Why are Photographers (artists whatever..) , so serious?

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by travis|1, Jan 13, 2004.

  1. Hi. Not to try to start a flame war, but hopefully to gather some
    thoughts altogether..

    Why is is that some photogs get all worked up when their work is
    being brought down or deemed to be critised "unfairly"? Ok, a pro may
    find it difficult to accept because he makes a living out of his work.

    But for a casual shooter? Why get upset or abusive over negative
    comments sometimes? Look around PN and you will find some of them.

    It's probably an ego issue. I know, I have been there. But now, I
    really have given up wasting energy on all these to and fro egoistic
    exchanges when faced with one. I just let what may come to me.

    Are we too serious, sometimes?


    please no flame..just something off my chest.;)
     
  2. I agree with you, Travis. Most people have a hard time separating critical reviews of their "art" (be it photography, drawing, painting, sculpture, whatever...)from a perceived personal attack. I believe that discussions of techniques and equipment useage should not be confused with negative subjective opinions on someone's personal creative style.
     
  3. If I wanted an authoritative, respectable critique of my work I'd submit it to a gallery, photo editor or maybe even a pro whose work I admire. I wouldn't bring a gourmet meal into a McDonalds for the patrons to evaluate and I wouldn't post my images to an internet forum to be critiqued by every Tom, Dick and Harry with an ISP--including a few Dicks with a personal agenda against me because I stuck the needle of truth into their fantasy bubbles at one time or another.
     
  4. There is a difference between constructive criticism and making fun of people. As of late, constructive criticism has lost out to insults that flow freely and unmoderated on This Forum. It appears that war has broken out between those with Kids and No Kids. Maybe we need a new posting heading; K/NK.
     
  5. m_.

    m_.

    Yes, we are way too serious, travis.

    but i do believe it largely is the human thing - no one (before they grew up) likes to think (or be thought) they are no good for what they are doing the most serious. for most of us, photography, although not our profession, certainly is the most enjoyable thing we do in daily basis. and we like to believe (or be convinced) that we are good at it, although often time we are not.

    lots photographers, when criticized, either by public viewers or their close ones, claim the very failure as their intention. how often we heard a photographer says, when pointed out something not so good in a photo, that's my intention or started to blame the viewers as non-educated visually? just about every day. kiss my *ss your intention. no, my friend, you failed and admit it. let's be honest.

    if a photo itself can't attract viewers, educated or not, the art has failed. art itself in the first place is and should be the tool of comminucating bridge from the artist to the viewers. if art fails to bridge that, then it is art's fault, not the viewers.

    i have given up that ego thing as well which i think is a good thing if used properly. you can only learn from failure and harsh criticism. listen to what others have to say and learn from it.
     
  6. Jay - wouldn't that be the high speed _drill_ of truth in your case?
     
  7. if a photo itself can't attract viewers, educated or not, the art has failed

    Some sense being spoken.
     
  8. Xinbad the Phthailer wrote:Jay - wouldn't that be the high speed _drill_ of truth in your case?
    More likely the high-speed drill of opinion.
     
  9. <<Jay - wouldn't that be the high speed _drill_ of truth in your case?>>

    Well I always use the needle first but some people here wave off the Lidocaine and insist on taking it like a man...and then react like little girls ;>)
     
  10. It's pretty clear that the free exchange of ideas is not so welcome
    on this forum as it used to be. I've stayed away recently because
    I was told that my posts are "boring and annoying." Obviously,
    one does not post here if one has a fragile ego! I guess if I
    possessed as hard a shell as Jay I might be a more frequent
    participant. The increasingly abusive tone of some of the
    members is somewhat disappointing.
     
  11. Who you calling SERIOUS! you bag of wind. What gives you the right to judge me? It's
    an outrage, an affront to my sensitive psyche. HOW DARE YOU !!! I am a funny guy.
    My MOM says so. I was born with multiple funny bones. I LOL at many of the posts
    here... can't you hear it ? This one is especially hilarious, it's a serious question about
    being to serious. Don't you see the humor in that?

    Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha, (gasp) ha, ha, ha. ha, (snort) ha.ha.ha. he. he. he.......
     
  12. I'll give my two cents wortth Travis, because I'm likely one of the people you're wondering about. This issue has been brought up before and is where the W or NW concept came from. I'll speak for myself here...I've 25 years photographing, 10 years with gallery representation here in Edmonton, gallery shows throughout Canada and the U.S. and published internationally (yea, I know, whoopee for me). When I do post an image it is to SHARE it. That's it!! If I want a crit I'll go to the people who I respect for their knowledge of photography, art history, and art theory in general...not someone who sits at a keyboard all day, picks up a camera every couple of weeks (even if it is a Leica) and feels he'w knowledgeable enough to pontificate on the subject of art critique. I know to some I may sound like a priss here, but if anyone of you (I think you know who I mean Harv) wish to compare CV's or gallery sales the last few years (a substantial part of my income comes from galleries) please do so. Maybe then I'll respect your crits a bit more.
     
  13. Marc, you sound like Jay gave you too much nitrous oxide.

    Jay, as a medical professional you should know that women tend to have a higher tolerance for physical pain than men. On the other hand they have a bit less for emotional trauma. That might well account for the lack of females here on the forum, not wanting to put up with all the catty comments.
     
  14. Bob, I have always liked your work and I don't really think you are a "casual shooter" anyway ;).

    I guess what I wish everyone who shoot casually not to take themselves too seriously at times, especially not on the net!;>

    There is just too much negative energy going on here and it dilutes all the joy of sharing our works.

    hope it makes sense.
     
  15. This seemed like a question for a psychoanalyst, not a photographer, so I
    asked my wife. She opines that artists tend to be narcissists and a narcissistic
    injury is the hardest to bear. She suggests prefrontal lobotomies for all artists
    who ask for criticism.
     
  16. <<Jay, as a medical professional you should know that women tend to have a higher tolerance for physical pain than men.>>

    Men have a lower threshold but their male pride keeps them from letting on they're hurting until the pain is unbearable; women have a higher threshold but once it's reached will burst your eardrums and shred you like a cabbage.
     
  17. <<women have a higher threshold but once it's reached will burst your eardrums and shred you like a cabbage.>>


    Man, it must be really painfull to live with me. Since I have been married my eardrums are in a constant state of ringing.


    To be serious though, I think sometimes the seriousness of a post comes from the fact that it is a typed word and not a real time conversation. Jokes can easily be taken as an insult when it is written. Of course, last time I got a black eye it was because I was joking - I love family christmas parties.
     
  18. m_.

    m_.

    >>Bob worte: If I want a crit I'll go to the people who I respect for their knowledge of photography, art history, and art theory in general...not someone who sits at a keyboard all day.<<

    Bob: I always respect your photos but it really is too bad that you are only making them for art critiques but not for common people. I would want the other way around. That's just the difference b/w you and me. I would pay more attention to what common people on the street have to say instead of art gallery owners. But that probably also explains why my stuff still find few places or nowhere to be exhibited, except passing them on to hands of people I photgraphed.
     
  19. In an earlier life I was employed to test expose 126 Kodacolor cartidges for EK. I was carefully taught to use an Instamatic 500 which allows for properly exposing the film. Instructions were given for time of day and color content (green was a regular). After an innumerable number of cartridges I was consistent in providing properly exposed film. The point is that my picture content was totally irrelevant, the exposure only had to be correct as the film techs had no interest in image content. IMHO a bad exposure can be exquisite art and a perfect exposure pure junk. I would hope that Forum commenters explain their critique so the poster gains valuable insight not only to what is good or bad, but why along with suggestions for improvement. Anything else is a commenter ego trip.
     
