Where are "the goods"? Has anyone seen "the goods"?

Discussion in 'Large Format' started by shotz, Jan 7, 2003.

  1. I am more than a little mystified. I have been coming to this forum
    and reading some interesting posts - questions and responses. It
    seems that people here know all about film and cameras and lenses
    and everything else under the sun (or strobe or tungsten).

    My question is "Where are the photos?" I see some guy go on at
    length discussing the difference between D76 at 1:29 and D76 at 1:30
    and then when I click on his name to see his work there is nothing
    there!

    Why does someone pass along all this folklore and gossip
    and "personal experience" and then not show any photos? I like
    cameras and lenses and film too, but first of all, what's this whole
    thing about if not the photographs?

    How does one know if Joe Blow's evaluation of the merits of the
    222.47mm Dagor - and its coverage, and its resolution, and its
    contrast - is worth anything at all without seeing his work?

    Do these guys actually take photos or are they just like the know-it-
    all guys at the bar who talk about women all day but have never
    actually dated one? I read a post about flash meters from some guy
    who sounded pretty smart. He said the so-and-so meter was dead on
    and gave him great results. Then I clicked over to his work and saw
    that several of his shots were not properly exposed (to my eye,
    anyway). I knew that I should take his opinion with a grain of
    salt. His idea of "good" was not my idea of "good" (neither of us
    being right or wrong).

    I have been taking and developing and printing and selling and
    exhibiting photos for well over 30 years, ten of those years as a
    professional photog in NYC. I have owned and shot Canon, Nikon,
    Leica, Hasselblad, Minolta, Olympus and various large format. As
    much fun as it is to blab about the hardware, I believe it is all
    about the photographs. Really, the photographs.

    So, why do all these guys put up all this advice without giving us
    an idea of what they produce and what they have to say in a photo?
    Don't they want to communicate with their photographs? Don't they
    want us to get any idea who they are and what they do so we can
    properly evalute the value of their advice for ourselves? Where
    are "the goods?"
     
  2. Peter,

    Good question, one that applies to most all of the reviews, advice, etc. that
    you see on the web. However, in fairness to this forum specifically I think ytou
    will find that the vast majority of regular posters have their work readily
    available for you to see, either here on photo.net or on their own web sites.

    I have been a regular cointributor to this forum for several years and find that,
    far more than many similar web web forums, the members of this forum are
    proficient photographers who are unstinting with their willingness to share
    experiences and advice. If you follow this forum over a period of time you will
    see many whose work is easy to view. Not to mention the number of industry
    professionals (equipment manufacturers, publishers, retailers, etc.) who
    regularly participate.

    Another thought is that many are unsatisfied with the quality they can achieve
    vi ascanned images. I do it and I post but there is frequently little
    resemblance between the scan I obtain and that from a drum scan that I
    would use for a presentation print.

    As always, the web is a free good and as such you have to be discriminating
    in sorting the wheat from the chaff.
     
  3. Peter, I am one of those guys who doesnt have any pics on pn, I remmoved them all, even though I had only like 3 or 4. The reason I removed them are personal but my main reason for not posting is that I am terrible at scanning and my scanned pt/pd look like sh**. I do not have the desire nor the time to learn PS so I can approximate the prints to look more or less decent in my monitor to have them look like crap in yours. So to save myself the hassle and aggravation it is simpler not to post any pictures.
    But I do get what you say, early when I joined pn I realized it was a waste of time to post and critique pictures. OTOH there are some people here who have something like 13000 critiques and not a single picture posted...what is that?
     
  4. This comes up occasionally. I do think that people who are active in photography forums online should post some work somewhere (I keep mine on my own website, which you can find if you click on my name, below), but it is important to recognize that not everyone has a scanner or wants to use one, and some people may not post because the technology just doesn't represent their work adequately. I have a better scanner for 35mm than for large format, so there is less LF work on my site than 35mm, for instance.

    Some of us over at apug.org are assembling a revolving portfolio that will travel via post as a way to share work and see some real prints from other participants. Perhaps such a thing could work here on the LF forum as well.
     
  5. As others have stated, you can't come close to replicating the quality of a fine print either silver or inkjet on a monitor. But if someone asks about a technical issue and I believe I have some applicable knowledge, I am assuming the person making the inquiry will be able to see what I am talking about in his own work.

    There is a growing body of knowledge about how to produce images specifically for reproduction on a monitor. That doesn't mean the same image will look good as a physical print. I would rather have my work displayed in its best way which means on a wall rather on a dirty, poorly calibrated monitor.
     
  6. Peter, you raise good points here. The problem is this is a virtual medium talking an we are discussing tangible goods - photographs. In my opinion the digital representations of prints that we can share on this forum are so degraded in quality from the original nuances of the prints as to be almost useless for discussion. By the time they are scanned, compressed and represented on monitors they look as much like the original prints as formica desktops to real wood. Maybe you are right that there is too much discussion of equipment versus output, but I don't trust that the scans that I see adequately represent the qualities of the photographs they portray. On the other hand, I trust that most people's opinions about products and processes usually represent the results of hard work and honest insight.
     
