Looking but not seeing - The PhotoSig Wars
Yesterday, for a bit of fun, I decided to post one of my images of IvoryFlame to Photosig. I wanted to see how quickly it would get on the front page and see if the quality of the critiques had gone up.
The photo hit the front page within about an hour of being posted, which was most excellent.
The critiques were about the same “quality” as usual but they set me thinking about what the viewers were saying and why.
There were several responses in appreciation of how much they liked the image and inevitably there were a few that wanted to offer technical improvements to my technique. These were the ones that set me thinking.
There are Photosig members who base their critique on opening the image in Photoshop and playing with the levels to see where the white point is, if there are any blown highlights, if there is actually any absolute black, and of course the contrast levels. This is the basis of their critique. If you don’t have an absolute white then that’s not good, if you don’t have an absolute black, then that’s not good either. If the face is not illuminated, then that will be criticised. Shadows can't be the focal point of an image.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
That's like trying to listen to Beethoven’s 5th Symphony with a spectrum analyser. Hearing music is insufficient, you have to listen to really appreciate a piece. Looking at a photograph is pointless, you have to actually see it to appreciate it.
I'd also like to mention two words by way of education.
"Specular Highlight."
This is the highlight that is created when light bounces off a shiny object such as glass or chrome. What many people don’t realise is that at a low angle of incidence, human skin also produces specular reflection. This specular reflection cannot by its nature have any detail in it because it is a highlight. Underexposing a specular highlight still creates a specular highlight, but it’s just grey not white.
Anyhoo, its time to show you the picture. Hopefully this image creates a certain sense of mystery, and not the sort that is fixed by playing with Photoshop.
Enjoy.
Addendum:
After an argument with the admins of Photosig as to whether I should accept and value any and all crits (from poeple who have a port of crappy images or no images at all), it appears I am "arrogant" and "love my work." Phew, to think that I might actually hate my work!?! Now there's a thought!
Dose this mean I've made it as a photographer? After all, the majority the great photographers whom I admire have gone to war with Photosig and then left.
Hurrah, I must be a photographic artist at last!!!!!
The photo hit the front page within about an hour of being posted, which was most excellent.
The critiques were about the same “quality” as usual but they set me thinking about what the viewers were saying and why.
There were several responses in appreciation of how much they liked the image and inevitably there were a few that wanted to offer technical improvements to my technique. These were the ones that set me thinking.
There are Photosig members who base their critique on opening the image in Photoshop and playing with the levels to see where the white point is, if there are any blown highlights, if there is actually any absolute black, and of course the contrast levels. This is the basis of their critique. If you don’t have an absolute white then that’s not good, if you don’t have an absolute black, then that’s not good either. If the face is not illuminated, then that will be criticised. Shadows can't be the focal point of an image.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
That's like trying to listen to Beethoven’s 5th Symphony with a spectrum analyser. Hearing music is insufficient, you have to listen to really appreciate a piece. Looking at a photograph is pointless, you have to actually see it to appreciate it.
I'd also like to mention two words by way of education.
"Specular Highlight."
This is the highlight that is created when light bounces off a shiny object such as glass or chrome. What many people don’t realise is that at a low angle of incidence, human skin also produces specular reflection. This specular reflection cannot by its nature have any detail in it because it is a highlight. Underexposing a specular highlight still creates a specular highlight, but it’s just grey not white.
Anyhoo, its time to show you the picture. Hopefully this image creates a certain sense of mystery, and not the sort that is fixed by playing with Photoshop.
Enjoy.
Addendum:
After an argument with the admins of Photosig as to whether I should accept and value any and all crits (from poeple who have a port of crappy images or no images at all), it appears I am "arrogant" and "love my work." Phew, to think that I might actually hate my work!?! Now there's a thought!
Dose this mean I've made it as a photographer? After all, the majority the great photographers whom I admire have gone to war with Photosig and then left.
Hurrah, I must be a photographic artist at last!!!!!
Labels: IvoryFlame, PhotoSig
posted by Rich at 6:08 PM
6 Comments:
I don't really know what PhotoSig is, but I've wondered about photographic "experts" that seem to feel images must meet a certain tonal criteria to be "improved." Why are the rules for photographs different from other media when it comes to this?
PhotoSig is the largest collection of pompous twerps around. But it is nice to know that they're all herder up in one place so you can avoid them.
I no longer post to PhotoSig (and haven't for over four years), largely for reasons highlighted in your post. I do go there occasionally to see others' work, which tends to be evenly lit glamour in nature. I think no self-respecting art photographer will likely post there.
Why bother when all the friends you need already know who you are?
I stumbled across the Psig version of this and got curious to follow up on your blog. You've got a new crit on the image.
I guess in some ways I have joined you. I am not to the level of photographer you are but I keep learning by asking questions.
Got deleted when I refused to give up my principals. It was just a matter of time before they deleted me either way. They like to dictate off site behavior and life. Afraid of the truth.
I guess Gary Petersen was right I am in very good company, cheers!
Came across you post, and alas, found myself in good company. My giving up photoSig a/c after about 3 weeks of membership was voluntary.
Your work is extraordinary, and stands on its own "two feet" just fine w/out photoSig approval.
Keep doing what you're doing!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home