  20. gib

    gib

    It is an interesting question. Part of the answer might be to ask why we take photographs. It might be an assumption that the reason why people are on the Leica forum is that they have wandered into a zone of photography where they are pursuing quality. They may be taking sunsets or Johnny jr. shots, or their cat, or some lovely lady. We post what we think is good, better than average. When some people reject that opinion of the photo, we mostly take it as a personal rejection. I often do. A wise old professor of mine once said a couple of points that bear on this: "Most people have a serious lack of self-confidence." "People often take things too personally." "Three rules to live by: Don't judge. Accept rejection. Ripeness is all." Ripeness is all is from King Lear. That one is a bit of a prism. Different people take different ideas from that. I sometimes think that it is pointing at the importance of and the fullness of the moment -- living in the now. And that photography is a form of expressing both self-confidence and of valuing the moment. If someone points out a technical weakness or a compositional flaw, I try to evaluate their point. If they do it sarcastically, sometimes my blood boils, but almost always I dont evaluate their point for very long. And a lot of comments are just a matter of taste, just a division in subjective response. Some people just dont see the pursuit of quality in street photography; others can't see the point of another sunset or flower macro. My anti serious photography project for the year is to take along with me when shooting photos, a small dog toy which is himself a wide eyed red dog. I plan to place him in a variety of situations and take environmental portraits of him.....just for the fun of it. Belated Happy New Year to all you Leica-phites or should that be Leicafighters?
    0073Lu-16113984.jpg
     
  21. Damnit, Travis, we're ARTISTS! And, as such such, we have a right (nay, an obligation) to be as temperamental as we damn well please. Whether someone is recognized by their peers as a real artist is irrelevant. It's a mindset: I've got an expensive camera; I devote a lot of time and emotional effort to this; I have developed a level of proficiency beyond a mere novice; and, I'm starting to fall in love with my own work. Equals, ARTIST. I'll bet my black turtle-neck sweater that there is not an artist around who appreciates criticism of his/her work. Constructive comment, maybe, if handled tactfully; but not criticism.

    Dennis
     
  22. Critique over the internet, got to be kidding, right.! You don’t know the photographers level of ability, what they are trying to achieve, to name a few. Then we are talking about a little low reg image on a screen.


    It’s about fun and sharing, seeing what other photographers are doing.
     
  23. Wentong, you've misread what I've said (or else I haven't worded it the way I'd hoped). Firstly, yours is one opinion around here I appreciate, mainly because you have the balls to post a lot of stuff, and secondly, when I've seen your comments on others work it is on things like composition, or whether it moves you or not. What I don't like is the nitpicking that sometimes goes on here about muddiness (hard to judge on a Walmart monitor), cropping (sometimes Harv people crop body parts to creat tension) and the such. I like to think the average person 'likes' an image of mine enough to hang it on thier wall (which is what's most important)...but again, after 25 years of doing this if I want a realistic assessment of my work (the kind of assessment that may cause me to make changes) I'm going to go to someone who knows as much about the craft as I do (after 25 years I've accumulated a pretty fair amount of knowledge), rather than someone who is an accountant (or whatever) 40+ hours a week and a photographer for 1. Sorry, but that's the way I see it.
     
  24. jbq

    jbq

    Travis:

    -The issue isn't specific to photographers. Look at PC gamers or car owners as an example.

    -Primarily, it's because photography involves some significant investments, bcause few people can afford the absolute best and most have to make financial efforts to buy something that's even in the middle of the price range, and don't like to hear that their investment isn't perfect. Everyone feels very proud about what they own and wants to feel comfortable by pretending that anything cheaper is much worse in terms of quality. Since for most people there exists something more expensive, this is a guaranteed source of disappointments. Worse, people get defensive, and even if you make an assessment which you think is fair and which you mark as being a personal opinion many people will feel attacked.

    I can write that I switched from Nikon to Canon because I liked the availability of cheap pro glass, i.e. the pair of f/4 L zooms. Without saying more, I'm sure that many Nikon owners will feel offended.
     
  25. (I think you know who I mean Harv


    Harvey's in trouble again. Rob Sinbad, Harvey, i don't know, they are such a worry.
     
  26. you'll all have to speak up, I've just cut my ear off.
     
  27. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    The other side of the coin, I feel that a lot of us here don’t hand out compliments enough. If you view something that tickles you, give a pat on the back instead of just scrolling on by…
     
  28. I do not care what others think of my work. Too many photographers, especially pros, are insufferably egotistical.
     
  29. It's not a matter of being artists. I looked at a consumer mattress forum recently, of all things, and people were sniping at each other! That kind of woke me up. (hee hee)
     
  30. I am a serious artist, dammit!
    0073O7-16114384.jpg
     
  31. "I do not care what others think of my work. Too many photographers, especially pros, are insufferably egotistical."
    That's interesting in light of your recent antics. Could you comment on your decision to have the moderator remove a link to your photography when it came under criticism recently?
    Skipping lightly over that, the answer to the question is quite simple. People invest their egos in their photos. So naturally, they take it personally when their work is criticised.
    It helps to consider the source. But it also helps to remember that everyone has critics. I can't think of a single photographer who hasn't come in for criticism on this forum, with the possible exceptions of Erwitt and the high holy HCB. Successful photographers working today such as McCurry and Bruce Gilden (to cite a current example) tend to come in for particularly vicious criticism.
    So that helps me put things in perspective when everyone tells me my photos suck.
     
  32. And dammit, people, it's "Artist" or "artiste," never the simple "artist." If you're going to be pretentious, you gotta do it right. ;-)
     
  33. A couple of thoughts:
    First, for those of you that think this forum is tough you should spend a few days on some of the usenet sites. Ask a question covered by the FAQ or post something open to the slightest interpretation and the flames will curl your short-hairs before you have a chance to blink. Sorry folks but the occasional cat fights that go around here are pretty bush league. So like it or not you’re all going to have to face up to the fact that you’re, well, for the lack of a better word…civilized.
    Second Bob wrote: ”I like to think the average person 'likes' an image of mine enough to hang it on thier wall (which is what's most important)...”
    Personally I can’t think of a better compliment either. But a quick trip around my office tells me that based on what people have tacked on the cubicle walls, the criteria we use on this forum goes right out the window with the average person. I would even venture to say that for the vast majority of people who press a shutter release the only thing that matters is capturing a record of where they are and who they are with. In fact just yesterday I was over a (relatively new) friend’s house. We got talking and the subject came up about the last trip she had made. Out came the albums and you should have seen her face light up. It was great to hear her talk about her trip.
    Really, for the average person it’s leica-Shmeica, they could give a damn about anything but memories. Composition, perspective, tungsten balanced film, ah, forgeddaboudit.
    But then again is that so bad? Maybe that's photography's greatest gift?
     
  34. I have no interest in my work being criticized, one way or another, and especially not here. The images there were simply to satisfy those who demanded to see them there. The link was posted without my consent, and that was why I asked to have it removed, not because I am afraid of criticism. I am also not satisfied with the scans, so evaluations are pointless in any event.

    I do not participate in critiques on this site, either giving or receiving. I am not interested.
     
  35. "If I wanted an authoritative, respectable critique of my work I'd submit it to a gallery, photo editor or maybe even a pro whose work I admire. I wouldn't bring a gourmet meal into a McDonalds for the patrons to evaluate and I wouldn't post my images to an internet forum to be critiqued by every Tom, Dick and Harry with an ISP--including a few Dicks with a personal agenda against me because I stuck the needle of truth into their fantasy bubbles at one time or another."

    Not meaning to "call out" a denizen of this esteemed board, but its precisely this sort of attitude that engenders the defensive responses you are inquiring about. Jay, a dentist, will not post his pictures on the net so they can be critiqued by every "Tom Dick and Harry" (obviously meant to be perjorative) yet reserves the right to critique others' work, including the right to disabuse people of the notion they might produce something of some value ( bursting some "Dick's" "fantasy bubble").

    My guess is that "Dick" probably wouldnt "get all worked up" over Jay the Dentist's criticisms if he ("Dick") was able to judge the standards Jay lives up to, and the only way to do that is to look at Jay's work. "Dick" could then make an informed decision about whether he found Jay the Dentist's criticisms credible or just the byproduct of Jay working out some personal issues over the internet. Instead, "Dick" only has Jay's bald assertion that his work is "gourmet" while "Dick's" is best served at McDonalds. I don't blame the "Dicks" of the world for being offended.

