Huh? Shots are posted here then, for what? Some of you are pretty dictatorial. You Russian?

Why not? I really like good photography. Why are you unable to deal with photographical questions and comments? Answering the question would provide some knowledge.

Beautiful, especially #2 and #3, where the contrasts make the milky color and silky texture stand out in contrast.

Great eye for something special and beautiful. I wonder whether a much tighter crop, even into the shadows of the pieces a bit, and certainly on the top to make the shadow casting pieces and their shadows the center of interest might help. A little graduated shading of the dark on the right piece of bark would also raise the clarity and dynamics, if that's what you're after.

Looking at these from a purely photographic standpoint, the only one that has some visual interest beyond reporting what rocks look like and climbers do is #2. Some work to bring out the tension of the space to be traversed between the lone climber and the group would make this an interesting photo.

All have a good reportage of Alaska. I would love to see you work on #1 to bring out the subtle but beautiful tones of the various whites.

Glad for the eagle. I don't understand, however, why you did not work on the photos to make her problem a much stronger visual presentation. Better focus and significant use of techniques to bring out her eye (not talking caricature here) might have helped her even more.

Why don't you two above deal with the ACTUAL posts and points rather than your vague simpers? Facts apparently do not matter to you. You have something against discussion? You aren't really unable to think and communicate, are you? If you can't handle what's going on, you should just stop snowflake whining and begone. Some of us might actually care about the points being discussed.

As attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt, "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

(Download)

That is so off base. My "happiness" is not at stake. I have enjoyed seeing the works and learning from others. I hope I have helped others. The militaristic, personal narrowness of some is a real pain. There seem to be a lot more here than in the classes I taught. (The why's of that would be interesting to work out.)

It is no surprise to me that UHH can survive without me. It is, however, my hope to contribute to this place that I am now a part of, and try to make it better. Discussing the intertwining of copyright law and local rules is I think a worthwhile topic. There seems, however, to have been little discussion, but rather some personal anger and misinterpretation of what's going on. This causes me to wonder about motives and how to contribute to a healthy environment of free speech and respect not to leave in a huff.

You understand the situation incorrectly. Perhaps you and others consider it rude to place illustrative lines, but it is not so from where I come from, copyright, the professions of Art, publishing, and education. Such illustrative lines aid learning, as anyone who has attended an art appreciation course knows.

In fact, I was COMPLIMENTING the OP's composition, which he had derided. I also used lines to show perspective problems, and asked him, as someone with obvious respect on UHH how he might explain it.

Here are the relevant posts (May also be viewed at https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-618133-1.html):
-----------------------------------
artBob (a regular here) (online) Joined: May 5, 2012 Posts: 4612 Loc: Near Chicago

Graham Smith wrote:
The framing isn't the best, the boy's feet are on the bottom, but it was shot with a Leica with framing lines in the viewfinder and they are not easy in a fast moving shot

I post:
"Actually, the composition seems fine, a radial, as shown with the structural lines in the illustration.. I do wonder, however, what caused the strange perspective distortion of what should be slightly converging lines, as in the illustration."
[Here I posted his photo with overlying compositional lines]

-------------------------------------------------
Nov 7, 2019 15:39:00 #
Graham Smith Joined: Jun 12, 2013 Posts: 6951 Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

artBob wrote:
Actually, the composition seems fine, a radial, as shown with the structural lines in the illustration.. I do wonder, however, what caused the strange perspective distortion of what should be slightly converging lines, as in the illustration.

Graham Smith posts:
"Here we go again. Let's call it lens distortion and be done with it.

I will add that if you edit, draw your lines on or in any way mark my pictures I will cease posting in here.

It is against the section rules.
Photography is the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event. Henri Cartier-Bresson."
------------------------------------------------------
Nov 7, 2019 16:15:21 #
artBob (a regular here) (online) Joined: May 5, 2012 Posts: 4612 Loc: Near Chicago

Graham Smith wrote:
Here we go again. Let's call it lens distortion and be done with it.

