Doug Swinskey wrote:
now lets talk about tacky cliché photoshop techniques...

Agreed!!!!

Eric S. wrote:
ps Doug, nice shot!!

(doing doing his best elvis impersonation)...thankyou...thankyouvery muchhhh...

Justin N Lane wrote:
as a general rule, I hate people.

dogs make cool people..."fur people"...

KMPHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
Revulsive. Not in Websters that I can find.

I find when the peoples of a foreign country repolt, revulsive.

KMPHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
Revulsive. Not in Websters that I can find.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.a … =Revulsive

Re`vul´sive
a.1.    Causing, or tending to, revulsion.
n.1.    (Med.) That which causes revulsion; specifically (Med.), a revulsive remedy or agent.

Doug Swinskey wrote:
if you see anything in my photographs, its because i want you to see it...
white skys and all..its a mistake to think that because "your" rules were broken, someone doesn't have control of thier craft...

I said I hate white sky and I do. This picture is neither splotchy or in deep silhouette as I spoke about, so it doesn't fit my "lecture."

You can start about tacky photoshop techniques on another thread. . .

Tim Hammond wrote:
Sunday morning lectures about cardinal rules and the one right way to think -- thanks for reminding me why I left Oklahoma.

This shot is mainly about the shadow and the light, not the splotchy, shadowy dark silhouette stuff I spoke about. Funny how I speak about something that I personally hate, then I give a cardinal rule (which you all know is TRUE about not putting the subject in the dark etc), and then I get the counter lectures.

BCADULTART wrote:
Well I hate Boring photographs and "Photographers" that do not know how to use
their equipment, or worse write about things they hate....

So do I (generally). . . ;-)

mrclay2000 wrote:
You can start about tacky photoshop techniques on another thread. . .

But what if it is something I or others find "revulsive"?!  It fits in this thread.

Visions Of Excess Studi wrote:
BTW, what is "revulsive?" Is it some weird second cousin to "repulsive?"

Reminds me of my favorite almost-word: "porkulent."

Almost like "corpulent," only better!

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
We hit you with both barrels of the shotgun. No offense intended, at least on my part. But I just hate camera club mentalities. Nothing good ever comes from rules. Rules are a way to avoid making bad pictures if you have nothing to express.

Well, I stick with what I said in my post and will answer to what I said in my post. I had intended this post for the English-language forum but forum postings go haywire generally after the first few responses.

Camera club mentalities. . .there are rules of course (rule of thirds etc) but if we confine ourselves to these we stay confined. The post was against splotchy shadowy under tree work and faces badly darkened out because the sunlight was harsh (find me someone who insists this is "fine" and I'll respond). Secondarily I remarked about disliking/hating white skies.

UdoR wrote:
I find general statements that put other photographers, who maybe in a learning curve, down revolting...

Aren't there better things to do than focusing on other peoples "faults" and pointing them out?

I rather focus on something positive, like doing my thing, while letting others do their thing.

That's good advice, but how do we know they're just "starting out"? I know of many who do the splotch work year after year. If you're entirely right there is no such thing as "constructive critique."

mrclay2000 wrote:
That's good advice, but how do we know they're just "starting out"? I know of many who do the splotch work year after year. If you're entirely right there is no such thing as "constructive critique."

Well, if someone is asking for critique, that means that person tries to get input from outside talent.

I find it perfectly okay to share info.

But, there are tremendeous amount of people out there, whose EGO won't allow them to receive critique, and may think that their technique is flawless and that they shoot exactly to their own taste. Which maybe the reason why they shoot year in and year out the same way.

Personally, I will never hand out critique unless being asked... and even then I am hesitant, but that's my own choice.

Maybe I don't hand out critizism, because I am constantly trying to improve myself and rise to new challenges by studying about it, hence being aware how little I really know myself.

UdoR wrote:
Aren't there better things to do than focusing on other peoples "faults" and pointing them out?

There are indeed UdoR, the problem is that the general maturity level of most of the posts on this forum is equivalent to that at a seventh grade slumber party.  But I'm with you...

KMPHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
Revulsive. Not in Websters that I can find.

Although I highly disagree with his thread..the word is in the dictionary.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/revulsive

Pete Flanagan wrote:
I hate coffee cup ring stains on photos myself.

I don't mindthis because it means they bought your book!

UdoR wrote:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.a … =Revulsive

Re`vul´sive
a.1.    Causing, or tending to, revulsion.
n.1.    (Med.) That which causes revulsion; specifically (Med.), a revulsive remedy or agent.

Thanks Udo!  NowI have a new dictionary to refer to as well.  Although I must admit, this is the first time I've have ever heard the word "revulsive" used.

mrclay2000 wrote:
I'm usually hesitant about offering criticism even when asked also.

My original post spoke clearly about my personal dislikes. I seriously doubt (despite the majority in opposition here) that what I said is off the mark. When a portrait photograph IS the shadow, is that worth looking at? When splotchy under-tree sunlight checkers the subject, is that worth applauding? These are my points. So far all I read are counter shots. . .

No one wants to comment on what I said specifically. No one.

You spoke clearly about "cardinal rules" that all photographers should follow in order to avoid your personal dislikes, implying that they are the standard against which all photography should be judged, and you did so with an arrogant, lecturing tone.  Did you really expect people to post back and say "yeah, man, you're right - check out my portfolio and let me know what sins I've committed?"

To comment specifically on what you said, you're wrong.  A photograph with the face lost in shadow and the background blown out can be a successful photograph.  For example, the photograph linked below was carefully planned out and is considered a success by the photographer who planned and executed it (yeah, it was me).  Your personal dislikes were never a consideration.

(18+, but just barely)
https://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic_id=4454e9835f741

If you come out of the blue and try to lay down the law about what makes a good photograph for every photographer in every situation, you really shouldn't be surprised by some pushback.

Pat Thielen wrote:
Having said that, one of the things that really bugs me about a photo is when you can see the thin outline shadow caused by an on-camera flash on the wall just behind the subject. If I see that in my own photography I cringe and move on to the next one... I suppose it may work in some cases, but for me it's for the most part considered a fatal flaw in an otherwise good photo.

  Any others...?

  -P-

You'd really hate my photos then .  Of course, one of these days, I'll have lighting figured out MUCH better.  I'm still learning though.

Tim Hammond wrote:

You spoke clearly about "cardinal rules" that all photographers should follow in order to avoid your personal dislikes, implying that they are the standard against which all photography should be judged, and you did so with an arrogant, lecturing tone.  Did you really expect people to post back and say "yeah, man, you're right - check out my portfolio and let me know what sins I've committed?"

To comment specifically on what you said, you're wrong.  A photograph with the face lost in shadow and the background blown out can be a successful photograph.  For example, the photograph linked below was carefully planned out and is considered a success by the photographer who planned and executed it (yeah, it was me).  Your personal dislikes were never a consideration.

(18+, but just barely)
https://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic_id=4454e9835f741

If you come out of the blue and try to lay down the law about what makes a good photograph for every photographer in every situation, you really shouldn't be surprised by some pushback.

Agreed -- I've done some silhouette shots as well and quite liked how they came out. There are *always* exceptions; the idea of "cardinal" laws of photography, or art in general, is ridiculous. And that is my own cardinal law.

  -P-