Awful. Poor colour, poor taste. Did you deliberate with this or did you instantly like it?

lovely use of color in this shot.

joe_ob: I instantly liked it. As with the shot I put up the other day I didn't expect this would be to everyone's liking, but I'm not sure why you think it illustrates poor taste. Also, I'm intrigued by your "poor colour" comment - the colour, particularly the restricted palette, was one of the things I really liked about this one.

Wow Joe - either your monitor is way out or you don't have a grasp of what is basically a very nice colour pallette ---- or of course you just don't like it.

The colour scheme (mostly Red and Gray would be regarded as a 'professional colour scheme' and in a purely by chance way seems rather fitting.

Let's all see a bit beyond this image for a second. I was with Dave when this image was taken and I can assure you that the discusion we had when taking the shots was concerning the fact that Djn only ever shows the nice side of Blackpool and I was and have been for some time encouraging him to show the other side which of course can be a little seedy.

To me this shot is again coming around to the question of what photography is about and particular in relationship to photobloggers (again)

I can only state my opinion and I know that many disagree, but basically I believe that our work is as much about providing a record of our environment as it is about producing anything else photographically related.

I want to see photos like this from photobloggers - especially those who are challenging the idea that we are not creditable as serious photographers (believe me that is the case - just do some research)

Great shot Dave in every respect.

As soon as I posted my original comment I regretted it for the tone. Thanks for taking it in the spirit it was meant. I don't like the colour in this one simply as it seems too obvious. This, alongside the woman with the tacky Athena type image, just seems nasty.

Obviously the rest of your stuff isn't grim 80's rubbish, but nothing in this image suggests you think the woman's dress and pose is up for ridicule. So for that reason I just don't get it.

"... but nothing in this image suggests you think the woman’s dress and pose is up for ridicule".

joe: I don't think it's up for ridicule, not in the least. Part of the problem with photoblogs is that images are posted sequentially, and any story you might be working towards – with a series of related images – tends to get lost along the way. What this shot is a part of is a larger project documenting the seedier side of Blackpool, a large part of which revolves around massage parlours, night clubs, drinking, and so on. This photograph, well, the photograph of the woman within this photograph, was at the entrance to a lap dancing club, and I think it's typical of the ways in which women are objectified by these venues (and associated practices).

What I particularly like about it is that it's almost entirely tacky. The lighting is crap, the pose is stereotypical, and so on.

I guess, for me, that this is about documenting something that I find fascinating, and such a documentation shouldn't be taken as a form of endorsement.

Considering that some of your shots are of marketing logos/posters/billboards but incorporated in such a way that sometimes it's not immediately obvious, and also considering that I'm not aware of many if any of your shots of strangers being deliberately posed, and yet this seems to be, can you clarify what/who it is of and how you came to take it?

I love it - black and red are the principal colours I see here and it's great. That use of blur that signifies the classic 'chromasia' look - does it come pre-packaged with the Canon 20D or do you paint it in using PS? ;) Seriously, how much do you paint in?

Oh I was JUST too late - you've explained its origins.

I have to say, in that case, that I don't particularly think there's much here that you can call your own, and while that sounds so nasty, I stand by it. Yes, you framed it in your viewfinder so that the walls/dorrs frame the still of the woman, but that picture with it's crap lighting etc, had already been taken.

I guess it's clever the way it looks as though it IS real, and I appreciate the comment you're making visually that it's sleazy, tacky, lazy etc, but I think there's not much that's YOUR work here. Had there been someone else in the shot, perhaps observing it, or even a group of people reacting to it in different ways that you managed to capture, that would be a truly great, personal vision.

I mean, I like the shot, but not so much now I know what it is.

About the image, I disagree with Joe_ob, but I see where he is coming from. I think that the color is wonderfully chosen, and the image, is technically very good, but I think that would be limited to the discussion amongst photographers.
As a Picture, as a simple "point-and-shoot" image, this, and the other shot of the hat might lack taste, or might even be poor, and that is perfectly fine to hear, at least for me as a photographer.
In that sense, I prefer many times to hear that, than not to hear anything, or hear about purple firing, poor vignettes, burned exposure etc. or even worse, to see my work and think "I should have..."
Photoblogs are a strange forum, today, I received many positive fedback about my post, but half of that has more to do with the luck of my photo op, than with my ability to get that "great" shot, in that sense, I try to take it for what it's worth.
The problem here, in the comments sections of our galleries is that anyone can comment on any grounds.
Recently I had 25 od my images in a art gallery at a cultural week... The comments were completely different, and had more to do with the visuals than any technique, or any photograpic context.

