DSLRUsers.com

I bid $5 plus post...?!?

Do you know what the rent is Walter I just love pics of old and abused buildings - reminds me of - me

In the cloud just left of centre there appears to be a UFO

Onyx wrote:I bid $5 plus post...?!?

I think it's pick up only Chi

As this is in general I'm not sure if comments are welcome, but I'd liked to see a B&W version of it, or if you can revisit it a IR version maybe ?

Walter,

You may have deliberately entered this into General Discussion, but it may have been more suited to the Image Reviews section... but then again, you may have intended it that way...

That said... Nice and neat and in the middle as MattK would say... My first reaction was that the image may be in need of more saturation, but depending on where you took it, I can quite imaging that the country looks that way in these times of Australian drought...

I love good images of "human initiated decay" and this is one of them...
What a waste of a perfectly good building...

leek wrote:My first reaction was that the image may be in need of more saturation, but depending on where you took it, I can quite imaging that the country looks that way in these times of Australian drought...

I think you're right, the landscape does look a bit desperate. This image appears to have quite saturated colour everywhere else, only the grass green is missing. So, I guess its real.

However, those horizontal lines (most apparent at the right about 40% from the top) - these are not scratches on the sensor, are they?? They do appear on the left side, too. Out of interest, what was the f-stop in this shot?

Cheers
Steffen.

At bigger size the UFO has wings and is a cockatoo. The lines are power lines by-passing the house.

The grass is very tall and at present there as many yellow canes with seed pods aloft as blades of green grass. The reasonable rains after the protracted period of drought have much of the countryside in a fulrry of procreation.

The aperture was f/8 @ 1/250th with a circular polariser on the 35mm 1:2 lens (D70s).

Hi Sheetshooter. Mind if I ask where this was taken? I think the clouds really add to the shot, however if it were mine I would saturate the grass a bit more... I have a habit of doing that as all my shots straight out of the d70 come out dull.

I will be a little more harsh on you than most, because you are a perfectionist and you know how useful honest opinions can be. I know how much more experienced you are than me so I hope this doesn't seem condescending.

- It is a very safe shot. I prefer risk/experimental shots generally for posting here, because they are more conversation worthy.

- The height of the trees behind the hut are a little irritating - just poking its head over the top of the roof. Perhaps a step ladder would have been useful, or alternatively on your stomach shooting upwards. This could also help the problematic power line situation.

- Even though I know you know this - I will say it anyway: Time of day is not ideal. Midday sun may suit the barren nature of the hut however.

It is a nice shot however, with a nice feel to it.

I wonder if any of our digital cameras will be standing this long after their manufacture, use and abuse? Well balanced image walter.

Gee Walter with your penchant for the classic lines you really must go out south of Winton in Queensland to visit Old Cork Station. Absolutely magical place with its hand hewn sandstone blocks queenslander style verandah. Terrific images to be had there.

To tread the floorboards that Banjo strode and where he supposedly penned Waltzing Matilda is in itself worth the visit. Remarkable place with good vibes. When I visited I only had time for some snap shots but I'd love to go there again for a full day shoot.

cheers
marco

marcotrov wrote:To tread the floorboards that Banjo strode and where he supposedly penned Waltzing Matilda is in itself worth the visit.

cheers
marco

Aaah Marco,

Gotta love urban myths and legends. Patterson had a large residence in Centennial Park in Sydney's East where it is also he alleged that he penned the ridiculous parody that has become an alternative anthem. The rumour mill grinds out that he would fuel his opium habit viewing the expanses of the park and writing of the Australian bush with a head full of Contablesque English countryside. I do not fully dismiss the allegations because his works do not speak of the same veractity as Lawson, for example.

Cheers,

Heath Bennett wrote:- It is a very safe shot. I prefer risk/experimental shots generally for posting here, because they are more conversation worthy.

"SAFE?" You betcha it's safe. Your stated preference for 'risk/experimental shots generally' is fine in so much as it informs YOUR work. It does not need to inform mine and there was never an intention of providing something 'conversation worthy'. Much of what you possibly refer to as risk and experiment I see as mannered and forced with little more to offer than an plea for airing the ego. I hasten to add that I do not necessarily include your works in that comment.

Heath Bennett wrote:- The height of the trees behind the hut are a little irritating - just poking its head over the top of the roof. Perhaps a step ladder would have been useful, or alternatively on your stomach shooting upwards. This could also help the problematic power line situation.