  7. Some people choose not to use photo.net as a warehouse for their images. I keep a few here only because for the reason you mention... that I want people to know if I'm responding to a post that I have actually taken a photograph or two. But the main body of my work is housed at my website: www.grantheffernan.com

    Don't be too quick to discount people's information simply because they don't have any work on photo.net.

    Boston Garden in Flight
    [​IMG]
     
  8. Hey David Godfarb, Nice site. I see you've been in Krakow. I'd love to see more of your work from there, if you have more. What's APUG.ORG? dgh
    004JSX-10828584.jpg
     
  9. well peter - in any area of science or art, there are those who work for specific results, and there are those who simply love finely made equipment, and there are those who love process. photography is no different. at this forum, you will find a smattering of folks who are outrageously fanatical about the technical aspects of photography, and know all types of details about various film resolution, developer accutance, print surfaces and toning, and historic techniques. others know the specifications of 1000 cameras, the history of graflex, and are glowing afficiandos of the magnificent hand-made cameras by certain manufacturers. still others are working LF photographers, who enjoy reading and learning from the others and occasionally sharing a tip or two from our own experineces. even though i make my living as a HABS/HAER photographer (yes, i have 3 of my architectural photos posted here as examples of what i do), i am not near the expert on some of the highly technical aspects of photography as some of the other members of this forum, and i am always learning something new from them. it does not matter to me whether i might personally like their actual photographic work or not. it takes all kinds to build a community, and this one is great. take care.
     
  10. I wonder if Edward Weston was alive if he would post photos at this site? I'm with Jorge. My scans look like s**t but that doesn't mean my photos do. It just means I'm at a different place in computer technology than I am with REAL PICTURES! You can't tell anything about anything from a 480X640 pixel facsimile on a crt. A few feeble attempts are here FWIW. Mostly out of date. I've decided to spend my time doing actual pictures, not virtual ones. I do think there are some armchair photgs out there though but a lack of pics on the crt doesn't have much to do with proving that.
     
  11. David Hall--

    Thanks for visiting the site. I do have more photographs from Krakow, but haven't had time to scan them. I'll probably put up an online portfolio of them next summer. Most are from 1989, when many political changes were happening.

    Go to http://apug.org to find out more about apug.org. It is a discussion forum for film and chemistry based photography.
     
  12. I don't think there'd be much difference between D76 at 1:29 and D76 at 1:30.
     
  13. Peter,

    You make am interesting point. It prompted me to just now upload an image to photo.net. Have a look. However, I agree with Jorge, this Pd/Pt print (or any other fine print) really is inadequately represented as a small JPEG on-line. Be that as it is, at least the viewer gets some idea of what I'm up to and if I'm a total hack or not.
     
  14. I don't see that much relevance between actual work and quality of advice one can deliver. At this stage I don't post anything here partly because I've read some critique on a number of different pictures and found it rather worthless (I prefer a simple point system, and with the exception for comments on some major compositional flaws, the rest should come from the photographer and only him/her). I look at my own work as being personal and not ready for display (by ready I mean easily defendable against any critique, which I believe one should be able to do as long as he/she cares for his work). Most of us don't know each other. Do I want to hear from whoever that he'd rather put that spot light 5 inches higher and 2 inches more north? No way, sorry. It's too bad really, because I know there is a number of contributors here who would help develop many innocent photographic minds.

    If I can make any sense out of advice given here, I try it. Not once have I wanted to see the pics supporting specific comment/advice etc. (partly for reasons already given by others above). Even if an advice happened to be purely theoretical, so what? If it seems possible give it a try, maybe others are up to something in spite of their work not being displayed here, there, or anywhere.

    There is people in this field that are top notch technically, yet have trouble coming up with pleasing work. So they devoted their time to that part of photography, what's wrong with that? Should we go ahead on bashing some of those great photographers who opted to outsource their developing and printing? They got better at evaluating their own work as printed by others. Those OTHERS never made it behind the camera, yet they have contributed immensly to the progress of photography as we know it now. Do I want to hear from them? You bet.
     
  15. Thhere are also plenty on here, if you want to see there work, go to Barnes & Noble or Chapters and either look for their books or check the newstands for the magazines.
     
  16. Some good points made here. IMHO... I agree that the resultant image in PN is not going to match the results that us LFers are used to but are an item/image in themselves. I'm only new to LF so my own pictures are not reaching dizzy heights (yet) but when I look at other photos on PN I'm not looking at technical quality (even though some are very impressive) but I'm looking for a portfolio to tell me more about the photographers psychy and methods. As a landscaper I also look for a bit of inspiration and location ideas. And I'm always keen to compliment images I like. This applies to all formats. There are some amazing images on here by photographers using only 35mm or only digital cameras and I enjoy them all whatever format. When I put an image on PN I hope it contributes to saying a bit more about me as a photographer so others can understand where I'm coming from photographically, taking as read and understood the limitations of electronic sharing of images on the web. Pictures on PN don't have to be top quality fine art to do that. And I also feel its help the community feeling to see what other people are doing, images from their part of the world, what they like, etc. So, yes, I'd like to see more of what everone is doing. Not a huge portfolio of all your best work, just a small number of images to tell us about you. Its part of what makes PN so interesting.
     
