Talk Photography Forum - a discussion

Bythesea said:
I think that the biggest problem with those threads are the pictures posted on them rather than elsewhere -
Click to expand...
Technically and within the strict rules, you are correct, they shouldn't post images in the "talk sections"
However it's useful for someone considering "that camera" or "that lens" to find examples of what its capable of, in the real world, not under test conditions by a Journalist / or someone paid to extol the virtues etc of, rather than search the myriad of forums and threads hoping to stumble over an example...
 
Cobra said:
Technically and within the strict rules, you are correct, they shouldn't post images in the "talk sections"
However it's useful for someone considering "that camera" or "that lens" to find examples of what its capable of, in the real world, not under test conditions by a Journalist / or someone paid to extol the virtues etc of, rather than search the myriad of forums and threads hoping to stumble over an example...
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, in the real world, most of the photos shown in the owners' threads have been extensively PPed, so while they may have been taken by the kit under discussion, the results aren't really what the cameras are capable of, more what the users have managed to get from the resulting files.
 
Bythesea said:
Quite easily. I see no problem with sharing pictures, but they are posted on groups where the only people likely to see them are people who use the same equipment. If the pictures are worth sharing then the make of equipment is unimportant, as surely the image is the important thing, not what was used to capture it.
Click to expand...

Where should they post them then? I see it as no different to posting images in the specific image topic threads. I see no bragging, no defence of gear, there's the odd bit of crit when it's asked for too. I enjoy viewing images that were shot using gear I also use, it can inspire you to get out and shoot more too. I think it would wreck the forum if that was to end.
 
sirch said:
You better have a word with the F&C gang...
Click to expand...

Historically, the reason why there were a whole bunch of photo's posted in the Film and Conventional Talk section was simply that we didn't actually HAVE a "photo's from film" section. So, every time we posted a shot in the rest of the forum, taken on Acros 100 some ignoramous would say "that's nice, but can I see the Colour Version..." and we'd have to explain that it was shot on Black and White Film, and there WAS no colour version. I know this sounds like a trivial thing, but when it happened EVERY time you posted anything, it soon wore extremely thin. Even when we posted the picture, and made a special effort to explain it was shot on film, in black and white, there'd still be some cockwomble who'd ask to see the colour version...

In the end, in an effort to stop me banning soo many people for being imbeciles, it was kind of agreed that staff would turn a blind eye to photo sharing threads in the F&C ghetto...

I must say, I do actually try and encourage people to actually post in the photo's from film section, but there's a couple of threads and the competitions that have a life of their own now :cool:
 
Mr Badger said:
Shhhh… he doesn't want the rest of the Admin mods to know he's gone native on them! :D
Click to expand...

not "gone native" - I was a denizen of the F&C section way before they gave me the green badge - though I think I came to managements attention through my work on the POTY competition way way back in the day.
 
And theyyou've been regretting it ever since!!! :P
 
TheBigYin said:
Historically, the reason why there were a whole bunch of photo's posted in the Film and Conventional Talk section was simply that we didn't actually HAVE a "photo's from film" section. So, every time we posted a shot in the rest of the forum, taken on Acros 100 some ignoramous would say "that's nice, but can I see the Colour Version..." and we'd have to explain that it was shot on Black and White Film, and there WAS no colour version. I know this sounds like a trivial thing, but when it happened EVERY time you posted anything, it soon wore extremely thin. Even when we posted the picture, and made a special effort to explain it was shot on film, in black and white, there'd still be some cockwomble who'd ask to see the colour version...

In the end, in an effort to stop me banning soo many people for being imbeciles, it was kind of agreed that staff would turn a blind eye to photo sharing threads in the F&C ghetto...

I must say, I do actually try and encourage people to actually post in the photo's from film section, but there's a couple of threads and the competitions that have a life of their own now :cool:
Click to expand...

