Jenkins Photography

[Taryllton]

If it's just self-expression, it doesn't matter what anyone says.

I agree.

If he's looking for actual response, criticism is at least as good as GRATE PHOTO'S LOL :-D.

Given his reaction to What's initial post, what makes you think he's looking for an 'actual response'?

If he's only looking for compliments... that's kind of a sh**** attitude.

What are you, his mother?

I provided a lot more than "don't try so hard," and a LOT more than "Better than anything I could do haha."
My advice to you is to read the posts of the people you're criticizing.

I took your advice, but I still don't see anything of any merit. Please explain to me what you provided him with, exactly.
And I'm criticizing you for displaying pompousness far outstripping the significance of your commentary (I didn't say anything about your boyfriend, don't get all defensive haha). What experience gives you the right to speak authoritatively on art? Oh, flikr, right...Anyway, if this was coupled with something of significance you'd have a leg to stand on, but as it is you may as well have said 'I'm sensing bad energy vortices in this work, try reaching deep into your creative chakra for artistic improvement'.

 

[Pulk]

I agree.

Given his reaction to What's initial post, what makes you think he's looking for an 'actual response'?

His relatively agreeable response to my post, his OP ("Positive and constructive Feedback is Welcomed"), and his response to What's post ("As for anyone who had anything Mature, constructive, and intelligent to add, Thank you") all suggest that he at least ostensibly welcomes actual responses.

What are you, his mother?

No. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt by implying that because that would be a lousy attitude, the alternative is more likely.

I took your advice, but I still don't see anything of any merit. Please explain to me what you provided him with, exactly.

- general point that he should welcome criticism
- general point that his photos aren't universally liked
- opinion that his photos look forced/unnatural
- opinion that his photos appear to be approaching stock photos
- suggestion to go on flickr explore to see what other photographers have done

I'm not claiming that I'm giving him a huge amount of help, at all. I'm saying it's a) more than nothing, and b) (equivalently) more than what you and a lot of other people provided.

And I'm criticizing you for displaying pompousness far outstripping the significance of your commentary

So what exactly did I do wrong?

(I didn't say anything about your boyfriend, don't get all defensive haha).

What? I don't have a boyfriend.

What experience gives you the right to speak authoritatively on art? Oh, flikr, right...

What do you mean by "authoritatively"?

I have no right to speak about art under the pretense that I have professional training or a degree in it. I do have a right to voice my personal opinion. Did my post imply that I knew more about art than I actually do?

Anyway, if this was coupled with something of significance you'd have a leg to stand on, but as it is you may as well have said 'I'm sensing bad energy vortices in this work, try reaching deep into your creative chakra for artistic improvement'.

Look... I'll just provide the links. (Taryllton, Pulk)

 

[spider]

By stock photos, what exactly do you mean? (don't attack and say, "Oh, this kid does not even know the meaning of Stock blah blah)

And I do not see how my photos are "forced" when all I did was see something in my head, and got my settings where I wanted them (shutter speed, ISO, aperture, etc..) then took the photo..

Also, I had no idea my thread was going to be taken and run with by conversation about something I took into consideration after having read, and acknowledged that maybe I do need work, but also will still stick with my own general style and likings.

 

[PinkZebraBooty]

Pulk, are you What's handler? His interpreter? His public relations manager?

Spider, "You're trying too hard" is an utterly meaningless thing for What to say, and it should be ignored unless he himself, and not his lackey, is prepared to come back and say something of substance, something specific.

 

[Pulk]

By stock photos, what exactly do you mean? (don't attack and say, "Oh, this kid does not even know the meaning of Stock blah blah)

They're unoffensive, simple photos that photographers take to later sell to advertising companies, etc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_photography)

And I do not see how my photos are "forced" when all I did was see something in my head, and got my settings where I wanted them (shutter speed, ISO, aperture, etc..) then took the photo..

It's hard to explain exactly what I mean by that, which is why I withheld comments initially... if you don't use the word "forced" in this context, don't worry about it.

Also, I had no idea my thread was going to be taken and run with by conversation about something I took into consideration after having read, and acknowledged that maybe I do need work, but also will still stick with my own general style and likings.

That's kind of a confusing sentence, but... yeah, do whatever you want. I seriously have no problem with people making art I don't like. My problem is just about the photographer taking criticism.

