photo: unquiet

I will echo in agreement with the others pointing out the excellent tonality; it really gives the image a 3D pop.

What I don't like is the slight lean of the lines. It feels unintentional, and would easily be fixed in Lightroom or Photoshop. I also feel that this (and many) of your photos are much too similar. After about the 6rd or 7th image of leaves, textures and cracks in the ground, I lost interest. Don't get me wrong- some of them are good- but I think you've "used up" this idea.

Is this part of a series, or do things on the ground just constantly catch your eye?

I like this, the sense of static solidity dissolving as it receeds, as has the flesh I presume to buried below, and crucifix in the narrow focal plane expressing the eternal human hope of resurrection. But, Quiet, eternally so.

In contrast, Unquiet , with a branch recently set in motion, some leaves not yet dead, it seems, in an interesting, playful composition. And the possibility that some plant-loving soul can resurrect it to again speak its language of color, motion and changing form.

A disclaimer: This opinion is written under the influence of a healthy dose of my evening Jim Beam sipping whiskey. None the less I take full responsiblity for its content.

Pete

I actually like it.

It looks like a nice backdrop for a sentimental greeting card, or an inspirational poster to sell to corporations to put in the break room above the coffee machine to remind employees to be grateful they still have health coverage so they'd better soar with the eagles... ;-)

Kidding aside, I do like it. I think the rough textures and the luminescent quality of the leaves make it work.

Michael Everett said:

I come to the forum because I like to see art that hits me with some emotional power. What else is photography? About two-thirds of Godrefy's photographs do that. This is one. I like the contrast between the straight lines and right angles of the brick and mortar, and the organic irregularity and subtlety of the of the twigs and leaves. I especially like the tonality of the photograph, the chiascuro, and the way that Godfrey has brought out the luminence of the leaves without going overboard into some sort of weird glow. This is a photograph that works for me.

I'm not sure of the title. I like metaphorical titles, but sometimes metaphor can descend into obscurity, and I'm afraid this one does for me. I say that because I find it a very peaceful scene, as someone mentioned, sort of like a Japanese print.

I'm sorry that Godfrey has become a magnet for a lot of silliness on his postings. He doesn't seem to mind, or at least pretends so, but I get tired of wading through the cr* , and certain posters' crazy agendas. Maybe because I take my photography seriously, although I can't say my work is accomplished, that I tire of adolescents in all but years.

Let's hear it for the ignore button. Tedolf, you keep me off balance. Just when I think it's time for the ignore button for you, you say some perceptive and interesting things. Have to constanstly re-evaluate where are are each day.

Click to expand...

Michael,

Thank you for a thoughtful comment. Sad to see that clown continues to harass people as he is want to do.

The only thing I mind is when the clowns harass other people on the forum. They can harass me all they want, until they are banned for it of course as I will continue to file complaints against their harassment every time I see it. How people react to my photos ... well, De gustibus non disputandem.

As an exhibiting photographer, one gets used to a lot of rejection no matter what style of work is your milieu or how good you are. These two clowns are amateurs, and their opinions carry no weight at all. ;-)
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

Thanks for all the insightful and thoughtful comments. I appreciate you taking the time.

..."Ignore clowns. They feign comedy through fear. Do not be afraid." ...
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

Godfrey said:

Michael,

Thank you for a thoughtful comment. Sad to see that clown continues to harass people as he is want to do.

Click to expand...

The word is 'wont', Godders.

Godfrey said:

The only thing I mind is when the clowns harass other people on the forum. They can harass me all they want, until they are banned for it of course as I will continue to file complaints against their harassment every time I see it. How people react to my photos ... well, De gustibus non disputandem.

Click to expand...

But that is patently untrue!

This unpleasantness kicked off only because you were offended at my response to your images.

IMO, you are spectacularly vain and petulant, irredeemably self-deceived (which is the worst kind of deceit), and exceedingly malicious into the bargain - a veritable pot-pourri of the vices, in fact.

Godfrey said:

As an exhibiting photographer, one gets used to a lot of rejection no matter what style of work is your milieu or how good you are. These two clowns are amateurs, and their opinions carry no weight at all. ;-)

Click to expand...