The hardware store was closed at the time and had I rested on my stomach I may well have been too high given the volume of my corpulance. In the light of this being a document of a particular motif at a particular point in time I see concern for such matters as the tree line as superfluous and irrelevant.

Heath Bennett wrote:- Even though I know you know this - I will say it anyway: Time of day is not ideal. Midday sun may suit the barren nature of the hut however.

If I were given to subscribing to conventions of the pictorialists in everything I shoot then you are right - I did not limit my shooting to before 9 or after 5 in daylight saving terms. The time of day suits me fine and if you or others have issues with that then let me suggest that you broaden your field of reference.

Heath Bennett wrote:It is a nice shot however, with a nice feel to it.

I was accused by one of the luchtime legends that every critique of support I offer is patronising. I don't believe that I have EVER made a remark quite as condescendingly patronising as that.

This picture was purposefullly NOT posted in Image Critiques. It also had no text accompanying it other than the title which signified the status of the dwelling with just a hint of irony. It has been quite interesting to see the varied responses offered.

Cheers,

Sheetshooter
Nice to see you posting some images. Personally, I think it would look better in black and white.

Well I like the shot, in fact if I took a similar shot I would be more than happy with it. Where was it taken by the way?

Bob.

.

It's a great subject with plenty of scope for further exploration. I enjoy looking at images such as this. It reminds me of the contrasts we have in this country.

IMHO the shot has potential...

If it were mine (ie I was PPing it to my taste) I would:
1) Clone out the bird... just to distracting...
2) play with levels/saturation to punch it up a bit...

SS,

I like this image too; it has a certain timelessness that it evident once you start to head away from the villages that we tend to inhabit on the east coast.

The cropping, and the compositon, suit this picture all the down to the ground.

And Heath, if I may offer a suggestion, this image was NOT posted in the Image Reviiews and Critiques section. I thought about moving it, but would not have done so without first seeking SS's permission, because he may well have had a reason for posting the image in this section.

Clearly that is the case, and your comments, therefore, are out of line. Please take careful note of this, and all other prospective critics should do likewise.

Gary,

Please be assured that I do not see Heath's comments as being out of line. I see no need for him to be reprimanded (not that administration policy is any of my business). Placing the pic in General Chat was as much a social experiment as anything else - I was curious to determine how a lone image could be 'read'. From that viewpoint I would consider that all of the remarks posted are somewhat edifying including - and especially - Heath's.

Moving on ....

With regard to the B&W comments, this shot is part of an ongoing study into the differences between going into the field with the mindset of having a camera loaded with B&W film as opposed going into the field in quest of what I am accustomed to but with a DSLR which functions in many regards like a camera loaded with colour film. For example a Wratten 8 or 11 is not an option with the DSLR as far as I can see and those effects wouyld best be added in POST. Although I have not tried it as yet I would venture to suggest that normal B&W contrast control filters also fail to have the desired effect if I shoot in Monochrome mode with the Canon. Like any researcher I isolate items to test one-by-one and so that Canon test will come later.

I have documented this structure (or its remains) many times in varying seasons and light on B&W sheet film and so it is a somewhat frame of reference for this weekend's test. It was never presented as being a 'cracker' but just as an afterthought after posting a bike burn-out shot last night.

Cheers,

This isn't a bad shot at all.

Very calming to look at it, and as a black & white person, I think it would probably look good in both.

With regards to Heath's comments, I don't personally find Heath's images experimental at all... they're just shots.
Images don't have to be experimental and images you've posted here in the past, Heath, certainly don't display any of what I would consider as experimental properties. They might be "cool," but I certainly wouldn't consider them experimental.

I disagree too about the time of day not being ideal.
I think it's absolutely fine, and if one were to get shots of this building at different times of the day, you'd probably end up with a nice little series about how sunlight affects older buildings with some time passing in the background with the cloud movement.

Walter,
I think that with the cockatoo flying, it may well be great full-size, but at a lower resolution, I feel my eye starts to look at it once someone, anyone, points it out.
I'd clone it out for a smaller resolution and then compare the two.
The full-size may or may not warrant leaving the cockatoo in there, but at a size for the web, the cockatoo may end up as too distracting composition-wise.

