Star wrote:
Started a light hearted thread about a magazine cover. People decided that it was an excuse to attack my work. Shame on you!



I am taking a one week hiatus from the boards as of today. I am sick and tired of people. Not just MM people, but all people.

Star

Star, nothing you ever do is "light-hearted".  Come on now.  Besides, nobody ever publicly announces they're leaving a web forum if they really plan to leave.

Star wrote:
Started a light hearted thread about a magazine cover. People decided that it was an excuse to attack my work. Shame on you!



I am taking a one week hiatus from the boards as of today. I am sick and tired of people. Not just MM people, but all people.

Star

I think your work is fabulous!
Sure is a helluva lot better than me.

NewBoldPhoto wrote:

O.K.>>> Everybody take a deep breath…
ReeeeLaxxxx
Star you were not being trashed, at least that is the way I read the offending post.
Can you see the similarities between your avatar and the cover in question?
Wild hair… You admit to toning down the hair in your shot
A similar lighting scheme
A model, who comes off as anything but elegant
That is the joke Bob was making,I believe
Yes, I see the differences and no, your avatar was not the cover of Vogue
But, it still struck me as funny, and Bob and I seem to have a similar sense of humor.

Sorry I couldn't join in all the fun. I was at home which is out in the sticks and accounts for the dialup problem where all this started. The OP is right, I didn't look at her folio and NewBoldPhoto is spot on in his observation. Slamming the Vogue cover with that ugly piece of crap avatar sent me into a spin. I still chuckle at how much better the Kidman shot looks next to that avatar. There's an even dumber statement about the Kidman shot made later in the thread (page 3 maybe) by someone from out west that hasn't been able to find the correct end of the camera to shoot through yet. Its been a long time since I purposefully said anything here to piss anyone one off and I apologize to my doctor, Click Hamilton, cause we were making such good progress, but really you guys, slamming a Vogue cover while hiding behind work like that is too easy a target to let go.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:
Sorry I couldn't join in all the fun. I was at home which is out in the sticks and accounts for the dialup problem where all this started. The OP is right, I didn't look at her folio and NewBoldPhoto is spot on in his observation. Slamming the Vogue cover with that ugly piece of crap avatar sent me into a spin. I still chuckle at how much better the Kidman shot looks next to that avatar. There's an even dumber statement about the Kidman shot made later in the thread (page 3 maybe) by someone from out west that hasn't been able to find the correct end of the camera to shoot through yet. Its been a long time since I purposefully said anything here to piss anyone one off and I apologize to my doctor, Click Hamilton, cause we were making such good progress, but really you guys, slamming a Vogue cover while hiding behind work like that is too easy a target to let go.

Way, way harsh, Bob.

It's a crappy cover, and I was really surprised to find out who shot it.  And I stand by that, even if you decide to take pot shots at my fledgling photographic efforts.  I think it's crucial to those of us who still have something to learn to be able to identify what we don't like, and why. 

It's a Vogue cover.  This is supposed to be some of the best photography out there.  Discussing our surprise when we find that it isn't doesn't strike me as especially hypocritical, or an invitation to being told we're dumb and do ugly piece of crap work.

Good grief, Charlie Brown.

Star wrote:
Started a light hearted thread about a magazine cover. People decided that it was an excuse to attack my work. Shame on you!



I am taking a one week hiatus from the boards as of today. I am sick and tired of people. Not just MM people, but all people.

Star

People find an excuse to attack you no matter what you say in the forums here. Its a shame. I have never outright been rude or anything in here but even I;ve been straight up attacked. Whatever. They can go home

Bob Randall Photography wrote:
Sorry I couldn't join in all the fun. I was at home which is out in the sticks and accounts for the dialup problem where all this started. The OP is right, I didn't look at her folio and NewBoldPhoto is spot on in his observation. Slamming the Vogue cover with that ugly piece of crap avatar sent me into a spin. I still chuckle at how much better the Kidman shot looks next to that avatar. There's an even dumber statement about the Kidman shot made later in the thread (page 3 maybe) by someone from out west that hasn't been able to find the correct end of the camera to shoot through yet. Its been a long time since I purposefully said anything here to piss anyone one off and I apologize to my doctor, Click Hamilton, cause we were making such good progress, but really you guys, slamming a Vogue cover while hiding behind work like that is too easy a target to let go.

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:
Way, way harsh, Bob.

It's a crappy cover, and I was really surprised to find out who shot it.  And I stand by that, even if you decide to take pot shots at my fledgling photographic efforts.  I think it's crucial to those of us who still have something to learn to be able to identify what we don't like, and why. 