    I post stuff to see what other people think of it. Invariably, I don't post things I know are good - that have hung in galleries, or been published - but work I'm currently doing for pleasure and am unsure of or just attached to and need an objective eye to sort thru. When someone critiques them I'll look at that person's work to see what they do; if its lousy I move on; if its good I'll pay attention because I dont consider alot of what I do "gourmet" and good criticism helps weed out the stuff I'm too emotionally invested in to be objective about. But if your criticisms are just a mask for some neurotic need you have to assert authority without having earned it, I am offended, because my work means more to me than to be fodder for your personal neuroseses. And the guy who takes pictures of puppys and sunsets deserves no less as well if, unlike you, he's got the cojones to post it for the world to see.

    Tommorrow night I go to a party here in Paris to celebrate the publication of "Atelier Charles Sevard" in which 3 of my pics are published. I'd never post those or others like them here; I know they are good and I dont need a dentist to tell me. What I do need PN for is an HONEST critique of my less worthy stuff, and if you give me no means to judge your authority your opinion means nothing. And if its rude or condescending, I'll probably be offended as well.
     
  36. "Ok, a pro may find it difficult to accept because he makes a living out of his work. "
    See, that's what's weird to me. The number of "pros" who get all bent out of shape around here when they get bad critiques/ratings/whatever of their photos from ignorant people. It just confuses me. I'm a pro, and I couldn't care less about what anyone on photo.net has to say about my action sports shots. The only people who's opinions matter are the people signing the checks. If I get some dumb comments on a photo, I just write it off as a matter of taste. not everyone is going to like everything in the world.
    As for the kids vs no kids. Well, I've got to say that there have been a lot of crappy boring snapshots posted recently. Should there be a rule against them? No of course not. Nobody is forcing me to look at them. But there also should be no rule against someone saying "this photo is out of focus and I find it boring and crappy". It's a public forum, and you are going to get all kinds of people. Which goes back to one of the reasons that I dislike the NW threads. I don't think that it is reasonable for anyone, even someone as talented in his genre as Bob, to be able to expect to avoid comments on a photo that they post in a public place. No matter how ignorant the comments are.
    What staggers me is how much importance some people (not many of the Leica group) put into the comments/ratings of a bunch of nameless people on the internet. There are only three groups of people who's opinions matter to me: My friends/ family, photographers/critics who's work or knowledge I respect, and my clients.
     
  37. I believe that the over-sensitivity to criticism of which you speak, Travis, stems from the same set of human failings that are the source of other forms of polarized feeling, and to a lesser degree, polarized thinking. (Polarized thinking - now there's an oxymoron for you!) Consider, for example, the strong socio-political feelings people often have, and their resistance to opposing views.

    A critique of a photograph, whether well-phrased or not, is just an opinion - even if it comes from a person making his/her living as an art critic or photo editor. How, and whether, we react to those opinions is our choice. Thicker-skinned photographers (or, artists) learn to take even divergent opinions in stride, rather than taking them as personal insults - even if the critique was intended as a personal insult. If we are really smart, however, we add the opinions to our mental database, and then consider the trends. If the intention of our work is to communicate with people, even the opinion of the common person becomes important, because if a majority of people just don't "get it" then we have failed with our communication. If, on the other hand, our work is truly for self-expression only, then there is no need to share the work with others, and no need for the work to be relevant to others.

    "Truth", after all, is in the mind of the beholder. But, life is more pleasant if we have a sense of humor about it.
     
  38. <<Not meaning to "call out" a denizen of this esteemed board, but its precisely this sort of attitude that engenders the defensive responses you are inquiring about. Jay, a dentist, will not post his pictures on the net so they can be critiqued by every "Tom Dick and Harry" (obviously meant to be perjorative) yet reserves the right to critique others' work, including the right to disabuse people of the notion they might produce something of some value ( bursting some "Dick's" "fantasy bubble"). >>

    Please post a link to where I bashed someone's posted image on this forum. The fantasy bubbles I've bursted are all gear-related.
     
  39. That reminds me of another point I forgot to bring up. The idea that someone HAS to
    have photos posted in order to be deemed worthy of offering an opinion.

    Being a good critic is a skill like anything else. Having experience in what you are
    trying to critique can help, but it is by no means a reliable indicator that a critic is
    going to be able to offer anything of value.

    I know plenty of good photographers who can't say anything useful about a
    photograph. And I know plenty of great photo critics who think ISO means "I seek
    only...."

    Talent does not equal the ability to teach. They are very different skills.
     
  40. One man's art is another man's crap. It's really as simple as that. If you're the sort of prat who has a real problem with someone saying they don't like your stuff, well, tough. As long as they say it politely, they have a perfect right to voice their opinion. The real rudeness comes in when certain sad little laddies react violently to even the most gentle criticism and prattle on about how successful they are (naming no names, of course) . In the meantime here's a piece of art which I give full permission for anyone to use on this forum if they dislike a comment. I like to think of it as a smiley with attitude...
    0073Pi-16114584.JPG
     
  41. Josh:

    Quite correct. In several cases 'over there' my person was savaged because I did not have anything up against which it was possible to retaliate. Now I have satisfied their urge to have some kind of target for their wrath in response to my critiques of their waterfalls and sunsets.

    Just pitiful.

    I have found pros to be more sensitive than amateurs. I find this quite puzzling. Why should pros care one whit what the people on a public forum like this think?
     
  42. Josh I actually agree with everything you say...I'll just add one thing. I fully expect that if I post something on a public forum, people will comment, and not all will like a photo. If their reasons are even somewhat intelligent I'll cut them some slack. But from a recent personal example, if someone is going to bitch because an image has 'compressed tones' on his monitor, something that is dependent on a slew of things that may not be representitive of the original work...well, just as they have a right to make the comment I have the right to call them an idiot.
     
  43. No Bob, you don't have the right to call people an idiot. It says so in the forum rules, somewhere.

    But never mind, I know your little hearty warty's in the right place, wherever that is...

    <grin>
     
  44. Josh Root wrote: ... The idea that someone HAS to have photos posted in order to be deemed worthy of offering an opinion...
    I agree - however the opinions offered mean more if the critic's relevant background, training and skill level are known, and one way to evaluate the critic's background is through his own photos.
     
  45. "The link was posted without my consent, and that was why I asked to have it removed, not because I am afraid of criticism."
    Ah, well, that makes a good deal of sense. Nothing worse than someone looking at your work without your consent! My three-year-old daughter is going through a similar thing right now -- she gets upset when people smile at her without permission.
     
  46. W/nw's are simply about folk sharing their photos on a common theme,and are very successful. They are not posted for crit. Josh, even in a public place, is it too much to ask for a general level of decency? and respect folks wishes?


    Generally w/nw's work well, with very few problems. However,photo posted in other threads,are generally thought to be are open for crit, and if there are problems, that is where they usually come from.

    You are spending too much time on the Canon forum, which is just a Q&A as they state, Josh.
     
  47. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Hans.

    "I do not participate in critiques on this site, either giving or receiving. I am not interested."

    You are full of it. Actually, you’re right. You just insult harshly, both published pro’s and newbies (Mike in available light by Carla, is typical) and start more flame throwing than any other I know. You post opinions then argue until you're blue in the face about techniques you've never done, ie. pushing C41, cross processing...You're one of those that enriches your life by arguing safely behind a keyboard.

    http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006q71
     
  48. Allen,

    What? Wow, you are weird. Every time I bring up the W/NW threads you seem to go off
    on the subject. Canon forum? Where does that come from?

    Rest your worried head, I don't have the power to take away your precious W/NW
    threads. Nor do I care enough to do it if I did. I'm just stating my opinion as part of an
    example in the context of the current discussion.
     
