What's wrong with this picture (Page 13): _____________________________ And it depends upon who posts the photo on UHH? When I posted my football imminent tackle photo from a Ripon...

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

gwilliams6 wrote:

Thanks. When it was discussed within the Russia story, it was called "painterly". I have no problem with it being described as such. Cheers

_____________________________
And it depends upon who posts the photo on UHH? When I posted my football imminent tackle photo from a Ripon College game in 1956 which I consider one of the best sports pictures I have made or ever seen----I got nothing but snarky remarks and claims the runner also was two blurred to consider. So--it depends on who puts up photos on this venue. (That photo got me a job with the local paper--THE RIPON PRESS--at age 14. I doubt anything I might put up will not be trashed by the same few?------Not sour grapes---but the nature of UHH run by the snarky trolls.--------

User ID

gwilliams6 wrote:

Thanks. When it was discussed within the Russia story, it was called "painterly". I have no problem with it being described as such. Cheers

Just to be clear, sometimes “painterly” is a version of damning with weird praise (if I may alter a classic critic’s cliche). So I wanted be the “critic” who lauded it as strictly a *photograph*, verrrrry worthy of that name.

User ID

srt101fan wrote:

Good to see an excellent counter to the "cookbook" school of photography that demands a photo meet adherence to specified rigid criteria.

Consider the technical issue. He’s stuck working at only ASA 800. That grain approximates the noise I get today at about ISO 25,000 to 102,000 !!

Thaz a 5 to 7 stop advantage of 2015 digital over a mid 20th century roll of film. Advantage varies with camera size but even a stealthy ultra compact will deliver 5 stops better than film.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

User ID wrote:

Consider the technical issue. He’s stuck working at only ASA 800. That grain approximates the noise I get today at about ISO 25,000 to 102,000 !!

Thaz a 5 to 7 stop advantage of 2015 digital over a mid 20th century roll of film. Advantage varies with camera size but even a stealthy ultra compact will deliver 5 stops better than film.

___________________________________
Of course I suppose you, UserID (nobody from nowhere) maybe was not born yet in the days of film? I am referring to the ASA6400 native speed of the grain free Polaroid roll film used in the Polaroid 110a. So---it all depends on the film like it depends on the sensor. Yet a nearly 4x5 Polaroid holds more data than your full frame digital----------ew

Grahame Loc: Fiji

OldSchool-WI wrote:

_____________________________ br And it depends up... (show quote)

Far more significantly it depends upon the context in which a photo has been exhibited here. When any photo is specifically posted along with a description which may contain visual, procedural or technical attributes that it is 'supposed' to demonstrate, and it does not in the opinion of others, their critique is more likely to be given.

It is not a case of your photos being "trashed", it is a case of some of your photos not portraying to others what you consider they do.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

Grahame wrote:

Far more significantly it depends upon the context in which a photo has been exhibited here. When any photo is specifically posted along with a description which may contain visual, procedural or technical attributes that it is 'supposed' to demonstrate, and it does not in the opinion of others, their critique is more likely to be given.

It is not a case of your photos being "trashed", it is a case of some of your photos not portraying to others what you consider they do.

_______________________________
Well post some of your photos.

As you well know one "member" went so far as to take my photo---run it through their own post process software to create a red halo on the roofers head---reduce the size from 3000kb to just 9kp and insist it was my photo----and none of the other snarkes---including yourself made a single comment against such despicable conduct. I called out that person or persons as liars and thieves and rightfully so. And after that thread was beaten to death---the fake photo was posted again in a new thread and even was pasted in a thread today--merely to aggravate the situation and me personally. Not even in the old context---but just to annoy. Indeed I WASTE TOO MUCH time on these snarkies with nothing on or in their minds. I am indeed considering de-activating. But not that I am being driven off----but merely I have better uses of my time than this usual drivel, back biting, trolling and snarky behavior. There is no active moderator. Maybe it is the age of most of the active photogs on this site? -----ew

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

Grahame wrote:

Far more significantly it depends upon the context in which a photo has been exhibited here. When any photo is specifically posted along with a description which may contain visual, procedural or technical attributes that it is 'supposed' to demonstrate, and it does not in the opinion of others, their critique is more likely to be given.

It is not a case of your photos being "trashed", it is a case of some of your photos not portraying to others what you consider they do.

__________________________
Sounds reasonable but not unfortunately that is not the way it is on UHH. Snarkies spoil everything and extend a cogent thread into garbage. My football tackle photo in no way fits your description yet was trashed out of hand. Everything about that photo was perfect. The split second--the movement in the players except for the Ripon star who was in focus showed the implied action sought by many who do merely want "freeze frame" reality---but try to capture impending actions. Yet not one favorable comment. Disgusting. Yet you all fawn over the compromised Russian ballet photo. (I don't disagree with good comments on the Russian photo--they are appropriate.) As I say---I have better uses for my time than trying to say anything constructive on UHH. Nobody is listening. It is truly pissing in the wind.----ew

Bill_de Loc: US

OldSchool-WI wrote:

__________________________
As I say---I have better uses for my time than trying to say anything constructive on UHH. Nobody is listening. It is truly pissing in the wind.----ew

Lots of folks are probably listening now and lining up to wish you a fond farewell.