It's a Vogue cover.  This is supposed to be some of the best photography out there.  Discussing our surprise when we find that it isn't doesn't strike me as especially hypocritical, or an invitation to being told we're dumb and do ugly piece of crap work.

Good grief, Charlie Brown.

What a tasty little morsel here, almost as good as sushi.

One the one hand, truthfully, I thought the same thing as Bob did.  I'm sorry, but I did.  Though I have looked through the remainder of the portfolio numerous times and know that there is good work.  But did I say anything...no.

On the other hand, as someone who is learning, and hopes to never stop learning about this craft of photography, I didn't find the cover to be a favourite of mine either. 

BUT, as prone as I am to offer an opinion, (EWWW that hair isn't becoming, I'm not sure the color scheme is really working to her benefit), I weigh my harshness with...well, how easy it is to slam and not be able to deliver.

How many people on this thread, if given the assignment with a model that looks generally the same, can produce something that even begins to approach even this lackluster effort.

That's my challenge to everyone one weighed in on how bad the cover is.  Take a month to produce your version.  Let's see what you can do in addition to criticising, which Sita, I agree, is an important part of one's learning process.   But it can't be the ONLY part.


Edit: about pots shots.... there is NOTHING anyone can say to me about my work that is going to even come close to my own assessments.  I am truly my own harshest critic.  Even though I have a strong idea of what I'm trying to do, I question it and my approach often, and am constantly asking, how can it be done differently, etc. (and from that want to learn more from those around me).  That doesn't mean to say that if someone whose work or opinion I deeply respect, offers a pointed critique that I'm going to love it, nor that I think MM forums should be open warfare, but it's a delicate balance between having a vision or sense of one's own style vs. being able to take/hear/absorb what other people say about it.

Lady Afrodyte wrote:
I actually make a point to avoid tabloids. The most I ever see of them is standing in line at the grocery store.

Good enough, it was a cover story. You don't even need to open a magazine.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
It's like The Little Mermaid's mutant twin. I think her name was ARealUgly.

LMAO, I love it, maybe you should get a job at disney naming the villans.

RB

KM von Seidl wrote:
That's my challenge to everyone one weighed in on how bad the cover is.  Take a month to produce your version.

Now that is a great idea.

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:

Way, way harsh, Bob.

It's a crappy cover, and I was really surprised to find out who shot it.  And I stand by that, even if you decide to take pot shots at my fledgling photographic efforts.  I think it's crucial to those of us who still have something to learn to be able to identify what we don't like, and why. 

It's a Vogue cover.  This is supposed to be some of the best photography out there.  Discussing our surprise when we find that it isn't doesn't strike me as especially hypocritical, or an invitation to being told we're dumb and do ugly piece of crap work.

Good grief, Charlie Brown.

Sita, its really not that harsh of a response. Its an honest response. The cover isn't horrible, its different. You ever notice how people as a collective react to something different. Take Rap music during its first iteration when everyone jumped on the Debbie Harry bandwagon. It was skinned alive and hung out to dry for being a swill hole of talent less idiots playing at making music. Now during its second iteration it enjoys dominance in the market place. My only reaction to the OP was a comparison of the cover and the avatar, and you know that avatar is a horrible picture. If the avatar had been the one she currently uses, I wouldn't have said a word. And who said to anyone at any time that Vogue is held to a higher standard. That's your interpretation which kind of surprises me in that it doesn't seem to allow for any change. I never said you were dumb and I didn't say you did crap work, I did say some nameless person (not the OP) with a horrible folio condemned the Vogue cover and I still wonder where in general anyone gets the right to say someone or something sucks when in general they don't have the skill set to interpret whether something is good or not.

I find it interesting that I'm being taken to task for nailing someone about a statement she made without provocation in an open and public forum about the quality of a photographer and the resultant photograph. I don't think Vogue or Mr. Testino asked for her input, which is usually the criteria for a critique. I doubt many of the respondents here know the inner workings of the Art Directors thought process which probably had a big impact on the image. Furthermore, if the OP or anyone else had attacked your images or anyone else's in an unsolicited manner, my reaction would have been the same if the comparison between said image and avatar was as stark.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:

Sita, its really not that harsh of a response. Its an honest response. The cover isn't horrible, its different. You ever notice how people as a collective react to something different. Take Rap music during its first iteration when everyone jumped on the Debbie Harry bandwagon. It was skinned alive and hung out to dry for being a swill hole of talent less idiots playing at making music. Now during its second iteration it enjoys dominance in the market place. My only reaction to the OP was a comparison of the cover and the avatar, and you know that avatar is a horrible picture. If the avatar had been the one she currently uses, I wouldn't have said a word. And who said to anyone at any time that Vogue is held to a higher standard. That's your interpretation which kind of surprises me in that it doesn't seem to allow for any change. I never said you were dumb and I didn't say you did crap work, I did say some nameless person (not the OP) with a horrible folio condemned the Vogue cover and I still wonder where in general anyone gets the right to say someone or something sucks when in general they don't have the skill set to interpret whether something is good or not.

