Response to Twisted (Response #86)

Uploaded 411 Days Ago by Tom - 17 comments

Photo © Tom (Tom) - www.tomkaszuba.com
Unauthorized reproduction not permitted.

User Comments

pete said 411 days ago:

just great!! the lighting, positioning everything.. nice 1

CraigMartin said 411 days ago:

Cool and interesting.What are the white specs on the surface of the coil? Dust? They actually look like minute hairs - which leads to the question, what exactly is this?

King said 411 days ago:

Okay, high relevance. Does it move me or please me or grab my attention or admiration? Not so much. The straight-on lighting isn't so interesting, either. It seems to me that you could have done more with this twisty prop. I'm sure some folks with love it, though.

Ana said 411 days ago:

Sure do wish there were an extra kink in this!! Great idea. Cool shot. Nice detail.

Hummingbird said 410 days ago:

Straightforward, reminds me that it's almost hurricane season I need to make sure we have a regular phone in the house.

pursang said 410 days ago:

This image is twisted, but it does not have enough visual interest to hold my attention. The small curl at the lower left detracts from the image. Perhaps cropping it out would have helped.

philimages said 410 days ago:

Ce serpentin est très joli mais l'arrière plan est vide et pas très agréable dommage ;-)

Tom said 410 days ago:

pursang, comments like "The small curl at the lower left detracts from the image" I find quite amusing and frankly embarrassing. This is a photo of a twisted piece of vine......not a Henri Cartier-Bresson masterpiece. Anyone who would over analyze an image such as this either has too much time on their hands or an overinflated opinion of themselves, or both. I find that comment and those similar laughable.

King said 410 days ago:

Tom,
You are such a good photographer that I'm surprised at your reaction to what I see as nothing more than a superficial critique--not an instance of over-analysis. I know that Mark (pursang) has neither too much time on his hands nor an overinflated opinion of himself.

Why make derogatory, personal remarks about a fine contributor and very supportive member of WeeklyShot. Are you having a bad day?

My advice? Don't sweat the small stuff. Just keep creating those fabulous images you are known for.

Tom said 410 days ago:

King, it's just my opinion and I have seen it time and time again in photo forums all over the web. The photo I took is not at issue. It is the instant critiques that dissect an image with ridiculous comments such as I the one quoted above. We are not talking about the Mona Lisa here.

If you really want to get to the crux of the way I feel about this issue then read the article at the link I provide here and the comments below it. It may change the way many people think about on-line photo critiques: http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

Tom said 410 days ago:

I'll post the link again so it's clickable.

<a href='http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html'>Click here to read</a>

Tom said 410 days ago:

Well, I guess weeklyshot doesn't support clickable links.

King said 410 days ago:

Tom,
Okay, thanks for your response. I'm familiar with the article--it's a hoot.

I understand how you feel, but Mark is a friend and a fine fellow. I thought your remark was a bit harsh, so I spoke up.

As you may know, I retired from the professional ranks about 20 years ago. My approach is to learn what I can through proffered critiques--accepting some, rejecting some, while having some fun and improving my skill in the wonderful new world of digital photography. On the other side (i.e., when offering my own critiques), I tend to be supportive most of the time and downright cranky at other times.

I have great admiration for your work and value your opinion.

Cheers.

Tom said 410 days ago:

King, I have no animosity towards pursang (Mark) whatsoever. But his two second critique of a meaningless photo was rather cliche. It reminded me so much of why photo on-line critiquing has such little relevance. I admire and respect pursang (Marks) work. He impresses the heck out of me. I'm a huge fan of your work King and I have learned from it.

The link to the article I posted is classic "must read" stuff for any photog who frequents photo gallery forums. The comments under the article are also important reading.

If my remarks came across as too harsh you and Mark have my sincerest apology.

All the best to you,

- Tom K.

Tom said 410 days ago:

BTW....this flickr link has an interesting ploy used to get forum members to unwittingly critique a Henri Cartier-Bresson classic. The responses are incredible in more ways than one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrerabelo/70458366

DrDavidJones said 410 days ago:

Lighting just didn't seem quite right to me.

King said 409 days ago:

Pete,
I'm also familiar with the last link you posted, which is funny, but hurts because it is so true that many folks who love to take photos don't have a deep interest in photography.

Poetry is another of my interests. I'm aware that many people who write poems have no idea what a sonnet is--and no interest in learning.

Digital photography has opened so many doors for people to enjoy photography, but many don't love photography for itself, such as I do. They have no interest in the history of photography or the masterpieces that have been created since before the U.S. Civil War (Mathew Brady) or the portraits of ancient American Indians (Edward Curtis) or the published work of the many greats of photography since then.

One of my great pleasures in life is browsing any collection of photography books.

You could comment on this photo if you were logged in.