Funny you should say that, I think the last time I posted a photo in the 'Photos from film' C&C section someone suggested that I should tweak the highlights in the RAW file :thinking: So I try not to leave the sanctuary of the F&C section when posting photos these days, it saves on confusion!

In all fairness, I think they'd done what many of us probably do: See a photo on the home page header strip, click on it, look at it, and perhaps make a comment if we think that we have some worthwhile input... but what most of us probably don't do is look at the 'section' the photot has been added to. Joking aside (and I do like a joke, as modern life does seem rather short of laughs), I don't mind that at all; at least I know someone has looked, taken an interest, and given up their time to try to help.
 
Last edited:
A warning has been given for this post
gramps said:
:thinking:
Click to expand...


Sorry to confuse you... although it clearly isn't very difficult. Let me clarify: I can happily live without having to interface with miserable, narrow minded old t***s like you.

There... that better? People like you turn my stomach... so prescriptive. Plus.. all your photographs are f*****g boring. LOL


See you all in a few years.. if that's not got me banned... in which case.... (shrug).... who gives a s***.
 
Last edited:
I was talking to my mam yesterday about life the universe and everything and we got talking about our school days. My mam was the first in her family to go to High School and she's always been proud of it. I want to a pretty awful school. I saw teachers assault children physically, mentally and emotionally and generally violate their rights in a way which would be front page news for the tabloids today. Other teachers were just rank bad teachers. I came on more once I left school and went to college.

These days I don't worry too much for the physical and mental health of children at school but maybe there's a need to be concerned about what's going on in further education if that above is any sort of representative example of how that individual relates to others :(
 
woof woof said:
I was talking to my mam yesterday about life the universe and everything and we got talking about our school days. My mam was the first in her family to go to High School and she's always been proud of it. I want to a pretty awful school. I saw teachers assault children physically, mentally and emotionally and generally violate their rights in a way which would be front page news for the tabloids today. Other teachers were just rank bad teachers. I came on more once I left school and went to college.

These days I don't worry too much for the physical and mental health of children at school but maybe there's a need to be concerned about what's going on in further education if that above is any sort of representative example of how that individual relates to others :(
Click to expand...

I went to a s*** secondary school too, but that was the end of my full time education.

As for Pookey, it should be obvious that his interactions with adults on the internet (particularly those that constantly goad him) isn’t a measure of his interactions with students.

In the same way that my blunt advice here isn’t a reflection of my customer service, or the way I treat my peers at work is with more candour than any staff I manage.

It really ought to be obvious to an educated intelligent adult that we all treat people differently depending on our relationship to them.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Sorry to confuse you... although it clearly isn't very difficult. Let me clarify: I can happily live without having to interface with miserable, narrow minded old t***s like you.

There... that better? People like you turn my stomach... so prescriptive. Plus.. all your photographs are f*****g boring. LOL


See you all in a few years.. if that's not got me banned... in which case.... (shrug).... who gives a s***.
Click to expand...

Same old, same old.
 
woof woof said:
Yup.

The whole "I can say what the **** I like on the net, treat people like sh!t and be an ar$e all day long" attitude just doesn't sit we with me.
Click to expand...

He’s always been an utter gent to me, and to most other people too, however there are people who constantly go out of their way to goad him, again, you choose to behave how you like, but if someone is aggressive towards me, I believe it’s fair to do the same in return.

YMMV but when someone comes here to bully others, I think it’s fair to call them an ar$e

You personally have thought it ok to abuse me here in the past, and as far as I can see I’ve never done the same to you :) there’s some double standards at play here ;)
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
He’s always been an utter gent to me, and to most other people too, however there are people who constantly go out of their way to goad him, again, you choose to behave how you like, but if someone is aggressive towards me, I believe it’s fair to do the same in return.

YMMV but when someone comes here to bully others, I think it’s fair to call them an ar$e

You personally have thought it ok to abuse me here in the past, and as far as I can see I’ve never done the same to you :) there’s some double standards at play here ;)
Click to expand...