SS
certainly an interesting image. Sitting here and viewing the image for a few minutes, I find myself beginning to wonder who the inhabitants were and what lives they must have led. I can imagine that they probably stood in the vacinity you took the photo, and must have seen that scene many times over. It is interesting to read everyone's comments on what they'd do to perhaps make the image better. As photographers, I sometimes wonder if we over-analyse images and look for what isn't there, as opposed to what is there....though I'm sure many may disagree. Perhaps it was your intention to style the image as you have, perhaps not. In the end, the image will always mean different things to different people....none of which will be right or wrong.

To me, this image has a very "Australian Bush" feel to it. The corrugated iron roof, the wooden door & window frames and even the vast blue sky and long grass. Perhaps a sign of simpler times in a quiet and sometimes lonely part of the world. The decay of the building I find also adds to the scene.

Overall, I like it....and I like the fact that the more I think about the image, the more it seems to "come to life".

Thanks for sharing SS.....

Nice picture this one, SS but i did not read all the post but i am sure it was mentioned that i think this would look good as a B&W.

SS,

My great/great/great grandfather William Young arrived on the Bathurst Plains in 1818. My father was born in an area south east of Bathurst where houses just like the one in your image were abundant. This image brings back memories to me, real and imagined, of life as lived by Australian pioneers.

Well done.

Max

A little tin some new glass, a bit of polly filler and a quick victa around the yard and back on the market for a quick profit........ nice capture wal.......

Edit: I am looking for something to do..........

SS. At the risk of sounding patronising (which I do not intend to be), I like this shot. Probably because it is the kind of shot that I like to take.
As has been said, it does make us reflect on our past, and perhaps shows that everything eventually decays.
Thanks for posting and for the discussion.

Regards
Meicw

was there anything going on inside the shack?

SS

I suppose that whether I like this shot or not is not that relevant to you. But I am always intrested in reading your posts and so I'm very happy to see some of your photographs.

It's always interesting to see what art people produce after reading so may words that they write.

More images I say.....

Cheers

Thanks guys,

Some more meat developing in the chat - that's always a good sign.

Aussie Dave has come closest to picking up on my general intent but it must be said that this picture in not finessed in anyway - if it were the tiny cockatoo would have got the shove pronto. It should also ne kept in mind that I am not presenting it as a 'WORK' but just a glimpse into perhaps a 'work in progress'.

I have a preference for quiet pictures. Pictures that prompt consideration, contemplation and wondering. In my commercial work I have had to use the camera to SHOUT messages I may or may not agree wqith on behalf of those paying me. Saturation, contrast and dynamic impact gets to be very shallow after a while and usually carries with it very little of merit or substance.

When I look at a home in decay such as this I wait to discover what I can hear. The trample of teams and wagons, the play and joy of kids at play and the knock on the door presenting the telegram with sad news from the front - from the front in a succession of tragic episodes in the case of a home as old as this. At present the context in which the house rests is revovering from drought. Just up the road is a sign announcing Level 5 Water Restrictions. Sometimes the photograph can be more akin to poetry than to prose. If it triggers thoughts and compassion such as Dave expresses then I feel it is doing its job.

Cheers,

Nnnnsic wrote:This isn't a bad shot at all.

With regards to Heath's comments, I don't personally find Heath's images experimental at all... they're just shots.
Images don't have to be experimental and images you've posted here in the past, Heath, certainly don't display any of what I would consider as experimental properties. They might be "cool," but I certainly wouldn't consider them experimental.

Well I should take this to heart. I should try to harder to be experimental - perhaps it is the mindset that I mean however rather than the final image.

Two of my last three entries to the previous competitions took a lot of experimentation. It may not look like it seing the final product though.

Experimental can be seen as taking more risks perhaps - I tend to show only a few shots taken from my best. This may make me look the opposite of experimental (contrived), even if the shot was taken while 'experimenting' with 8fps, or with 'experimentation' in interacting with the model in a certain way that brings forth different facet of their persona.

I believe now you could say that SS was 'experimenting' with midday sun in digital. When I think of experimentation and Nnnnsic, the 'shooting without thought' (correct title?) which is a very 'obvious' experimentation, especially with his explanation of the thought behind the work.

I guess also since SS has such tremendous photographic knowledge, I would like to see him experimenting - pushing the limits of his imagination and skill.

Also, being well-mannered sounds very patronising sometimes. Even more so when online, with -so much- of what is normal face to face (real life) communication being lost.