Pulk, are you What's handler? His interpreter? His public relations manager?

Spider, "You're trying too hard" is an utterly meaningless thing for What to say, and it should be ignored unless he himself, and not his lackey, is prepared to come back and say something of substance, something specific.

I agree with him, and had things I wanted to say. It would have been silly for me to *not* post. :wall: I did my best to explain what I meant... I know it's not extremely clear or helpful, but my point is that it's at least as good as vapid positive comments.

 

[Taryllton]

I did my best to explain what I meant... I know it's not extremely clear or helpful, but my point is that it's at least as good as vapid positive comments.

In other words it's just as meaningless, yes haha...

 

[Taryllton]

No. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt by implying that because that would be a lousy attitude, the alternative is more likely.

I don't think you're being honest here. You're were obviously implying earlier that he was fishing for compliments. But, supposing you were right, so what?

- general point that he should welcome criticism

Ok, that general point is a meaningless platitude. Dr. Phil has provided similar wisdom on numerous occasions, as have any number of guidance counselors, motivational speakers, concerned parents etc etc..The situation does not explicitly call for it. Should he ever get caught on fire, he should also stop-drop-and roll, just for the record....

- general point that his photos aren't universally liked

As opposed to who's photos that are universally liked? Again, this is self evident and therefore worthless.

- opinion that his photos look forced/unnatural

Ok, define how photos of largely natural landscapes look forced/unnatural and this might warrant some attention on the photographer's part, but as it stands this is more pretentious rhetoric.

-opinion that his photos appear to be approaching stock photos.

Oh? Well at least my comment had the benefit of fact behind it, as I'm quite sure I have never taken an 'artistic' photograph in my life...

- suggestion to go on flickr explore to see what other photographers have done

Almost certainly the only worthwhile thing you mention, though not likely to produce benefits that far outweigh the self esteem-bolstering influence of positive commentary, vapid or no...

So what exactly did I do wrong?

You pointed out what you saw as deficiencies in everyone else's commentary and then promulgated your own, which was equally deficient so far as I can tell, under the pretense that it should take priority over that of the rest of the board. Hence you behaved pretentiously. People don't like when other people behave pretentiously, it's an almost universally loathed quality. I'm not saying you care, but I guess I'm trying to do you a favor.

What? I don't have a boyfriend..

Oh? Did you hear that, What?

 

[hairmetalspider]

Oh? Did you hear that, What?

Honestly, this thread had a half way decent conversational flow, as well as a debate (On both sides) until you threw this in there.

Seriously, grow up.

 

[Pulk]

I don't think you're being honest here. You're were obviously implying earlier that he was fishing for compliments. But, supposing you were right, so what?

Well, that's true. To be more accurate, I was assuming that because you were defending him, you would want to ignore that option. Is that not correct?
Supposing that he did want legit input, What's and my comments are fine (and, as I've tried to explain, at least a little bit better than most of the others).

Ok, that general point is a meaningless platitude. Dr. Phil has provided similar wisdom on numerous occasions, as have any number of guidance counselors, motivational speakers, concerned parents etc etc..The situation does not explicitly call for it. Should he ever get caught on fire, he should also stop-drop-and roll, just for the record....

Do you know what a platitude is? That wasn't a platitude, and it wasn't meaningless.

As opposed to who's photos that are universally liked? Again, this is self evident and therefore worthless.

*whose
People like to know how well other people like their work. Most people, I would assume, prefer to hear positive things, but also care about knowing that they're getting honest feedback. So if people are saying only nice things, but not everyone likes his work, it might be good for some of the latter people to mention it. That's not worthless.

Ok, define how photos of largely natural landscapes look forced/unnatural and this might warrant some attention on the photographer's part, but as it stands this is more pretentious rhetoric.

It's not concrete advice, and I never claimed it was. It's my personal opinion, and like I've said before, it's hard to explain that in more detail than I did. If he had a similar idea of the word "forced" to mine, which apparently is not the case, it would have been helpful.
Saying "The composition seems bad" about a painting obviously isn't extremely helpful to a painter, but it's not useless as part of a large group of people giving their opinions.

Oh? Well at least my comment had the benefit of fact behind it, as I'm quite sure I have never taken an 'artistic' photograph in my life...