  49. Photography, (like all creative expression) requires you to give of
    yourself. This is not easy. It's also a medium with almost no
    parameters (anything goes, right?) both of which which make
    comparisons of photographers and their work virtually pointless.
    One mans William Wegman is anothers Brett Weston. Recently
    I've had a rotten dry patch (writers block for photographers) and
    have been posting here just to show stuff, no other reason. This
    helped. If someone whose work I know and respect suggests
    something I've posted (or some aspect of it) ain't working, I'm
    definitely going to take a second look -chances are, I knew it
    wasn't right in the first place, and just needed to hear it. The
    creative impulse is a fragile thing, all wrapped up with self-
    doubt, ability, and ego - you have to be careful of it.

    Tom

    P.S. as stroppy as he gets,I've NEVER seen Jay attack anyone,
    or their work.
     
  50. Every time I bring up the W/NW threads you seem to go off


    Oh stop being so touchy, Josh. We are not even talking about your photos(only kidding).Now i know why you've got a twitch in your in your right eye. Promise i'll try to resist, honest.
     
  51. Jay, who cares about the opinion of someone who's nursing a grudge? How many people could that be, really, even in your case?

    There are a handful of photographers on this forum who have achieved a sufficient degree of technical mastery to post consistently good-looking digitized images, and I'm not one of them. But I post occasionally anyway, just to participate. Because that's the whole point of a forum. Sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing but commenting on the work of others seems more the domain of the weblog.
     
  52. Could photo.net make Harvey Platter's photo made into a "smilie" that would be site-specific to the Leica Forum? We'd sure give it a lot of use! Was that a Leica photo, Harvey?
     
  53. Ps...Josh, i'll be reading your posts, just to make you don't mention that word.


    Why are Photographers (artists whatever..) , so serious?
     
  54. "I've NEVER seen Jay attack anyone, or their work"

    Most of the time, no, but if you're perched on your sacred cow Jay will use a howitzer to kill the damned thing and not care where the shrapnel goes. So technically, you're correct: Letter met; spirit pulverized.
     
  55. "just to make you don't mention that word"
    Whatever that means, you go ahead and do it. Good luck in your quest my friend.
     
  56. <<I agree - however the opinions offered mean more if the critic's relevant background, training and skill level are known, and one way to evaluate the critic's background is through his own photos.>>

    Not if the opinions are unrelated to the esthetics of photography, such as if the opinions are statements of fact regarding the mechanical workings, failures, features or shortcomings of gear.
     
  57. The plain fact is that any time someone on this forum has brought up the subject of me not posting my photos to the forum it has always been intended as a rebuttal to something I've said that--as Kevin so eloquently put it--killed someone's sacred cow. The clear intent is that, being no other way to prove me wrong, if I were to post an image that person could point at it and say "look, the guy's a crappy photographer, so if he says he had 10 R bodies that were all pieces of sh*t (or whatever) he must be lying."
     
  58. I for one would be interested in seeing some of your better work, Tim, and find it curious that you would share it in the 'real world' but not here. For all its shortcomings online is still a pretty good way of broadening your viewing audience, and yes while it does fail to inspire confidence sometimes, not everyone is a putz or armchair critic.
     
  59. Andrew: The work 'over there' is for people 'over there' to retaliate against if they do not like my critiques. It gives them an outlet.

    If I wish for people 'here' to see anything, is it not MY decision whether and HOW to do that?
     
  60. Trevor Hare /member-status-icons /member-status-icons, jan 12, 2004; 09:59 a.m.
    These were inspired by one of my Photo.net 'favourites', Keith laban.


    See, Josh. Trevor was inspired to take some really good photos. Keith posts on our W/NW,s threads. Now that’s more interesting than talking about how big your zoom is, and a lot more to do with real photography. Regards. Sorry about the nag.
     
  61. Eric:

    What passes for 'passable' these days is laughable. 'Mike in available light' was hopelessly amateurish and showed little competence at all. The gushing of the author was unbelievable. I did better work at the age of 10, with a Brownie.
     
  62. Tippity-type all day Hans, it still doesn't excuse rudeness.

    Tom
     
  63. Jay, what sacred cows you think you've killed? As I see it your pontifications, casting of pearls to the photo.net swine, and insults cast directly or indirectly at photo.net forum members have killed nothing but your credibility.
     
  64. [​IMG]
    On Standing - Sony DSC-U60

    I like to take pictures and show them. Sometimes people have their own agenda and flame on them. Other times, they offer constructive criticism and the discussion that ensues is very helpful.

    I take this work seriously so it is natural to be serious about it when discussing things, and sometimes it's hard to put a favorite photo to rest when it is attacked by the flamers. But, in the end, I do photography for myself and offer it for the pleasure of those who might appreciate it.

    Godfrey
     
  65. Godfrey:

    Good for you!
     
  66. Cool photo, Bee. Sort of sums this thread up.
     
  67. Tom:

    'I think I may have found my style'......'Good stuff!'.....
     
  68. Hans, whatever you like. I'll humour you, just as I humour my three-year-old daughter, and not smile at you without permission.
    You'll have to excuse the giggling behind my hand, though. I just can't help it.
    See, when you post something in a public forum, you kind of give up control of who can look at it. And when you make remarks like, "I could do better at the age of 10, with a Brownie" or claim that your shutter timing is always perfect, etc., then you can't really be surprised when people are curious whether your photos are any good. And then when you whisk them off a site to prevent people from seeing them, well, it doesn't really promote your credibility as the dispenser of dogmatic one-line comments on these forums.
    I do agree with you, though. Many photographers are insufferable egotists.
     
  69. <<Jay, what sacred cows you think you've killed? As I see it your pontifications, casting of pearls to the photo.net swine, and insults cast directly or indirectly at photo.net forum members have killed nothing but your credibility.>>

    Amazing that someone with so much talent for getting close to wild animals has so little of it with respect to humans. Or maybe not so amazing.
     
  70. Andrew:

    The ones I wish to show are good. The ones that are bad go where they belong: in the dustbin. Unfortunately, I am not satified with the quality of the scans I obtained of some of my favorite slides, which have been posted at other places. I do not maintain a portfolio, unlike the egotistical ones who show their every snapshot and expect lavish praise for their time exposures of water running over rocks.

    I do not care whether anyone thinks my photos are any good. I am not obligated to satisfy anyone's curiosity about my work. I do not have to prove anything to anyone. I have 40 years of experience (amateur, semi-professional, and professional) in a variety of photographic specialties, some of which I excelled in and some of which I certainly did not. It does not matter to me in the least whether I have credibilty or not on the internet. I do here, where I live, among those who have known me for decades and know my work and areas of expertise.

    I really do not care to get back into photography in any professional capacity except teaching, which I do on a casual basis, and writing.
     
  71. j_a

    j_a

    When will photo.neters learn? Just ignore Hans, he rarely has anything useful to add to a conversation and his only purpose here is seems to be self-aggrandizement. How terribly drool..
     
  72. Who says there aren't any women on this forum?

    BEE FLOWERS! I have something for you. Please send me an email to let me know that my address isn't being blocked. Thank you.

    Me
     
  73. There's a wonderful Spanish expression: "Estoy mas nervioso que una cucaracha en un baile de gallinas" {I'm more nervous than a cockroach at a hen's dance} which I'm reminded of here not because I'm nervous, but I feel like I just entered a henhouse full of pecking and squawking creatures. But if I were a tasty little cockroach, I would be nervous. Too many double espressos today, boys n' girls?
    0073aw-16120184.jpg
     
  74. j_a

    j_a

    that should be droll, not drool.
     
  75. John:

    Speak with caution about things you know not of.....
     
  76. Yes, I should know better.

    Never mud-wrestle with a pig; you'll find out the pig enjoys it.
     
  77. I, for one, love criticism, but only when it's lavish praise.
     
  78. "I am serious about fun..."

    Well-spoken Peter...particularly the above quote.

