservative way of commenting? Above all you should lead the gang in the right direction, give an opinion, give advice, come up with background information and things like that.

Sorry, but I'm not used to that. I prefer to dig deep and give all I can give with all the experience I've gained during these last 25 years. I'm able to be straightforward in my review (most members know this), so why can't you, after all my impression is that your comments will have more value than mine (knowing your background).

People need to see the whole picture, people need to know where to go from there. Maybe it's because I just expected that you would be the driving force in this forum and maybe that was my wrong interpretation.

I mean what is the real content of the comments you made like "not dynamic enough", "definitely something going on here", "I like the shot, it's funny and it definitely has several interpretations" or "I am not sure if I like this shot". It's all so vague, so restricted as if you avoid to express your real opinion. I don't understand it. In your situation I would have great joy sharing my knowledge, experiences or ideas.

Just a bit confused here, that's all ;)

Just try to think about it this way. For instance, you have... let's say Vacheon Constantin chronograph. It is undisputably one of the finest time pieces ever made. You glance at it p[eriodically, and every time it gives you a complex experience of figuring out time, enjoying craftsmanship and aesthetics and feling superior to all those Timex wearers. Now, take the atch off, unscrew the back, extract the caliber and disassemble it to 724 pieces. Will it now be able to give you, or somebody else the same experience? Basically, you expect me to do the same with a photograph. Believe me, looking almost at any photo I can find a dozen of reasons to like or not to like it. But if I give you a list and you read it, will you be able to percieve and enjoy (or perhaps hate) this photograph the way you did before? Even disregarding my own feelings towards this painful process of deconstructing art, do you think that I have a right to impose my views on everybody else? If you want me to, I will, just let me know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysian

Irakly, I'm going to be honest with you; you made some great shots, you're a well known and respected photographer, but why do you have such a conservative way of commenting? Above all you should lead the gang in the right direction, give an opinion, give advice, come up with background information and things like that.

Sorry, but I'm not used to that. I prefer to dig deep and give all I can give with all the experience I've gained during these last 25 years. I'm able to be straightforward in my review (most members know this), so why can't you, after all my impression is that your comments will have more value than mine (knowing your background).

People need to see the whole picture, people need to know where to go from there. Maybe it's because I just expected that you would be the driving force in this forum and maybe that was my wrong interpretation.

I mean what is the real content of the comments you made like "not dynamic enough", "definitely something going on here", "I like the shot, it's funny and it definitely has several interpretations" or "I am not sure if I like this shot". It's all so vague, so restricted as if you avoid to express your real opinion. I don't understand it. In your situation I would have great joy sharing my knowledge, experiences or ideas.

Just a bit confused here, that's all ;)

---

Steve, I've been thinking... Once on one of the local art shows I saw a guy who was selling his photos ov sculptures. Even though I generally regard this type of activity as very similar to shooting wildlife in a Zoo, this time I was stunned how good it was. What was good about it, actually, is a very original and unusual approach to the subject. Statues on his pictures looked almost alive, even passionate. I do not want to get into technical mumbo-jumbo of wet printing and supersensitive emulsions because it is not how you achieved your goal, rather, how did you come up with the concept.
When I recalled this from my memory, I immediately realized what was wrong with the picture under discussion. It looks like almost any picture taken in a theatre with a slow shutter speed and correctly exposed. That fellow at the art show was taking pictures of common objects beautiful by nature in a dramatically unconventional fashion, and that's what made his work art. A photograph becomes a work of art when a photographer puts more into it than just his technical expertise.
That said, I will move on to arguing that most landscape photos that I see are not artistic, because all I see is very well recorded beauty of Nature, which makes a great postcard, but will never withstand a test of time.

Quote:

---

My point earlier is that a theatrical environment with dramatic lighting and trained performers will always be a fertile place to create photos...

---

Irakly, you have said precisely what I was trying to say. :D :D :D

Kelly, I agree with you here. IMO, Irakly's logic on this is seriously flawed.

Only a relatively small percentage of photographers shoot with and set up their own lights.

Most people shoot using available light, or artificial, but existing light (street lights, building lights, etc.) and often creative wonderful images, yet they had nothing to do with the light setup.

As you say, many times it's the TIMING of the shot that is the critical element, and that takes skill regardless of how the lighting was created.

Also, theatrical lighting changes dramatically over the course of a performance, so choosing the exact moment of the shot is not much different than watching the sunlight change and choosing a moment when the light strikes you.

What we have is a lighting situation where you have to LOOK, ANALYZE what you see, and CHOOSE a moment to shoot, and that is no different than any of dozens of other shooting situations.

Steve, perhaps I did not clearly express my thought. I am not saying that artificial lighting is a prerequisite of art, quite opposite is often true.
My beliefe is that art involves more than just recording of reality, it also requires interpretation of this reality. Just read my post before

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asylum Steve

Kelly, I agree with you here. IMO, Irakly's logic on this is seriously flawed.

Only a relatively small percentage of photographers shoot with and set up their own lights.