  17. Peter, sometimes I ask myself the same question. I'm sitting here in the bedroom that serves as my office. My computer is on the desk where I am now sitting, and the walls of the room are lined with many of the mounted and framed 16X20 prints that I have created. The bathroom connected to this room was designed to be used as a darkroom. When we built the house two years ago, we had the builder eliminate the windows. I do not have a scanner. I have access to one, but it does not handle 16X20 prints. I don't want to make smaller prints just to show them on the internet. Perhaps if I were selling my prints or my photo services, I would have my own website and find a way to scan them onto the screen. Looking at large toned B&W prints on a computer screen does not do them justice.

    I lurked on the LF websites for two years before realizing that I also had something to contribute. When I see someone struggling to solve the same problem that I experienced with a piece of equipment, or trying to handle a film or paper processing procedure that I have mastered, I try to help them. I only chime in when I have actual hands-on experience with the subject. By doing so, I also learn. I have discovered that I learn something new about photography from this forum every day.

    If you want to see my prints, I would be pleased to have you come to my house to look at them.
     
  18. that is, see "their" work...
     
  19. I would also add, that many of us who make our living from photography (and others who don't) disagree with photo.nets terms for placing images on this site. They are unfriendly to photographers and unnecessarily broad.

    Therefore we don't post our images here.
     
  20. I do have some photos posted, but as many others have stated, a computer image is pretty poor compared to an actual print. Another thing thats always brothered me is the fact that not all monitors see the same image I want them to see....either to light or to dark. I really have mixed feelings about posting, but at least one may get an idea of what type of work you do.
     
  21. As Tim said, in my case my pictures are disseminated in books, magazines and who knows where as I shoot for stock agencies more than for myself. But sincerely, if I want to know about what is the coverage of the Dagor 222.47mm I couldn't give a damn if the guy who knows it and answers me takes wonderful pics with it or not. All that is important to me is if I can take good pics with it. Also, the time to scan and to publish it here would be a wasted time for me (especially if all I need to know is just the coverage of the 222.47mm Dagor...) Why bother?
     
  22. [A] I have access to a computer, but no scanner, and haven't seen fit to "go digital". I have a hard enough time developing my negs properly and cleanly. I have no time (or real desire) to learn Photoshop, etc.

    To me PN is a resource. I want to know HOW to do something and come here to get the answer. Some questions might benefit from a photo to demonstrate something, but most, especially on the large format forum, do not.

    [C] I have never gotten "bum" information from anyone on the forum. If you're doing LF you probably already know more than the basics and have seen enough photos to know what someone is talking about for most situations. If someone is grossly in error on a subject, it stands out (and usually draws comments as such). I'll agree I find some of the material esoteric, but being an engineer I can see how people can get carried away with what others consider minutia.

    I've gotten more out of this forum than any book, class or photos. And there's always more than enough sarcasm (Chad) to entertain.
     
  23. It occured to me that another reason not to post photos on PN or other public places is because it invites all kinds of fun email from wackos. Following my initial post, I received this friendly note (not verbatim):

    That's because you've only taken a handful of large format photos in your life you pretentious ass. Get a life.

    I don't refute that. In fact, I'm very much new to LF. But I don't think my post had anything to do with LF in particular. People like this are one reason I would consider limiting my online presence (and I'm sure the anonymous sender will send me another lovely note asking that I please do so). Such is online life...
     
  24. OTOH there are some people here who have something like 13000 critiques and not a single picture posted...what is that?....................That is their right, not having photos on Photonet isn't the same as saying they don't exist, as some folks suggest about individuals who don't post images here.

    I have shared examples of my work with several Photographers who post here and on the MF digest, many of which will be on my website which I was inspired to create from checking out the various websites of other contributers of these forums. I won't post images here under the photonet terms, which isn't the same as suggesting they don't exist, posting photos isn't a requirement for participating in this forum, and to confer 'wannabe' status on somebody because an individual hasn't personally seen their work is foolish.

    The wealth of knowledge dispensed on this forum, and the ability to use that knowledge to execute can be different things, I watched a fight where a truly great boxer lost and they were interviewing him after the fight, he admitted right then and there that he was ready to retire because he could see the punches coming and knew what he needed to do to get out of the way, but his body just wouldn't respond.

    There are a couple of morons on this forum who go around calling folks 'wannabes' based on nothing more than sheer ignorance, and their willingness to do that is more a comment on them than the folks they are talking about.

    Anybody who loves photography, wants to learn, improve, is inspired and appreciative of good work by others, is a brother photographer of mine, regardless of his/her skill level. If I have better skills, I will pull them up to where I am, if they are better skilled than me, they will pull me up to where they are.

    I will tell all I know to anybody that asks, and will ask a question of anyone in quest of the need to know, that's what the forum is for, whether me or anyone else exhibiits images here is up to them without penalty.
     