    What is wrong with everyone today? Is there a full moon?

    Dennis

    P.S Please tell me if I am posting too many w/nw shots. Don't want to piss anybody off, y'know... ;>)
     
  79. Yeah, people have been really uptight today. Still wearing that shirt Dennis? ;)

    Good post particularly from Peter and beautifully written comments by Ralph on this thread. Let's take the best and forget the other nonsense.
     
  80. "Still wearing that shirt Dennis?"

    Naw, man....had to wash it. Dang. ;>)

    Look, Ray, if this thing here falls through, we're gonna start our own forum and call it "The Funny Leica Forum". Okay? Anybody else in? ;>) (Either that or we have to kill the humorless bastards here.) ;>)

    Dennis
     
  81. Why are Photographers (artists whatever..) , so serious? - Because their full of Angst, man. You can't crack a smile when you are sooooooo burdened.
     
  82. That should be they are. And I was an english major, see, I too am too angst filled to write correctly.
     
  83. I feel artiste or photographers and people in fact in general, should always carry a sense of humour(humor?) with you all the time.

    WHen you post something on the net, please, leave your egos on your lap and just laugh at yourself when you get laughed at and laugh louder at others who laughed at you.

    Seriously, we are too serious!

    :)(just in case...)
     
  84. The following is unashamed plagiarism:

    Photography is like a love affair.
    If you don't take it seriously, it's no fun.
    If you do, it'll break your heart.
     
  85. Ray, I've got one too:

    To do photography is to be. (Descartes)
    To be is to do photography. (Voltaire)
    Do be do be do. (Frank Sinatra)*

    *Men's restroom in lower Manhattan (don't ask what I was doing there). Maria
     
  86. All some people have to do is imagine themselves “artistes” and then their self-appointed status is supposed to render them exempt from the constraints imposed upon ordinary mortals. This amazing transformation usually occurs when they acquire a smidgen of ability with any kind of tool associated with the production of “art”, and particularly afflicts those who obtain a camera (the more glamorous, the greater their glory) and are thrilled to discover that they can sometimes squeeze an image therefrom (it need not be intelligible, but it helps). Then when someone who has seen countless effusions of similar questionable value dares to impugn one small detail they either fly into a fit of self-righteousness or retreat into a depression, finally realizing they have been deceiving themselves all along.
     
  87. The old saying: "If you're rich, you're eccentric; if you're poor, you're insane."
    Is there a dilution of the "art" of photography going on, now that anyone with a cell phone can be classified as one? What is an artist? I suppose everything is art. If it sells, then it's a masterpiece.
     
  88. "...anyone with a cellphone..." is a photographer? So I guess anybody with a pencil is an artist.
     
  89. Anyone who creates a work he calls art is. Whether it's good art or bad art is a
    separate judgement.
     
  90. is just a person who has called what he/she has 'created' art..
    Not really. Students of art know that this issue is a canard whose merits many like to argue; Marcel Duchamp highlighted this point with his Fountain:
    http://www.sfmoma.org/collections/recent_acquisitions/ma_coll_duchamp.html
    You can argue its merits all you want, but the intent of the work is all that's needed for art to be claimed to be so. Otherwise, we just have a Babel of conficting, personalized definitions of "art." If you want to have that arguement, fine; do it with someone else.
     
  91. Difficult to have any argument at all with someone using hieroglypics for a name. Is there a highfalutin' literary reference to your moniker, too, or did you make it up all by yourself?
     
  92. Difficult to have any argument at all with someone using hieroglypics for a name.
    You seem to have a lot of problems, Kevin. Didn't you call yourself a child in another thread here? (And did no one disagree?)
     
  93. •[• Z , I have read some of your critiques, that is, when you have written more than just giving a numeric rating. Your critiques show a lot of insight and it is a shame that you do not write more while you are rating photographs. Why?
     
  94. Harvey, that "finger" thingie resulted in loads of trouble for an American Airline pilot in Brazil. And we thought we have problems here.
     
  95. Why?
    Artistic temperament.
     
  96. ok, now that I have got your attention, anyone selling an M4 user?

    serioulsy, please email me and quote me..hopefully with a pic or 2.;)

    polar@cyberdude.com

    you guys are ok, don't worry.;
     
  97. Artistic temperament.
    OK, makes sense now. Quite a temperament though! Appreciate your insights nonetheless (rare as they are).
    I liked this explanation of the whole ratings thing (to someone who experienced a higher rating than he thought he would get):
    It's the Kibbitz Effect. Not as bad as mate-rating, but better-than-deserved ratings from people who are 'being nice' because they have interacted with you previously... whether or not they realize they're doing it.
    Makes a case for anonymous ratings being the only purely unbiased ones.
     
  98. "Anyone who creates a work he calls art ..is just a person who has called what he/she has 'created' art.. "

    No, this is wrong, sorry. Art is a lot of things, including what gets into galleries, and its meaning has evolved historically. But all of these uses add up to a set of meanings for the word which do correspond to a component of our "form of life". A gun is not a gun just because I call it so, similarly art is not art just because I call it so. Or to stay within the more social domain, a game is not a game because I decide to call it that - for instance, torturing a dog to death is not a game; if we were to call it such, it would be in an ironic sense. Similarly art is something which has agreed boundaries in our lives (and part of the agreement is that it those boundaries should be relatively vague and open to re-agreement) - again, torturing a dog to death could not easily be art.

    Kevin - don't you know that it's rude to make comments about people's names? It's really getting tiresome. Either find something substantive to say, or drop it.
     
  99. Although I would also disagree with the argument from intention, Z - intention is a valuable metric _inside_ the social form we call "art", especially when it comes to revolutionary movements (hence Duchamp), but it does not and cannot set the bounds (the grammar, if you like) of that social form, because meaning is always conventional and thus a shared social property.
     
  100. With all the continued bitching about •[•Z's ratings, I'm almost interested in going through some number of them to see if I disagree with him.

    Almost, but not nearly enough. I have a new jazz CD to practice my drumming to. And after that a pretty girl in my bed.

    Goodnight internet.
     
  101. Perhaps the fact that according to you AZ, anyone can call themselves an 'artiste'
    I'd never use that pretentious declaration. Try again.
     
  102. I'm almost interested in going through some number of them
    Feel free. Some of those most offended by my ratings have done just that, then stalked & harassed me as I commented on others' photos. (Another answer to your question, Vikram.)
    On photo.net you can more easily and quickly see some of those photos I rated most highly: http://www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/one-critic?rater=116858&period=2000
     
  103. What on earth could compel someone to relentlessly stalk this public (mostly amateur)
    forum to the tune of so many rating postings? We obviously all have the right, but it
    do so would indicate an annal/compulsive disorder bordering on the psychotic.

    Someone needs to get a life.
     
  104. Ok, all be serious now!

    http://www.photographic.com/lenses/137/
     
  105. Take it easy Marc.
    For a layback, nice guy, its the first time I've seen you blow a steam.
     
  106. "What on earth could compel someone to relentlessly stalk this public (mostly amateur) forum to the tune of so many rating postings? We obviously all have the right, but it do so would indicate an annal/compulsive disorder bordering on the psychotic."

    ...can't say that Marc's take is entirely wrong. And therein it's a shame because AZ may actually have something constructive to add to this forum. I can't say with certainty that he does, but only that he has demonstrated a sufficient knowledge about photography and art that he might.

    The problem, AZ, is that by employing a hit and run rating technique of unusual proportion, your motivation is understandably called into question. There are many immature people who lurk on photo.net with the intention of creating mischief at the expense of others. At first glance, some people may put you in that category.

    In my case, I understand that not everyone finds my stuff interesting. But I like to post to get some sort of informative feedback. That helps me become a better photographer. I'm just curious, tough, why you rate all of my photos without any comments. The ratings are bullsh*t; we all know that. If you are knowledgable about photography and art, as you appear to be, you should also understand that the ratings are virtually meaningless. Why don't you post constructive comments instead?

