Dear Rainphot, since Im still here Ill quickly reply to your most recent comment: "I do believe that when we view anothers work, find positive ways of responding, or be polite and just say it doesn't work for you. Is there any real need to disparage another?" I have already discussed the incorrect manner in which I initially wrote about Mr Leake's work, I have also discussed that the manner may have been alittle agressive, but the sentiment remains. If I were to ask someones opinion of one of my images, after countless hours of my deciding whether to rip it up or tone and frame it, I would be more insulted by a coy "it doesnt work for me..." none-answer than an honest open critique/attack of the work in question. Having studied the work myself before anyone else I would be able to defend its merits, and open to admit its faults, objectively. Despite the stiff upper lipped caracature that the British may have invited upon themselves, my friends and I realise, understand, and are very grateful for our openness with each other with respect to our creative work. We appreciate these discussions, learning and growing from them, something impossible to do with a nonchalant "it doesnt work for me..." aside. How doesnt it work for you? Why? Questions, answers, opinions, debate...one will never grow without teachers, be they an open young child unafraid to say what he thinks, or a wise old master, whose valid comments, though harsh, may be just what the student needs to develop and grow...and yes, we are all eternal students. Bye for now! R.
Originally Posted by RichardWright
For a critique to have value it needs to reveal something new to the person receiving it. An experienced photographer, an artist in another field, an art historian, an ordinary person, or an innocent child could all reveal something new. But in all likelihood, the knowledgeable person is more likely to reveal something new because they have a greater breadth of experience to draw on.
You have chosen to critique my work on two grounds. Your first critique was an emotional statement that my pictures do nothing for you. Fine. I accept that. I've had worse comments from people (such as when a porn aggregator linked to my web site and I had 12,000 visitors in one weekend - not surprisingly they were mostly disappointed with the pictures I show - and some of them couldn't handle that disappointment very well).
But your second critique was about technique and process - you've talked about camera kit, lighting, backdrops, platinum printing, posing, composition, etc. I'm sorry, but if you're going to set yourself up as someone I should listen to about these things then you have to demonstrate you know something about the subject. If you cannot or will not do this then you are no better than those college lecturers you derided in one of your posts.
The internet is full of armchair critics who use critiques as a way to puff up their egos and tell everyone how fantastic and important they are. I am coming to the conclusion that you are one of these people.
It's time to put up or shut up, Richard.
Who, me? That's jolly harsh Sanders ;)
Originally Posted by Rolleiflexible
Ian, no: "Richard," of course. He's a troll
who comes in to insult and provoke. Why
do you all indulge him by taking him on
his own terms?
The world is full of insult. What has been
served by permitting its increase here?
Please spare me platitudes about free
speech. This was an unprovoked attack
-- on the forum as much as on Ian.
You are right, Sanders. And I shall say nothing more for now.
Ian, your earlier posts are very well stated. I'm reminded of a song by Ben Sidran - "critics, they can't even float, they just stand on the shore, they just wave at the boat"
Btw, just received your book today; and am looking forward to testing your methods - a well done book. Having only worked with the NA2 process, I still have alot to learn.
Whew--I thought you meant me.
Originally Posted by Rolleiflexible
Wow,,, Just read the whole thread. Painfull journy to the end.
Confirms my belief about people however.