Therein is nub of the matter - 'Godfrey' is the artist, the adept, the channel for spiritual insight through his photographs.

Others are mere 'fools' and 'clowns' - and even more foolish when they fail to spot just how great you are.

Is that not so?

Framerate said:

... The word is 'wont', Godders. ...

Click to expand...

Thank you for the correction.

Framerate said:

... This unpleasantness kicked off only because you were offended at my response to your images. ...

Click to expand...

Not at all. I could care less what you think of my photographs. I could care less what role you want to play as forum **** cop.

This unpleasantness , as you so adroitly put it, was kicked off by you and tedolf repeatedly harassing other people who respond to the photo threads I post. Several of them complained on the forum. I issued complaints about it to DPR, and will continue to do so every time I see you do it.

The rest of your opinion is not relevant and makes your antic clownish display. It's also a transgression of several of the DPR forum posting rules, which I've noted in today's complaint to DPR about you as well (again).

You'd do yourself, and everyone else, a great service by simply not opening my photo post threads. They're supposedly not to your taste, why you continue to be so fascinated with them remains a mystery to me. I don't open your threads, or complain about them, because I'm not interested in what you have to say about anything. Unless, of course, you write opinion and post horsepucky that is a direct and pointed insult against me personally, yet another transgression of the forum rules.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

Godfrey said:

Framerate said:

... The word is 'wont', Godders. ...

Click to expand...

Thank you for the correction.

Godfrey said:

... This unpleasantness kicked off only because you were offended at my response to your images. ...

Click to expand...

Not at all. I could care less what you think of my photographs. I could care less what role you want to play as forum **** cop.

Click to expand...

I'm going to assume that you are familiar with Godwin's law

In this case, of course, you have invoked 'nazism' in an attempt to bolster your own position - presumably, you think that by portraying me as an illiberal ****, you will gain some sympathy and support here?

However, your smokey mirrors are unable to disguise the fact that it was you who issued a formal complaint about myself and Tedolf-king-of-trolls - thus embracing the illiberalism of which you purport to disapprove.

Further, your complaint was made, not as a public spirited defence of those whose arthritic hands were unable to guide their own fingers to the 'complain' button - but solely because your sense of importance was offended by a less than enthusiastic reception to your images.

Some people do claim to like them - although, whether their enthusiasm is prompted by genuine delight, or a by a desire not offend you lest they also become the subject of one of your complaints, must be a matter of conjecture.

For myself, I'm simply unable to lie so convincingly - nor to describe a snapshot of a weed as 'a skilful interplay of light and texture', and other such rubbish.

Some people would appreciate complete honesty - but you appear to need endless flattery, which I am unable to supply.

Good grief - I must have been really muddled up last night as I posted this rambling comment to the wrong message! Pretty obviously, though, should have been a response to Quiet . Was it the Jim Beam as in the disclaimer, or just the tangled neurons, senile plaques, and cortical atrophy of 70 years?

I seem not to be in very good control of my keyboard or mouth these days, and I apologize to Godfrey for the much too personal references I made, and to the participants in this forum for the disruption I contributed to.

I will copy and re-post my comment above to its intended place.

Pete

peter paul h said:

Framerate said:

Roosje said:

I suspect he is someone who would comment on work done by for example Kadinsky that his baby cousin is capable of the same

Click to expand...

Being serious for a moment.

The acclamation of rubbish as 'art' is on of the surest signs of a depraved and decaying civilisation.

It's a genuine sickness - deceived minds hailing a toilet roll, or a heap of bricks, or a unmade bed, or the entrails of a dead animal (all of which have been exhibited at the Tate) as bona-fide artworks, worth huge sums of money.

Millions of people in this world are dying for a lack of clean water, more millions die for a lack of food, or medicine, warmth, or shelter - while we in the effete West study a crumpled snot-covered tissue, and gravely pronounce it to be 'art'!

God will judge us for our iniquitous foolishness - and rightly so.

Click to expand...