    If you don't find my work interesting, why do you go out of your way to rate each and every picture I post? It's just unusual. Regardless whether I think the ratings are bullsh*t, it is a bit annoying to have someone continuously tell me that most of my pictures are mediocre or less. I got that point in your first 30 ratings. You don't have to keep telling me. I'm trying to do better ;>)

    FWIW, I have no intention of pulling my stuff off photo.net if you don't stop. This is a wonderful community of photographers and it is indeed truly rewarding to exchange ideas with many of them. Although I don't particularly like the ratings system as it doesn't add anything but a competitive element, we're stuck with it. I would just hope that you would participate in a more productive way. We are already well-stocked with people who just like to annoy others...

    Regards,

    Dennis
     
  107. Some of those most offended by my ratings have done just that, then stalked & harassed me as I commented on others' photos.
    •[• Z, sorry to hear of this. I can empathize because it happened to me in another intrnet group. They plastered my home and work addresses and phone numbers, as well as all kinds of salacious fabrications on the web (and I had never met these people!), and for a while I thought some Waco style nut would come knocking on my front door. I was more concerned for my wife and her family, who till today have no idea about any of this. I still don't understand what motivates people to do these things. On top of that the untrue crap is still on the web, so I can never escape it.
     
  108. "And therein it's a shame because AZ may actually have something constructive to add
    to this forum. I can't say with certainty that he does, but only that he has
    demonstrated a sufficient knowledge about photography and art that he might."

    How would he have the time to be constructive? Or even to be observant? The guy
    has rated 40,000 images. 40,000! Even if we gave him the benefit of the doubt, and
    said to upload an image, study it a moment, rate it, and close it took an average of 5
    minutes that's 200,000 minutes... or 3,333 hours spent evangelizing on a semi-
    amateur public forum. Seems if there were some smarts behind the anonymity, it
    could be put to better use.
     
  109. Some here excel in whiningmoaningbitching about others' ratings on photo.net,
    fine -- I guess they need a hobby (besides posting here). To get back to the subject
    of this thread, perhaps the reason you're so serious about ratings, or who rates, or
    who doesn't spend time commenting (that is, when not complaining about the
    comments themselves) may be because you don't have the ability to ignore ratings
    you dislike.

    travis's inital post was right ... it's "probably an ego issue." If you don't like a rating or
    a comment you could let it slide. But that's too hard for some, I suppose.
     
  110. Thou misseth the point, Mister Symbol Man. You don't comment, or at least you don't on my photos. You just engage in a strange exercise of massive ratings. That's fine. It's your right. But don't bitch because some people think you're a weirdo for doing that. It's their right to comment about your anonymous ratings. Bottom line is that your ratings exercise seems designed more to yank people's chains than to constructively contribute to photo.net. And now, you're the one complaining?

    P.S. I would LOVE to see some samples of your work.
     
  111. "... may be because you don't have the ability to ignore ratings you dislike."

    Anyone can ignore a fly or two. 40,000 flies is another matter.

    "... I guess they need a hobby (besides posting here)."

    This from a person that must eat, sleep, and excrete in front of his computer.

    "... it's "probably an ego issue."

    You're right AZ, 40,000 ratings is an ego issue of titanic proportions. One with a
    demonstrable goal of quantity not quality.
     
  112. don't bitch because some people think you're a weirdo for doing that.
    I'm not bitching, I'm answering travis's question (which is about the bitchers, not me). And yes, others are bitching -- thought they seem loathe to recognize it.
     
  113. Marc, is your ego hurt because I rate your photos with less than adulatory numbers,
    or because you dislike that I'm using photo.net in a way that the people running find
    fine (but you don't) and can't do anything about it? Chill out.
     
  114. I sorry, touch a nerve did we Bailey?

    Oh my, a poor self-styled wasted genius. Unable, or lacking the courage, to make
    images of his own, he lashes out at others who try. Frantically rushing to judgment
    with 40,000 ratings in a pathetic attempt be among those who do have the courage.

    Nice life's work there Bailey ; -)

    ".. or because you dislike that I'm using photo.net in a way that the people running
    find fine (but you don't) and can't do anything about it?" -AZ (AKA Bailey Seals)

    I can, and have done something about it. It finally dawned on me to do the math. You
    are nothing more than the Mac Donald's of photo.net... striving for a "Billion Served".
    If that's what the "people running " photo.net want, that's their business, I have a
    business of my own.
     
  115. I sorry, touch a nerve did we Bailey
    You're the complainer here, Marc, not I, so please reevaluate whose nerve is being touched.
    I can, and have done something about it.
    You are still posting on photo.net, you are still upset by and complaining about me, I am still acting legally on photo.net and you haven't deleted any of your photos. What did you do: buy a voodoo doll? Nah, never mind, I don't quite care.
     
  116. A gun is not a gun just because I call it so ... art is something which has agreed boundaries in our lives
    A gun (or a table) can be a walnut-cracker if I call it so. Whether it's a good one is subject to discussion. I feel the same goes for art. Boundaries are limited by culture and time, and are so variable (even within a culture or a time) as to be too burdensome to be agreed upon. An acquaintance once showed me a large collection of strange of strange implements he had collected and mounted: some old and rusted, some new and bulbous and plastic. At first I didn't realize what they were -- but they were beautiful objects/artifacts, some looking like parts from 50s-era toy ray guns. After a minute or two I realized that they were veterinary syringes for different-sized animals, some new, some quite old. Were they also art? They were not designed as such, although I'm sure design was a consideration in some cases. But they were compelling, beautiful objects and if he'd wanted to call them art, fine with me.
     
  117. " ... you are still upset by and complaining about me, I am still acting legally on
    photo.net..."

    Who said what you do is illegal here? It's your ethos that's being discussed.
    Discrimination can't be part of it when you've raced through 40,000 images... the
    math shows clearly that. It reveals that no one should take you seriously because you
    didn't take their efforts seriously enough to give it any thought.

    " ... and you haven't deleted any of your photos".

    So, is that your mission, the "cleansing" of all that you dislike?

    Besides, why would I delete anything based on a rating? Because of some annal/
    compulsive individual who's made it he's life's mission to piss away his intellect on
    photo.net? Get real.
     
  118. internet catfight....how exciting....
     
  119. Hisssss, grrrrr, hisssssss... meow ; -)
    0075c3-16166584.jpg
     
  120. Cool picture! I'll give it 4/4. :)
     
  121. hehehe, Andrew, that was funny.
     
  122. Who said what you do is illegal here? ... So, is that your mission???
    I never said it was illegal, or wrong, but you seem incensed by it regardless. And that's just tough for you, Mac, no matter how much or how loud you boo hoo here. If you think I have a mission you're reallly not thinking clearly ... not that you were Swarovski before.
    To have an intellect to piss away -- so that's why you're jealous! ROFL. But at least I hope you're happy with that voodoo doll, Marc.
     
  123. Bailey, you label anyone questioning you as "boo hooing" in an attempt to negate their
    challenges. Yet, we all have the right to speak up ESPECIALLY when it is concerning a
    person who has rated 40,000 images with few constructive comments in relation to
    that massive number. Nor has posted a single image in a forum gallery dedicated to,
    and engineered for, that purpose.

    The fact remains, regardless of how many rebuttals you write, or lofty art treatises
    you apply to primarily amateur efforts, massive ratings like that reveals a lack of
    quality thinking, or any kind of human sensitivity, or the sharing of knowledge (the
    primary purpose of a public forum). That's the challenge you have not addressed, but
    instead continuously put it off to "it's a cry baby ego thing" to duck the issue.

    In the end, nothing will change. You are you. But at least doing the math has revealed
    the true worth of your efforts.

    But I apologize for keeping you from your mission here debating with me. You must
    be falling behind on your daily ratings quota.
     
  124. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    40,000 useless ratings? What a waste of skin.
     