What do I think about this image? I really do like it. To me, the entire image says RED.

Sorry, I thought I should explain what I mean by "technically great". ( before anyone gets going with me ;o) )
I mean that the image DOES really present what it is supposed to.
To me the technical quality of this image is the "lackthereof", which (I assume) is not always easy to achieve.

The colour scheme is very good but its seems to lack light and vibrance, I don't know why though.

the colour, despite the restricted palette, the poor framing. definitely unlikeable.

Intruiging. I really like the composition and the restricted colour palette, but the lighting is very ordinary. I can't figure out how you managed 1/800th despite the 1.4. That lens must really let some light in! It has that Voyeuristic element which I find really interesting, but mostly I love it for the colours and the cliched pose. Good work, I'd say!

One thing that is annoying with your photos, is while they're always gorgeous, beautiful and in good taste, the colors are ALWAYS so vibrant and the image always has this "glossy" element to it. I don't say that out of jealousy or anything like that! This image is a nice change from the usual. Thanks!

When are you going to delete some of the ones you don't like? You should only keep the best, you know...

I am partial to red hues myself - but that aside I really think this is an excellent picture - colour pallettes wise. If there is anything that bothers me in the pic it is the "white" in the red wall. The shadow is so sharp but the wall's brighter part is our of focus - not working for me.

Great picture all in all. I like energy in pics and this has it - not the woman alone the whole thing does!!!

agree with ar. also, i wish there was something to betray it was a poster. a little reflection off the poster maybe.

how many shades of green are there in the world?

I don't mind this. At first I thought it was a reflection in a mirror. The white dots on the dancers.........umm........breasts are disracting though.
An interesting shot, worth posting and viewing...though not the beach! I gets across the feeling you were trying to convey...on the way out to church on Sunday morning right? Kidding ;-) It is a "dirty" picture of a dirty place. I think it does what it was meant to do Dave.
Later,
Rob

Interesting, I like the color and the overall "trashy" mood. The lack of sharpness is distracting, it took me minute to figure out that it must have been taken through a dirty window, which would account for the many spots and other blemishes.

The woman in the ad doesn't do anything for me but I find it interesting the way you framed the shot to make it look like you are looking in on her. After reading the explanation you gave about the photo and the thoughts you had about it, it did make me understand and appreciate what you were trying to do much more than when I first saw it. I also appreciate that you try and make a statement about the objectification of women.

Sorry I don't like this shot either. I feel the woman (or the color of her skin) makes this shot look a little unfinished comparing to most of your other ones. However, I like the color scheme.

Quote....

I have to say, in that case, that I don’t particularly think there’s much here that you can call your own, and while that sounds so nasty, I stand by it. Yes, you framed it in your viewfinder so that the walls/dorrs frame the still of the woman, but that picture with it’s crap lighting etc, had already been taken.

Does that apply to pictures of architecture whereby you are effectively photographing someone elses work. The picture here has some context (perhaps a bit more was required) but none the less I don't think this picture was taken because the photographer wanted to capture someone elses photo.

It was taken as an exploration of wider issues. The steel shutters, the red paint of the walls are just as important visual clues as wel as the actual subject.

Maybe with djn's work we have all got used to seeing something else. Not so long ago he intimated that he would pursue a project of 'Pictures for Airports' I personally prefer to see this kind of photo which says more about his environment.

Another thing that is still very prevalent is the idea that a picture should be tack sharp and without noise, purple fringeing, jpeg artifacts etc. I know it has been a feature of Djn's work but in reality we should all realise that it is the images content that is more important and not just how sharp it is.

Of course for certain types of photography, technical excellence is a must but in many cases I would rather see a strong visual message.

Nice shot and I like the colours here. After watching some of your reflection shots, I am not sure what this is . Is this a straightforward shot of a woman through a doorway or some trick is onvolved here. Please elaborate a bit.

As you mentioned, I like the limited colour palette and no matter what others say, I don't think it is in poor taste and I would like to say that these kind of commenst should not affect your judgement about posting an image in the future as well.

I like the photo and the colors.
Maybe the framing could be a bit larger, so it gets more obvious that she's a lap dancer and not a swimsuits model. But sure enough it was not possible to do so..