Sorry Heath,

I should not have snapped like that but as you might imagine it is something of a burr in the saddle to be told that attempts to offer help are simply patronising. Perhaps I was a little over sensitive about it.


Cheers,

Walter

If only you'd post some of your work for critique I might have something to say

Peter,

I am sure that the precedent has been set. Feel free to say whatever you like as far as I am concerned.

Cheers,

Walter. If you insist

I have to say that for me, the very first image is a little too lifeless and lacks something (not sure what). It's a bit like looking at an artists sketch then seeing the final painting except the latter isn't here yet in this case.

The other 3 pics however are different. I love the moodiness of the "Led Zeppelin" and it does have echoes of the album cover. Were I to have taken this I'd have probably tried to make it a little brighter, but the lighting here works well. The third shot has elements I like yet doesn't gel totally for me. The colours are good and the lines are nice and there's that enigmatic note on the window, yet something isn't there. Sad to say, beyond that I don't have any suggestions for improving these (and somehow I doubt you need suggestions). The keys is interesting and might be worth trying a monchrome treatment

Finally - I think there's an interesting quality to the little fragments of your work that I've seen and I'd like to see more. Thanks for sharing these.

Sheetshooter wrote:I was also trying to see if I could match the dynamic range of hand-processed sheet film with the DSLR.

Interested in your thoughts on this Walter, especially where PSCS2's HDR feature and similar techniques (bracketing + layers etc) fit into the scheme of things? Having never processed my own film nor shot larger than 35 mm I can't really comment on this, but it seems that with the digital techniques it is possible go overboard on dynamic range and create photos that don't look like traditional photos (as I know them) at all. This is not necessarily a bad thing of course, just different, but I wonder where film of all formats fits into the scheme of things.

My research into this is still in its infancy and, as yet, I have drawn no conclusions.

I have had a dabble with the 'Merge To HDR' but so far its true benefits elude me - maybe that crazy looking result means something but I haven't had cause to work out just what so far.

I have to say, also, that there are processing techniques with film, such as Compensating Development, which can considerably expand the dynamic range but they too impart a 'different' look. A prime proponent of this technique is John Sexton and a quick look at his books will quickly reveal both the advantages and disadvantages of the technique.

In many instances I am able to control dynamic range with the use of Neutrasl Density Graduated filters but in the example above the fact that the inner areas of the structure are filled with years worth of fallen branches all in full sun and the façade is under heavy shade presents a circumstance where an ND Grad is useless.

The best I have come up with to date is making two identical shots at differeing exposures and using layers to paint one through onto the other (or to erase areas of one to reveal the other.)

Thanks for asking,

Yes, I have found the HDR tool in PSCS2 a bit of a mystery. I read somewhere that it worked best with more than three images, spaced no more than 1 stop apart from each other. I tried putting together 7 images, all 1/3 stop apart and the result it came out with looked quite horrendous (IMO). I was extremely dissappointed. I guess I was expecting the final image to have the darkest darks and the lightest whites displayed but it was somewhere in the middle of everything. I ended up using the exposure that was in the middle and just doing some PP work on it. Suffice to say, I did not save the HDR version.

I'm not sure if there is some trick to using this HDR function, however the simple layer and erase method seems to be the easiest I've found - thus far.

If anyone has any suggestions on how to improve the use of the HDR method, I'm sure we'd all like to hear about it...

I don't use PSCS2, so I'm unable to comment on that.

But none of the lower end DSLRs have the dynamic range that many of us are used to seeing with film, except perhaps that the available range is somewhat comparable with many of the E6 emulsions.

That's where the use of custom curves comes into play, and some of them do go some way towrads extending the range, but not, as yet, to the extet that many of us would like.

The only digital camera that I've seen that comes close (thus far) is the D2X, and it seems to be setting a new benchmark in this realm. I don't have experience with the high end Canons, so I'm not able to comment on their capabilities, but the example images that I've seen suggest that the D2X is thus far in a class on its own wrt dynamic range.

Thanks for jogging my memory Gary,

Far too hot already for shifting furniture up and odwn stairs. That can wait for a cooler day and I shall go and do some dynamic range tests on the cameras.

Heath Bennett wrote:Well I should take this to heart. I should try to harder to be experimental - perhaps it is the mindset that I mean however rather than the final image.

Look, I wouldn't.
I personally think a lot of people here could do with a dose of experimentation... however, there are also people who claim to be experimental and never do anything "normal" thus reducing their work to nothing experimental and everything normal to them.

