Moose's well articulated observations point up one feature of today's
widespread human attention span whether it is sourced from CNN, print
media or visual media. Anything taking longer than 20 seconds of
undivided attention is generally beyond most people's attention span and
is either "tuned out", turned off or criticized for requiring too much
concentration. It is not by accident that the likes of CNN limit their
news presentations to 20 seconds or less before changing camera angles,
speakers or both. Tina's only fault, if that is indeed the proper word,
is that her presentation required more than 20 seconds of undivided
attention for which at least Mr Moose no doubt found to be the limit of
his attention span. I am sure that he is not alone in this world. That
said, one's short attention span in no way should be a factor for
criticizing the quality and appeal of Tina's work.
Personally I enjoyed viewing the entire gallery.
jh
On 8/18/2016 6:37 PM, Tina Manley wrote:
I always appreciate your comments, Moose, even when you are brutally
honest. I've tried to be careful and post only single photos that I've
selected. Sometimes I'll put a link to my website where there are hundreds
more similar photos. I am used to editing for stock where a buyer might
prefer a horizontal or a vertical or one with room for text in a particular
place. Editing for stock is totally different from editing for a gallery.
I do make much more money from stock that from galleries. Stock is still
what pays for all of my equipment and travels - I just don't buy quite as
much equipment or take quite as expensive trips as in the past when stock
was more lucrative!
The photos for the Syrian refugee project are all of Syrian children that I
have taken over the last 5 years. I offered the committee samples of note
cards and they chose the ones with vignetting. I've already sold quite a
few sets of those and am busy printing them right now.
I've taken two courses by Maggie Steber on how to edit photos but I'm not
sure much of it stuck. I can edit other people's work but not my own. I
keep trying to find a place to post photos where I can get editing help but
have not found it yet.
Thanks,
Tina
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8/17/2016 6:58 AM, Tina Manley wrote:
PESO:
I posted some of these on the LUG Facebook page and there was some
interest
in how they were processed. I've posted the original files - which will
be
in the exhibit as 24"x36" canvas prints - and also the manipulated files
with an applied vignette which will be sold as note cards. They were all
converted with Silver Efex Pro.
http://tinamanley.photoshelter.com/gallery/Syrian-Refugees/G
0000rQI3x98XfMI/
Click on each one to see them larger. 100% of the sales will go to
scholarships for Syrian children . . .
What you are doing is admirable.
Photographically, they aren't interesting to me. The portraits have none
of the warmth and sense of connection with the photographer that make your
portraits of Central American children, especially, and many others from
your travels so special. Only one shows a little of this sense. Most are
looking off in to the distance, and of the couple of boys (one twice) who
look directly at the camera, the sense is more of aggressiveness than
warmth.
I understand that the circumstances are very different, but as a
'consumer'/viewer, that doesn't make an un-engaging image engaging.
As a matter of personal taste, I don't like most of the vignetted images,
not the vignetting, per se, but the other processing. A couple have
god-awful artifacts, as in Yusuf Damascus' hair and the line around his
lower face.
On 8/18/2016 4:01 AM, Tina Manley wrote:
Which is why I post things on Facebook instead of here.
I suppose this may be your response to the lack of responses to your post
here?
I can't speak for others. I was following my personal general rule not to
respond to images posted that I don't much like* - unless I have something
possibly constructive to contribute. These images have been made, printed,
and will be used as you say. I couldn't see where I could be constructive.
I imagine your responses on FB have been mostly to the plight of these
children and the loveliness of your effort on their behalf. Here, for good
or ill, I tend to respond to images for their qualities as photographs,
unless they engage me emotionally. These didn't, which may be more my
failing than yours or theirs. The silence of others may, or may not, mean
something similar?
Moose
* Too easily confused with my other reason for non-response to posted
images, not enough time. I sometimes feel bad about not commenting on some
posted images.
PS: I suppose that I should also mention that I don't respond to many of
your travel posts because they are overwhelming in number and eye glazing
in repetition. Endless slight variations of the same subjects in
essentially the same poses sends me me away pretty quickly. There's clearly
some good stuff in there, but it's often too much time and effort to find
it.
I imagine it's a technique to maximize stock sales? Is that useful
anymore, in light of your and AG's recent comments on the paltry income
they now generate?
In any case, to me, the job of artists is to edit, and only present those
versions of their works that best represent what they are trying to create
and put out in the world. You have some wonderful artistic skills, that you
water down by not editing. I'm not personally interested in browsing
through stock sales sites.
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|