  125. Marc, you can continue to whine and bemoan my actions, but you're simply wrong.
    Got it? Good. Don't like it? Tough toenails. Gonna' continue harping on my legal
    actions repeatedly? That's stalking behavior, and abuse.

    As we can see, this is not relevant ot travis's thread, which is about people being too
    serious. Here, Marc is just being childish because I don't do what he wants me to do.
     
  126. Bailey, •[• Z, you have to be blind to not realize that Marc is expressing the sentiments (and possibly the frustrations) of a large number of people who have posted photographs on this site, but who are too timid to do anything about it. Marc is the only one who has stood up and asked the questions they would like answered. You hide behind "artistic temperament," “legalities of abiding by photo.net rules” and so on. These are just smoke screens. ”What’s your game?”
    We know that you’re not a cretin with respect to knowledge of photography, so why do you persist in this obsessive quest that, while not violating the rules and laws of photo.net, is disruptive to the spirit of photo.net, which is surely the more important variable? Your numerous ratings, without so much as a comment, do not help anyone. If anything, they seem to have aroused contempt for you. Is that what you want, fame? Or do you like being viewed as a major irritant?
    40,000 ratings equates to 800 per month for 50 straight months, or over 25 per day for 1,500 days straight. I wish I had that kind of discipline for anything! Do you have any tips for me?
     
  127. No game.

    You don't like it? Okay, don't like it. Ignore it. But it's part of photo.net and ratings are
    appreciated by those who run the site. Don't like that? Get the rules changed.

    Got a complaint? Send it to abuse@photo.net

    If it's not abuse? For someone who's brought this up repeatedly, it just becomes
    whining.

    Marc says he's already done something about it. Doesn't seem that way, unless that
    something is hounding me. If that's *his* game, then that is abusive behavior on
    photo.net.
     
  128. Herr •[• Z likes to critique pictures.

    SO?

    I do not.

    SO?

    He has critiqued 40,000 pictures.

    SO?

    I have not.

    SO?

    We have different interests.

    He has not posted any of his work.

    SO?

    I have not posted any of my work.

    SO?
     
  129. Yes Bailey, I have done something about it whether or not you care to admit it... I did
    the math others are now also doing.

    And, I will continue to ask the direct question you keep skirting... HOW can you
    provide a decent evaluation of anyone's work and crank out 40,000 ratings? It may be
    legal for you to do so here, but so is challenging the premise by pointing out the
    mediocrity of mass ratings concerning people's creative efforts.

    To use your lawyer logic, don't read the thread if you don't like it, because you can't
    do anything about it... and if you can, it will reveal to everyone that there is indeed a
    "game afoot".
     
  130. "HOW can you provide a decent evaluation of anyone's work and crank out 40,000 ratings"

    He can't, so take his rating as a nothing rating. Annoying it is, but so is this thread.
     
  131. have done something about ... I did the math
    For you, doing simple division is "doing something about it"? Hehe. Hehehe.
     
  132. Just ignore Bailey. It works with kids, why wouldnt it work with him too?
     
  133. That's the thing, Tim. I posted three serious posts to this thread, whereupon a series
    of snipes and whines arose that had nothing to do with the topic. It's the whiners who
    need to get a grip, because while I have not started this, I'm not going away either.
     
  134. Anyone like my bird photo? Wonder what sort of bird it is?
    007633-16174084.jpg
     
  135. Hey, do you think Mr Constable would have been jealous of my photo?
    00763l-16174184.jpg
     
  136. Allen:

    I don't know about Mr. Constable...it's Mr. AZ you have to worry about. He's jealous of everyone's photographs. Poor guy, maybe we should all chip in and buy him a Leica (or a Zorki) and some lessons.
    <G>


    Regards,

    Dennis
     
  137. He's jealous of everyone's photographs.
    Trolling again, Dennis? Try psychoanalyzing yourself for a change, or is that too scary for you to contemplate?
     
  138. Wonder what sort of bird it is?
    A common snipe, perhaps?
     
  139. You okay, cupcake? Didn't mean to rattle you.. BTW would you prefer a Fed to a Zorki? <G>

    Dennis
     
  140. Herr Hans Beckert,

    I have to laugh. I clicked on your name and your profile says that you have been on this forum since November 13, 2003, which is just over two months. During this time you have posted 935 times! This must be some sort of record. That's 102 per week, or about 15 a day for 64 days straight. You're obviously in the same league as AZ Bailey when it comes to obsessive traits, though as you say, you have different hobbies!

    To get back to the issue at hand. Nobody's suggesting that AZ Bailey's breaking any rules or anything remotely close to that. Someone asked him an innocent question as to why he has posted almost 40,000 ratings without offering constructive criticism of any sort, and AZ Bailey cites the rules of photo.net and talks about people attacking him. It's absurd logic. Bailey has knowledge of photography and what is a good photograph, but is not willing to share any of it with those he crucifies with a low rating. Don't you think that people at least deserve a comment on low (or high, or medium) rated photos? People were just trying to engage Bailey in a dialogue, but he chooses to hide behind the US Constitution.
     
  141. Vic hat mir geschrieben:

    "To get back to the issue at hand. Nobody's suggesting that AZ Bailey's breaking any rules or anything remotely close to that. Someone asked him an innocent question as to why he has posted almost 40,000 ratings without offering constructive criticism of any sort, and AZ Bailey cites the rules of photo.net and talks about people attacking him. It's absurd logic. Bailey has knowledge of photography and what is a good photograph, but is not willing to share any of it with those he crucifies with a low rating. Don't you think that people at least deserve a comment on low (or high, or medium) rated photos? People were just trying to engage Bailey in a dialogue, but he chooses to hide behind the US Constitution."

    People 'deserve' only what they pay for...
     
  142. You okay, cupcake?
    I'm fine, p^ssywillow. Your trolling is indicative that you're the one who's troubled, though.
     
  143. he chooses to hide behind the US Constitution
    Is that what I was doing, Vikram? Wow, thanks for explaining. Any particular amendment? [grin]
     
  144. Jeez....why so angry? Is it something I said? BTW, do you think the Industar 22 lens is superior to the Jupiter 8 in sharpness and contrast? <G>
     
  145. why so angry?
    I don't know why you're so angy and trolling, Dennis. I suspect it relates to a post you made on another thread in which, like Marc, you whined about my rating your photos without what you considered due deference. If that's why you're trolling now, it makes you a pretty small fellow indeed, p^ssywillow.
     
  146. ...and it's obvious you are jealous of everyone's photos. (Is it because you have none of your own?) <G>
     
  147. it's obvious you are jealous of everyone's photos.
    I'll say it again: try psychoanalyzing yourself for a change ... or is that scary idea too much for you to contemplate?
     
  148. Wasn't there another thread somewhere, perhaps now deleted, about how some poor guy pulled all of his photos off photo.net because of you? Am I right? Actually, the guy is a pretty good photographer and I'm sorry to see him go. I would much prefer to see an obviously untalented, frustrated artiste (without any good photos to show) like you leave.

    While we're at bitching, why don't you tell the folks here how in just the last hour you went back to my site and hit the few remaining photos you had not alrewady rated? Now, AZ, who is trying to provoke whom?
     
  149. P.S. You are extremely jealous!
     
  150. People 'deserve' only what they pay for...
    And you're a real bargain, because we got you for free! :)
     
  151. Any particular amendment? [grin]
    AZ Bailey, it used to be the First Amendment, but now it's the Second Amendment. :)
     
  152. Now it makes sense, AZ...you are angry with me because when I read that other thread, I posted a message that the same guy (you) appears to be stalking me by rating every photo I put up...and I further informed everyone on that thread that you had posted nearly 40,000 ratings. Is that why you're angry with me?
     
  153. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0071yk

    Here is the link to the other thread... AZ, please re-read my comments and point out my "whining". Actually, sir, you should also re-read my original comments in this thread too What I was actually attempting to do was to convince you to come in from the cold and join the club. I was hoping that you were not just trying to irritate people. Obviously I was wrong. You must be a terribly lonely, guy, huh?
     
