Old 02-14-2007, 01:50 AM   #26
Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Banned
 
Fotaugrafee, Ink.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 93
Default

I agree, "crap" is a strong word. However, being blunt, honest & to the point is much more fun! As John Ireland noted, Joe asked for comment, he got it. Just because he was given a spank on the ass rather than a timeout in the corner doesn't mean Brad's comment deserves any less merit.

Here is an example of "crap" at Railpictures.net - it's one of my favorite examples, I don't care what the content is (ALCO's or not!!). Between the horrid quality of the photograph, and the panoramic crop-job, this belongs more on www.rrpicturearchives.net than it does here.

Also, I don't quite get the mindset that because one uses explatives or derogatory remarks in their speech, they are "immature". If anything, it's called emphasis, in my book. Regardless, that's another ball of wax for the self-important to sort out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
Also, the shot is not "crap," it is a perfectly good documentary shot, well lit, well exposed, well sharpened, reasonably composed shot.

Last edited by Fotaugrafee, Ink.; 02-14-2007 at 01:52 AM.
Fotaugrafee, Ink. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2007, 03:59 AM   #27
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,192
Default

Well, all I can really be responsible for is my own space. Brad and John, let me preemptively say that if you can't offer me dignified criticism on my shots, please refrain from commenting on them. I welcome harsh or pointed criticisms but not disrespectful ones. That's how I want to be treated, how you treat others is up to you and them. That's not being "self-important," Erik, just being decent, at least in my book.

In another thread, Bill just told me my composition has serious problems, and I've gotten even more negative reviews on other images in other forums, so I know what a harsh review, properly delivered, is like.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2007, 04:20 AM   #28
jdirelan87
Senior Member
 
jdirelan87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Metro DC
Posts: 726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
I welcome harsh or pointed criticisms but not disrespectful ones. That's how I want to be treated, how you treat others is up to you and them.
JRMDC, once again I think you're missing the point of the last couple post. What Brad said was not a personal attack, it was his opinion on the photo. He was not saying 'Joe sucks, he can't possible take a good picture.' Yes it was strong worded, but so was his opinion of the photo, not the photographer.

Despite what you say, you obviously cannot productively accept harsh criticism because that's exactly what Brad's comment was. If you are unwilling to accept that harsh criticism is a possible response when an opinion is requested, then you are the immature one.
jdirelan87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2007, 01:27 PM   #29
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdirelan87
JRMDC, once again I think you're missing the point of the last couple post. What Brad said was not a personal attack, it was his opinion on the photo. He was not saying 'Joe sucks, he can't possible take a good picture.' Yes it was strong worded, but so was his opinion of the photo, not the photographer.
I am not saying it was a personal attack. I am saying it is inappropriate behavior, nasty without reason. And I am saying whatever you all do with others, don't treat me that way.

Quote:
Despite what you say, you obviously cannot productively accept harsh criticism because that's exactly what Brad's comment was. If you are unwilling to accept that harsh criticism is a possible response when an opinion is requested, then you are the immature one.
How can you even call it "criticism"? To me, criticism requires content, it requires the conveyance of information. To call something "terrible" and "crap" does not say anything about the photo. For example, can you tell from "terrible" and "crap" whether that image is at the level of, say, PErdman's stuff from a few weeks ago? I can't.

Brad literally had nothing to say! He did not inform! Well, he did at a very superficial level, one without much content. Brad's comment was hardly "straight forward" in that sense. It was an empty comment.

But maybe I will be clearer if I pose the alternative instead of just objecting to what was done. Here is what someone could have said. They could have said "Joe, your shot is unable to escape the problems of high contrast light - when I look at the image, what comes to mind is "harsh." There is so little of the sides of the F-units visible that one inevitably focuses on the nose as a main element of the scene, but the nose is dark. The angle is such that one doesn't get much of a view of what is the most interesting, the Fs. In my opinion, regardless of whether RP should allow news content or not, this shot does not have the image quality needed."