Two of my last three entries to the previous competitions took a lot of experimentation. It may not look like it seing the final product though.

I don't think they were.
Were they different from what you normally do? Probably.
But I doubt that they were experimental for you.

Experimental can be seen as taking more risks perhaps - I tend to show only a few shots taken from my best.

And that's fair... as humans, we tend to only show what we think is the best of our work.
That said, while being experimental can be seen as taking risks, it can also be seen as getting yourself out of your comfort zone, so whereas when I shot blindly (the 'shooting without thought'), that was experimental when I first started but now ceases to be because I'm so familiar with doing it and getting it right.
Likewise anyone being experimental.

If you claim you're a experimental photographer then you must be doing something different each time you photograph something to make yourself experimental, otherwise you're just pissing in the wind trying to make yourself seem much bigger than you actually are.

If you're experiments are consistent and without change then, while it may not be "normal" by everyone elses standards, your work is ceasing to be experimental and is just normal like everyone else's.

This is part of the problem.

You can say that "this work is experimental" or "this series of images is experimental" and it won't backfire on you provided the work is experimental for you.

What you can't do is claim that you're experimental if the only reason your image looks experimental is because you have a lack of technical skills and for some reason it's working for you.

I believe now you could say that SS was 'experimenting' with midday sun in digital.

I think you're missing the point.
It wasn't experimenting at all, and having a sum of photographic knowledge does not entitle one to always have to be experimental because you respect the person they are.

His work wasn't experimental.
It was a straight shot.
A regular shot.

It doesn't need to be experimental.

It's a shot of a house.

Moreso, it's Walter's shot of a house.

He can shoot it however he pleases without justification from any of us just like you or I or anyone can shoot an image of anything without needing to justify it to anyone and it will still have just as much of an impact on them and then the world around them.

I guess also since SS has such tremendous photographic knowledge, I would like to see him experimenting - pushing the limits of his imagination and skill.

Well, then that's your problem.

I've seen this frequently, actually.
It must be something we get from seeing lecturers and teachers at educational institutions or hearing about the masters of art in painting, photography, or what-have-you.

If someone has a respectable amount of knowledge and you respect them, you always want to see more...

In the case of photography, this will mean more works, more techniques, more experimentation... and you will probably be let down because they, like the rest of us, don't play to anyone else's ideals except their own (unless of course they're hired for a job which is a different ball of wax).

For all you know, when he was younger, he very well pushed his "experimental" state out there... and now he just doesn't care.

That's one scenario.

I usually expect to see people experimenting when they first start learning the basics of a camera, of photography and light, of composition and of impromptu shooting.

Once you've got some of the basics of photography down and your skills are beginning to harden, you can begin to push and play with things that most people wouldn't generally do.

And you know what?

Most people I see do.

They step outside of their comfort zone in their early photographic life and try something different.

But Walter could very well have been there and done that or he just might not be interested in it at all period.

You having a high expectation for someone to create what you conceive to be "experimental" images will only detriment you to the point that understanding or even enjoying their future images will be lessened significantly because you will always be of the mind where you want more... and you wont be able to have it.

The discourse has taken an intriguing twist.

To preface my remarks let me say that I equate EXPERIMENTATION with INVESTIGATION - a case of I wonder what will happen if ....?

In the experimentation of the formative part of a career we try everything and often harbour a loathing for the 'straight' - but in time we find what does and doesn't work and the off-the-wall eccentricities that turn back to bite us on the stern are quickly discarded from the vocabulary of motivation.

At this time in my life I tend to fit into a style where I favour a somewhat 'STRAIGHT' approach to phgotography. That is brought about by a number of influences, inspirations and purposes. Increasingly I find I am less interested in works where the subject is the technique of the author - be that the obsessive and rigorous adherence to the milieu of a handful of snappers on the West Coast of the US of A in the 1920s and 30s OR yet another range of portraits of people with heads like antler-less ants shot with fish-eye lenses at close range. Even in my earlier and voluminous 'glamour' work I always consoidered myself lucky because I had a clean slate to work in my own style - at the one time drawing on the American, English and European traditions while slavishly following NONE of them. Of course, that market has changed in the years since I turned my back on it and reverted to pale imitation of foreign flavours-of-the-month. Look no further than the copycat replication that is Ralph and FHM.

