[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: some new imagery; feedback

Oh my gosh, are we back at this again, Keith?  Didn't we already decide a
number of months back that there is no Thor Bols, that it is a made up
persona?  And why hasn't he written to the list at all lately, until your
stuff comes up for question?  I apologize in advance, Thor, if I am so very
wrong on this point.  Don't flame me. And why, also, when I try to "reply
to" does the email go to you, Keith,  and not the Alt Photo list where it
belongs?  Luckily I know how to cut and paste.
     Yes, Cactus Cowboy you could be a little nicer in your criticism, but
certainly what you say bears mention:  Keith, the shadows on the faces of
your models are distracting and do not add to the image. The poses
are...well...for want of a better word, trite.  You could watch the swimsuit
tag that hangs out of the left breast of the first top left picture on the
first site, afiya, I think it is.  IN Afiya 04 14 you have a compositional
"merger":  even though on this list some argue about compositional rules
being bunk, here is a prime example:  the branch looks like it grows out of
her head.  However, with all that said, I bet there are many from this list
that will now, in fact, actually go to your website and give you the
attention you need.
    Enough said.  Now you "big boys" give it a rest, and no more threats,
Keith, on line.
Chris

Catus Cowboy wrote:

> Nastiness?!!  C'mon Jill, you've got to be kidding!
>
> Look again (or for the first time if that's the case) at the photos in
> question on the POV website:
>
> http://www.p-o-v-image.com/afiya4.htm
>
> and
>
> http://www.p-o-v-image.com/freyja4.htm
>
> I agree with Thor Bols.
>
> The afiya4.htm photos are marred by atrocious lighting (splotchy foliage
> shadows) and a distracting background.

Actually the splotchy lighting is intended to take advantage of the halation
effect in the IR...

> Both series of photos are uninspired
> and forgettable.  Does using infrared B&W film somehow make this stuff
> "art".  I think not.
>

Never presented it that way...

Never said the use of a particular technique or medium did so...

>
> Keith asked for feedback.  I don't know Keith, but I suspect that he's a
big
> boy and can handle the criticism.

Criticism is fine..

> So what's the problem?
>

However, I will draw the line between criticism and an outright attack...

What you don't know here Cowboy, can get you killed...

In this case, there is a long history of attacks on me by Thor...  Which at
one
point, got so out of hand that I, myself, went well "over the top" in
response...
Here's a snippet from last time, back in May...
Followed by some May posts:
Thor Bols wrote:
> That's my point, bozo.  I only use MIS inks because the Epson stuff has
> no
> longevity.
>

or

Thor Bols wrote:

> In answer to your original question, in my experience, older (non 1270)
> Epson color inks begin to fade almost immediately.  I've had an print
> made
> with archival inks (from MIS) hanging in direct sun for 6 months now,
> however, with no fading.  But refilling with archival inks is a major
> hassle.
>
> For the best information on Epson, you may wish to consider subscribing
> to
> the Epson mailing list at  http://www.leben.com/lists.  These peaople
> REALLY
> know their stuff.  Certainly, they are infinitely more capable than Keith
>
> Krebs, who has repeatedly shown himself to be clueless on ALL topics.
I don't think I am asking too much here...
Just a bit of respect and civility...
Keith Krebs