I don't think I've actually abused you Phil but I have pointed out that you repeatedly and I assume deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent what other people clearly mean. As you're an intelligent guy I do think this is something you're aware of and do deliberately and in doing so you seem to take a delight in belittling and bullying others. I do wonder how you treat others away from the net as repeated negative behavior is perhaps at times difficult to compartmentalise and turn off and people who are twits on line are often twits in their off line lives too. That's for you and you're conscience.

Personally when people behave like an arse to others I tend to think less of them and when they do it deliberately and repeatedly so then doubly so.

In your case your apparently deliberate negative behaviour does seem at odds with your more helpful posts. In the case of our lecturer acquaintance, or you, you can both say what you like to me and all I'd see are people who IMO need to take a long hard look at themselves but I do worry about others with thinner skins or perhaps fewer interests away from the net who may be more affected.
 
Phil V said:
Well you’re entitled to impose those standards upon yourself, but I’m not so sure you should impose them on others.
Click to expand...

So why do you Phil? All I ever see you doing is lecture in a rude manner to others, me included.

What Pookey actually said above was way OTT, even by my standards. Whether he wanted to get banned or not there was no need to go ape on someone like that who had simply posted a smilie in response. Sure there was sarcasm to gramps post, and a bit of a dig, but really? That response? and you're defending him? yet you rant like a good thing at me for much less. Hip-o-critical. Double standards.

I remember clashes with ol' Pookey, I'm not going to slate him when he's absent, but to say he was a gent to most ... 'Jeez!' - I remember Gary Coyle [RIP] messaging me to come back to certain threads so he'd have some back up against ol' Pookey. He reckoned I was the only one could put manners on him :D Fun times.
 
Last edited:
Well I hate to say it, umm I don't. All of you on this forum are quite polite and mild mannered compared with the in game chat of MMO's especially a game called World of Tanks.
 
Pete B said:
Well I hate to say it, umm I don't. All of you on this forum are quite polite and mild mannered compared with the in game chat of MMO's especially a game called World of Tanks.
Click to expand...

Ha, I used to play that game and ended up hating it mostly because I suck. But you're right, the in game chat on there is filthy toilet level.

Up watching UFC btw, in case anyone points the time out
 
A late reply, but I've been on holiday.

The problem with critique (and this is taking me back to my first days on here) is that you don't know what the photographer will find acceptable. From other fora, I've experienced the "it was only a grab shot" reply when I've made suggestions on how the composition could have been improved by a change of position or pointed out a messy background that could easily have been avoided. I find it irritating in the extreme to look carefully, make a considered response and then be told that because it was a grab/record shot, all comments are pointless (except nice shot?) Some genres I have learned to never comment on, because they are not susceptible to the only sort of critique I'd consider it worthwhile to give - natural history and sports are the key ones in this category. So, there's no way of knowing if your comments will be accepted or just regarded as irrelevant.

Hence my first (personal) rule; no critique on certain genres and no critique on the rest unless the header clearly has "Critique" in it.

To give a meaningful critique takes time; so my second rule is that if a post contains more than one image, I ignore it in terms of making a reply. I have only rarely broken this rule.

The biggest single problem is that for many, the technical camera settings are the be all and end all - "give us the exif so we can help you". Once you try to go beyond shutter speeds, apertures and exposure the refrain is "it's all subjective", in which case really there's nothing at all to say, beyond "I like this" or "I don't like this". If it really is purely subjective, then there's no need to ask for any advice other to avoid technical failures. A technically perfect photo is a perfect photo full stop if the photographer likes it. And critique is dead...

Sorry to be pessimistic; I can't see things improving until it's possible to discuss art here without the thread being dragged down; because to my mind the only really meaningful critique is art based - the intention of the photographer, the emotion conveyed, the response provoked. These things may be subjective, yes, but the responses in the viewer can be induced as psychologists employed by shops and advertisers know; there are methods that can be taught.

