Just a couple of days ago, you were outraged by a similar post from ultimar
Country Doctor, read my post #3. It says "I'm not claiming!" ;) Although, just now I looked more closely and saw a fish. ))) The corresponding marine associations immediately came to mind... and a boat appeared, and bait for that very fish. ))) The picture took on a completely different meaning. And someone else even saw a ballerina! It proves once again that we are all different and see similar images differently!
DoubleLaura, This feeling will pass as you begin to understand more of what was said. I swear. Svetlana Likhanova,
read my post #3. It says "I'm not making any claims!"
In essence, it's exactly the same as ultimar told you. The point isn't that you wrote that you're not making any claims, but that you made assumptions without any substantiation. In other words, you simply stated your taste: I'd like it that way. Nothing more. And what does your desire have to do with a picture that wasn't yours? You were upset about this very fact when you were regulating ultimar using the jam example. Isn't that right?
DoubleLaura, This feeling will pass as you begin to understand more of what was said. I swear. Svetlana Likhanova, read my post #3. It says there - I'm not making any claims! In essence, it's exactly the same as ultimar told you. The point isn't that you wrote that you're not making any claims, but that you made assumptions without any substantiation. In other words, you simply stated your taste: I'd like it that way. Nothing more. And what does your desire have to do with a picture that wasn't yours? You were upset about this very fact when you were regulating ultimar using the jam example. Isn't that so?
Country Doctor, you know, you're killing my last desire to comment on anything on this site.. )))
There, we were talking about the stylization of the works, that is, about their presentation. Here, I was talking specifically about the composition, which I initially found lacking. For me, that served as sufficient grounds, which is why I spoke up.
I have neither the time nor any desire to further develop this topic with you!
Svetlana Likhanova, I deleted my photo solely because of your comment, "Based on the photo... Maybe we should move away from the centralized square crop?" to avoid raising another dispute. But since it arose here and concerns me, I can't help but notice that your double standards are unlikely to please anyone. If you've already stated the principle: "Just look at the work, and if you like it, enjoy it! If you don't, move on; maybe there's something more interesting there," then be consistent! Or does this only apply to comments under your work?
Svetlana Likhanova, I deleted my photo only because of your comment, "Based on the photo... Maybe we should move away from the centralized square crop?" to avoid raising another dispute. But since it arose here and concerns me, I can't help but notice that your double standards are unlikely to please anyone. If you've already stated the principle: "Just look at the work, and if you like it, enjoy it! If you don't, move on, maybe there'll be something more interesting there," then be consistent! Or does this only apply to comments under your own work?
ultimar, calm down ))) I won't comment on ANY other people's work on this photo resource anymore. You can upload your own work and not worry about "double" standards! By the way, the comment under your work was not a statement, but a QUESTION, if so... ;) And as you said there... - GOOD LUCK!
Svetlana Likhanova, And I have an association with an angel with raised wings and raised hands, in which he holds a large sword (upper part of the frame) as if swinging it.
Any associations are up to the viewer. Evgeny, in my opinion, simply creates formally harmonious compositions that he "sees" in the world of objects around him.
Svetlana Likhanova, I'm not worried))) and I have no desire to close your comments, I just really want you to change your attitude toward people who come under your photos, and then we can count on a normal dialogue. By the way, my comment under your work also didn't contain any assertion, just in case))
babka.ru, your mat is crooked))) "The ability to choose the right frame separates a talented photographer from a mediocre one" There are already at least two frames inside – choose the appropriate ones for them.
babka.ru, your mat turned out crooked))) "The ability to choose the right frame distinguishes a capable photographer from a mediocre one." There are already at least two frames inside – choose the right one for them.
ultimar, in visual art, one convincing example is worth more than dozens of written "footcloths"... so try to put your thoughts into a visual, more convincing form. Okay!?
I want to understand. Evgeny, what attracted you to this subject? The form, the content, the composition, the structure? Or did you also see an angel, a fish, a bird, or something else here?
I want to understand. Evgeny, what attracted you to this subject? Form, content, composition, structure? Or did you also see an angel, a fish, a bird, or something else here...?
Olga Dan, Yes, you're certainly right—I was primarily attracted to this work by the form, content, composition, and structure. And of course, I also saw an angel, a fish, a bird, and something else.)))
Olga Dan, Yes, you're absolutely right—I was primarily drawn to this work by the form, content, composition, and structure. I also saw the angel, fish, bird, and other things, of course.)))
Evgeny, I admire you and your imagination, Evgeny!!!) I can understand the structure—if this photo were classified as a still life—if I worked on the structure and color, and framed it in a wide, contrasting frame, as Dmitruk does, it would look different. But I just can't seem to get my imagination going with the angelfish...((I'll practice!)
I can understand the structure part—if you classify this photo as a still life, you need to work on the structure and color.
Olga Dan, Olga, what are you talking about when you say structure? Maybe you meant texture? How can you "work on the structure" in a finished image? And why classify this as a still life? Although, of course, you could, with a bit of a stretch, call it a still life, but what difference would that make?
