Responding to other members’ posts

[aster]

Forums are where works and thoughts are shared with community which comprises many people from different locations, historical and cultural backgrounds, education, abilities, talent, perception of life, prospects, expectations, inspirations, aspirations, climate, geography, art, art colour palette, and who also have full rights to their personal work regardless of what others may think of them.

Is Aztec art and colour palette any less to American Indians’ or to modern Pablo Picasso’s or to the African or the Japanese art and colour palette? The world owns it all, and built its current art and culture upon it. All deserves respect of the viewer equally while standing on its own with full rights for existence.
Are we allowed to take down Mona Lisa from where it’s exhibited and empose our own mind’s colours and change the curve of her smile to a smirk? Can we call Picasso crazy for taking a whole new road uphill in painting and art in general, after years of classical self-education and study? Can we be angry with all those Dutch impressionists who chose muted colours for their pursuit in their work?

Simply put: No we can’t. We respect their views reflected by their art and even protect them as they are; nothing reducted, nothing added. They have full rights to exist.

Internet forums should not be any different in regards to work of others. No other member should download any other member’s work and make changes on it without asking the owner’s full consent first. The owner may give his/her consent or not and still deserves respect for this decision.
Presenting a view on the work and offering critism for improvements should stay within limits of writing about it only. Unless the work’s owner/author asks for 'improving changes' to be demostrated on his/her work of course. But otherwise it should be left untouched.

In the light of all the above, I believe bonneville’s right to share his work was violated and many more may follow.

I find this is harming genuinely-interested people’s participation in the forum threads and setting an unfavourable climate for free and respectful sharing of thoughts, ideas and consequently works.

Hopefully bonneville and his like will find it in their hearts to visit and share their works again!

Kindly,
Yildiz

[Dr. Harout]

I'm with you Yildiz.

[pakodominguez]

I was about to say something about this (on the Boneville's thread) but, because you start this thread and the issue has been a constant, I'll say it here.

I find not really elegant to *kidnap* somebody else's thread. If I'm showing my squirrels is because I want your (by "your" I mean this community) opinion about the photograph, about the lens it's supposed to challenge and other technical and artistic qualities. I not putting my squirrels AGAINST your chipmunk. I can care about your chipmunk on your thread, not in "MINE".

Taking somebody else pic and "fix it" isn't that dramatic. The real problem, IMHO, is that some people try to impose their point of view about THE WORLD.

Regards

[aster]

Thank you for your support Dr. Harout and pakodominguez,

Hopefully we'll share many good things in the future.


Yildiz

[David Kilpatrick]

I don't intend to lock this thread but Don may wish to consider deleting a couple of his posts here.

David

[Winston]

It's called the friend or foe option...use it kiddies.

-Sonolta

Good advice. I'm taking it.
If we all take it...problem solved.

[Winston]

Ah...he's been reduced to a boring, repetitive one-liner.

[David Kilpatrick]

Don, the heading on 'Give it Your Best Shot' is pretty clear -

Show everyone the latest shots which make you feel dead chuffed with your camera choice

Now that can mean anything from beginner to expert, and it does not have to mean a fantastic image - don't they use the term 'Give it your best shot' in your language?

In Engish-English, it means 'try as well as you can' - even if the circumstances, or your skills, are against you.

"I'm sorry, I'm not really very good at playing pool".
"Well, give it your best shot then".

Maybe this meaning has been lost on you - I can realise why it would be lost on Dr Harout or Yildiz or Bossel, who are writing excellent English despite this being a foreign language forum for them. But it should not be a foreign language forum for you!

In any case, the picture which started this was not a doggie-doo snapshot. I'd love to send you on a workshop with Thomas Joshua Cooper, or point you to Faye Godwin's 'Remains of Elmet' (she was held in almost as high a regard as Ansel Adams, in the British tradition of her late 20th c era). Just because a picture does not fit your own aesthetic doesn't make it a snapshot. Technically many of your own shots are snapshots, in the original sense of the word - instantaneous exposures!

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Here is the soft and dullish PHOTO that DK and Yildiz admire so much...

Let others judge, Don. It's not soft or dullish at all. It is natural, has beautiful colours and tones, and does not look like your Disneyland concept of what the world should be like.

I've been tested as 98/100 Farnsworth-Munsell colour vision and Shirley, lucky lady, had 100/100 (it does deteriorate with age, this was now 10 years ago) and a Masters degree in Colour Science which involved testing a lot of people for their colour vision inlcuding me, all our staff, and most of our friends. It is surprising how good female colour vision is compared to male.