Most people shoot using available light, or artificial, but existing light (street lights, building lights, etc.) and often creative wonderfully creative images, yet they had nothing to do with the light setup.

As you say, many times it's the TIMING of the shot that is the critical element, and that takes skill regardless of how the lighting was created.

Also, theatrical lighting changes dramatically over the course of a performance, so choosing the exact moment of the shot is not much different than watching the sunlight change and choosing a moment when the light strikes you.

What we have is a lighting situation where you have to LOOK, ANALYZE what you see, and CHOOSE a moment to shoot, and that is no different than any of dozens of other shooting situations.

---

One more illustration I thought of to illustrate my point.

An architect designs a building, creates its form, chooses how best it will take advantage of natural light around it, etc. He builds a beautiful building.

Now someone comes along and looks up, sees the light hitting the beautiful building, and takes a wonderful picture of it. Is his photo invalid because someone else "set up the shot"?


Now here's my answer: "Yes, the photo is not art", if the photographer adds nothing of himself to the image. But there are many ways the photographer could add his own personal touch to the shot. Maybe a long exposure. Maybe enhanced contrast. Perhaps an unusual DOF. A filter. Etc...

Will he succeed? That's for the observer to judge. But one cannot disregard the photo just because the subject was beautifully created by someone else.

I am saying it's the same with theatre. You are not guaranteed a work of art if you take a picture in a theatre. You have to add that little piece of yourself to it. But it IS possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irakly Shanidze

Believe me, looking almost at any photo I can find a dozen of reasons to like or not to like it. But if I give you a list and you read it, will you be able to percieve and enjoy (or perhaps hate) this photograph the way you did before? Even disregarding my own feelings towards this painful process of deconstructing art,

---

A list? Who's talking about a list. Is it too much to ask for more if someone only comments in the way like this: "I (don't) (think) I like it". It helps us to develop as an artist, maybe not right away, but all these little experiences, ideas, discussions and explorations allow us to 'grow'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irakly Shanidze

do you think that I have a right to impose my views on everybody else? If you want me to, I will, just let me know.

---

Impose? :confused: Never heard of the word 'sharing'? :confused:

You really don't get it sometimes.
What an individual considers art when he/she was 10 years old, might be ordinary now.
What an individual considers art now, might not be considered art by them 20 years later
(And it's just not a matter of age). And art in this case can be photography, dance, music, architecture, film making, etc.
You have to ask yourself why that is and once you're discovered the 'why', you'll understand why people share views, ideas and experiences or why there are sites and boards like this or why people like to explore.

That's all I wanted to add.

Elysian, your behaviour is certainly not my business, but as a person whose intentions are as friendly as they can possibly be, I would really enjoy seeing a little bit more dignity in your posts. You seem to act like a schoolboy trying to put up a fight with a new kid on the block. Try not to post anything of this nature here forr a couple of days, then read whatever you have already posted, and you will understand what I mean. Remember, the key word is "dignity". We are adults here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysian

A list? Who's talking about a list. Is it too much to ask for more if someone only comments in the way like this: "I (don't) (think) I like it". It helps us to develop as an artist, maybe not right away, but all these little experiences, ideas, discussions and explorations allow us to 'grow'.



Impose? :confused: Never heard of the word 'sharing'? :confused:

You really don't get it sometimes.
What an individual considers art when he/she was 10 years old, might be ordinary now.
What an individual considers art now, might not be considered art by them 20 years later
(And it's just not a matter of age). And art in this case can be photography, dance, music, architecture, film making, etc.
You have to ask yourself why that is and once you're discovered the 'why', you'll understand why people share views, ideas and experiences or why there are sites and boards like this or why people like to explore.

That's all I wanted to add.

---

Kelly, I fully agree. I just have not notice enough of that little piece of oneself. Again, it just so happens that everything so subjective in this wold...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kellybean

One more illustration I thought of to illustrate my point.

An architect designs a building, creates its form, chooses how best it will take advantage of natural light around it, etc. He builds a beautiful building.

Now someone comes along and looks up, sees the light hitting the beautiful building, and takes a wonderful picture of it. Is his photo invalid because someone else "set up the shot"?


Now here's my answer: "Yes, the photo is not art", if the photographer adds nothing of himself to the image. But there are many ways the photographer could add his own personal touch to the shot. Maybe a long exposure. Maybe enhanced contrast. Perhaps an unusual DOF. A filter. Etc...

Will he succeed? That's for the observer to judge. But one cannot disregard the photo just because the subject was beautifully created by someone else.

I am saying it's the same with theatre. You are not guaranteed a work of art if you take a picture in a theatre. You have to add that little piece of yourself to it. But it IS possible.

---

Great job kelly! This is what I was trying to say in my last few posts! You make it look so easy. Maybe I should go study the english language.

Thanks for all the comments. It's definitely been an eye-opening experience.

Hope to see most of you in the Critique forum.

Bye bye.