Experimentation is commendable and fortuitous when it is writ with a small 'e' but becomes somewhat a veneer devoid of substance when spelled with a capital 'E' and practiced for its own sake.

Viewed in the broader spectrum of creative processes experimentation is often a matter of discerning what is possible and what is not. Following the testing and learning of experimentation many reach a process of distillation and refinement of those experiences acquired through experimentation.

Experimentation can be as much about exploring the boundaries of subject matter as much as technique approach. Investigate the works and words of Hiroshi Sugimoto. Yes, he is a minimalist and you either appreciate that style or you don't. But consider his motivation. "I wondered what a movie screen would look like if all the frames in a film were mounded up on top of one and other through a whole film. A cue for an experiment. The result was a definitive sequence of cinemas and drive-ins eerily lit by the illumnination radiating from the screen. He also set up hios large camera and photographed significant architectural subjects totally out of focus - Little like Leigh's optional focus bus commuter shot. Then came the ocean. Just that. The surface of the ocean from vantage points all over the world (including Bass Strait) and then corners of walls. Surely that is a fairly impressive cavalcade of experimentation - but the images themselves are subtle beyond anticipation or belief. If there is a single quality that goes down the plug hole like the baby with the bathwater in the world of internet photography it is subtlety. No whispers - only shouts. No nuances - only the bleeding obvious.

Might I add that I don't expect that anybody will agree with what I have said - and neither should they. But it would be nice to think that some may at least ponder some of the opinions and draw on them to formulate their own individual style.

Cheers,

Nnnnsic, are you familiar with the words 'connotation' and 'denotation'?

I think you are refering to your own 'connotation' of what is experimenting, rather than the general dictionary meaning, or other people's 'connotation'. Experimenting can be to test anything... If you like, every shot is an experiment in capturing light, with different variables... To me it seems you are being single minded in that you can't see that other people have different interpretations of a word.

This shot, or my shots, in YOUR OPINION are not experimental in the way you are choosing to use the word. They may have had an element of experimentation to the photographer.

Heath, while it is my opinion, you're a fairly decent photographer and, while this is still my opinion, I personally think that your bouts of "experimentation" are little more than flounderings of the words.

I personally think that you, like many others who "experiment," can do so much more to push that experimentation rather than say that they are "experimental".

Yes, of course others are going to have a different interpretation of what experimentation is.

However, there is so much talent that I keep seeing on this boards and off of these boards, and for some reason or another, the ones who have talent and say they're experimenting don't seem to push hard enough or experiment to the point where the experiment becomes null and void and gets added to their techniques, whereby they seem to think they retain that "experiment" as their own little way of saying "I'm experimental".

I would imagine that you'd be foolish if you didn't recognise that an experiment after several iterations becomes a tried technique.

For someone to experiment with something, if they like the experiment, it should essentially become a technique whereas if they didn't, they could forget about it.

My opinion of your shots is that you're either trying too hard or not enough, and I mean that as in the following:
1. You're trying too hard to be "experimental" and to blend with others who actually are.
and,
2. You're actually trying to break out of your comfort zone by being experimental... but you're not getting all the way there. You're stopping short and your technique isn't evolving as a result.

With my opinion of your shots, let's get this in there shall we, you could be doing better as a photographer.
You have talent, there's no doubt about that...

But you also have an ego and it is my opinion that it is your ego that is stopping your experiments from hitting the wall that they should hit for when the experiment ends and becomes an evolution of a technique that you eventually adopt.

Don't feel offended by any of this, and I hope you don't as this is just one person's opinion.

In relation to Walter's shot, his was not experimental.
It didn't need to be.
You know this, you just hope for more because you respect the photographer and how much knowledge he has.

All of this, however, is irrelevant and relates to no more than a pissing contest of what each of us interprets as a feasible definition to the word "experimentation".

What is important, Heath, is the way you want others to feel about your images.

Now, Walter probably doesn't care if you think his image lacks experimentation because you would hope that as a pro more of his images would.

I don't care what people think about my images.

An image is an image is an image and every opinion is welcome, especially those with something honest to say.

If you feel I'm attacking you because I don't find your images as experimental as I think you're capable of reaching... then you need to get over it.

I think you're personally capable of more... likewise with a lot of people.

What matters here is how you want others to think of you.

Does it matter what I or Walter or Greg or Dad or anyone thinks of your images?

It shouldn't. We're just another opinion.