  25. I have been doing photograhy for over 30 years and own both hasselblad and sinar 8 x 10. the reason I don't post is because I have yet to make a photograph good enough to post.

    Kevin
     
  26. That's as good a reason as any, any reason is a good reason, nobody on this forum owes anybody else proof or an explanation for not posting an image.
     
  27. OTOH there are some people here who have something like 13000 critiques and not a single picture posted...what is that?....................That is their right, not having photos on Photonet isn't the same as saying they don't exist, as some folks suggest about individuals who don't post images here.
    That is true, it is their right, but I think is really lame that someone can get up to 13000 or more crtiques without posting a single image of their work. I dont post and I dont critique, but if you are going to critique peoples work I think you should have the backbone to take some of what you dish out. (I am using you as generic, not specifically you Brewer)
     
  28. I have found that my desktop scanner really can't scan something fine enough to have a discussion about acutance or bokeh. Not from the negative, anyway. The scanner is good enough to scan a negative to give you an idea of what you can do with the negative, and then use it as a sketch pad before making a print. The scanner has its best use in scanning an 8x10 print.

    Most of the time when I scan something, I then spend quite some time fixing dust, and agonizing over how little of the fine detail got into the scan, and how little detail remains from the scan in the final web .jpg image.

    Of course, Peter, you don't need someone's images to evaluate their advice. Admit it! You just want to look at some of the pictures we make! :)

    I've only done a couple dozen images so far from my view camera. I'll do more now that I have it fixed up. I promise! :-D
     
  29. Lameness and lack of 'backbone' cut both ways, I don't/won't/haven't critiqued individual photos and haven't posted 13000 times, but whoever did post their images on a forum knew what they were opening themselve for when they did it, regardless if that critique was by someone who posted 3 times or 30,000.

    If the posts are irrelevant, silly, whatever, they're deleted, if the folks making the posts are on their 13,000 critique, that's too much even for me in terms of time served/time spent, but then again there is no theoretical limit on participation(despite the fact that with some folks there probably should be, which isn't going to happen), what's more constructive Gasteazoro, namecalling, 'labeling' folks you don't agree with, or coming up with specifics on how to change what you don't like without initiating insults in the direction of folks whose only crime is that they post too much.

    No one can prove or disprove the possesion of guts by typing out a message on acomputer, and not you Gasteazoro.
     
  30. This is an excellent response with a lot of good exchange of ideas. Thank you, everyone. I admit to being a little over-involved with the 'stuff' from time to time but the point I keep coming back to is: If a guy says an XYZ lens has been performing well for him, I need to know if he's shooting insects or studio nudes or mountains for that info to be worth anything. Also, I need to have some sense of what he considers 'good' for his opinion to translate into useful and meaningful info for me.
     
  31. If someone gives you an answer and you need more information, why not e-mail him/her and ask for the specifics you need? This is not a one-way street, and nothing prevents you from asking for more information. Once you have the information, you can check it out however you need to, but this site permits and indeed encourages continuing dialogues.
     
  32. what's more constructive Gasteazoro, namecalling, 'labeling' folks you don't agree with, or coming up with specifics on how to change what you don't like without initiating insults in the direction of folks whose only crime is that they post too much. No one can prove or disprove the possesion of guts by typing out a message on acomputer, and not you Gasteazoro.
    Jeeez you seem to interpret things always the wrong way. All I am saying is that giving advice in the forum is far different than posting critiques. But I tell you whan from my past experience with you and your rants, please kindly avoid my comments and refrain from quoting me. You disagree with me, that is fine but please keep it to yourself. I dont think I insulted anybody and this is you putting words in my mouth. If your intention is to start another flame war with me like you did last time you are wasting your time, so do me and everybody in this forum a favor and simply ignore my comments. I have done so with yours out of courtesy to the members of this forum. Can you do the same?
     
  33. What the heck is the problem with someone giving up his time to critique 13,000 times and not having anything posted of his own? I said it before, and I say it again: I completely don't care about photo critique on this forum because it would take way too much time of mine to weed out the ones from the heart and dispose of the ones meant to attack, demean etc. This however, does not mean I would devalue every one from a non-pic-poster.

    Maybe someone can tell me how many movie critics have directed a movie? How about none? Anybody's seen a quality critique of a painting by someone who's painted jack?

    It's very possible to become good (even excellent) at evaluating something without being any good at it. It's a fact, sorry to those who disagree.
     
  34. Peter,

    While all of the points made above are valid, there is also the history of this forum to consider.

    The large format forum started life on Philip Greenspun's LUSENET platform. No images could be posted there and the forum developed a culture without need for images. The contributors judged others by the quality of answers given over a period of time (if Joe Blow has always been right before, he is probably right now). Since we've only been on photo.net for a little while, that culture still carries on here.

    Another point to consider is the methods that many LF photographers employ. Many here are purists, people who value the fully manual approach to photography (and often decry all things digital or automatic). They prefer optical enlargements or contact prints, and thus have very few skills which transfer to computer imagery. As some have already said, their real prints are far better than their computer facsimilies and they have no desire to learn how to improve their image files for display here. Who would like to be judged by those poor reproductions?