Weaken your statements, madame/monsieur. You have wished hell to a number of famous artists. You forget that the (only) value of (any) art [including photography] is in its symbolic or metaphorical meaning. It is a scandal you put this trash on an art forum. Yours, Peter Paul H.

Click to expand...

I do not think that the Renaissance Masters would have agreed with you Peter .

DNG2 said:

tedolf said:

DNG2 said:

It has an "Arty" feel,
But not "Unquiet"

I have no suggestions, other than more dramatic lighting, and maybe fake wind blur on some of the leaves.

at least your are taking your "ideas to print"

Nice tones BTW...
--
Leica M5 | Olympus XA | Pentax K20d | Panasonic G1
Too many lenses ;-D
http://www.pbase.com/peterarbib

Click to expand...

????

Ideas to print?

Click to expand...

LOL, LOL
Figure of speech......
That is: at least he is recording his ideas and posting them for critic

snip....

--
Leica M5 | Olympus XA | Pentax K20d | Panasonic G1
Too many lenses ;-D
http://www.pbase.com/peterarbib

Click to expand...

No he is not. If you criticize them he hits the " Complain" button. Further, he refuses to post them in the correct place, here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=36653689

Godfrey,

I really like this photo, though I don't understand the title. Sometimes I like your work and sometimes not, but this is a favorite.

My comments will probably bring on more immaturity and stupidity. Sorry.
-
Mary

I generally like your compositions and framing. Sometimes you nail it. Sometimes you don't. The problem I find with shots like this is that they need to be technically stronger to get people looking past the "it's just some leaves on a stick" reaction and appreciating its compositional elements, tonal qualities, balance and meaning. Technical perfection is especially expected when the subject is, like this, inanimate. Thus, things like the bit of extra leaves and pine needles at the right and in the cracks subtract from the overall impact. The distortion due to the fact that you weren't perfectly perpendicular to the subject is evident in the rightmost crack. The processing is interesting in that it gives the image an almost B&W negative effect, but one of the leaves appears too "burnt." I could go on, but I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at.

On the other "issue" being debated here, it's clear that you're being hounded in a very juvenile way by several posters. Judging by the work in their galleries, they should not be so confident in their ability to critically judge the works of others (invited or not). The irony here is that they are among the most frequent posters yet as far as I can see they manage to offer extraordinarily little in the way of substantive input about the format.

Having said that, though, I agree with them on one point. This particular forum is about the Micro 4/3 cameras and, while the management has apparently loosened its rules about posting images for not other reason than to share them and receive C&C, there needs to be a respectful limit to the frequency with which one takes advantage of this "common" for such purpose. Even if you don't respond in kind when someone makes an ass of himself by negatively posting to each of your images, you inevitably generate frustration simply by the number of your postings and by engaging in tricks (like frequent "thank you" responses) and getting sucked into shouting matches that keep your posts active. Don't flatter yourself that it's due to the provocative or controversial nature of your images. I've seen the exact same thing happen in other forums here with mundane, run-of-the-mill nature shots and travel shots.

Post less frequently and be more selective - some of your shots are really quite good - and you'll encounter fewer forum bullies and maybe hone your selection/editing skills in the process.

--
My photos: http://www.pbase.com/imageiseverything/root

Thanks once again for the interesting comments.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

--
Cheers
Billy
http://williammartinwigandia.posterous.com/
http://www.wigandia.com

Framerate said:

My point, however, remains valid - which is, that it is only the pampered overfed, over indulged 'West' that can afford the luxury of artistic critique.

Click to expand...

Your point was never valid to begin with. You must have never traveled in developing countries.

Framerate said:

In so many parts of this world, Godrey's 'Twig' would represent desperately needed fuel, his 'Car Wash' would mean only the criminal squandering of fresh water, and his 'Gravestone' would serve only to mock the pit into which they are obliged to bury their own dead children.

Click to expand...

And perhaps his twin on concrete was a commentary on exactly that?

But you'll never find out.

Dorus

Dorus said:

Framerate said:

My point, however, remains valid - which is, that it is only the pampered overfed, over indulged 'West' that can afford the luxury of artistic critique.