Are you serious? "You used a camera" is nowhere near as helpful as "It seems like you chose the exposure poorly." :wall:

...though not likely to produce benefits that far outweigh the self esteem-bolstering influence of positive commentary, vapid or no...

That's possible. But that kind of insincerity makes me feel uncomfortable, on either end.

You pointed out what you saw as deficiencies in everyone else's commentary and then promulgated your own, which was equally deficient so far as I can tell, under the pretense that it should take priority over that of the rest of the board. Hence you behaved pretentiously. People don't like when other people behave pretentiously, it's an almost universally loathed quality. I'm not saying you care, but I guess I'm trying to do you a favor.

My point wasn't that there was something *bad* about the other people's commentary. (I did find it kind of unpleasant based on how I feel about the photos, but that's completely separate from what I was saying.)
My point *was* that he shouldn't value those comments more than What's.
I did NOT voluntarily promulgate my own comments. I defended them relative to yours when you attacked them as being equally contentless.
I don't think my response should take priority over the rest of the board, just that it should be given as much respect as the "good job" ones.

Hence you're making up your own pretense of mine under which I was supposed to act pretentiously. :wall:

Oh? Did you hear that, What?

Really?

 

[Taryllton]

Well, that's true. To be more accurate, I was assuming that because you were defending him, you would want to ignore that option. Is that not correct?

No, that's not correct.

Supposing that he did want legit input, What's and my comments are fine (and, as I've tried to explain, at least a little bit better than most of the others).

I'd say that's a stretch.

Do you know what a platitude is? That wasn't a platitude, and it wasn't meaningless.

I like to think so. According to Merriam-Webster..."a banal, trite, or stale remark"...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/platitude
Telling someone who is obviously capable and wordly enough to operate a computer and type legibly, not to mention operate a camera, that they should 'generally accept criticism' or whatever is banal, trite, and it's even stale. It's daytime television. I suppose the definition could be incorrect, or that I could be interpreting it incorrectly, but I think it's more likely that you don't know what you're talking about in this instance. As for it being meaningless, see my reasons above, then feel free to explain to me why it isn't meaningless, and I'll repeat.

*whose

Why thank you, that one always gets me.

People like to know how well other people like their work. Most people, I would assume, prefer to hear positive things, but also care about knowing that they're getting honest feedback. So if people are saying only nice things, but not everyone likes his work, it might be good for some of the latter people to mention it. That's not worthless.

In so far as you express your dislike for the work, but present no coherent or meanigful criticism or reason why, your statements are easily as worthless as anyone's. I'm not saying mine or anyone else's were terribly profound, but you might as well have just said 'you suck!', admit it.

It's not concrete advice, and I never claimed it was. It's my personal opinion, and like I've said before, it's hard to explain that in more detail than I did.

If it's that hard to explain it probably isn't worth mentioning, you know?

If he had a similar idea of the word "forced" to mine, which apparently is not the case, it would have been helpful.

Why would he be a mind-reader haha?

Saying "The composition seems bad" about a painting obviously isn't extremely helpful to a painter, but it's not useless as part of a large group of people giving their opinions.

Two people doesn't constitute a 'large group' by any definition. Even in a group of three it's just company.

Are you serious? "You used a camera" is nowhere near as helpful as "It seems like you chose the exposure poorly." :wall:.

Really? I dunno, you wouldn't you tell a child that hits his first baseball that he's making the same mistake in his follow-through as a lot of professionals, would you? Of course you wouldn't. The criticism would be lost on him, and would likely do more harm than good (not to mention the unintended effect of making you look like a pretentious prick). I'm not comparing anyone to a child, as I've said I can hardly use a camera, just trying to make a point...Why would you assume that some criticism will have the same beneficial effect across experience levels?

That's possible. But that kind of insincerity makes me feel uncomfortable, on either end.

That's fine, but that's not the poster's problem. In case you haven't noticed, the world is full of insincerities, and I seriously doubt you're completely sincere all the time. And if you are, you're a freak, no offense.

My point wasn't that there was something *bad* about the other people's commentary. (I did find it kind of unpleasant based on how I feel about the photos, but that's completely separate from what I was saying.)
My point *was* that he shouldn't value those comments more than What's.
I did NOT voluntarily promulgate my own comments. I defended them relative to yours when you attacked them as being equally contentless.

