entre chien et loup

I like the composition. Nice soft light too.

This is cool - almost looks like a Hippo in the water

Zooming out a couple of mm so that the rock is complete on the left might make it a hair better.

the rock was deliberately "clipped" in camera as a foil to the relative calm of the rest of the image. i wanted the viewer to wonder and ultimately have to use their imagination about what else was "out there".

this is the first that i have heard "hippo" - most people say "whale"

blovius wrote:the rock was deliberately "clipped" in camera as a foil to the relative calm of the rest of the image. i wanted the viewer to wonder and ultimately have to use their imagination about what else was "out there".

I'm probably not a very sophisticated viewer as the clipped rock simply looks like a mistake to me. Sorry.

no need to be sorry. relax. carry on. smoke 'em if you got 'em.

I can see why you clipped the rock - I wouldn't have, but I think this is great.

The light is great.
-matt

Love the reflections and the red ground.

removed

well, actually, the more I think about it, you're NOT excused.

I think you're being very rude and contentious by accusing me of "rationalizing" my "mistakes". As a photographer with over 30 years of experience in the commercial, editorial and fine art fields, EVERYTHING I DO WITH A CAMERA IS WELL THOUGHT OUT AND DELIBERATE.

I am not trying to"sell" anything with my "descriptions". I am just explaining my vision. Either, you get it or you don't. Either way you are no less of a "man".

Anyone who has been following my posts at NSN knows by viewing my images that I do not adhere to the "rules" of photography. This generally is most evident to the uninformed eye in the manner in which I "compose" my images. I do indeed march to the beat of a dfferent drummer. So be it.

Your post here seems to be less about my image, and more about a defensiveness on your part about "art". It is a source of never ending amazement to me, that so many photographers rear up on their hind legs and begin to howl at the sight of something different from the "norm". The screes are almost always marked by sarcastic self-denigration and personal attacks upon the "perpetrator".

The best advice I can offer you is that perhaps when you see the name "blovius" on a post, you pass over it and save yourself a lot of aggravation.

I don't often enter this forum because I'm not very good at producing or critiquing images here. I'm only here because I wanted to see what the "ruckus" was about.

My limited experience with photographs show that if I need to explain to others why I chose to display an image the way I did, I have already failed. The viewer is the viewer. As the photographer, I can't be standing next to each person to explain why the image is the way it is. It has to stand on it's own.

This image is well done. However, my first reaction to it, prior to reading all the commentary was that I would like to have seen the whole front rock and reflection. After reading the commentary, I still feel that I would rather have it that way. If the image had been tightened on the left even more, I might not have had that initial reaction since the image would tell me that was the intent. Here, I don't see the clipping as the intent.

Mark, I feel you are reacting too strongly to the suggestions that you should have included the whole rock and reflection. They are suggestions after all and you can chose to ignore or take them as you please. However, you will not be able to change the viewer's mind about the image simply by saying that you intended to do one thing or the other. Given two images of the same location, taken at the same time, one with the complete rock and one without, both being sold to each of the viewers here, what you are finding is that they prefer the complete one. I'm afraid explaining why won't change those views.

Steve, you didn't need to be so blunt as I am often told I am. You do make a good point but you do it harshly. I agree with you sentiment but not with your approach. People post for differing reasons and there is no reason to question those reasons. However, posting what ever you feel is helpful for the image, including a "but to me it still looks like a mistake and I think it would be stronger another way" would have been fine. But questioning why Mark posts or the way he communicates is not necessary.

thanks for the civility.

just to reiterate, I am NOT trying to "convince" or "sell" or anything else other than explain my vision.

I don't post my images with an explaination because I agree with you that words should not be necessary. However, I don't believe that having to "explain" an image makes that image a "failure". All great art works on many levels. The best art establishes a narrative with the viewer beyond the facile. The best art also creates a reaction in the viewer to actually discuss its meaning and intent. The best art does not seek to create
easy reads. It demands complete attention from the viewer and a willingness on their part to "listen" to what the piece is "saying", and sometimes what it is saying is neither easy or popular.

