Tight

outside my hotel lobby..

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002

Answers

sorry! should be here: Tight

-- travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

and this,

Seletar Beach

Astounding detail in the final print...the 35 crom asph is really worth every penny.

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

Travis, if posting these images for critique is your idea of steps to improvement, I'd hate you to be my basketball coach!!!

How about 1 pic per day. It's a lot of work you know. :)

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

ok kristian, point taken...;)

just sharing pics, thats all...no critique needed..

just thought too much text is boring...

i just learned how to post, so i was carried away..

anyhow, your point is taken and well heeded

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

Travis,

The best way to improve your photography would be to look - really LOOK - at photographs by photographers you admire. What do you like about them? What feelings, thoughts, emotions do they conjure up in you?

Why don't you do that for a few months/ years and then come back and ask us to look at one or two of your best photographs? Just one or two, please. Your 'photographs' are beginning to overwhelm this site.

And I have to wonder, as I often wonder when I see photographs posted on this site, how your photography has been improved by using a $1200 lens rather than a $100 lens. Beats me to tell you the truth.

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), April 01, 2002.

Travis,

Keep posting, be they good, bad, or ugly. God forbid someone actually showing us a lot of work on what their they are actually doing with a Leica, rather than discussing whether the asph is better than the non. I think tight is your best shot yet, by the way, Very ominous feeling, like that golf course is going to be sqeezed out of existence between the walls. I've seen this in a James Bond movie, I think. And ignore the idea of going away for several years and maybe coming back with something good. Instead keep 'em coming. Some of us out here are enjoying them in the spirit they are offered.

-- Charles (c.mason@uaf.edu), April 01, 2002.

Charles,

Have you actually looked at that photograph of the beach? If you or anyone else has a photograph to post that is less interesting than this formless grey mush I would be excited to see it. Still, it was taken with a Leica so it must be worth posting.

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), April 01, 2002.

Have you actually looked at that photograph of the beach? If you or anyone else has a photograph to post that is less interesting than this formless grey mush I would be excited to see it. Still, it was taken with a Leica so it must be worth posting.

Yes, I have looked at it and it isn't so great. But his walls shot is. And he is asking for feedback or simply wanting to share. For you to respond in such a sarcastic manner is your choice, of course, but I think it demeans you, not Travis. And your idea to come back here when you are better is simply silly. This forum has no such requirements. And with your mightier than thou tone, I'd like to see you post a photo of your own which will uphold all that you are criticizing in others. A challenge.

-- Charles (c.mason@uaf.edu), April 01, 2002.

Charles,

I'm criticising POSTING boring, formless pictures. Not taking them. I've taken plenty of ghastly rubbish in my time. I'm just not arrogant or stupid enough to believe that you or anyone else would be interested in looking at them.

I have seen some pretty good photos posted on this forum - Rob Appleby's come to mind - but if I want to look at photographs I'd prefer to go to exhibitions or look at some of the many books on my shelves.

For me what's most interesting and useful about this forum is the advice on cameras, lenses, film, accessories etc, from people who are more knowledgable than me. Not looking at - and let's be honest about this - muddy, thoughtless, formless grey mush like that beach photo. Travis did ask for honest criticism and that is honest. Even you admit that!

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), April 01, 2002.

I'm criticising POSTING boring, formless pictures. Not taking them. I've taken plenty of ghastly rubbish in my time. I'm just not arrogant or stupid enough to believe that you or anyone else would be interested in looking at them.

--But you are arrogant enough to decided what the forum should be for everyone else. One thing to discuss an opinion, another to try and make the rules.

I have seen some pretty good photos posted on this forum - Rob Appleby's come to mind - but if I want to look at photographs I'd prefer to go to exhibitions or look at some of the many books on my shelves.

--Then do, but don't tell people not to post them. Why not try to be helpful, not hurtful?