Ok, you initially defended What's comments by intimating that they had more merit than every other comment on the thread. Since you basically share the exact same opinion as him with regard to the photos in question, and made as much known before I said anything, you vicariously promulgated your own commentary as superior via What's, fine...

I don't think my response should take priority over the rest of the board, just that it should be given as much respect as the "good job" ones.

What do you mean? You specifically quoted every other comment and claimed they were vapid and specifically excluded your own from that category, or did I miss something?

Hence you're making up your own pretense of mine under which I was supposed to act pretentiously. :wall:

No, I don't think that's what's going on.

Really?

Sure, why not? I don't judge. But you needn't spoil him, you know?

 

[Taryllton]

Honestly, this thread had a half way decent conversational flow, as well as a debate (On both sides) until you threw this in there.

Seriously, grow up.

Haha, awwwww cuuute...

 

[Pulk]

No, that's not correct.

So you do think he was fishing for compliments?

I like to think so. According to Merriam-Webster..."a banal, trite, or stale remark"...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/platitude
Telling someone who is obviously capable and wordly enough to operate a computer and type legibly, not to mention operate a camera, that they should 'generally accept criticism' or whatever is banal, trite, and it's even stale. It's daytime television. I suppose the definition could be incorrect, or that I could be interpreting it incorrectly, but I think it's more likely that you don't know what you're talking about in this instance. As for it being meaningless, see my reasons above, then feel free to explain to me why it isn't meaningless, and I'll repeat.

I don't hear "artists should welcome criticism" all the time. It's not an overused statement. It's not a platitude. Although... I've never owned a television, so perhaps people do say that a lot on daytime TV and it's just never seeped out into the real world.
I'll admit it's a fairly simple idea, but that doesn't make it a platitude.
It's not meaningless: he clearly wasn't doing it, and I gave him reasons why he should. If I didn't explain it in enough detail to convince one or both of you, that's one problem, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a real semantic implication.

In so far as you express your dislike for the work, but present no coherent or meanigful criticism or reason why, your statements are easily as worthless as anyone's. I'm not saying mine or anyone else's were terribly profound, but you might as well have just said 'you suck!', admit it.

If you don't understand any of the words/phrases "forced", "unnatural", or "like stock photos", that's cool, but don't blame me for it. They aren't highly specific, but they're more than a scalar evaluation. In case you weren't aware, people don't think in precise definitions.

If it's that hard to explain it probably isn't worth mentioning, you know?

Seriously? Do you really think artists/photographers/craftsmen/whatever expect people to explain in precise detail all their opinions of their work? Do you think all the "nice lol" comments *were* worth mentioning? That those posters had explanations of how the composition and colors came together to excite specific pathways around the brain to lead to a favorable view? Give me a break.

Why would he be a mind-reader haha?

Actually, within a language (say, English) most people understand most words most other people say. It's great how that works out.

Two people doesn't constitute a 'large group' by any definition. Even in a group of three it's just company.

The group I was referring to was everyone he's showing his photos to, but that doesn't even matter. Ever heard of sample size? The more people respond, the more accurate his reading of people's views is. That's the whole idea behind, you know, voting... :wall:

Really? I dunno, you wouldn't you tell a child that hits his first baseball that he's making the same mistake in his follow-through as a lot of professionals, would you? Of course you wouldn't. The criticism would be lost on him, and would likely do more harm than good (not to mention the unintended effect of making you look like a pretentious prick). I'm not comparing anyone to a child, as I've said I can hardly use a camera, just trying to make a point...Why would you assume that some criticism will have the same beneficial effect across experience levels?

Unless I'm mistaken, you completely missed my point. It was that whether a comment is based on certain fact or not doesn't determine how helpful/valid the comment is.

That's fine, but that's not the poster's problem. In case you haven't noticed, the world is full of insincerities, and I seriously doubt you're completely sincere all the time. And if you are, you're a freak, no offense.

How did I suggest that my discomfort with that insincerity is his problem?

Ok, you initially defended What's comments by intimating that they had more merit than every other comment on the thread.

Not "every"... "nearly all."

Since you basically share the exact same opinion as him with regard to the photos in question, and made as much known before I said anything, you vicariously promulgated your own commentary as superior via What's, fine...

I don't know if I share his exact opinion; he hasn't described his in detail.

I guess I was indirectly supporting my own post, in that the point I made about his post could be applied to mine. But your characterization of me as as actively announcing how great my own post was is rather silly.