    There is a huge wealth of information on this site, most of it good and some of it useless (or worse). You'll have to use your judgement to work out which category it falls into. I think you'd be making a mistake if you made that decision based on whether you liked the photos of the person dispensing the information.

    Cheers,

    Graeme (feel free to click on my name)
     
  35. Maybe someone can tell me how many movie critics have directed a movie? How about none? Anybody's seen a quality critique of a painting by someone who's painted jack?
    And how many of those critics you suppose are admired? The difference is very clear, if Bob Herbst or Kerik Kouklis or even our own Clay Harmon saw one of my pt/pd prints and told me it was crap, I would not only not be offended but I would be very interested in knowing why. Simple because they have proven to be knowledegable and have beautiful prints to prove it. OTOH if Joe Blow comes and tells me the same, why would I listen if I have no basis to judge his knowledge? This is much different than saying ok, I have such and such lens and it performs this way. One of my sure bet ways to pic a movie is to go and see the ones that the critics pan....the ones they reccommend I avoid like a plague. Does not work 100% but it does more often than not. With the one glaring exception of Hudson Hawk...I really should have stayed away from that one.... If I follow your reasoning then I guess I should not be concerned if my chemistry teacher could not balance a reaction equation, I mean what the heck he has the idea he just cant do it, right? It might even be possible for him to explain perfectly how to do it, but the proof is in the pudding. A glaring example is that movie critic, Ebert. He is the one who directed Valley of the dolls 2. Possibly the worst movie made right next to Hudson Hawk. So I should take his opinions seriously? Nope, I disagree with you and I am not sorry. BTW sorry Peter for highjacking tis thread, I promise this is my last post on this subject....cross my heart and hope to die...:))
     
  36. You don't have the power to order me when to post, I rarely respond to comments spouted by you, but When I do decide to comment as I deem fit, show some of that backbone and live with it.

    I could care less what you think, but I took issue with your references to other folks as 'lame' and having no 'backbone' and that is what matters, if you only expect the people you like to respond to your comments, then tough.

    There's nothing wrong with anybody posting as much as they like, or else the moderators would delete, that's not a rant, it's a fact.

    If calling folks lame and devoid of backbone isn't insults, what is? You don't speak for everybody on this forum, so don't, in terms of your suggestion that I attempting a flame war, stop babbling, I said what I've said, and I've said it with courtesy and respect.


    Everything else you've mentioned is off topic and a non-issue with me so if you cannot stand it, quit getting personal because you can't deal with specific issues.
     
  37. I could care less what you think,
    Then why are you still answering? Take notice from my actions I really dont care what you think, is why I never answer any babbling you make. So again, kindly avoid me as much as possible your diatrives are really boring!
     
  38. "There is a huge wealth of information on this site, most of it good and some of it useless (or worse)."
    Here's a test for you Peter: Have you worked out which category we're degenerating to here?
    Boys, you're on display - take it outside please, before you break the furniture.
    :-(
     
  39. Here's a test for you Peter: Have you worked out which category we're degenerating to here?
    LOL...I am trying Graeme, I am trying, I promise.
     
  40. Then why are you still answering? ..............because you lashed out at other folks for doing nothing more than using the forum the way they're entitled to use it.

    That involves other folks, which is when you should've taken your own advice and kept the 'lame' and 'backbone' comments to yourself.
     
  41. Then why are you still answering? ..............because you lashed out at other folks for doing nothing more than using the forum the way they're entitled to use it. That involves other folks, which is when you should've taken your own advice and kept the 'lame' and 'backbone' comments to yourself
    Behold the defender of photo.net.
    Again you dont agree with me, I am glad, it just proves my point. So just ignore me. Is very simple. As you said I will follow my own advice, I always thought that when you argue with a fool people looking at you do not know who is who, so this will be my last response to you. I refuse to get into a flame war with the likes of people like you. I am just glad you never got to finish that kid picture idea you had, you are obviously unbalanced.
     
  42. The project dealing with kids, with the help of Domenico Foschi and Dave Anton is still on, you never did have any impact whatsoever on this future project, that's my decision and that's the way it's going to be.

    In terms of the namecalling and personal attacks of the above thread that is what you resort to when someone disagrees with you, you go off topic rather than deal with the specifics.

    Now let's see, you've called other folks 'lame', 'lacking backbone', just because they post a lot, and me a 'fool', and 'unbalanced' because I disagreed you, It's nice to see you make a case for your arguments with cold hard logic.

    You're transparent to me now, and I think to everybody else, nothing personal.

    The reason I kept on with this, is that there are certainly folks out there who would like to post, and eventually when they get up their nerve, show some of their work, which can nervewracking, and they need positive reinforcement, and encouragement, not your comments.
     
  43. Uh? ok, one more little thing, who said anything about posting. I said critique not posting. Please at least if you are going to argue read carefully what is posted. As to being transparent I think everybody here sees you have to be right, I have asked you repeteadly to ignore my comments and refrain from quoting me, I even said please...but noooooo, you could not let it go, you have to be right and the defender of the photo.net virtue. Ok fine, you win, you are right, can we move on now? .....I am definitly removing the fool hat now, best of luck to you, and please for God's sake ignore me, you will be doing everybody here a favor!
     