The big difference in my opinion lies in the photographer - to make someone feel, you must first experience that emotion or it's simply an advertising trick. Hence the first step to receiving critique should be to explain why the photograph was made.

Apologies for a bit of a ramble.
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
Sorry to be pessimistic; I can't see things improving until it's possible to discuss art here without the thread being dragged down
Click to expand...
This is the second thread I have read tonight where someone made this point. It's hard to see a way through it though
 
StephenM said:
Hence the first step to receiving critique should be to explain why the photograph was made.
Click to expand...
Think I'd differ here - a photograph should be self-explanatory unless for instance it's a reportage one that needs a caption. After all, if it can't be 'read' by a viewer, it scarcely functions as an image. And it could be critiqued on that basis.
 
droj said:
Think I'd differ here - a photograph should be self-explanatory unless for instance it's a reportage one that needs a caption. After all, if it can't be 'read' by a viewer, it scarcely functions as an image. And it could be critiqued on that basis.
Click to expand...

I'll have to consider this more. My first thought was to agree, at least to the extent that you're right with certain genres; my second was that this may well be true when looking at what I'll call "exhibition" photos, but not when you're viewing a photograph where critique has been requested. In this case, doesn't it help if we know what the photographer was trying to achieve?
 
It’s one of the things I am always in two minds about. On the one hand presenting a photo with no explanation allows the viewers to express what they see, which may be different from what the photographer intended, on the other hand the without explanation the critique might well focus on aspects of the image which the photographer felt to be unimportant.

I have to say that I would find the question “why was the photograph taken” very hard to answer for a lot of my work, beyond “I wanted to capture the moment/light/view/action etc.” which is probably either too generic to help with crit, or would be met with responses such as “it did/didn’t succeed”
 
StephenM said:
viewing a photograph where critique has been requested. In this case, doesn't it help if we know what the photographer was trying to achieve?
Click to expand...
Don't think so - you'd just assess how much it works as an image. If it doesn't convey anything then that would be part of the crit. Seems to me that there are three linked aspects - aesthetics, meaning, and technique.

The case would be similar for a piece of music.
 
Last edited:
sirch said:
presenting a photo with no explanation allows the viewers to express what they see, which may be different from what the photographer intended
Click to expand...
Which is fair game - I mean, once it's out there ....
 
droj said:
Don't think so - you'd just assess how much it works as an image. If it doesn't convey anything then that would be part of the crit. Seems to me that there are three linked aspects - aesthetics, meaning, and technique.

The case would be similar for a piece of music.
Click to expand...
Except that for a piece of music there is a start, middle and end (well for most music that is ;)) ... and by its very nature and presuming you listen to the whole piece is a narrative. A single image can only be that, i.e. a singleton. As such a narrative/objective/intention or other such statement would help in delivering critique. I've been to a number of photo exhibitions and all of them had at least some narrative about the images presented, if only some background as to what/why/when or where.
 
PaulButler said:
Except that for a piece of music there is a start, middle and end (well for most music that is ;)) ... and by its very nature and presuming you listen to the whole piece is a narrative. A single image can only be that, i.e. a singleton. As such a narrative/objective/intention or other such statement would help in delivering critique. I've been to a number of photo exhibitions and all of them had at least some narrative about the images presented, if only some background as to what/why/when or where.
Click to expand...
This^
Particularly round here; it's one thing to discuss the requirement for a narrative for fine art, but it's absolutely crucial for less experienced photographers who may be making important mistakes. Posting an image with no background leaves a reviewer with only half a story to base their critique on.
 
PaulButler said:
I've been to a number of photo exhibitions and all of them had at least some narrative
Click to expand...
Yes it can help, if the photos are documentary of a particular place / event / thing. But I think a single image can be assessed on its own merits ...

By the parallel with music I meant that we can appraise music as music, without a back story.

Phil V said:
Posting an image with no background leaves a reviewer with only half a story to base their critique on.
Click to expand...
Probably more true if artificial lighting is involved, Phil?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top