A serious reply merits a detailed response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
I think it's unfair to hold a hobbiest to professional standards.
Well, no wonder I was baffled, because that is not what I was doing. So who's being unfair?
I disagree with the implication that all professionals are better than all hobbyists. I disagree with the implication that thinking about how the subject matter ought to affect the choice of photographic techniques is beyond the skill of a good amateur. What I was doing was providing a comment that I thought was appropriate for cardsharkk04's skill level. It seems you don't think he is as good as I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
2p2 has a way of expressing opinions using excessively strong language to present them as facts. I'm not sure if it's due to the personality types who are drawn the boards, or if it's developed over time, but it's pervasive.
I'll buy that. I think it is reflective of the culture of this board, which is pretty much the only one on which I post, and of some other boards I have read. Unoubtedly I have subconsciously adopted some aspects of a posting style frequently found here.
Perhaps it is part of the nature of internet forums for people to be more brusque. Or perhaps it is part of the nature of internet forums for posts to be interpreted by some as being more brusque than they intended, and even interpreted as more brusque than they actually are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
All of that is basically taking a **** on a technique that a guy likes and chose to use in places he found appropriate, ...
No. To use a poker analogy, you are saying that I am criticizing slowplaying. What I did is more like criticizing nearly always slowplaying aces OTB regardless of the number of limpers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
... and presenting as though you're some type of stylistic authority.
LOL. I am no kind of stylistic authority. I have establshed no stylistic credentials here. I know jsut enough about photography to have an opinion that is a ltttle bit informed about some of the thought processes that go into some aspects of good photography. I don't even claim to know as much as cardsharkk. All I did was something like telling a driver that they have left their turn indicator on. Doing so doesn't mean I am presenting myself as an expert driver, or even better than the driver in question. When I forget my own turn indicator, I appreciate when somebody points it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
He had other pictures with water shot at a faster shutter speed in that same post.
ORLY? Flowing water? Which one(s)?
Are you referring to the third picture? That shot was taken at a shutter speed of 1/2 second, which is two stops
slower than the second picture in the post and only two stops faster than the first picture. The water in the third picture doesn't look motion-frozen because of a fast shutter speed. It looks that way because it is barely moving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
Clearly he's a photographer who knows how to get various looks and feels.
Yup. My whole approach assumes he knows how. Now, what %age of his photos ITT which have swiftly flowing water as a significant element use a much faster shutter speed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
To me, it seems unfair that you would choose to label his efforts cliche'
I labeled the technique cliché, not his use of it. What I said, effectively, was "you are overusing a cliché". Are you seriously suggesting that such a treatment of flowing water hasn't become a cliché? Using a cliché can be appropriate, just like slowplaying aces OTB can be appropriate. Overusing it is not.
You need to look at the context of the comments to understand why mentioning the cliché was appropriate, and why my post was not unfair or negative.
cardsharkk04
posts his pics.
Then hybris posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by hybris
I like them. Although, IMO, the 'flowing water at slow shutter speed' technique is quite overdone at this point.
Although he doesn't use the word, hybris is the one to introduce the thought that the "'flowing water at slow shutter speed' technique" is a cliché.
I see cardshark's pics and hybris's comment. While I agree with hybris, I rarely see any value in posting "me too" or "+1" type posts. Instead, I compose a post that calls out the pics I like best and a brief reason for each selection:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoTheMath
3, 5 and 11 for classic composition free from gimmicks.
6 for the subject.
7, well, it's a cliché, but I really like it anyway - it's so well done.
You will note I
compliment chardshark for his employment of a cliché.
While I am composing that post, cardshark responds to hybris with
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardsharkk04
Well obviously its a popular technique, but I like it better than using a faster shutter speed so I see no reason not to use it.
(emphasis mine).
Because I think cardshark is more likely to be open-minded, rather than to be just making a close-minded defence of his approach, I take this as him inviting discussion on his use of the technique. From him seeing no reason not to use the technique, I infer that he may not have thought about this matter very much. That is when I made the post to which you object. It contained two reasons to counter his "I see no reason". I want to give him something to think about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoTheMath
... Two reasons not to use it are because it is so overdone, and because water doesn't look like that. There has to be some other reason in the context to choose to make the water look like that. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
... and then back peddle a bit by adding 'you're much too good'.
I don't think that was a backpeddle. It was an attempt to show that I wasn't trashing his work in general, or using the topic of treatment of flowing water as a way to diss him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
Constructive criticism is valuable and usually appreciated, and it appears as though Card took it that way which is good. Perhaps I misunderstood your relationship, but there were about 10 billion other ways you could have expressed that you would like to see him try some different techniques, many of which would have been much less dismissive and condescending.
I won't claim to be a master diplomat any more than I am a master photographer. Neither empathy nor gentleness are my strongest suits. Undoubtedly I could have phrased things differently. Shall I look to this post of yours as an example from which to learn?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
That said, the fact that you chose to begin your reply with latin certainly points to the fact that your tone was not accidental.
The latin was in my reply to you, not cardshark. Do you take the deployment of a latin cliché as an assertion of superiority? And if so, do you assume that I view everybody in the same way you think I view you?
I don't know if you misunderstood my relationship with cardshark - it is nothing more than fellow-poster and fellow-photographer. I do think you must have misunderstood my tone, intent and meaning, and in more than one of my posts on this matter.
I'm disappointed that you chose not to repond directly to these questions:
Quote:
What sort of comments do you consider to be appropriate here? How would such comments be useful?
A discussion of these might have been a better way to reach some mutual understanding of the purpose and flaws of my comments to cardshark. A more general discussion of those questions may have been of greater value to other readers of this thread than our current back'n'forth.
The lesson I have taken from our conversation on this is that my writing is still not sufficiently clear that every reader comprehends my tone, intent and message. Given cardshark's responses, I am unable to conclude that my intended message failed to reach its intended target.