John, can you tell the difference between the above and "terrible, crap"? If you can't, you are the immature one. Well, actually, it's not a question of maturity, rather a case of basic skill in communication.

BTW, I love such pointed criticism for my stuff, in the future I encourage you and anyone else to lay it on me, that is how I learn. I can't learn from "terrible" or "crap." Seriously, lay it on. For example, feel free to go to the Germany thread right now and say whatever it is that my image there deserves.

That's it for me, everyone, back to your regular programming.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2007, 07:35 PM   #30
Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Banned
 
Fotaugrafee, Ink.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 93
Default

Sometimes "crap" is self-explanitory. Seriously, it is! So why must I/we define the difference between terrible & crap, however? I'm not sure the line is thick enough, or are you requesting a further detailed reason as to those adjectives? Are you so blind that you don't see the lack of artistic value? If you can't relate to that, you're way to soft with your crotiques.

You didn't offer anything but applause for the photo, that I saw. Please, explain your reasons why this photo should have been approved. The lack of nose light is a "negative", cut & dry. This isn't backlit, it's sidelit...no use for it, IMO.

I think the reasons were clear, the shot has "0" nose light. My main reason for rejection would have been just that, it has no artistic value. Just a little light on the nose might have helped, god forbid. It would have even been better if the clouds rolled in, and he could expose the shot from there. That's not Joe's problem, he has good work. This was a right place, wrong time opportunity...oh well, "crap" happens.

As for choice of words, some people aren't as "soft" as others. Brad called a spade,...a spade (or a turd, a turd, pick your poison). He didn't sugar-coat it. He was "to the point", and there's nothing wrong with that. That all comes down to a lack of ability to accept critisizm, hard or soft, IMO. And Joe, the rejected, wasn't the one who seemed to take it the hard way? Instead, you did...why? No one said people need to be let down easy. You don't see boxers rushing to put a pillow under their opponents head before they hit the ground, do you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
But maybe I will be clearer if I pose the alternative instead of just objecting to what was done. Here is what someone could have said. They could have said "Joe, your shot is unable to escape the problems of high contrast light - when I look at the image, what comes to mind is "harsh." There is so little of the sides of the F-units visible that one inevitably focuses on the nose as a main element of the scene, but the nose is dark. The angle is such that one doesn't get much of a view of what is the most interesting, the Fs. In my opinion, regardless of whether RP should allow news content or not, this shot does not have the image quality needed."
Fotaugrafee, Ink. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2007, 08:30 PM   #31
ccaranna
Senior Member
 
ccaranna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 740
Default

I don't think Brad was too harsh at all. He was to the point, and sometimes people need that kind of criticism. Personally, sometimes I have a tough time with that type of criticism, but usually I learn that the criticism is well deserved. I think some of us get infatuated with our stuff and don't realize that a particular shot just doesn't work. What happens when you become infatuated with something or someone? The sheen wears off and you realize that it/she wasn't all that they were cracked up to be. I wonder if that might be the case here.

So-- sorry Joe, I agree with Brad. Newsworthy or not, the shot doesn't work. The lighting isn't terrible, but the lighting at that particular angle and focal range is not my personal favorite. I would like to be able to see the sides and read the lettering on the locomotives and not necessarily a dark-nose telesmash. Yes, there are all kinds of dark nosed shots in the database, but they contain more drama. Your shot leaves me a little flat. I think a wider angle would have worked, but I wasn't there. Who knows, a wide angle might have opened up an entirely different can of worms.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents, and I hope you aren't offended!
ccaranna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2007, 05:34 PM   #32
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,890
Default

Hey, fellows;

Been a long week for me. A lot of spent on the road for work, so I've only been able to come back here once or twice. Here's my take on what I think true, honest and worthy criticism is --