The suggestion to include or not include the entire rock is not upsetting to me. The suggestion that I am making this up as I go along merely to explain my mistakes, is a PERSONAL ATTACK AIMED AT ME, NOT MY IMAGES.

That is what upsets me.

I will accept Mark's claim to have made the decision to not include the entire rock in the frame. I also think that his decision was a legitimate choice for this image. Including the entire rock would have made that element a confined space, a visual loop that may have trapped the viewer visually to that place. By allowing a small segment to "extend" beyond the frame, the viewer is brought to the edge and allowed to "travel" around the entire image by following the lines of the frame itself. Mark didn't invent this compositional device, but he did use it and maybe very effectively here. Just becuase a choice may not be intuitive, that doesn't make it a mistake.

Paul

blovius wrote:I don't post my images with an explaination because I agree with you that words should not be necessary.

But you seem to think an explanation was required if anyone wanted to say something more than that it was a nice image. That may have ultimately been your down fall. By responding to correct a critique, you lessen the value of that critique and escalate it to a discussion with the person giving the critique. Not just a discussion but one where you actively disagree with that person. It is simpler to simply say "thank you for your opinion" or to say nothing at all.

blovius wrote:However, I don't believe that having to "explain" an image makes that image a "failure". All great art works on many levels. The best art establishes a narrative with the viewer beyond the facile. The best art also creates a reaction in the viewer to actually discuss its meaning and intent. The best art does not seek to create easy reads. It demands complete attention from the viewer and a willingness on their part to "listen" to what the piece is "saying", and sometimes what it is saying is neither easy or popular.

I will not agree or dispute this since I never studied art and will probably never do so. I can say that though that I thought "to bad the photographer cut off the rock" rather than thinking "what else is missing here" or "what else is out there". So if your intent was to get this later reaction as you stated previously, you have fail. And others seem to think the same think. Maybe in two or three hundred years, people who look at this image may think differently and you will be considered to be ahead of your time.

blovius wrote:The suggestion to include or not include the entire rock is not upsetting to me. The suggestion that I am making this up as I go along merely to explain my mistakes, is a PERSONAL ATTACK AIMED AT ME, NOT MY IMAGES. That is what upsets me.

As I stated previously, it is your responses to the comments that have made this a discussion. The fact that you openly disagree with those commenters is what has brought this to a conflict level. Since no one likes to be told they are wrong, responding to each commenter you do not agree with is where this started. It is also this should end. Your comments originally can also be considered to be an attack. Or, at the least, leaves the feeling that you think the person doesn't know enough to have responded in the first place. Everyone, yourself included, needs to be a little more understanding of the feelings of others in these situations.

I'm unlikely to respond further since I've already spent quite a bit of time on this today. I do not feel or require a response to this, not even one to say "thank you for your time" as I am unlikely to respond to this thread again.

I did not "disagree" with the critique. I merely responded to input about an image with an explaination of why i did what I did.

I am NOT trying to win an argument.

I not NOT trying to convince anyone that they are wrong and I am right.

I am NOT trying to "speak" to everyone with my images. Not everyone "hears" what they are trying convey. I don't consider this a "failure".

I DO want to have a discussion about my images and those of others that "speak" to me. It's how everyone learns, INCLUDING me.

And yes, there is an "art" world out there that responds to different set of stimuli. Whether it's "right" or "wrong" is not for me to say, but it's an arena that interests me. Please forgive me, for being "elitest".

I still have my Pet Rock from years ago. We both sit on the couch and watch baseball together.

it's always good to keep things in persepective

Sandy Mossberg wrote:I still have my Pet Rock from years ago. We both sit on the couch and watch baseball together.

Unfortunately mine died recently. I'm mourning the loss as I type. Such a quiet little thing and so cold to the touch

Harvey Edelman wrote:

Sandy Mossberg wrote:I still have my Pet Rock from years ago. We both sit on the couch and watch baseball together.

Unfortunately mine died recently. I'm mourning the loss as I type. Such a quiet little thing and so cold to the touch

LOL

Regardless of the bickering, it's a better shot than most I've ever made!!