What do you mean? You specifically quoted every other comment and claimed they were vapid and specifically excluded your own from that category, or did I miss something?

I didn't quote every other comment, I only quoted the ones without much content.
This is just dicking around with words now, as I think I've made my view clear, but... I don't think What's and my post should be given *priority*; I think they should be treated with as much respect as the other posts. But because they have (a little) more content than most of the others, they will end up being more valuable.

Haha, awwwww cuuute...

Being artificially condescending can be funny or persuasive when the person is actually being belligerent or when you make a clever point.

 

[Scott C.]

Ain't been around for a long bit, but it's really good to see you pluggin' away at something you enjoy doing, Spider =)

Keep it up, brotha. Use the talk, or ignore it, but please add more as time allows you.

I dug the glass orb (wished it was more of a focal point though, but hey, I ain't no artist), and the cats watchin' the sunset on the skateboard made me smile.

 

[Taryllton]

So you do think he was fishing for compliments?

Maybe. I'm not really concerned with whether he was or not.

Do you think all the "nice lol" comments *were* worth mentioning?

I already gave one fairly obvious reason why they very well may have been, and it had nothing to do with sincerity or specificity.

Actually, within a language (say, English) most people understand most words most other people say. It's great how that works out.

With a statement that's inherently subjective like 'it looks forced', there's no way for another person to actually know what your talking about unless you're way more specific, you know this...

Ever heard of sample size?

Sure, as I'm sure you've heard of the dangers of making broad generalizations from a small sample.


The rest of your post really is 'dicking around' and circular semantics.

 

[spider]

Scott C., I will add as I go on and get the photos I feel are worth seeing.
Thank you for mentioning the two people on the skateboard. I am glad someone saw the message I wanted to portray there. Also, thanks for talking about focal points, serves as a reminder for keeping the main subject in focus without a distracting background too much in the frame.

Appealing to the likes of the masses or not, I love my work and am happy with what I produce via the camera and my own eye. I am continuously learning, producing, and using different techniques to broaden my horizon as well. Criticism is always read, taken into consideration as well. Expect more photos soon, as well as debates that are worth the reading thanks to some intelligent fellows.

 

[Pulk]

I already gave one fairly obvious reason why they very well may have been, and it had nothing to do with sincerity or specificity.

Exactly. A comment doesn't have to be explained in detail to be helpful.

With a statement that's inherently subjective like 'it looks forced', there's no way for another person to actually know what your talking about unless you're way more specific, you know this...

- All the other comments you're defending are far more subjective.
- "you're."
- You seem to have no sense of the concept of degree. Like I've admitted a million times, "forced" isn't very specific. But it does have a general, intuitive direction, mutually understood by people who use it.
- I said more than just the word "forced." I'm sure you just forgot this, and aren't actively trolling.

Sure, as I'm sure you've heard of the dangers of making broad generalizations from a small sample.

By your logic, no one should give their opinion on an artwork, because it's a tiny sample size of 1 and is therefore not very accurate. Now you're definitely arguing for the sake of it.

The rest of your post really is 'dicking around' and circular semantics.

That's a fun claim... now prove it if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[hairmetalspider]

I still vote for something macabre.

Get bloody.

 

[spider]

I found a Local man near me selling his Canon L series 400mm Lens for 4,000. Im trying to work out a Payment plan type of deal with the man because there is really just noone else here who would spend that kind of money on a lens.

Anyone familiar with working in the Serious Telephoto department?

 

[Noexcuse4you]

I found a Local man near me selling his Canon L series 400mm Lens for 4,000. Im trying to work out a Payment plan type of deal with the man because there is really just noone else here who would spend that kind of money on a lens.

Anyone familiar with working in the Serious Telephoto department?

I can think of a lot of more useful lenses to buy for $4k than the 400mm, but that's just me.

Is that the f2.8 version or f5.6 version? IS or non-IS? You might also want to figure in about $1000 for a good tripod and head combo into the cost of the lens.

 

[spider]

Yes, f2.8, and yes IS and DO lens

Here are some photographs from the Natchez Trace. A good friend and I took the day and cruised the trace all day and night, saw well over 100 dear, a dozen armadillos, O'possum, 2 forest bandits (lol), one Cotton Mouth, and dozens of bats...

a couple of the photos were just posted because I never really see the animals so up close