For me what's most interesting and useful about this forum is the advice on cameras, lenses, film, accessories etc, from people who are more knowledgable than me. Not looking at - and let's be honest about this - muddy, thoughtless, formless grey mush like that beach photo. Travis did ask for honest criticism and that is honest. Even you admit that!

--I don't admit to your words at all. They are definitely yours. But you act as if you pay for this space. If you don't like something, move on. And, again, you are trying to dictate to others what you see as the point of the forum. This is only your opinion. I enjoy seeing the photos posted. And that is my opinion. We both have a right to pay positive attention to what we enjoy, but not the right to dictate a policy to others. To do so is arrogant, or stupid, as you note.

-- Charles (c.mason@uaf.edu), April 01, 2002.

Charles,

You are too funny.

I am criticising the posting of boring photos, not trying to dictate what the forum should be. I wish I could dictate because I would then divide the forum into two. One for the technical stuff I enjoy it for, the other for people to post their photos.

I also enjoy the medium and large format forums, neither of which, thankfully, is sullied with the postings of mind-dumbingly dull photographs on a daily basis.

And believe me, I am being far more helpful by telling Travis what is plainly obvious about his beach photo - it's rubbish - than by being nice and 'positive' and pussy-footing around pretending the photo's OK.

Actually what is really disturbing to me about the photo is that he took it in January 1999, which means that he's had over three years to evaluate it, and he still posts it!

At the heart of my criticism is this: just because someone takes a photograph with $4000 worth of Leica gear doesn't make it a good photograph.

Looking at Travis' other pictures, he'd do better to sell his Leica gear, buy a cheap Canon with a zoom lens and use that to get closer to his subjects than he dares now.

In my humble opinion, of course.

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), April 01, 2002.

It is usually the case that when someone hates something it's because they are subconciously reacting to that very same trait (hidden of course) intrinsic inside themselves.It is almost impossible to see this as the truth....it is too devastating to the acculturated personality.Technique of course can always use improvement....but the real question I think is...regarding any photograph ... how deeply did you feel that photograph? Really feel it?

-- Emile de Leon (Knightpeople@msn.com), April 01, 2002.

Sorry, Emile, but I think you need to re-phrase the question properly for this forum. Perhaps --"Which photos evoke more emotion--the ones I shoot with a type 2 non-ASPH 35mm f/2 Summicron, or the much sharper ones I make with my f/1.4 ASPH 35mm Summilux?...").

Happy to be of help.

;-)

-- Charles (c.mason@uaf.edu), April 01, 2002.

Funny!!!

-- Emile de Leon (Knightpeople@msn.com), April 01, 2002.

"Tight" is the best of what you have shown here so far, by far, I think.

Regarding the beach: What if you cut the photo right below the horizon line, leave the presence of the two people to be naturally emphasized by the water line and forget about the rest above . . . ? (pun actually intended)

Regards !

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), April 01, 2002.

Emile,

I am flattered that you have decided to turn your pop psychologising on me!

Now, just what deeply emotional aspect of that beach photograph - which, by the way, I do not hate but find utterly uncompelling; I wish I could have such a strong reaction to it as 'hate' - do you think represents that lurking shadow side of myself that I am psychologically unable to discern?

Actually, I'd like to know what emotion at all you can discern in the photo that you think I might be reacting to so keenly. It looks to me like he was on vacation on the beach on an overcast day with his expensive new Leica gear and he took a photo of the beach just like all the other millions of people who go on vacation each year. Is there anything else there? It's a bad holiday snap, taken with $4000 gear! I'd have been more interested if, for example, he'd pointed the camera down at his feet and taken a photo of his feet on the sand.

But enough already for me. As delightful as all this is, I must move on now, I fear. I believe there is a world out there beyond this forum where women, yes women, live!

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), April 01, 2002.

Christopher, We're still waiting to see one of your shots...

-- Charles (c.mason@uaf.edu), April 01, 2002.

Perhaps one of one of those beautiful women...?

-- Charles (c.mason@uaf.edu), April 01, 2002.