Not sure about it.

I think Sven would like it.

I don't know, but controversially, when John Washington speaks, I don't listen. I find his work, considering the fact that he often shoots alongside Dave, aspirational. By this I mean that he seems to "know" alot but not necessarily achieve it. Perhaps you should stick to prose as you seem articulate. I personally prefer to shoot than talk as I think that is what both you and I need John, practice.

Take this quote:

"It was taken as an exploratio"n of wider issues. The steel shutters, the red paint of the walls are just as important visual clues as wel as the actual subject."

Are we in the Tate or up for a Turner prize? I understand your passion but please, don't preach to me, let Dave justify his work. Were a world renowned photographer to contribute I would perhaps bow down and listen, otherwise, I just feel this to be pretentious.

She looks like she could do with some feeding up. Poor lass, all skin and bone.

It's a beast of a shot

Hi guys

Good week?

How are we going to save the world today?

Also, I'd like to announce my engagement to the lovely Hannah!

OK, er, see you soon!

I'm a daily visitor to your site and when this photo appeared on my monitor I had a strong shocked response, exclaiming "whoa"! The strong colours and the voyeuristic tone (What was Dave doing, peeking in on this scene?) accentuate each other.

I also then immediately realized that if this photo had appeared on almost any other photoblog or if I had seen the poster in person, I wouldn't have batted an eye. The primary shock is that it’s on chromasia. Interesting and thought provoking.

The comments dialogue is equally engaging. I think at least some of the critical technical comments are simply an intellectual justification for a strong emotional response. I appreciate the technical comments and I often learn from them why I like. don’t like, or don’t care about a particular photo. But a photo like this packs a huge emotional wallop that goes way beyond apertures and colour schemes and bottom line for me is that is what photography is about. Do I “like” this photo? No. Does it move me or challenge me? Yes. Liking or disliking doesn’t change the impact. Cool. Thanks djn.

I think the fact that this image invokes such an emotional response makes it successful...

Context *is* everything, isn't it?

Couldn't work out if it's a seedy photo of a woman or a seedy photo of a seedy photo of a woman. It just says voyeur to me. I think it lacks context.

I like the colours and the tone though.

Dave, (everyone else naff off...)

As a graphic designer and frustrated artist I must say that, refering to the discussion on the 14 Nov, and this stuff about photoblogs relevance etc... surely its all junk till it pays the bills? ;)

I'm surprised at the shocked responses due to this image - have folk not seen the shots of your naked wife on the hill?

Sorry, I'm not trying to be obnoxious but it seems that the 'art' question (to me) misses the whole point of art itself... I don't come here to be intelectually stimulated - i'm stimulated by the visual; which can quite possibly stimulate my intelect but not necessarily, and neither is it validated by its capability to do so...

It's almost as if (speaking paradoxically, as i'm infact writing here...) that feedback is inappropriate for this kind of site - I believe, at best, the feedback is unnecessary because it doesn't matter what anyone thinks about this stuff - we can't seriously believe that anyhing is right or wrong and the same is surely true of any artform - it is what it is; but we 'artists' do so need to be loved! (and the feedback can pander to that...)

At worst the feedbacks inclusion could be seen as a pretention; just as my believing that anyone would actually read this could be also seen as a pretention.

Aren't we just thinking too hard about all this?

To summarise -

I like your stuff Dave...

I believe that a picture/photo/image etc should not need to be explained or set in a certain context. It works or it doesnt, but if this is part of an evolving series we are unlikely to 'get it' until the whole series unfolds.

Nor do I see it as a crime to think about what we do or to wish to discuss it and enjoy the interesting debates that follow, there are blogs with no comments and no one is obliged to open the ones that are there.

I choose to post a weekly theme, individually the images might be OK but they are possibly greater as a group. For me any image that makes me stop and think is better than one that is sharp and pretty but says nowt. Its all fun but for me part of the fun is why one image means so many different things to different people.

Great shot, but not necessarily for the photography. It is very insightful to read others' reaction. It says more about what the viewer brings to the picture than what the picture is.

I like the shot. I like the composition. I like the colors.

Thanks.

Tobias: I wasn't for one second trying to preach anything to anyone and I frequently qualify what I say by stating that it is only my opinion.

Also, anyone that knows me in person, as opposed to cyberspace would bear witness to the fact that I am extremely open to ideas and suggestions from everyone.

