Alaska winterscapes (Barrow: authority, bill, nicest)

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by Moose Whisperer

I simply can't believe what is going on around this forum in the short time I've been away. While I obviously don't agree with Floyd on just about anything, I would never presume to criticize another's photos, unless such critique was asked for, and then only in a constructive manner. We all have different tastes, and posting one's work is a personal leap of faith in the first place. Unwelcome criticism, let alone outright mocking is unconscionable IMO.

That is true. However, in my last couple of articles with images I've literally asked both Notrees and Ray to post their comments. Primarily the reason for doing so is because the quality of those images is rather obvious (not that everyone will like the style they demonstrate). Both of those individuals mock themselves with the comments they make.

Whatever, I seriously invite them (or anyone else) to provide critical coments on the last 4 images I posted. Positive or negative, mocking or otherwise, comments are welcome. That includes comments on style as well as technical aspects, because those were chosen for the style in which they portray the topic of "Barrow elders". There actually is something special about that style, which I doubt that our to self proclaim experts can even see much less analyse or discuss.

I really want to see if Notrees has the brass to tell me those are "kindergarten" and "entry level" portraits. (I suspect both he and Ray have by now realized just how far they've gone with foot in mouth disease though, and won't post another rant.)

[notreesininceland]

Floyd,

You have proven yourself to be a klutz with the camera. Recall how this thread began. You dismissed Ben Hattenbach's article and when I requested you to add to it, you had nothing to offer except a rash of terrible images which you have come to believe are masterpieces. That and a bunch of terms (entropy) and names (Shannon et al).

Ben may have gotten some of his side issues wrong, BUT he did emerge from his Alaskan trip with fantastic images, whereas all that Floyd has on offer is fanfaronade.

[Moose Whisperer]

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson

That is true. However, in my last couple of articles with images I've literally asked both Notrees and Ray to post their comments. Primarily the reason for doing so is because the quality of those images is rather obvious (not that everyone will like the style they demonstrate). Both of those individuals mock themselves with the comments they make.

I believe you nailed it with that one Floyd.

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by notreesininceland

Floyd,

You have proven yourself to be a klutz with the camera. Recall how this thread began. You dismissed Ben Hattenbach's article and when I requested you to add to it, you had nothing to offer except a rash of terrible images which you have come to believe are masterpieces. That and a bunch of terms (entropy) and names (Shannon et al).

I offered to discuss concepts of portaiture with you on several occasions, and started the discussion with references to several specifics. You have never been able to even begin an exchange about portraiture, even on very simple terms, never mind relate very advanced concepts such as entropy to it.

Ben may have gotten some of his side issues wrong,

And that was precisely what my original post stated. I said nothing about his photography skills or his images.

BUT he did emerge from his Alaskan trip with fantastic images, whereas all that Floyd has on offer is fanfaronade.

So why is it you can't discuss anything about style or techniques for portraiture (a topic you have claimed to be expert on)? I've posted several images that demonstrate my style (which noone is obligated to like) and my ability to use the techniques that I'm willing to discuss at any level.

Please feel free to analyze that last set of images Notrees! I think everyone enjoys your rants (and realizes they are rants, not valid commentary). Of course we both know very well you haven't got the background or experience to make valid comments on those images, and that because it is also very apparant to virtually everyone reading this thread you aren't going to put your foot into your mouth again with another try!

So in addition to a lack of skills necessary to analyze them, you now lack the courage to try.

[notreesininceland]

Floyd,

It is pathetic seeing you clutch at straws. Give it a rest, man. All you have achieved in this thread is shown everyone your skills - the lack of them - in photography. Now take your bat and ball and go home, while you still have a few shards of your reputation left in your pocket.

[Floyd_Davidson]

Well, since I've asked others to analyze those four photographs, perhaps I should at least provide a short discussion to start the ball rolling...

I will flat state that I beleive the second and third images to be extremely high quality. They make a statement, with a recognizable style, that is important and well presented. The first image (of Warren giving the invocation at a Nalukataq celebration) has the same basic characteristics as the other two, but lacks a bit of the same quality in regard to low entropy.

That is, the first one has too much ancillary information which does not directly compliment the subject. It is likely, for example, that cropping a little tighter might be an improvement. That would remove context that identifies the location as Barrow, but would emphasize the relationship between the other people and Warren. (It has the extra information because it targets a Barrow audience. If it were for sale as a stock photo, for example, cropping would be appropriate.)

The second and third images are very good examples of reducing the entropy (leaving more "order" and less "disorder") because they are cropped to frame the subject (Edward Itta in the second photo and Warren in the third) within the confines of information that literally defines the person.

The last image was selected to show a distinctly different way to reduce entropy. Everything but the subject is blurred. There is no context except that of the clothing on the subject. The reason I rate this photo at slightly lower quality than the others is because there is no need to have all of the person appear to be sharp. At least part of the shirt should be obscured in some way.

I would also prefer that all of those images be framed with complementary colors.

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by notreesininceland

Floyd,

It is pathetic seeing you clutch at straws. Give it a rest, man. All you have achieved in this thread is shown everyone your skills - the lack of them - in photography. Now take your bat and ball and go home, while you still have a few shards of your reputation left in your pocket.

So, you can't discuss portraiture, and now you've realized that commenting directly of quality photography just tells people why you can't discuss the techniques and styles of portraiture.

Go ahead Notrees... tell everyone you think those four images are kindergarten level and entry level work done by a photographer who is a klutz with a camera!

I rarely "rate" my photography (or anyone else's), but I will flat say that two of those images are masterpieces. They are clearly better than anything you or Ray have ever done. They might be an excellent demonstration that neither of you can discuss photography without this emotional need to disparage someone who embarasses your own low quality of work.

Lets see you provide an critical review of those photos that doesn't include your emotional dislike for me! You can't do it.

[notreesininceland]

Floyd,

I don't have a dislike of you, emotional or otherwise. I simply pointed out the vast disconnect between what you believe to be your expertise in photography and reality, based on the images we have suffered through thus far. As always, we are open to more suffering.

[notreesininceland]

As for the last set of images you have posted, here is my take - they have the look and feel of "snapshots." Snapshots are of course valuable - they freeze our treasured memories, they record those whom we love and admire. So snapshots have a lot of value to those who take them, and rightly so. But for a snapshot to be considered a "photograph" it has to have an appeal beyond the intimate familiarity of the people or the place they contain. Composition, technique, and subject matter in the right proportion and balance can parlay a snapshot into a photograph that is capable of drawing reaction from those totally unconnected & unfamiliar with the subjects contained in them. The images Floyd has presented fall into the realm of "snapshots." They do not make the grade beyond that.

[Moose Whisperer]

Originally Posted by notreesininceland

As for the last set of images you have posted, here is my take - they have the look and feel of "snapshots." Snapshots are of course valuable - they freeze our treasured memories, they record those whom we love and admire. So snapshots have a lot of value to those who take them, and rightly so. But for a snapshot to be considered a "photograph" it has to have an appeal beyond the intimate familiarity of the people or the place they contain. Composition, technique, and subject matter in the right proportion and balance can parlay a snapshot into a photograph that is capable of drawing reaction from those totally unconnected & unfamiliar with the subjects contained in them. The images Floyd has presented fall into the realm of "snapshots." They do not make the grade beyond that.

I would say that Floyd's photo #3 above goes beyond your definition of a "snapshot". I have no connection with the people or events depicted there, however the composition clearly conveys (to me at least) the feeling, emotion, spirit... of what was taking place. On that level he succeeded.