Click to expand...

Your point was never valid to begin with. You must have never traveled in developing countries.

Dorus said:

In so many parts of this world, Godrey's 'Twig' would represent desperately needed fuel, his 'Car Wash' would mean only the criminal squandering of fresh water, and his 'Gravestone' would serve only to mock the pit into which they are obliged to bury their own dead children.

Click to expand...

And perhaps his twin on concrete was a commentary on exactly that?

But you'll never find out.

Dorus

Click to expand...

Uh, Dorus, it's called satire.

Weylyn said:

I will echo in agreement with the others pointing out the excellent tonality; it really gives the image a 3D pop.

What I don't like is the slight lean of the lines. It feels unintentional, and would easily be fixed in Lightroom or Photoshop. I also feel that this (and many) of your photos are much too similar. After about the 6rd or 7th image of leaves, textures and cracks in the ground, I lost interest. Don't get me wrong- some of them are good- but I think you've "used up" this idea.

Is this part of a series, or do things on the ground just constantly catch your eye?

Click to expand...

He "used up" this idea????

What are you talking about?

The idea was to make fools of the people in this forum by throwing junk on the ground, photographing it and then watch idiots pontificate about the "excellent tonality" and "3D pop".

He is laughing at you. Do you know that?

You know what? I see what you are doing. Your above comment was totally toung in cheek. Yes, that is it. You were just going along with Godfrey's joke and you did it very well. Of course you were not serious. See that you fooled me for a moment, but then I caught on.

There, I feel much better now.

tedolf said:

Dorus said:

Framerate said:

My point, however, remains valid - which is, that it is only the pampered overfed, over indulged 'West' that can afford the luxury of artistic critique.

Click to expand...

Your point was never valid to begin with. You must have never traveled in developing countries.

tedolf said:

In so many parts of this world, Godrey's 'Twig' would represent desperately needed fuel, his 'Car Wash' would mean only the criminal squandering of fresh water, and his 'Gravestone' would serve only to mock the pit into which they are obliged to bury their own dead children.

Click to expand...

And perhaps his twin on concrete was a commentary on exactly that?

But you'll never find out.

Dorus

Click to expand...

Uh, Dorus, it's called satire.

Click to expand...

Oh dang, I missed that. I thought it was a declaration of ignorance and stupidity. So let me reconsider. Hmmm, satire, supposed to humorous .... no, not working.

Want to try again?

Dorus

tedolf said:

He "used up" this idea????

Click to expand...

Yes, he did. I thought one or two of the photos were okay. Nothing mind-blowing or crazy, but okay. I don't mind experimental photography every once in a while.

tedolf said:

then watch idiots pontificate about the "excellent tonality" and "3D pop".

Click to expand...

Tonality has nothing to do with subject matter or composition, and that's why I addressed it as the strongest element of the photo, to my eyes. If you don't see it, you may need to study b&w photography a bit more.
Thanks for the subtle reference to me being an idiot.

tedolf said:

He is laughing at you. Do you know that?

Click to expand...

I don't think so.

tedolf said:

You know what? I see what you are doing. Your above comment was totally toung in cheek. Yes, that is it. You were just going along with Godfrey's joke and you did it very well. Of course you were not serious. See that you fooled me for a moment, but then I caught on.

Click to expand...

I see that you're trying your hardest to 'make an example' out of me, but you're directing your insulting sarcasm at the wrong person.

Like you, I don't like Godfrey's photography (or at least what he posts here). It's not to my taste. I don't like that he posts one image in each thread, or that he posts as many threads as he does.

But unlike you, I try to find redeeming qualities in art or photography that wouldn't normally be to my liking. I also don't foolishly assume that I hold the highest sense of taste in art, or that everyone who doesn't like what I like must be an idiot. It's one thing to dislike someone's photography and let them know it, and it's another thing entirely to rant and rave on them with no respect.

I don't think I've ever met you or discussed anything on this forum with you. It's upsetting how you seem so quick to take me and fit me in the mold that 'supports' your personal argument. You don't know the first thing about me as a photographer. Please try not to make any more foolish accusations.