  44. I've ignored you for quite some time Gasteazoro.
     
  45. Peter I checked out your pics. Very nice. Now Jonathon and Jorge, it's "time out" time. Both of you go to a corner and think about how wonderful life is.
     
  46. Sorry if i intrude, has anybody seen my dog?
     
  47. No, what's the link?
     
  48. http://www.dfoschisite.com/betty.htm
     
  49. Good dog!

    I hope I don't find her late one night....
     
  50. I'm going to cast my vote with Jorge and say that, whenever I have scanned and posted a LF image in JPEG on net, the results were less than satisfactory, to say the least.
     
  51. I saw the goods! Yours! Friendly, (really) my advice - next time you want to take a picture, take two glasses of whisky before. Maybe you will manage to put the subject of your picture out of the dead center. Don't worry, people will still know what you wanted to show them - they will just see it better... ;-))
     
  52. I do not have a scanner so I have not posted any photographs. You can see some of my images in B&W Magazine in some of the ads for Labwork - The Black & White Lab. Also there should be a "Spotlight" feature on me in a future issue of B&W where you can see my work.
     
  53. Hey Eric I have no problem, is the bufoon who has taken the role of defender of the faith who wont let go. I find it rather sad, sort of a half assed Don Quijote....without Sancho....or Rosinante, or.....well you get the idea.
     
  54. No problem Jorge, see you over at the other forum.
     
  55. I did let go Gasteazoro, as I said, I avoid you as much as I avoid stepping in dog---- on my morning walk, but you persist in namcalling and disrespect, when you quit doing it, then I'm thrugh with you.
     
  56. Well you persist on harrasing me, so I dont see why I should not do the same to you. You have taken upon you to argue with me and dont have enough intelligence to read carefully to what was said. The you go on and on about "posting" when I said critique. If I insulted anubody then let those who feel insulted take it up with me. You on the other hand had no bussiness with me,other than your bleeding heart attituted and defender of the honor of photo.net critics. So yes I tried to ask you to let it go and ignore me, but on the other hand I am not going to let a moron like you try to intimidate me into not speaking my mind. As I said you are unbalanced and your behavior is typical of an obssesed stalker. When I see your post I scroll right over them, they are usually worthless, but then if you want to continue this I am all for it. Is really funny and pathetic seeing you struggle like this. BTW I really hope this kid pictures does not happen I am not sure of your intentions.
     
  57. The more you lash out with personal attacks the more I will stay logical, knowing how you feel about it Gasteazoro, convinces me I'm on the right track.

    I have two beautiful children and a wife of twenty years, a happy and wholesome family with me as it's caretaker. I love my family much too much as to spend 5 seconds even considering stalking you, now if you have specific information that I'm out to harm anyone/stalk anybody, it's your duty to relay that information to the appropriate folks, NOW IF YOU DON'T ANYTHING, THEN QUIT WHINING.

    You lash out with contiually worse insults until somebody goes ballistic, and after the moderators kick that individual off the forum, you play the martyr. I'm not going ballistic, I'm going to respond to you with cold, hard logic, when you get tired of calling me names, and assaulting my character, then this will be over.
     
  58. LOL...cold hard logic...that is a first for you. Seems to me you are the one whining. I will try to say this again, you feel I was insulting well let those who were insulted respond to me. Funny thing is you keep explaning yourself to me, as if my opinon matter. Why? I could not care less what you do, how many children you have (poor kids) or anything. All I want is you mind your own bussiness. If I respond to one of your comments you are welcome to respond, otherwise stay away from my posts. Is that simple, apparently this is something you cannot comprehend. If you dont understand it in english I will be glad to put it in spanish, for you. As to your cold hard logic, you are the one who gets all emotional and become the defender of the faith. What, is it your job to defend everybody here? I am sure everybody here is very capable of defending themselves if they feel the need to do so. SO yes to put is very clearly, I feel there is something dishonest and unfair and down right cowardly when people who post 13000 critiques or more do not have a single image posted. If that applies to you, well then it goes for you too. If not, then what is your problem? Notice I said critique not forum posts. Can you understand this? if not please look up the word in the dictionary. I suggest you quit your whining and mind your own bussiness.
     
  59. I'M NOT PICKING SIDES HERE
    Obviously you two have issues. Please take it off line and communicate with each other via email. Your discussions, while entertaining, are not what one would expect to see on this forum. I'm not interested in who's right, who's been wronged, or who's going to give up first.
     
  60. Eric, I agree in principle. I had agreed with the moderator's intervetion to not get involved with this guy. I had agreed to not e mail him and not respond to his posts. But he continues to do so, I kept to my end of the bargain as agreed with Björn, but this guy apparently cant let it go. Nothing would please me more than to have this guy leave me alone, and mind his own bussiness. OTOH he is nobody to tell me what I should or should not write. To be honest if I was the moderator I would have deleted both his and my responses a long time ago, and put a stop to this.
     