  154. Dennis:

    "What I was actually attempting to do was to convince you to come in from the cold and join the club. I was hoping that you were not just trying to irritate people. Obviously I was wrong. You must be a terribly lonely, guy, huh?"

    You need to read some 'Fountainhead' or 'Atlas Shrugged'.

    Seriously.
     
  155. I was actually attempting to do was to convince you to come in from the cold
    By trolling and insulting. Huh. Grow up, Dennis.
     
  156. I can handle an argument, a disagreement or difference of opinion and put it away when it's over. What I do not tolerate is someone who intentionally, and without any good reason, tries to provoke me or others...and that is exactly what you have been doing AZ.

    When you went back tonight and attacked my site again, your timing made your intentions perfectly clear. I don't give a rat's a** about the ratings you gave; they're stupid. I do care when someone tries to yank my chain. You were trying to mess with me and that is what you have been doing to everyone else all along.

    So, there is no misunderstanding, yes, I am yanking your chain, because you deserve it. You are obviously a miserable person who has nothing better to do than rate 40,000 photos on photo.net, and who wants to share his misery with everyone else. If you wanted a fight, you got it.

    And, Becker, congratulations... you must be the only friend AZ has. (Oooh, do you think he'll tell you his real name?)

    It's getting late...don't you have some more photos to rate tonight, AZ? Have you hit Vic and Marc yet? <G>
     
  157. Sorry AZ Bailey, but simple math is all that is needed to see things don't add up with
    you. Nothing complicated about it. Massive ratings divided by minimal time spent =
    mediocrity on your part.

    BTW, why would I complain (or whine) about your ratings of my work in the past
    months? I've received a respectable number of 5s and 6s from you. Nice, but
    worthless due zero credibility.

    Where's the fire? Slow down and actually evaluate a piece of work. If you have such
    strong convictions and knowledge of art and photography try sharing them. Engage in
    an artistic dialog about your opinion. You may actually expand your POV or learn
    something yourself. Or are you rigid in your beliefs and already know it all ?
     
  158. Photo Net trivia: describe the photo that Bailey once had on his PN web
    space??
     
  159. Dennis:

    I am not a friend of AZ. I simply point out that your desire to have him 'become of of the guys', that is LIKE YOU, is hopelessy collectivist.

    You must be a Democrat (spit).
     
  160. Photo Net trivia: describe the photo that Bailey once had on his PN web space??
    Describe the three different photos I once had there.
     
  161. but simple math is all that is needed
    Whine, whine whine -- that's all you've got, Marc. If you think something's really so wrong, go complain to photo.net and let them explain why you're wrong.
    try sharing them.
    With dopey trolls? Just as it's anyone's right to rate photos (as many as they like) on photo.net, it's anyone's right not to post photos. You seem unclear on the concept. Get a clue, please.
     
  162. Beckert:

    If you go back and read my original comments, you will see the magnonimity of my position... Why fight with people? If someone has something to offer to the conversation, bring him in... And, someone who has time to rate 40,000 pictures must not have a whole lot of people to talk to, so you'd think he'd welcome an opportunity to join in. That was my original thinking. I just thought it was weird the way this guy was stalking every picture I put up. If someone likes my stuff or finds it interesting, I've gotten friendly e-mails and met some really nice people that way, literally from all over the world. I just found it strange the way this guy was stalking everything I put up without ever commenting. Then I saw how many photos he had rated and that struck me as weird. When it came up that he had driven one guy to pull all of his photos, I wanted to know what was up. And I tried to explain that comments were preferable to ratings, but...that's when AZ started hollering that it was right to do what hw wanted, that he wasn't breaking any laws, etc., etc. In my opinion, this guy, for whatever reasons that motivate him, has been intentionally trying to provoke people. It is obvious he continues to purposely irritate when asked to stop.

    For goodness sakes, this is an internet forum...for entertainment. What is so difficult with showing some consideration to others?

    This really is my last post tonight.
     
  163. you will see the magnonimity of my position
    Magnonimity? Why, lookee' here Andy, Dennis is channeling Kingfish!
    so you'd think he'd welcome an opportunity to join in
    In the face of your earlier complaints about my rating your photos, this is not believable.
    I just found it strange the way this guy was stalking everything I put up without ever commenting.
    How presumptuous. I rate many peoples' portfolios. If you think that there's any stalking going on, complain to abuse@photo.net. Otherwise quit your bellyaching.
    I tried to explain that comments were preferable to ratings
    So what? I prefer to rate. If you don't agree or like a rating, ignore it. Is that too hard to really comprehend? You're the one doing the provoking, Dennis. If you don't like the ratings -- which photo.net promotes people giving -- then ignore them. Don't stalk me and troll and engage in 3rd-grade psychoanalyzing bullsh^t then pretend you're engaging in mature badinage.
     
  164. Still no intelligent answer.

    Just sputtering rebuttals and whiny misinformation. Never said anything was wrong
    Bailey, so I don't need to go ask your internet mother about anything. Merely rating
    your methods and actions on photo.net as mediocre and saying why... which is more
    than you do.

    Obviously, no reasonable answers are forthcoming... so the horse has been beaten to
    death, ground up for dog food, eaten by fido and pooped out... just like this thread.
     
  165. Never said anything was wrong
    Are you on medication? Just look at the posts above (e.g. "annal/compulsive disorder bordering on the psychotic.") and compare them to this asinine claim. This latest missive by you is simply pathetic.
    Get a clue, Marc, get a grip, grow up and stop the flaming and insults.
     
  166. Nice bokeh, Allen. Could be a gull...
     
  167. A lot of branch hurling and running sideways here...
    [​IMG]
     
  168. Its all VERY simple if you practice the following:

    1) Do not respond to Bailey
    2) Do not acknowledge a post by Bailey
    3) Do not engage Bailey in any way
    4) Act as if Bailey does not exist

    If we all take these lessons to heart and practice every day, it will Drive Bailey insane (of course, thats assuming Bailey is not already insane; I have my opinions on that).

    Bailey is just one of those pathetic characters you find on any internet community, trolling the net looking for attention. He's an obvious example of the phenomenon known as erotic sublimation i.e. this forum is his substitute for a non-existent sex life. Its all pretty pathetic, but its oddly interesting to watch, sort of like an automobile accident or train wreck.
     
  169. I can't believe NOONE emailed me to sell a M4....are you guys serious?
     
  170. just one of those pathetic characters you find on any internet community, trolling the net looking for attention. He's an obvious example of the phenomenon known as erotic sublimation i.e. this forum is his substitute for a non-existent sex life. </ i>
    Too funny: Tim engages in personal attacks in order to recommend that people stop posting to me and ignore me. Ha! Well, no one ever accused Tim of logical consistency here. Or maturity.
     
  171. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    I agree with Tim. No fuel, no fire.
     
  172. May I point out an observation? This thread will not end unless unless AZ gets the last post. :>)

    Dennis
     
  173. Two more things:

    1. Why are posts suddenly in italics? and

    2. Thank you, Travis, for starting such a wonderful thread. Going on vacation any time soon? ;>)

    Later...

    Dennis
     
  174. THREAD CLOSE.....................................



    PS: yes...Im going for a short trip out of my house soon..;)
     
  175. Dennis is just an angry, whining temperamental, jealous p^ssywillow troll with a
    strange anal/compulsive disorder bordering on the psychotic. :) But at least he
    doesn't consider elementary mathematical division to be an accomplishment worth
    crowing about. ;-)
     
  176. Isn't it time for the Pancake Bunny to make an appearance?
     
  177. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    You wont find anyone that will agree with you Bailey. In a few years when you reach adulthood, you should come back and read your words. Go away.
     
  178. I'm not going anywhere, Eric. You first.
     
  179. </i> italics off
     
  180. still no M4 offers...amazing..

    nobody takes me seriously ;(
     

Share This Page