I suppose that there are those people who just shoot photos and those that enjoy engaging in a discussion about photography.

I fall into the latter and mainly because (again in my opinion) I don't feel as though there is much to be gained by wandering around with a camera trying to phtograph a subject that does not mean something to you or at least you have a connection with.

I will not for one second try and justify Daves work but seeing as on some occassions I am actually privy to the discussions that take place at the very point of pressing the shutter then I don't see a problem with sharing our conversations with his audience.

Contrary to what anyone might believe - I don't like everything Dave does and he knows it. My photographic agenda is completely alternative to his and that is what makes art so great. I know that Dave doesn't like all of my work and he just doesn't get it when I post something that apparently has no relevence.

I have no aspirations towards the Turner prize or indeed any other awards of merit based on writing or verbal explanation of my work. What I can say though, is that at the moment it is well documented that the ability to articulate your thoughts is sadly lacking in many UK artists and a lot of educational directives is being focused on rectifying this problem (that is if you think it is a problem)

A lot of photobloggers are perhaps unaware that they would fall into the category of being visual artists. If this is the case then the ability to articulate your thoughts to others is a real plus.

No one is saying that what is offered has to be taken as gospel, because we all know that art is so subjective anyway.

In fact, in relation to Tobias' comment stating that I seem to know a lot yet seldom achieve it is in complete contrast to what I have been told by others.

Who is right and who is wrong, probably no one.

For me John, it is the way you relate your thoughts. I find your approach condescending and often feel that you convey information that implies it is "gospel" rather than engaging people for their opinion. I feel as though the conclusion (yours) is pre-ordained and thus cannot pass my own comment for fear of retribution or lack of knowldge. The point simply is that you tend to state things rather than suggest which I find a most annoying. I shall give you another example of how you continue to patronise those that leave comments. Joe_ob was critical justifiably or otherwise and your post opened with:

"Wow Joe - either your monitor is way out or you don’t have a grasp of what is basically a very nice colour pallette —— or of course you just don’t like it.

The colour scheme (mostly Red and Gray would be regarded as a ‘professional colour scheme’ and in a purely by chance way seems rather fitting."

Don't get me wrong, I like to partake.I feel having Dave pick up on a few of my previous threads for discussion that this exercise is about engagement not ostracising. This is a forum, of sorts.

The condescension towards a valid point made ("you don't have a grasp") by someone who continually visits and contributes to this site I find offensive and contradictory to (yet another) diatribe of yours. The colour scheme is regarded as a "professional colour scheme", by whom? The above quote was delivered as though only you would be informed enough to have drawn the correct conclusion.

I quote:

"I frequently qualify what I say by stating that it is only my opinion."

So the aforementioned quote and it's subsequent reference to professional colour scheme, is this merely your opinion or something ackowledged throughout the photographic world? I don't claim to know but I do not feel that a photoblog is necessarily about being completely informed but drawing your own conclusion. Ifelt the sharp retort of yours towards someone elses valid point was a comment I have noticed quite often from yourself which has sparked this post off. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I feel that Dave replied (rather succinctly, might I add) with his opinion, rather than reams of text that neither engage, or (in my opinion) enlighten.

Don't get me wrong, I like to partake. I feel having Dave pick up on a few of my previous threads to begin a discussion that this exercise is about engagement not ostracising. This is a forum... of sorts.

I still recall that rather childish post you left on my site after I suggested a font change to allow easier reading of yours. One I might add that you agreed with and subsequently initiated. My opinions and critiscm's, when left are considered, for the better. Perhaps you should bear this in mind...

Tobias: Once again I think you are taking everything I say too literally and if I have upset you then you can be sure that I whole heartedly apologise as this is not my intention.

Okay, we all come at this from different levels of experience and maybe because I have been in a postion whereby I have had to qualify my work to earn a living from art rubbed off a bit too much when commenting on this or any other blog.

Quote

I still recall that rather childish post you left on my site after I suggested a font change to allow easier reading of yours. One I might add that you agreed with and subsequently initiated. My opinions and critiscm’s, when left are considered, for the better. Perhaps you should bear this in mind

Is this really the place to be posting such a damnation of me. I would appreciate it if they were directed to me personally by email. As far as I can remember the manner in which you asked for the change to my site left a lot to be desired. It was you who initiated the dialogue about the site change not me.