  61. Everyone knows that images look like sh*t on a monitor. However, having said that, what does it matter. Surely we should be interested in the content, the images, the ideas and NOT worry about a less than excellent presentation.
    I must admit I have always wondered about the lack of LF images on photo.net, considering how busy this forum is.
    So come on you LF-ers, stop talking and start showing.
    www.keithlaban.co.uk
     
  62. cxc

    cxc

    Pissing matches really depress me...
     
  63. Eric Rose et al, as I've said, I'm not interested in anything Gasteazoro says, but will defend myself against namecalling, or his reference to my 'poor kids', Gasteazoro has said four or five times that 'this is my last post, I swear'.

    I've made two posts/threads involving Gasteagoro over a period of about a year, any accusations that I'm doing anything other than participating in this forum is bullshit.

    So I'll direct this to Eric Rose, I already told him, that I had avoided him for quite some time which is true, there's no planer way for me to put it.

    Gasteazoro has it backwards, just tell him to go away, that without the namecalling, or insinuations from a guy who doesn't know what I look like let alone even lives in the same country.

    I haven't once called Gasteazoro a name or made a veiled suggestion that he has something inappriopiate in his past or in his characterter, yet he insists I'm bothering him.

    He asked me to avoid him and I said I would, but now while he continues the insults, he can go away easily, just stop disrespecting me and we're both gone.
     
  64. I'll will stop when you stop involving yourself in my bussiness. You are nobody to tell me what I can post or not. If it is inappropiate let the moderator deal with it, not you, you are nobody or any better than anybody here. If you had continued to avoid me nothing like this would have happened, but you took it upon yourself to butt in on something it did not concern you. So now dont cry now, you dont like me calling you a bufoon then avoid me, dont quote me, dont respond to my posts. I will not stand for someone like you to try and stop me from posting. As to not living in the US I did for 24 years and found many many people like you who think they have to fight everybody's battles, well as I said if you minded your own bussiness this would have been avoided. I complied with Björn's request to avoid any dealings with you, but apparently you are a busybody who has to be in everybody's bussines. As soon as you will leave me alone I will be glad to stop also, otherwise this is going to be a long and boring thread.
     
  65. Nice pictures Keith, thanks for sharing. I find my images look like s**t as well on the web, but I have posted a few non the less. I felt as some others do that who am I to critique anyone with out showing that I can at least use a camera. I shot stock for a very long time so most of my best stuff is on slides. Having no slide scanner kind of limits what I can post. One of these days I will find a good deal on a slide scanner and then I'm of to the races.

    I noticed however that you mentioned your pics on your site are all MF. Do you have any LF stuff posted anywhere? Just out of interest on my part.
     
  66. 'SAD'.................Yes it it is, Gasteazoro won't take yes or no or halway for an answer.

    Go off Gasteazoro, as mean and as nasty as you please, and I will insist on Respect, and civility, you cannot give it so I will sit back and enjoy the show.

    You asked and got the answer you wanted, you just too pigheaded to take it, say what you want, It's diarrhea whatever end it comes out of.
     
  67. I agree with Graeme, this is very sad and I am tired of this. So you wanted "cold hard logic" brewer, I will give it to you, but beware of what you wish you just might get it. I will decidely prove to averybody here how much of a moron and a hypocrite you are.
    Let me start first with your very first response:
    There are a couple of morons on this forum who go around calling folks 'wannabes' based on nothing more than sheer ignorance, and their willingness to do that is more a comment on them than the folks they are talking about.
    Notice the first time the word moron was used it was by YOU
    The first time someone was insulting in this thread it was YOU
    Is your opinon of these people based on fact? do you know them? or is just that you are allowed to be insulting but nobody else? You are a hypocrite, you pontificate and lecture on being civil and at the same time you are guitly of the same offense. I suppose you got this from being a corrections guard, well let me tell you in the real world you are nobody to pontificate and lecture, much less teach manners, you dont have the intelligence.
    It is a shame that english has to be explained to you by a person not native to the language. When I said I thought it was lame to post so many critiques without posting an image, I was expressing a beleif, you on the other hand were insulting right from the beguinning. You dont agree with me, fine, but dont lecture me, you are not smart enough.
    You went on and on about how I was insulting to people who posted here, when all the time what I had said was critique I swear my 2 month old dog has a greater attention span and focusing ability than you demonstrate.
    You said I am disrispectfull to you, is true I do not respect you, why should I? You are nobody, and specially you are nobody to judge who is disrispectful or not. As I said if I am wrong let the moderator deal with me, or those who feel I insulted them. If you are one of those who post that many critiques then on top of not respecting you I also think you are a coward. If you are not, then why are you becomming imbroigled in my bussiness?
    So you say I am insulting you when I call you a moron? I am not, I am merely applying the correct adjetive to a person who has proven to be a hypocrit, who has taken a moral stance when he is guilty of the same offense, a person who pretends to be the one to correct and lecture others in this forum, and who does not have the intelligence and focusing ability to remember what he wrote before chastizing people. Yes YOU ARE A MORON AND A HYPOCRIT
    I would reccommend you dont use "cold hard logic" in the future, you are not very good at it!
    having proven my point I have no desire to continue posting on this matter, you may have the last word, but as proven here it is that of a fool.
     
