| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/22/2004 11:12:06 PM · #251 |
| Laurie and Oly-- if he was tickled pink before he's got to be rolling himself purple laughing at you two hissing and spiting at each other over him. Please knock it off. |
|
|
|
06/22/2004 11:13:51 PM · #252 |
In that case, Oly will be playing the role of Simon. Now kiss and make up on national television you two. :)
Clara
|
|
|
|
06/22/2004 11:15:17 PM · #253 |
I'm gonna go back over to the beer thread and have a round or two...Oly is welcome to join, on my dime. :o)
|
|
|
|
06/22/2004 11:18:53 PM · #254 |
I want the rights to "What were you thinking"
but really --maybe that should be the topic for the next challenge?!!? |
|
|
|
06/22/2004 11:19:01 PM · #255 |
Originally posted by blemt:
In that case, Oly will be playing the role of Simon. Now kiss and make up on national television you two. :)
Clara |
**************
I will if she will...
pspspspspspspspsppsspspspspspsp |
|
|
|
06/22/2004 11:21:07 PM · #256 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I will if she will...
pspspspspspspspsppsspspspspspsp |
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxxoxoxoxoxoxoxo ;o)
|
|
|
|
06/22/2004 11:21:26 PM · #257 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
... which then leads to "we should require comments on any votes of 1 or 2"... |
Do I get any bonus points for predicting this thread? I don't even think it took 12 hours...  |
|
|
|
06/22/2004 11:26:34 PM · #258 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Do I get any bonus points for predicting this thread? |
Only if you do your Randy Jackson impression for the rest of the class. :)
|
|
|
|
06/22/2004 11:28:21 PM · #259 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by EddyG:
... which then leads to "we should require comments on any votes of 1 or 2"... |
Do I get any bonus points for predicting this thread? I don't even think it took 12 hours... |
LOL....
Everything that has been discussed or ranted about in the past will appear at least another six times before the end of this year. The messages appear the same, only the names change. |
|
|
|
06/22/2004 11:44:03 PM · #260 |
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by EddyG:
... which then leads to "we should require comments on any votes of 1 or 2"... |
Do I get any bonus points for predicting this thread? I don't even think it took 12 hours... |
LOL....
Everything that has been discussed or ranted about in the past will appear at least another six times before the end of this year. The messages appear the same, only the names change. |
Uh, mostly the names don't change either ... |
|
|
|
06/22/2004 11:55:11 PM · #261 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I've been reading GW's comments from previous challenges and I don't see anything wrong with what he writes. He may be a bit too direct and callous with some of his comments, but that's his style. Ok, so you don't want him as a friend, but he is writing his uncensored thoughts and this can be very valuable to one who wants to learn photography, whether or not you agree with him or not.
As for previous comments about him suffering from low self esteem and not being breast fed, well, that also shows an extreme reaction in a person and could be interpreted as a statement to the effect of how defensive and guarded one has to be when confronted with criticism.
Get over it! |
Did you read any of the comments submitted by people from the current challenge? Have you read these comments?
You can't be serious thinking this is a decent picture to enter for a challenge? You truly need new glasses or to invest in an auto focus camera.
Ducks, water, and brush are always in place. I sure hope you are better with a shotgun than a camera.
If this picture were in focus, AND, you used a CD that had more art work on the label so it stood out as a CD and didn't look like a normal record lable on a vinyl record, AND you took the picture from an interesting angle, and the picture had some color or 'life' to it ........ you would have probably won this challenge. You had an awesome idea here - but you picture looks like a bad B&W from the 1950's.
You have a high tech digital camera and the entire month of March to take a decent picture - and the best you could do was the top of some lumber from Home Depot? It's the photographer that makes the picture - you need to work on your creativity or start visiting places where interesting things happen you can photogpraph!
His other comments show that he is capable of writing constructive criticism without being insulting so at what point does he decide it's okay to become a blowhard? Perhaps he is manic but this would only explain the behaviour, not excuse it or his total lack of humility.
He hasn't endeared himself with his total disregard for how his comments have insulted people, or by his boastful talk of his experience, or by his inability to take what is dished out (as is evidenced by angry reactions he has had in the past to comments left on his entries). Worse, he doesn't have the chops to support his inflated opinion of his--well--his opinion.