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Here, it appears that Joe's subject is +/- 90, which to me pushes the "backlit" barrier, with no artsy characteristic about it. That's not to say Joe didn't try, or that this isn't newsworthy, but this isn't Railpace online or TrainsWire.com either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotaugrafee, Ink.
My opinion, newsworthy...sure, but "poor lighting" fits the bill without contest. The B&W looks better, since the shadows contrast to harshly against the red paint on the color version.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
In the submitted photos the lettering is not visible to be read. As was stated there is no nose-light which, personally, I don't mind. I would just like to be able to see the side which would also help in relieving the backlit issue [somewhat].
I don't think that Brad's comment was constructive, but that's all right. I'm a big boy and can take it. I'm sure I've dished it out in these forums before, but I hope I've not used words like "crap" and "terrible." If nothing else, this thread will make me aware of how I should respond to people asking for comments on their rejections.

Now here's the deal. Photography is subjective. I can enjoy shots of trains with no nose light just as well as others here can bemoan their mere existence and wonder why people would even shoot them. RP certainly has every right to reject nose-dark shots, but their refusal to accept them in no way bears on anyone's opinion on whether they're good shots or not.

Brad telling me my shot is "terrible" doesn't affect that actual shot anymore than Andrew saying it looks good. I like the shot. I drove 150 miles to get it understanding the whole way there that these engines would probably be parked here. (CSX drops their cars off for the ACWR here and picks up cars from the ACWR in downtown in light that is almost aways perfect any time of the day.)

And for the record, I loathe apologies that are forced. They typically start out, "I'm sorry if I offended you." It takes a lot to actually offend me anyway. All this news about Anna Nicole Smith offends my sensibility in the business I work for. One guy's opinion does not offend me.

This thread has been good though. And I bet no one's mind has been changed. I still think news worthy shots should get some leeway. But let me clarify. I don't mean they should get in solely on the account they are newsworthy. Out of focus, over sharped, unlevel, dark, over exposed or badly framed shots are pretty easy to pick out and throw out. Less than ideal lighting is more subjective because the question becomes: Ideal for whom?


Joe
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2007, 06:01 PM   #33
ccaranna
Senior Member
 
ccaranna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 740
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog
I don't think that Brad's comment was constructive, but that's all right. I'm a big boy and can take it. I'm sure I've dished it out in these forums before, but I hope I've not used words like "crap" and "terrible." If nothing else, this thread will make me aware of how I should respond to people asking for comments on their rejections.
I don't know, you seemed pretty rattled by it. I guess when someone entitles their rejection thread with a "Pffft", people aren't necessarily going to cut you any slack.

Quote:
And for the record, I loathe apologies that are forced. They typically start out, "I'm sorry if I offended you." One guy's opinion does not offend me.
Sounds like that one guy named Brad offended you! So what's the deal? If it's apologies that you loathe, then pardon those of us here who have difficulty figuring out exactly how to compose our critques/replies in a manner that will please your sensitivities!

Who knows, maybe I'M the one being sensitive. I knew I shouldn't have even bothered replying.
ccaranna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2007, 06:15 PM   #34
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccaranna
Who knows, maybe I'M the one being sensitive. I knew I shouldn't have even bothered replying.
Hard to reply to that. This thread has actually moved beyond a point I care to take it too. One moment of me bitching about a shot I thought should have got in the database is going on and on about things which mean less than nothing.

Bottom line, no one owes me an apology and my life has somehow managed to go in spite of this one shot being rejected.


Joe
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com

Last edited by Joe the Photog; 02-15-2007 at 06:18 PM.
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2007, 07:50 PM   #35
Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Banned
 
Fotaugrafee, Ink.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 93
Default

"Ideal" based on the very same reasons you excluded the following from the news as well. "Less than ideal lighting" is just a more subtle way of saying "bad/poor lighting", as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog
But let me clarify. I don't mean they should get in solely on the account they are newsworthy. Out of focus, over sharped, unlevel, dark, over exposed or badly framed shots are pretty easy to pick out and throw out. Less than ideal lighting is more subjective because the question becomes: Ideal for whom?
Fotaugrafee, Ink. is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.