I will add that if you edit, draw your lines on or in any way mark my pictures I will cease posting in here.

It is against the section rules.

I wrote:
"So sorry you feel that way. Threatening others over what you perceive as my indiscretions seems unfair. I will not respond anymore to your photos. I mistakenly thought that you, like me, were a teacher, and would like to pass on knowledge, ascribing to Fair Use, understanding the difference between it and editing. Too bad you cannot answer the questions, as I would think others would find them helpful, you being so respected."
--------------------------------------------

I have used such explanatory overlays in my classes, it is permitted by copyright law, and I did not consider it "editing," as no one in the professional field of visual work does. His reply was venomous, and the moderator insisted I say again what I had already said in previous posts. Such actions can be interpreted as fearful and impotent bulling.

There was no intention to be rude. My mistake was not seeing the small print personal info at the bottom of Smith's post, where he demanded no "editing or marking." My mistake, which I admitted:
"So there we have it. I did not edit, so what I did was not, as I understood it, against the section rules. However, Graham had added "marks" to editing his photos, and I missed that--my fault." https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-618133-3.html

Somehow that got spun up into my purposely not following UHH rules. No one can produce one sentence where I write that. Continually, even as I argue for UHH to follow the rules of the bigger world when it comes to copyright and helpfulness, I recognized the need to follow the rules.

You and others have gotten very riled up over nothing, turning an intended compliment into a major infraction, and making up some story that I "wouldn't follow UHH rules."

I would think anyone with a sense of justice and lack of prejudice would see this. As I tallied up the pro and cons on the thread, however, it came up about 50/50.I would be very interested in the reasons for such a skewed view.

I read "reprehensible," "rude," "let it go"--all from just one side. What those people have done is wrong. It can affect each one in UHH. Is justice and t***h less important than personal prejudice? Tell me just why that should be let go?

If you use Lightroom or Photoshop, I'd be glad to share some routes that have helped me in the areas I mentioned.

Yes, strange as it may seem, folks can get all het up, and you cannot reply if a forum moderator (For Your Consideration in this case) block you. It happened, strangely enough, when I posted a critique of a moderator. The whole episode is hardly uplifting, and no need to visit it unless you really want to. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-618133-1.html

However, one of the threads ("Having the Last Word," with a pic of a nasty ol' tusker supposedly representing a hogger in the OP, https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-618698-1.html) just darn-near begs for a response I've worked up. Hope you like it.

To freedom of speech, and adults being able to moderate themselves!

(Download)

Fair use doesn't exactly protect that, but it also pretty much doesn't care. Sure, I would prefer someone pay me for a print. Sometimes I tell a person who has admired a work and is "deserving" (not enough space to quantify here) that I could send a hi res file for them to print just for their own personal enjoyment.

If someone lifts something of mine and prints it for their own use, so what? As long as I am not suffering financial or personal reputation damage, copyright doesn't much protect me. Nor, do I care.

I have juried many exhibits and conducted even more critiques. All your photos show an interesting idea (orange) or emotions (the bottom two.) However, they all need to have their tonal range improved, with strong lights (no "blow outs" though), good shadow detail, and a rich range of middle tones. The orange is a fine idea, almost sculptural in form; but besides needing much better tones, it also must be in focus, as blurry adds nothing to your INTENT, the ultimate criterion for all photos.

The needs mentioned can be fixed via google research. Best of luck. It is a long, fruitful, and never-ending journey to make good photos.

As a teacher, an artist, and a (I hope) sensible human being, this thread is one of the best that's shown up on UHH.

To shoot what you like, as best as you can, is certainly great. As pointed out, in terms of being a human being, one is not "better" because of levels of achievement, whether physics, photography, or philandering. On the other hand, some strangely deny that levels of achievement exist, insisting that everything is "equal."

We can act and discuss from where we are and what we know, across lines of achievement. I recall hearing a prominent physicist (Feynman) writing and saying often, "If you can't explain it without jargon, so that the ordinary person understands, you do not understand it sufficiently." Hostile elitists and hostile amateurs mess up discussions.