I find it interesting that I'm being taken to task for nailing someone about a statement she made without provocation in an open and public forum about the quality of a photographer and the resultant photograph. I don't think Vogue or Mr. Testino asked for her input, which is usually the criteria for a critique. I doubt many of the respondents here know the inner workings of the Art Directors thought process which probably had a big impact on the image. Furthermore, if the OP or anyone else had attacked your images or anyone else's in an unsolicited manner, my reaction would have been the same if the comparison between said image and avatar was as stark.

I kinda liked the Aerosmith/Run DMC thing.

RB

Ps. I thought the 2001? Super Bowl halftime show was hilarious.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:
...I still wonder where in general anyone gets the right to say someone or something sucks when in general they don't have the skill set to interpret whether something is good or not.

This is where we disagree in myriad ways, because:

1.  I think Star is quite a good photographer;
2.  I don't think you have to be quite a good photographer to have an opinion about what's good and bad; and
3.  To whom would you suggest we each apply for permission to have an opinion, and to find out when we're good enough to express it?

Bob Randall Photography wrote:
I find it interesting that I'm being taken to task for nailing someone about a statement she made without provocation in an open and public forum about the quality of a photographer and the resultant photograph.

I'm not taking you to task.  That implies some kind of authority, which I surely don't have. I am just a lowly amateur who disagrees with you despite having no skill set to back up having an opinion.  I think you were way meaner than you needed to be, and it took me by surprise because I like you and I don't think you're a mean person. 

I see a huge difference between talking about a magazine cover, and attacking someone we know personally on the forums.  Do they really seem like the same thing to you?

KM von Seidl wrote:
That's my challenge to everyone one weighed in on how bad the cover is.  Take a month to produce your version.

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:
Now that is a great idea.

Thank you.

The beauty of being a spectator in a coliseum is that it's easy to watch the spectacle, harder to be down in the pit, fighting for one's life.

All of this looks easy from the outside looking in.   Anyone on the inside, of whatever profession one is in and tops in it...photography, law, medicine, movies, music knows the truth.

I'd love to see the efforts of folks who weighed in harshly.

KM von Seidl wrote:
I'd love to see the efforts of folks who weighed in harshly.

If I knew anyone who even remotely resembled Nicole Kidman I'd give it a shot.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:
Sita, its really not that harsh of a response. Its an honest response. The cover isn't horrible, its different. You ever notice how people as a collective react to something different. Take Rap music during its first iteration when everyone jumped on the Debbie Harry bandwagon. It was skinned alive and hung out to dry for being a swill hole of talent less idiots playing at making music. Now during its second iteration it enjoys dominance in the market place. My only reaction to the OP was a comparison of the cover and the avatar, and you know that avatar is a horrible picture. If the avatar had been the one she currently uses, I wouldn't have said a word. And who said to anyone at any time that Vogue is held to a higher standard. That's your interpretation which kind of surprises me in that it doesn't seem to allow for any change. I never said you were dumb and I didn't say you did crap work, I did say some nameless person (not the OP) with a horrible folio condemned the Vogue cover and I still wonder where in general anyone gets the right to say someone or something sucks when in general they don't have the skill set to interpret whether something is good or not.

I find it interesting that I'm being taken to task for nailing someone about a statement she made without provocation in an open and public forum about the quality of a photographer and the resultant photograph. I don't think Vogue or Mr. Testino asked for her input, which is usually the criteria for a critique. I doubt many of the respondents here know the inner workings of the Art Directors thought process which probably had a big impact on the image. Furthermore, if the OP or anyone else had attacked your images or anyone else's in an unsolicited manner, my reaction would have been the same if the comparison between said image and avatar was as stark.

Applause from this corner.

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:
Way, way harsh, Bob.

It's a crappy cover, and I was really surprised to find out who shot it.  And I stand by that, even if you decide to take pot shots at my fledgling photographic efforts.  I think it's crucial to those of us who still have something to learn to be able to identify what we don't like, and why. 

It's a Vogue cover.  This is supposed to be some of the best photography out there.  Discussing our surprise when we find that it isn't doesn't strike me as especially hypocritical, or an invitation to being told we're dumb and do ugly piece of crap work.

Good grief, Charlie Brown.