Having been on the receiving end of an angry mob, I'm not one to join in wholeheartedly but GW arrogance is just a bit much. While I got a laugh out of the comments recently left on his photos, I actually felt a twinge of sympathy for him. Just a twinge. |
|
|
|
06/22/2004 11:57:50 PM · #262 |
Originally posted by Riggs:
Originally posted by laurielblack:
It was really more of a tongue-in-cheek remark (as noted by the Freudian accent I don't possess)...didn't mean to become "no better than him." ;o) |
Well I am not picking on you, I just dont understand the outrage here. I really dont. The guy speaks his mind, is a bit cocky, but so what?...the main part of the the outrage was...."What were you thinking?" What is so mean about that?
I got one of those comments ...and you know what, he was right. His comments were dead on.
I just dont know where all this hostility comes from.....it really suprises me.
At any rate...I will go watch me score dive....... :) |
I direct you to my post previous to this one... |
|
|
|
06/23/2004 12:04:12 AM · #263 |
I just want to add my two cents here. Way at the start of this challenge I posted on some thread, that these are lowest scores I have yet to give. I pointed out that the majority of the photographs were desaturated and colorized. In other words colors are being added. This is not my interpretation of the challenge. Yes, there are some very nice and beautiful images here of very high quality, but many missed the aim of the challenge.
If we own a digital camera it is incumbent upon us to become proficient with either PS Elements or PS professional. There is no other way to get by. You own the digital camera, you need the digital dark room.
I am not at all very popular with the purist because a section of my port is dedicated to many simple and advanced PS techniques which cross into digital art. However, for most of my life I always had a background and mixed the Ansel Adams' formulas to make prints. Now, we are very fortunate because all of the dodging, burn in, unsharp mask, etc, etc can now be done in broad daylight without chemicals.
So yes, I was surprised to find that many of us found this challenge beyond comprehension. The positive note is that we are all learning together.
Selective desaturation in a simple explanation is to take a photograph: make a selection of what you want to keep as is: inverse the selection so that it selects everything else. You then remove the color. However, there are many ways to achieve this end. For example simple desaturation hardly ever delivers a rich black and white. Then there is the problem of the selection itself. Do you use laso, poly laso, magnetic laso or do you use a super precise path tool. You will debate a feather value or will you cut sharp about the selection and then use a low value erasor brush to break the edge's hardness. The simplest way to practice this technique is to first adjust levels and color balance, make your selection and copy to an independent layer. Now go and work on your desaturation technique. When you are happy paste the color layer. Of course, be careful about using layers because the rules may prohibit them. But with this system you are able to balance the entire shot to a pleasant b/w as you view the entire image.
Now, bear in mind that because you are crossing into the digital art realm, you need a good subject to begin and hopefully one that will show enough desaturated real estate. It is an artistic expression and as such not all images will lend themselves. Some may look just horrible. You need to experiment. Be very careful once you have the image before you and you get the urge to over saturated your selected area. It is best to desaturate a bit if it takes on an overpowering look. Once you are finished: if you feel you can improve the image by changing the color, ah.... now you are colorizing! |
|
|
|
06/23/2004 12:27:03 AM · #264 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I've been reading GW's comments from previous challenges and I don't see anything wrong with what he writes. He may be a bit too direct and callous with some of his comments, but that's his style. Ok, so you don't want him as a friend, but he is writing his uncensored thoughts and this can be very valuable to one who wants to learn photography, whether or not you agree with him or not.
As for previous comments about him suffering from low self esteem and not being breast fed, well, that also shows an extreme reaction in a person and could be interpreted as a statement to the effect of how defensive and guarded one has to be when confronted with criticism.
Get over it! |
Did you read any of the comments submitted by people from the current challenge? Have you read these comments?
You can't be serious thinking this is a decent picture to enter for a challenge? You truly need new glasses or to invest in an auto focus camera.
Ducks, water, and brush are always in place. I sure hope you are better with a shotgun than a camera.
If this picture were in focus, AND, you used a CD that had more art work on the label so it stood out as a CD and didn't look like a normal record lable on a vinyl record, AND you took the picture from an interesting angle, and the picture had some color or 'life' to it ........ you would have probably won this challenge. You had an awesome idea here - but you picture looks like a bad B&W from the 1950's.
You have a high tech digital camera and the entire month of March to take a decent picture - and the best you could do was the top of some lumber from Home Depot? It's the photographer that makes the picture - you need to work on your creativity or start visiting places where interesting things happen you can photogpraph!