As far as I can remember, I responded to your request (the only one I have ever had) for a usability change to my site by simply examining just where the source of this advice was coming from (only a natural thing to do) and of course I noticed that in fact you had not put your own house in order first. I don't recall anything childish about my response at all.

I'm sure that Dave doesn't want to see this kind of discussion taking place on his site so can I suggest that if you have a problem with me then I would be more than happy for you to either email me or phone me.

I will restate though that I never intend to preach to anyone. Tobias is probably right that in some cases it may come across that way. Again, anyone who knows me will testify that I am in no way a preacher but rather a person who generally goes out of his way to help and assist and share ideas.

Everyone else who I communicate with on a daily basis senses the humour in much of what I do and say and Tobias with respect I think are taking things too seriously.

I really don't know why some people make it a big deal out of anything. Technically I think this is a good photo. I like the colours, shading and the lighting is very nice. Why would the subject offend anyone? It is not pornographic, it is not even nude, it is just a photo of a girl in bikini!! Why wouldn't Dave try to take this shot if he was already there, at the right place at the right moment?
There shouldn't even be a discussion about this, really.
It is so simple.

It is a nice photo of a girl.

Ok Dave, it's time to post a new photo.

Long time viewer-first time commenting. "Ahem". I agree with Mr. Washington on most of his points. I enjoy pictures, because the photo is something that I have not seen. That is what draws me in. That photo may also be have been of something I saw, but did not take the time to appreciate or take note of. For instance, I went downtown a few weeks ago and came back with roughly 50 shots. The one I like the most is of an alleyway with three orange stripped barriers-the orange screamed out. In regards to Owen b's comments, what part of that picture taking process constitutes as "my work"-I didn't put the orange barriers there, and I certainly did not put the alleyway there? I must have took a picture of someone elses work then apparently. Right? Where can we draw the line? The answer? We do not draw the line. We continue to take pictures of the unknown, and the ordinary-that is what draws us all in. The color in this picture is fantastic-it immediately made me want to find out the story behind it. Now that I know the story, I love it even more. Dave, continue the good work-especially down this "seedier" path.

Jasmine and I see this shot and the resulting discussion very much the same.

I also feel that she and I have been gender supplanted by a couple men that must be having a bad time of month.

David (can't speak for Jasmine, now), please continue your explorations. It's from there that you grow, so ignore these fuddy-duddies. Sure, there'll be times that you don't reach the peak of each endeavor overnight but it's just as interesting to watch your climb.

I think you're talent is analogous to exploring the Himalayas while quick visits to those sites of those blathering shows trails through the foothills.

You want feedback that helps you learn, and I don't know how to advise that you filter comments that seem only citical without value as a critique.

Thanks everyone, even for the bickering ;-) Seriously though, there are differences in opinion, and there are different ways of looking at and talking about photography ...

First I thought the woman was one djn's favourite models! ;- ) Then I thought this was a change room in a women's clothing store and the women was a poster to make you think someone was in the change room!! I didn't know it was djn's inner demons (the red) fighting against his inner angels (the 'white skin') over the lightness (the white shutter) and the darkness (the black shadow). Who will win??.....Stay tuned for the next shutter click. Dave, keep it coming and keep it...um...real?? And keep those damn shoes clean. Excuse the language.
As always, thanks.

Quote Jon:
"we can’t seriously believe that anyhing is right or wrong"

- do people agree? I would beg to differ!

if everything is ruled by relativism, we're heading for a lot of trouble!

peace out

If there is no right or wrong, murder is neutral. Neither right nor wrong....

We all know there is a right and a wrong. The question is, why do we all know it? Why do we all instinctivly know that murder, rape and theft are wrong?

As Akin says, if we take relativisim to its logical conclusion, we are heading for trouble.

I totally agree that it's a hard line to draw - is shooting buildings/graffiti/orange lines in an alleyway your own work, or your shot of someone elses.

The point I was making with this one was that the primary focus, where people were asking "Wow, who is that, where did you find her, why did you choose that pose" (up until Dave told us) was actually already posed and chosen and displayed. The framing of the red around it is aesthetically pleasing and on that level it's an original image. But the fact is that for ME the bulk of the image was already taken, and without some kind of extra context of WHY this shot is here today, I don't think it's all that personal. Like I said, if there was so much as one extra element of context (somebody walking by totally ignoring it, or learing at it, anything) it would give it that special reason to take the shot.

Just my opinion. No requirement to agree with it. :)

Had your wife been drinking ;-)
She looks great :-)