  68. How long does this infantile flame war persist? Do these two guys eventually get married? It is amazing that these are two (supposed) adults. Neither one seems to be big enough or mature enough to just let it drop.

    Hey, you two boys, if I have to stop this post and separate you two you are going to be sorry!!!!
     
  69. I was not refering to you when I spoke of morons, as I said I have not called you out of name in this thread nor will I engage in it now.

    That's an awful lot of typing Gasteazoro, for rehashing the same old stale insults, respect Gasteazoro, you don't have it for anybody regardless of this thread, which was what I was pointing out in my thread in first place the more you type the more unreasonble you show yourself to be.
     
  70. you're both a**holes, and no, you're not entertaining, you're boring.
     
  71. That's an awful lot of typing Gasteazoro
    Yeah well, things have to be explained slowly to you. Sorry everybody I promise this really is the last time......Lol.
     
  72. To Eric Rose and Peter Lehrmna et al, as I have said, I'm will to disengage from this post right now and I will do it with respect, as long as I have gotten respect.

    Gasteazoro doesn't want to avoid me which is why he is up to typing three pages of insults, and if that is not true Gasteazoro, then go away without the namecalling or snide remarks and I will do the same.

    That's as reasonable as I can be, and that's as reasonable as I'm going to be, if he doens't want to do that, then he just doesn't want to be reasonable.
     
  73. Gasteazoro doesn't want to avoid me which is why he is up to typing three pages of insults, and if that is not true Gasteazoro, then go away without the namecalling or snide remarks and I will do the same
    That sounds wonderful to me, is what I have been asking from the beguining. You ignore me, I will ignore you and everybody is happy.
    Ken, you dont want to be involved in this, trust me! So I will chalk up your comment to frustration. I feel the same way.
     
  74. >To Eric Rose and Peter Lehrmna et al, as I have said, I'm will to >disengage
    >from this post right now and I will do it with respect, as long as I >have
    >gotten respect.

    You might find this hard to believe, but I sincerely doubt that you have anyones respect after this. Quite the opposite
     
  75. You had my offer to avoid you as far back as yesterday, you will go your way and I will go mine.

    D. Kevin Gibson......I have the respect of the people who count, so speak for yourself, since you cannot speak for anybody else. I say what I have to day in this forum because I believe it, you don't have to respect me for that, or for what I say, but I'll demand that anyone talking to me, talks to me with respect, and that's the ways it's going to be. If that makes sense to you Kevin, then fine, if it doesn't fine.
     
  76. Attached is an image of an arena appropriate to the argument.
    004K8z-10848884.jpg
     
  77. In order to gain repect one have to give respect. It can only be earned. Displays of public foolishness can never garner something of such value.
     
  78. Where's the vent Dan? Craphouses, unlike public forum's, usually have a chimney to let the stench out! jg
     
  79. Yes I agree with Dan Smith, my resolve is not to get into that kind of longwinded bullshit again, I've made a promise to myself, but I'm going to speak up when I have something to say. D. Kevin Gibson.........I wasn't arguing with myself, but you didn't mention anybody else, so spare me any lectures if you're not going to give it all the way around.
     
  80. Jim,

    Looks like the stench blew the windows out of this one. That'll happen if you don't stop the stench - anyone will be free to peer in and experience the BS first hand.

    I hope a couple of people will look back on this thread with shame, knowing that they broke the window.

    :-(
     
  81. This fellow posted some advice for me on how to frame a photo. Isn't that great? I am certainly most appreciative.

    Has anyone seen what his photos look like? (zero uploaded photos) Is there some fine art museum or Fifth Avenue gallery I need to visit or will I find it on the cover of National Geographic?

    Please, george, a concrete example of your guidance on the development of my personal aethetic would be invaluable.
     
  82. Peter, why would you want to see his photos? I mean I was just roasted for saying that. Apparently is ok to post comments and criticism of peoples photos without having a shred of proof you know what you are talking about. Ah well....Is good to have sunc informed and gifted critics and their defenders here at photo.net. Enjoy!
     
  83. Plea to the moderator: please delete this inane thread.
     
  84. Peter, I have already said where you can find my photos. If you don't like comments about your pictures, why do you put them up for people's comments?? Or did you only expect praise? Sorry it did not come.
     
  85. Eric Rose
    Thanks for taking the time to view my website. At the moment all my work is on medium format. I would love to own and above all USE a large format camera in addition to the Hasselblad, but I am unfortunately a starving artist/photographer and can't justify the additional expense.
    By the way if you shoot medium or large format the Epson 2450 scanner is inexpensive and does an excellent job.
    all the best ....Keith
    www.keithlaban.co.uk
     
  86. Keith, had look at them just now. Lovely, harmonious and peaceful pictures! I like them very much as I love photography with beauty in it...
     
  87. Many thanks George
     

Share This Page