Who knows if anything that I believe (and I say) is actually conveyed how I mean it to be?!!! And how you mean it to be?! All of this is just waffle that won't prove anything we don't already know, or believe we know

I think I can draw some validity from your post. I don't find the most of it offensive - the only thing I found offensive is you thinking that I am offended!

Experimental is a funny thing. It seems that everything is already thought of so what the hell do we be original about? I would like to see an image that you believe is experimental to cleary define what you mean by it.

I think that I do a lot of experimenting in one sense of the word, but I rarely/never post it here. You see but a minute amount of the work I do. This has something to do with my ego and also something to do with the amount of time I choose to spend here. Moreover - I believe everyone has an ego - some people just hide it better! Many people who say they don't care what people think tend to care the most, but hide it well. I see a parallel here in how most people watch the news and believe it to be the truth even though we all know the camera lies - what has been left out of the picture? 'Aww - Chappelle is definately innocent"

I reckon that the majority of pros don't experiment. So many pros don't have that desire because it is their day job, which tends to kill passion. Since Walter has a passion for photography I would think that he still experiments as much as he has time to. I have worked with several pros and this is what I've come to believe from what I've seen. This is why I choose to make photography only a percentage of my work - I keep the passion intact this way.

Again, regarding you saying that you don't care what people think of your images I have a few questions/comments:

• If you want to work as a professional - what other people think is the most important thing.

• Caring is not a weakness. It can even be used as an extra driving force to improve. It is true that it can be something that limits growth also. Caring is only a weakness when you let things bring you down.

• A few lines later you say that it does matter - 'What matters here is how you want others to think of you' This is obviously a case of lost in translation - I am pointing this out to see what you say about this interesting topic, not trying to flame you, because it could be my error of judgment also .

• I find it hard to believe that you don't care. Why would you post any images here if you don't care what people think? It would be incredibly selfish not to care what others thought because it means that it is all for self-fullfillment...

• Perhaps what you meant by caring what people think is simply not letting it get to you in a negative way.

I chose to waffle but for what purpose? To sound like a self-help book? I will try and make my next reply, Nnnnsic, to be as post-modern as possible, or perhaps in a language that only I understand, to sum up the way I feel noise can impact on communication.

Post-modernism from my limited understanding is our last stitch attempt at originality. What happens when we lose this?

Walters shed is not experimental. It is a shed and it knows it is a shed. Anyway you look at it it is a shed. You could photograph it until the cows come home...from every angle and with every lens ever made...and it would still be a shed. So what does experimental mean in this context? Walter saw a shed/cottage and walter took a most unremarkable picture of said abode....in unflattering light and from an unflattering point of view. Walter knew exactly what the image would look like because he is a very experianced professional. When Walter saw the image on his computers monitor there were no suprises there for him. The experimental part of Walters photography is that he posted the said image on this forum. Why? What did Walter think the forum members would say about his image? I do not think Walter saw anything remarkable about this image. He is more interested in your comments about it. I think this image is simply a visual record of this shed/cottage and has no endearing qualities worth mentioning. The best images of this shed were not captured...they are still there. Go back Walter, and finish the job.

Matt,

If I may be so bold as to suggest that ONE: you probably haven't read much of the chit-chat here and TWO: You are blowing it out of your nether regions.

Cheers,

Ahhh Walter....a rapid reply. I thank you for your comments.

Sheetshooter wrote:If I may be so bold as to suggest that ONE: you probably haven't read much of the chit-chat here and TWO: You are blowing it out of your nether regions.

I'm not sure about that Walter.

He's not really disagreeing with those of us that say the image isn't experimental, and you yourself have pretty much validated that it isn't experimental.

Whether you're telling him that he's blowing it out of his arse or not... well... I'm not Matt's proctologist but there's only one way to find out... I'll bring the rubber gloves on Friday night...

Sheetshooter wrote:Matt,

If I may be so bold as to suggest that ONE: you probably haven't read much of the chit-chat here and TWO: You are blowing it out of your nether regions.

Cheers,

Well I have read all of the chit chat and the way I see it, in the blue corner we have Leigh telling us what he thinks Walter is trying to achieve, in the red corner we have Heath telling us what he thinks Walter should try to achieve and in the middle we have Matt Telling us that Walter has achieved nothing.

Me, I'm at ring side enjoying the spectacle.

Phillip

I nodded off somewhere around page two. Never did have a good attention span