Olga Dan, Olga, what are you talking about structure? Maybe you meant texture? How can you "work on the structure" in a finished image? And why classify this as a still life? Although, of course, it could be considered a still life, but what difference would that make?
Marina Glebova, I'm talking about the structure and texture of these wooden frames—work on them, "bring out" their texture, enhance the contrast, etc. After all, this is the quiet life of objects, in this case, old, dusty, discarded frames—a still life is more appropriate. Texture would be superfluous here, there's already so much going on.
Olga Dan, Olga, what are you talking about when you say structure? Maybe you meant texture? How can you "work on structure" in a finished image? And why classify this as still life? Although, of course, it could be considered still life, but what difference would that make?
Marina Glebova, In Materials Science[edit | edit wiki text] Structure is a material or object that possesses structure in the basic sense, i.e., consisting of regions or layers of different substances arranged in a specific way.
I'm talking about the structure and texture of these wooden frames—I need to work on them, "bring out" their texture, enhance the contrast, etc. After all, this is the quiet life of objects—in this case, old, dusty, discarded frames—a still life is more appropriate. Texture would be superfluous here, there's already so much going on.
Olga Dan, you're using the terms somewhat incorrectly.
It would be more correct to write "texture-texture" rather than "structure-texture." All objects have their own texture and texture (texture isn't just something photographers apply as a new layer when "producing" their still lifes in editing software). But structure is something entirely different. Simply put, structure is construction.
Olga Dan, that's the ballerina I see, try it with the fish yourself)
DoubleLaura, If you really stretch your imagination, then, of course, you can fantasize and see a lot, even in landscapes, especially in the sky... but why? It's like kindergarten...) In this case, I was interested in something else - what attracted Evgeny to photograph this set of objects and show it to us? That's what I'm trying to understand.
Those who find less than ten in two minutes are considered unpromising for learning visual I.
babka.ru, I saw so much here in one minute that it even scared me!!!))) So, I have a chance of learning visual I..) But again, I don't understand, do I really need this???) Life is so harsh and pragmatic now that there's simply no time for fantasy...((Although, sometimes, it really distracts from the harsh reality!
DoubleLaura, If you really stretch your imagination, you can, of course, fantasize and see a lot, even in landscapes, especially in the sky... but why? It's like kindergarten...) In this case, I was interested in something else: what attracted Evgeny to photograph this set of objects and show it to us? That's what I'm trying to understand.
Olga Dan, There's no need to try to understand what attracts any author on a sensory level—it's all very subjective and doesn't need any explanation—it's either you like it or you don't—that's how it seems to me. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. But I don't want to get into a debate, so you either agree with me or not.)))
DoubleLaura, If you really stretch your imagination, then, of course, you can fantasize and see a lot, even in landscapes, especially in the sky... but why? It's like kindergarten...) In this case, I was interested in something else—what attracted Evgeny to photograph this set of objects and show it to us? That's what I'm trying to understand.
Olga Dan, I didn't have to strain at all; I saw the image as soon as I opened the picture.
[quote] But again, I don't understand, do I need this???) Life is so harsh and pragmatic now that there's simply no time for fantasy... [quote]
There's no need to try to understand what attracts any author on a sensory level—it's all very subjective and doesn't need any explanation—it's either you liked it or you didn't.
Evgeny, Absolutely spot-on. It's impossible to say more precisely.
On the two leftmost backgrounds.
This feeling will pass as you begin to understand more of what was said. I swear.
Svetlana Likhanova, In essence, it's exactly the same as ultimar told you.
The point isn't that you wrote that you're not making any claims, but that you made assumptions without any substantiation.
In other words, you simply stated your taste: I'd like it that way. Nothing more.
And what does your desire have to do with a picture that wasn't yours?
You were upset about this very fact when you were regulating ultimar using the jam example.
Isn't that right?
There, we were talking about the stylization of the works, that is, about their presentation. Here, I was talking specifically about the composition, which I initially found lacking. For me, that served as sufficient grounds, which is why I spoke up.
I have neither the time nor any desire to further develop this topic with you!
I can't accept this criticism.
I hope I'm killing my desire to write less-than-sounding comments. That's putting it mildly.
I'm sure you're wrong about that too.
By the way, my comment under your work also didn't contain any assertion, just in case))
http://i9.pixs.ru/storage/7/2/8/Bezimeni1j_3075369_22324728.jpg
Isn't it more convincing?
Maybe you meant texture?
How can you "work on the structure" in a finished image?
And why classify this as a still life? Although, of course, you could, with a bit of a stretch, call it a still life, but what difference would that make?
Structure is a material or object that possesses structure in the basic sense, i.e., consisting of regions or layers of different substances arranged in a specific way.
It would be more correct to write "texture-texture" rather than "structure-texture."
All objects have their own texture and texture (texture isn't just something photographers apply as a new layer when "producing" their still lifes in editing software).
But structure is something entirely different. Simply put, structure is construction.
Those who find less than ten in two minutes are considered unpromising for visual arts training.
[quote] But again, I don't understand, do I need this???) Life is so harsh and pragmatic now that there's simply no time for fantasy... [quote]
But how can you be creative without imagination?
Absolutely spot-on. It's impossible to say more precisely.