His other comments show that he is capable of writing constructive criticism without being insulting so at what point does he decide it's okay to become a blowhard? Perhaps he is manic but this would only explain the behaviour, not excuse it or his total lack of humility.
He hasn't endeared himself with his total disregard for how his comments have insulted people, or by his boastful talk of his experience, or by his inability to take what is dished out (as is evidenced by angry reactions he has had in the past to comments left on his entries). Worse, he doesn't have the chops to support his inflated opinion of his--well--his opinion.
Having been on the receiving end of an angry mob, I'm not one to join in wholeheartedly but GW arrogance is just a bit much. While I got a laugh out of the comments recently left on his photos, I actually felt a twinge of sympathy for him. Just a twinge. |
****************
Yes, I agree with you, he can be callous and arrogant. Maybe he's had a bad day, week or month...I don't know, but he also makes some valid points in his remarks. That is my point...even if you don't like his style of commenting there may be something to learn in what he's got to say and the people who are bashing him in this thread are bashing a person. He's bashing a picture. I think there's a difference.
We may not remember the comment that was "sugar coated," but a message that has some bite to it, may teach us more and may be remember a lot longer than the former.
I also remember the thread that you started where you had a bit of a fit about the results of the banana challenge. I felt bad for you because you were bashed as he is here. I don't think that it's wrong to get emotionally upset or passionate about a subject, image or what have you, and it may be good for purposes of discussion, but when it's starts to be an attack against a person, well, I have to question that. |
|
|
|
06/23/2004 03:35:56 AM · #265 |
Originally posted by Alecia:
... i think we would do well to remember that art is soooooo subjective. ... |
I can not quite agree with this. To my thinking, art is not subjective. The appreciation of art, the perception of art and even the conception of art is subjective, but the art is a medium for communication and as such has to be objective.
Sure it starts as a subjective conception of the artist, but it must then become a part of our shared experience (objective) to communicate with the viewer who then subjectively perceives it. If it does not communicate the subjective conception of the artist into a subjective perception of the viewer it has failed, but the art itself has to be objective to pass between the two.
David
|
|
|
|
06/23/2004 05:14:19 AM · #266 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
It is best to desaturate a bit if it takes on an overpowering look. |
I disagree with this part of your post, my friend. To my mind, selective desaturation is the photographic equivalent of a poke in the eye with a sharp stick; blunting the end of the stick won't reduce the impact much, just make the bruising worse.
In plainer words - your going to add impact to a particular colour by removing all others: why then lessen the impact of that colour by lessening its impact?
Of course, there are probably situations where folks have taken the saturation so far it completely takes it out of the realm of the rest of their image ... but in general, I disagree.
E
|
|
|
|
06/23/2004 07:48:05 AM · #267 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
Originally posted by dustin03:
simular to mine too as well others....."Poor picture to choose. Nothing for the viewer to identify with and realize what colors are missing. If a picture is boring in color - it doesn't get better when you remove some. What were you thinking??????" |
Dustin, I really like your work. I recall leaving a comment on your photo "She Dances" back when I first became active on this site. I don't know if I put it in my favorites but I've come across it a few times and I still like it. |
Hello melismatica,
thank you for you comment and likeing one of my photos...enjoy.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2004 07:56:02 AM · #268 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by EddyG:
... which then leads to "we should require comments on any votes of 1 or 2"... |
Do I get any bonus points for predicting this thread? I don't even think it took 12 hours... |
LOL....
Everything that has been discussed or ranted about in the past will appear at least another six times before the end of this year. The messages appear the same, only the names change. |
Uh, mostly the names don't change either ... |
Someone should compile a FAQ...
|
|
|
|
06/23/2004 12:50:35 PM · #269 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I also remember the thread that you started where you had a bit of a fit about the results of the banana challenge. I felt bad for you because you were bashed as he is here. I don't think that it's wrong to get emotionally upset or passionate about a subject, image or what have you, and it may be good for purposes of discussion, but when it's starts to be an attack against a person, well, I have to question that. |
The difference is, I was quickly abashed at my impulsive action and made ammends. Once I did that, I was given the benefit of the doubt that the behaviour isn't a pattern for me, and the thread ended.
GW displayed zero humility or willingness to accept that his comments were hurtful and more likely to be perceived by all but the most thick-skinned sorts as destructive rather then instructive.
You feel he is being persecuted for his opinion but I maintain that many of his comments are unprovoked attacks on the various folks who were subjected to them. You claim his comments are directed at the photographs but I contest that comments like...