I thought you'd read my earlier post; you answered it in meticulous detail! Among the things I said:

"I'm criticising POSTING boring, formless pictures. Not taking them. I've taken plenty of ghastly rubbish in my time. I'm just not arrogant or stupid enough to believe that you or anyone else would be interested in looking at them. "

You don't have to be Stanley Kubrick to know that Death to Smoochy is crap!

Bye!

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), April 01, 2002.

Take a look here:

photoeye.com

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), April 01, 2002.

Went to photoeye. No luck. Searched under each of your names. No luck. I'd really like to see your work. Any suggestions?

Thanks, Charles

-- Charles (c.mason@uaf.edu), April 01, 2002.

Death to Smoochy crap! Is this your idea of some sicko April Fools Joke???

:-)

-- Charles (c.mason@uaf.edu), April 01, 2002.

Charles, sweet thing,

I was just giving you the photoeye.com site because it has such wonderful photography. Don't you see it?

Ah, but you were so obsessed with ME that you couldn't see it! Anyone with half an eye would have been THRILLED to be turned onto photeye because it's such a blissful photography site. It's incredible. Can't you see? LOOK.

Poor boy. Look again. And forget about me if you can. If you can. Hard, I know.

LOOK.

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), April 02, 2002.

And here:

http://www.doubletakemagazine.org/photo/html/index.php

And here:

http://revue.com/toc/sommaire.shtml

And here:

http://www.photoarts.com/

And here:

http://www.red-top.com/

And here:

http://www.lightwork.org/exhibitions/exhibit.html

And let's then discuss the 'beach photo'!

:)

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), April 02, 2002.

How am I supposed to know what is boring and what is not to you?!

If u have a negative opinion of what I have posted, sorry, SKIP or dun even click on my links! Simple thing!

If u have $10000 dollars of leica gear and not willing to share even BORING STUFF, throw them away!

I was once told of Leica snobs, I just didn't think they exists!

just skip my links...they aren't meant for demanding arrogant people.

and u know who u r.

P.S Ivan, good day..;)

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

Christopher, if u think a $1200 lens will give better pictures than a $100 one, then i'd think u should just use a video cam.

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

Last one to u christopher, The 1999 thing was just for convenience, I didnt take time to set for every photo posted.

I posted these BORING PHOTOS becos I just got a scanner. Period.

BTW, if u think something is rubbish, u didnt have to say RUBBISH.

Look at how other honest critiques used words even for bad photos.

Obviously u dun have the eloquence and empathy when criticising someting.

Being honest is not the same as being blunt.

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

Travis,

I know you posted those photos because you just got a scanner! Duh.

By the way, if you think that you can't take better pictures with a videocam, look at these wonderful pictures of Cuba taken by David Turnley. They were all taken on a videocam and then printed as black and white photographs.

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0203/dt01.htm

I'm actually a Leica un-snob. A good photographer can take wonderful pictures with a disposable camera, or even a videocam! You don't need to spend $4000 on Leica gear!

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), April 02, 2002.

The word "Don't" is neither spelled nor pronounced as "dun". According to Merriam Webster, dun refers to :
1 a : having the color dun b of a horse : having a grayish yellow coat with black mane and tail
2 : marked by dullness and drabness

And "You" is spelled that way, not "u".

-- Fred Sun (redsky3@yahoo.com), April 02, 2002.

My point is a $1200, a $100 and a videocam, they all takes good photographs. The difference is the photographer.

Anyway, if u aren't a snob, why bring Money into this? This happens to be a Leica forum and I happen to have a Leica and some lenses, thats all. I have other gears and I use them with pleasure as well.

If u want to talk abt photography, and what photographs means to each photographer, then thats a different story.

U r driving at "why can't u take better photos instead of these rubbish with ur $4000 gear?" right?

I dunno whats ur agenda, but truthfully, I dun find pleasure in engaging with u and your rubbish.

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

thx fred. As long as we understand each other.

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.