I don't think that was his point Sita.  I don't think Bob had an issue with someone making a critique of the cover.  Essentially what Star was was doing was saying the photo was crappy.  Now, let's pretend Vogue instead used Star's photo for the cover.  Would we be talking about how great the photo is or how crappy?

I am NOT saying Star's photo is crappy.  It is what it is. A success for what SHE wanted and what her client wanted.  I suspect the same thing happened with Vogue.  Many of us don't like the picture.  But obviously someone DID and that's how it made the cover.

Star also started complaining about an unasked for critique of HER work.  But, by her starting a thread critiquing the cover of Vogue...well...did that photographer or Vogue ask for her critique because if not, then it was UNASKED for.

She then started a brand new thread complaining about this.  I asked her what the difference is because as I see it, the only difference is she's a member of MM and the Nicole Kidman photographer is not.  So somehow MM members are protected against unasked for critiques while non-members are, well, fuck them. they are non-members.

She called me a troll and refused to answer the question.

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:

Bob Randall Photography wrote:
...I still wonder where in general anyone gets the right to say someone or something sucks when in general they don't have the skill set to interpret whether something is good or not.

This is where we disagree in myriad ways, because:

1.  I think Star is quite a good photographer;
2.  I don't think you have to be quite a good photographer to have an opinion about what's good and bad; and
3.  To whom would you suggest we each apply for permission to have an opinion, and to find out when we're good enough to express it?


I'm not taking you to task.  That implies some kind of authority, which I surely don't have. I am just a lowly amatuer who disagrees with you despite having no skill set to back up having an opinion.  I think you were way meaner than you needed to be, and it took me by surprise because I like you and I don't think you're a mean person. 

I see a huge difference between talking about a magazine cover, and attacking someone we know personally on the forums.  Do they really seem like the same thing to you?

First, I never said Star was a bad photographer, ever anywhere.

You do have to have some authority to express what is good or bad. Immediately from the womb one would not possess the needed abilities to determine good from bad. Like and dislike is a different animal.

You needn't apply to anything if you are asked to participate. Her unsolicited attack invited my participation by throwing it out in a public forum.

Read her original statement;

"Star wrote: Papparazzi shots of Nicole Kidman are better than this. How could they ever have approved a cover that is so horrible!
Maybe they are selling the new Nicole Kidman troll doll this xmas?"

Does this sound warm lighthearted and fuzzy to you and do you think Ms. Kidman would feel great to hear herself described as a troll doll.

I'm not a mean person and you know from personal experience with me that if someone throws out a horrible statement about someone else I will react just as I did and not apologize for it.

W.G. Rowland wrote:
Just out of curiosity..

Raise your hand if you personally know the photographer of the Vogue cover..

Raises hand.

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:

If I knew anyone who even remotely resembled Nicole Kidman I'd give it a shot.

If I knew anyone who even remotely resembled Nicole Kidman I'd give her a shot.

DigitalCMH wrote:

Translation:  Screw you guys, I'm going home! (said in Eric Cartman voice)

HA HA HA OMG that was funny!!!!!

Le Beck Photography wrote:
Remember how lousy a job American film makers did with Sophia Loren compared to the Italian ones? The only exceptions I can think of are "Houseboat" and "El Cid"  This photographer doesn't understand how to make her beauty stand out. Simple as that.

I never thought I'd say this about Nicole but she looks like a drowned rat!

Alix Andrea wrote:
People find an excuse to attack you no matter what you say in the forums here. Its a shame. I have never outright been rude or anything in here but even I;ve been straight up attacked. Whatever. They can go home

Shut up you big dummy. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Star wrote:
Started a light hearted thread about a magazine cover. People decided that it was an excuse to attack my work. Shame on you!



I am taking a one week hiatus from the boards as of today. I am sick and tired of people. Not just MM people, but all people.

Star

I don't get this at all?  Does Star think the people here will change after a week?

And more on the topic, I do know the shooter and also the troubles that can occur during a photoshoot with many people making decisions, also time constraints that occur with celebrity shoots.  Also, someone choose it and passed it by many people including the editor all of whom agreed this was the shot, so to fully blame a photographer is not really fair. 

As for ones ability to offer opinion, I do not feel someone needs to know how to produce award winning shots to offer opinion and critique, much like saying one must bake well to tell if bread is stale, or be able to make wine to know if its turned to vinegar.  But on the Internet it seems opinions are like assholes everyone has one and they usually stink. 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Hey Stephan, have you ever gone to your web site and waited for the entire body of images to load and then held down the  arrow and watched the whole shoe zoom by you. That was cool. Especially going from the end back to the beginning and ending with all those tight colorful shots.