Be well and I hope you find a place to land that is all about Sigma!

And so you will always remember us:

--

Grahame Loc: Fiji

You don't say whether you agree or disagree with what I have said, so all I can do is reply based upon your response ..........................

OldSchool-WI wrote:

_______________________________
Well post some of your photos.

There appears absolutely no relevance whatsoever with this suggestion. But, I do post photos to this site, I've also had a link to my website in the signature where anybody that wishes to view a selection of my photos can.

OldSchool-WI wrote:

As you well know one "member" went so far as to take my photo---run it through their own post process software to create a red halo on the roofers head---reduce the size from 3000kb to just 9kp and insist it was my photo----and none of the other snarkes---including yourself made a single comment against such despicable conduct. I called out that person or persons as liars and thieves and rightfully so.

To date you have produced absolutely zilch to back up your claim that someone "create(d) a red halo on the roofers head". Your claim is a blatant mistruth.

OldSchool-WI wrote:

And after that thread was beaten to death---the fake photo was posted again in a new thread and even was pasted in a thread today--merely to aggravate the situation and me personally. Not even in the old context---but just to annoy.

Whilst you continue to throw up this accusation repeatedly at every possible opportunity. Note, I have only selected the most recent below, there are numerous others.

OldSchool-WI wrote:

__________________________
There he goes again----Is there no moderator on UHH? UserID (anonymous) redid my photo to show a halo of red. And then calls it my photo. Again---isn't there a moderator to remove such actions and such people? Apparently not. Well, I won't sully this overall thread by what I think of UserID (anonymous) or the people who let such (-----) mindless children do tricks like that without a peep. But some might guess.---------

and then ...................

OldSchool-WI wrote:

Indeed I WASTE TOO MUCH time on these snarkies with nothing on or in their minds. I am indeed considering de-activating. But not that I am being driven off----but merely I have better uses of my time than this usual drivel, back biting, trolling and snarky behavior. There is no active moderator. Maybe it is the age of most of the active photogs on this site? -----ew

I would suggest little to do with age, but your disappointment caused by others not putting up with your ways.

User ID

OldSchool-WI wrote:

___________________________________
Of course I suppose you, UserID (nobody from nowhere) maybe was not born yet in the days of film? I am referring to the ASA6400 native speed of the grain free Polaroid roll film used in the Polaroid 110a. So---it all depends on the film like it depends on the sensor. Yet a nearly 4x5 Polaroid holds more data than your full frame digital----------ew

It’s 800 ASA color film in the hands of a skilled photographer ... something you clearly failed to apprehend. Gorgeous grain and excellent focus. Great job, regardless of working under duress.

User ID

OldSchool-WI wrote:

___________________________________
Of course I suppose you, UserID (nobody from nowhere) maybe was not born yet in the days of film? I am referring to the ASA6400 native speed of the grain free Polaroid roll film used in the Polaroid 110a. So---it all depends on the film like it depends on the sensor. Yet a nearly 4x5 Polaroid holds more data than your full frame digital----------ew

This has nothing to do with Polaroid. The film you mention never existed anywho. Polaroid prints are not actually finished photographs. Everyone knows that.

Plus, trying to sneak a 10 lb Polaroid into the Bolshoi is absurd, unless you want your passport confiscated and your visa ripped up.

OTOH 400 to 800 ASA color did exist ... and with waaaaaaay cool super grain.
.

Notice how the noise, distortion, and overly harsh lighting ruins this image.

(Download)

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

Bill_de wrote:

Lots of folks are probably listening now and lining up to wish you a fond farewell.

Be well and I hope you find a place to land that is all about Sigma!

And so you will always remember us:

--

_______________________________
And indeed Bill De---you, UserID and Grayhame-SmugMug are the primes who have turned UHH to garbage.---------

User ID

Ain’t it peculiar how all the other threads, those untouched by Brandon, just keep on keeping on. What could that possibly tell us ?

User ID

.

Back on topic ... so what’s wrong with this photo ? The purple fringe can be edited out and some sharpening could help quite a bit. Nothing that can’t be fixed in post.

(Download)

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

User ID wrote:

.

Just the statement that something can be "fixed" in post indicates that something is wrong with the picture.
The context in how it got that way might be interesting, but doesn't change the fact something is wrong with the picture or it wouldn't need "fixed."

Personally, I like screwed up photo's like this because I enjoy fixing them as much (more) than taking them. This fact hardly makes a the picture good.