"You truly need new glasses or to invest in an auto focus camera."
and...
" I sure hope you are better with a shotgun than a camera."
...are clearly directed at the photographer and serve no useful purpose and only serve to obscure any good advice he may have given.
It is natural for a person or group to become defensive and angry once they have been provoked. If one is going to make inflammatory posts like his (and mine was) then one should be prepared to take the flak or apologize. He has shown no remorse for his unkind words. In fact he took perverse satisfaction in the muck he stirred up. Your sympathy is admirable but wasted on him. |
|
|
|
06/23/2004 12:55:13 PM · #270 |
Originally posted by e301:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
It is best to desaturate a bit if it takes on an overpowering look. |
I disagree with this part of your post, my friend. To my mind, selective desaturation is the photographic equivalent of a poke in the eye with a sharp stick; blunting the end of the stick won't reduce the impact much, just make the bruising worse. |
That's why I felt so jumpy after looking at so many. LOL! I sure don't like the technique any better after this week. Maybe it is my ADHD wiring but these photos make me edgy like you wouldn't believe. |
|
|
|
06/23/2004 01:12:47 PM · #271 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Maybe he's had a bad day, week or month...I don't know, but he also makes some valid points in his remarks. That is my point...even if you don't like his style of commenting there may be something to learn in what he's got to say and the people who are bashing him in this thread are bashing a person. He's bashing a picture. I think there's a difference.
|
He may make valid points, but they are overshadowed by his rudeness.
It's not really a STYLE of commenting, it's just disrespectful and rude.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2004 01:18:54 PM · #272 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I also remember the thread that you started where you had a bit of a fit about the results of the banana challenge. I felt bad for you because you were bashed as he is here. I don't think that it's wrong to get emotionally upset or passionate about a subject, image or what have you, and it may be good for purposes of discussion, but when it's starts to be an attack against a person, well, I have to question that. |
The difference is, I was quickly abashed at my impulsive action and made ammends. Once I did that, I was given the benefit of the doubt that the behaviour isn't a pattern for me, and the thread ended.
GW displayed zero humility or willingness to accept that his comments were hurtful and more likely to be perceived by all but the most thick-skinned sorts as destructive rather then instructive.
You feel he is being persecuted for his opinion but I maintain that many of his comments are unprovoked attacks on the various folks who were subjected to them. You claim his comments are directed at the photographs but I contest that comments like...
"You truly need new glasses or to invest in an auto focus camera."
and...
" I sure hope you are better with a shotgun than a camera."
...are clearly directed at the photographer and serve no useful purpose and only serve to obscure any good advice he may have given.
It is natural for a person or group to become defensive and angry once they have been provoked. If one is going to make inflammatory posts like his (and mine was) then one should be prepared to take the flak or apologize. He has shown no remorse for his unkind words. In fact he took perverse satisfaction in the muck he stirred up. Your sympathy is admirable but wasted on him. |
****************
No, I don't think he's persecuted for his opinion...I think it's because of his style, and it maybe that he is looking to attack, but I don't know if I would take it personally if one of his comments found it's way to one of my pics because he doesn't know to whom he is aiming his attacks at during the voting. So bottom line for me is, he may a jerk (and that's his problem), but he's got something to say, so I will listen and see if it applies, and then move on and forget the messenger, but not the message, knowing that I have gained something from it, hopefully.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2004 01:40:29 PM · #273 |
Well, it occured to me that not only did GW have a very set opinion about what selective desaturation should be and has no imagination whatsoever, he also left the exact same comments on most of the entries, which suggest to me that he either copied and pasted the comments or something of that sort. He didn't take the time to comment on the "faults" of individual pictures but rather had a set of generic comments that he posted over and over again. This is totally pathetic and it makes me think that his intention when he first started voting and commenting was to trash the entries. I don't know if I made any sense, but that's just my 2 cents.
June
|
|
|
|
06/23/2004 02:29:45 PM · #274 |
I can't believe this thread is still going I thought by now it would be locked. It is threads like this that almost made me leave DPC. I do not believe these discussions should go on while voting is going on because
these threads have a impact on the voting Maybe we all need to get a life. |
|
|
|
06/23/2004 02:37:47 PM · #275 |
Originally posted by Crafty Sue:
Maybe we all need to get a life. |
We did! Come hang out with us all in the beer thread. I think Oly was chasing laurieblack around last I looked. ;)
Clara
|
|