I would guess that if you took a Farnsworth-Munsell test, you'd be down around 85/100. Everything you post points to a need to boost both contrast and colour. Yildiz, as a young woman, probably has 98-100/100 and even on a computer monitor can appreciate a far more subtle range of colour distinctions. I know you will throw up the on-screen test but the real thing, with ceramic tablets, is very different - your local university should have a colour science department, and will welcome anyone prepared to be tested.

Photoshop CS4, in a radical departure, has proof simulation settings for typical male colourblindness!

David

[Greg Beetham]

Well said Yildiz, really all that was needed in the first place was a little manners.....such as, discuss and ask first, not that hard really.
Greg

[pakodominguez]

Maybe this meaning has been lost on you - I can realise why it would be lost on Dr Harout or Yildiz or Bossel, who are writing excellent English despite this being a foreign language forum for them. But it should not be a foreign language forum for you!

You meant my English ain't good?
:-/
At least I have certain sens of humor...

[pakodominguez]

BTW4, you are talking to the wrong guy on color, man.

For once (and written in Patois) is my turn to tell you, Don, that you missed the point. And your own sample of pictures are the proof: you're showing us your pallet of colors, With (naturally) vivid/saturated colors. Those are probably the colors of your environment. But that's not everybody else's reality and wasn't mine until I moved to Buenos Aires, and 10 years after that, to NYC.

In other words (...) the colors you got from Boneville's picture exists, but not in that place! What you have done with that picture is "interpreting" it in a way it looks pleasant for your eyes. And that's correct but only for you. Then, you started treating everybody else like morons because you are the one carrying the banner of truth.

You are a good photographer and no doubt your post-prod's technical skills are amazing. But I dont want to follow you.

Regards

[pakodominguez]

[quote="David Kilpatrick
I've been tested as 98/100 Farnsworth-Munsell colour vision and Shirley, lucky lady, had 100/100 (it does deteriorate with age, this was now 10 years ago) and a Masters degree in Colour Science which involved testing a lot of people for their colour vision inlcuding me, all our staff, and most of our friends. It is surprising how good female colour vision is compared to male.
[/quote]
It is not the first time I read about how better women see colors than men. I spent about 10 of my 20 years in the photography world working in photo labs doing color correction (from negatives back in the time, digital only now) and alas, never had the chance to have female colleagues. Probably the production/industrial job isn't good for women... I do know extremely good female photoshopers, but they are mostly digital artist than color correctors.

Some body will have to replace me soon here at the lab (I'll be taking care of the photo books any soon) so I'll insist in getting a girl for the job, just in order to see if this "theory" is right or not.

Regards

[pakodominguez]

BTW4, you are talking to the wrong guy on color, man.

For once (and written in Patois) is my turn to tell you, Don, that you missed the point.

No...you are standing up for a dull snapshot that actually had a better looking color pallet than was presented.

Me?
I never said I like that shot. What I don't like is your approach, first kidnaping the thread and then your agressive-defensive position. It's like you don't have anything to learn -and that makes you a less interesting person.

And your own sample of pictures are the proof: you're showing us your pallet of colors, With (naturally) vivid/saturated colors. Those are probably the colors of your environment. But that's not everybody else's reality and wasn't mine until I moved to Buenos Aires, and 10 years after that, to NYC.

The reality is boneville's image could have been done better.

voila encore! different, not better: different...

You are a good photographer and no doubt your post-prod's technical skills are amazing. But I dont want to follow you.

Thanks...but you know what? Even though you are an old a-mount man that has plenty of opinions and knowledge about certain things, I don't care much for your style...I won't be following you either! I guess that is why you have your style and I have mine!
Regards

No: I'm not an old man, I'm almost 38 (I start on this busines when I was 17) I'm not an old a-mount man either (even if my first SRL was a SRT 101) I switch from Nikon to Dimage/Maxxum only 7 years ago. And I don't want followers, but I appreciated people that, liek me, are curious and always ready to learn.

BTW, I think 5 guys could have snapped that very same frame on that same golf course and they all would have come up with something different --->

In a world we live withouth "anything new under the sun", this is what makes Photography interesting

and I bet you at least one dollar that a couple of those versions would have much more mood, feel, pop, texture, pop, and zing than the what the AOP had presented here. I can think that if I want...and no number of posts from you will change that fact.

One more time: different, not better. Just Different.

[pakodominguez]

Pako, I was not talking to you! If you will notice...those are DK's words I answered and not yours! Geesh...

You quoted me... I thin your ADD is killing you, man

BTW...some pictures are not just different, some pictures actually suck and don't try to tell me otherwise!

I think it was Joe Rosenthal who once answer the question about what is a good photograph: A good photograph is a sold photograph. You don't have any idea of the sort of images I have to transform in sellable prints. We are talking about thousand of images a day. It's depressing. But those photographers sold them all (or almost). So I shut up and keep printing...