Linda - who died and left you as the Oracle of this site? You and your fellow Uhh police force have made it clear to me that there are too many pompous, self righteous, mean spirited people lurking here that make it ill suited for serious photographers. Arguing that it is every persons right to post crummy photographs (once again - I say this slowly - OBJECTIVELY CRUMMY, NOT SUBJECTIVELY CRUMMY) on a dedicated photo forum without being willing to learn how to improve is just silly.

You gleefully (vindictively?) point to an early post of mine where I pretty much called the obnoxious UHH know it all who felt it was his duty to chastise me for inadvertently posting some photos to the wrong UHH forum. That is the type of snarky BS (oh- did I offend your delicate sensibilities again? So sorry) that is ruining what once was a pretty decent site. Being open is a 2 way street and conforming to your definition of what's right or taking the highway isn’t open


I’m sure few tears will be shed, but don’t bother replying to this post (which is most definitely a rant)since I won’t be participating further in a website where people seriously argue that focus is subjective. I guess I should have cc’d this post to the all knowing Canon guy who thinks of himself as the smartest guy in the room on virtually every topic including the forum rules in case he has trouble reading between the lines.

I’ll stay with photo sites here on planet earth.

Wow!

Linda - Not sure I understand your point here. would you please pm me to discuss?

Getting pretty “deep” at this point in the discussion. I’m not a philosopher, but focused and not in focus or level horizon vs tilted horizon are binary choices. They’re not subjective. 😎

Linda - please pm me. Not sure i understand what you mean.

Touché.

I guess I understand your theoretical point, but it still amazes me that someone (regardless of age) wouldn’t rather have constructive criticism that smoke being blown…..

I’ll have to learn to live with it 😎

You seem to be making my point. When someone mentioned that the image looked a little soft, you didn’t mind the critique, especially since you knew it was so due to shooting through glass. I posted my original rant several years ago after I replied (POLITELY) to a Gallery post suggesting that a background was too cluttered and stepping left or right a few steps would have improved the shot and I got slammed (NOT so politely) for daring to offer criticism in that forum. If your ego can’t take a well intended suggestion, you should consider not posting.

Interesting perspective. Like itv

Folks - I raised this subject a few years back and thought I’d give it an encore. UHH has 2 sections for members to post pics - Photo Gallery and Photo Analysis and posting constructive criticism in the first is frowned upon. I think this rule does a disservice to photographers looking to up their game.

I often look at posts in the Gallery and too often see, sorry for the blunt language, just awful photos. I’m not talking about subjective matters. I’m talking about pics that are out of focus, poorly exposed, with wildly tilted horizons (not done intentionally for artistic purposes), badly post processed or overprocessed, poorly composed with telephone poles growing out of heads, etc. or any number of other technical (NOT subjective) flaws.

And most times, well meaning members post, “Great set”, or “Nicely done” or other “ attaboys” in an attempt to not hurt another member’s feelings. I see this as counterproductive and reinforcing bad technique by poster. I ask how is a member to develop better photography skills if, I again apologize upfront, technically terrible pics are displayed and followed by lots of gushing platitudes?

Last time I mentioned this, I was slapped down by numerous members who argue that unless a poster requests constructive criticism, nothing negative should be said. Ok - I’ll buy the “If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing” idea, but gushing over bad stuff does harm to the poster too. If the pics are bad, say nothing. Stop reinforcing bad work.

Just a suggestion to those posting to the Gallery in the future - think about soliciting criticisms so you can improve your work. Sure you will get many nasty, snarky and often incorrect replies from a certain subsection of members, but you will also get many great suggestions for improvement offered in a polite, constructive manner. I’ve been a photographer for 55 yrs and I welcome all well meaning and civil critiques. We are never too old to learn a new trick.

Anxious to see the replies to this rant.

I agree. That’s why I put it first on my list. I need to go back to my archives, but I’m pretty sure that silhouetted cactus shot in Saguaro National Park East in Tuscan was shot on Velvia. Almost certain it predated digital and as many of you know, Velvia was legendary for extraordinarily vivid colors. Also guessing that shot might have predated my PS use. I only say that because if I shot that pic today, I might have processed it with some masking of the black cacti to try to open up a little of the shadow detail. I love the 100% black cacti, but no doubt I would have looked to see if there was any detail in the plants. Considering that Velvia had only a tiny 4or 5stop dynamic range, it may not have. In fact, I probably shot that pic using either a 3 or 5 frame bracket since I wanted supersaturated sky tones and silhouetting. In all candor, I’m guessing that shot was 40 yrs ago and today, I can’t remember what I had for lunch. 😎

Thx to all who’ve commented.

Ah yes, tie dye. I came of age in the 60’s when tie dye was part of the “uniform “. Always looked better after a doobie or two. 😎

I like the "impressionism" style of the image. Could be something done by Monet or Renoir.

just a few..........

Interestingly (or not?), purple is not one of my favorite colors, but in certain instances, it can be effective.