Tuna

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irakly Shanidze

Elysian, your behavior is certainly not my business, but as a person whose intentions are as friendly as they can possibly be, I would really enjoy seeing a little bit more dignity in your posts. You seem to act like a schoolboy trying to put up a fight with a new kid on the block. Try not to post anything of this nature here forr a couple of days, then read whatever you have already posted, and you will understand what I mean. Remember, the key word is "dignity". We are adults here.

---

So act like one! :mad:

Also try to be a man and have the courage to discuss what I said in my previous reply. I refuse to believe that I was only talking nonsense in my last reply, trust me, after 42 years you learn to know yourself quite well, the qualities and the limitations.

I have quite some experience in photography and art myself. I also have a clear opinion about things and several of my ideas were not the same like yours. Take for example that "So what is art anyway" thread. I disagreed with the usefulness that thread and I come up with strong arguments and two people agreed with the points that I was trying to make. I always come up with many arguments and a well thought over reply. But I didn't start to call you a schoolboy who doesn't know what dignity is, because that is a really immature reaction of you.

If you can't handle a different opinion... count to ten, something what you also should have done before you started that "Art. Crap or photography thread".

I have tried to do my best to see some positive sides of you, but the more I stay in this "Photography as art" forum, the more I get annoyed the way you can't handle the ideas of others, especially when they're not the same like yours.
You also didn't apologize for your behavior in the "Photography. Art of or crap?" thread.

I also should have listened to 3 different people who wrote in that thread;

"Irakly -- Your dialogue leaves me to believe that you are a spoiled and petulant human being with misplaced arrogance. While you may come one here and imply that your bogus venom is a "rally cry" for people to put up better work, it's nothing more than an attempt to stroke your own ego. "

"I have absolutely no respect for him, and I would hope he is removed from this site permanently. I'm not going to sugar coat this- he's just not the kind of person we need here. I will refrain from name-calling, since I would end up listing every name there is. Normally I would premise a post like this with "I'm sorry but..." But I'm not sorry- Irakly should be sorry."

". Everyone came to your defence and made sure that it was understood what your true meaning was. Everyone but you. Are you a spoiled little brat? The truth is, you were rude in a big way. Can't you be a man and admit it?"

Since an honest opinion is not appreciated by you, I have no other choice than staying out of this particular forum.

I do leave with laugh though, after reading the part in which you describe yourself;

"a person whose intentions are as friendly as they can possibly be, I would really enjoy seeing a little bit more dignity in your posts"

That was a good one Irakly! :D :D :D

Good luck with 'your' forum... you're gonna need it.

Thank you Elysian,
I think that you've made a right choice. Although it is regretful that such a fine photographer as you is not going to be a part of this forum, it is probably for the better, at least until you can get over the bitterness. I certainly did not want to offend you in any way, and if I did, for that I apologize. Do spend some time offline, and if you come back, you will be welcome here.

Irakly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysian

So act like one! :mad:

Also try to be a man and have the courage to discuss what I said in my previous reply. I refuse to believe that I was only talking nonsense in my last reply, trust me, after 42 years you learn to know yourself quite well, the qualities and the limitations.

I have quite some experience in photography and art myself. I also have a clear opinion about things and several of my ideas were not the same like yours. Take for example that "So what is art anyway" thread. I disagreed with the usefulness that thread and I come up with strong arguments and two people agreed with the points that I was trying to make. I always come up with many arguments and a well thought over reply. But I didn't start to call you a schoolboy who doesn't know what dignity is, because that is a really immature reaction of you.

If you can't handle a different opinion... count to ten, something what you also should have done before you started that "Art. Crap or photography thread".

I have tried to do my best to see some positive sides of you, but the more I stay in this "Photography as art" forum, the more I get annoyed the way you can't handle the ideas of others, especially when they're not the same like yours.
You also didn't apologize for your behavior in the "Photography. Art of or crap?" thread.

I also should have listened to 3 different people who wrote in that thread;

"Irakly -- Your dialogue leaves me to believe that you are a spoiled and petulant human being with misplaced arrogance. While you may come one here and imply that your bogus venom is a "rally cry" for people to put up better work, it's nothing more than an attempt to stroke your own ego. "

"I have absolutely no respect for him, and I would hope he is removed from this site permanently. I'm not going to sugar coat this- he's just not the kind of person we need here. I will refrain from name-calling, since I would end up listing every name there is. Normally I would premise a post like this with "I'm sorry but..." But I'm not sorry- Irakly should be sorry."

". Everyone came to your defence and made sure that it was understood what your true meaning was. Everyone but you. Are you a spoiled little brat? The truth is, you were rude in a big way. Can't you be a man and admit it?"

Since an honest opinion is not appreciated by you, I have no other choice than staying out of this particular forum.

I do leave with laugh though, after reading the part in which you describe yourself;

"a person whose intentions are as friendly as they can possibly be, I would really enjoy seeing a little bit more dignity in your posts"

That was a good one Irakly! :D :D :D

Good luck with 'your' forum... you're gonna need it.

---