W/NW Picture of the Week #5

[Alex_Es]

<p>M8 + Nokton 50/1.1 @ f 1.1.</p><div></div>

[Nowhereman]

<p>Yee Kim/Charlie LeMay/John Simoes:</p>

<p>While some people will say that having anyone post pictures to a thread is a good thing, please note that the value of a Picture of the Weeek thread is that it forces the photographer to chose the picture that he or she liked the best that week and that, if you want to post multiple pictures, you can always start a W/NW thread. Therefore, it would be best in the future to select only one picture to post in the Picture of the Week thread.</p>

<p>—Mitch/Bangkok</p>

[charlie lemay]

<p>Mitch, in the future, it would be best if you typed my name properly. There is no capital "M" in Lemay. Thanks.</p>

[khi]

<p>excellent shot Alex...(or maybe i'm just hungry? :)</p>

[randy_lewis1]

<p>The following 2 Images are of the Boat "Irene" It was an abandoned boat in the Harbor @ Pillar Point, Half Moon Bay, California. Through Donations and Free labor, it was restored to what you see now. It still has some finish work to be done, but she's a beauty<br /> Shot with an M8 and 28mm CV Ultron<br>

<br /> <img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4043/4324303632_7d7141cd46_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="689" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4034/4323568279_c00960f222_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="689" /></p>

 

[john_boyle3]

<p>Beautiful boat Randy. Could you start a new thread with more pictures of it?</p>

[b_christopher]

<p><img src="http://www.bchristopherphotography.com/temp/temp/Untitled-8.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Exposed in 2006, processed this week. Ilford Delta 100 IIIf 5cm 1:1.4 Nikkor</p>

[randy_lewis1]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=603659">John Boyle</a> , Feb 02, 2010; 07:54 a.m.</p>

<br />

<p>"Beautiful boat Randy. Could you start a new thread with more pictures of it?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John,<br>

I have followed the progress for the last couple of years.<br>

I'll look through my Negitives and M8 Files and see what I can come up with and post them on Flickr and provide a link for viewing.</p>

[MTC Photography]

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10621418-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="453" /></p>

[knut_schwinzer]

<p>Mitch and Charlie,<br>

Understood and well explained, Mitch.<br>

But OTOH, I hope this is not going down to juridical terms, say, let people do post more than one shot a week in exactly this thread, simply because much movement I do not notice recently in this forum, and as much as you stand correct, I must say that the "smell" of your post is turning me off - well, not me personally, but maybe newbees. Or even Charlie!</p>

<p>Charlie, I understand you perfectly, at least I guess...<br>

It's just frustrating to post some pics with illusion and getting back a dry admin-like drawback. I know that feeling. And than I understand your claim on the (for the others) nit-picking ortografic error, but it just came out of your guts! (At least I hope you have the big "M" around your neck, Charlie!)<br>

I'm asking for more kindness on this forum, otherwise it will not be that inviting. People might just pop up with a private question ("What is this worth?"-kind-of-threads) and then back out forever. <br>

<br>

Al Kaplan for example was always polemic, but never personally offending and did a lot for making this place alive.<br>

Don't know, maybe I'm just a little bit too sensitive tonight, there will be somebody out there too cuont mei errrors.<br>

Good n/light!<br>

Knut </p>

[Nowhereman]

<p>Knut:</p>

<p>There's more to this than the idea of narrow regulation which you refer to as insisting on "juridical terms": there is also — or at least there should be — the sense of community in which, through respect for others, it is abundantly clear that one does not post multiple pictures in a thread called "Picture of the Week", in which others have disciplined themselves to chose the <strong>one</strong> picture that they will post in the thread for that week — indeed, it is this selection of one picture that makes the concept of a picture of the week thread interesting. To post two, or a whole batch of, pictures is simply to exhibit obtuseness or a lack of respect for others, as it undermines the concept and the implicit cooperation of this type of thread. To respond as Charlie Lemay has is simply rude.</p>

<p>Incidentally, on the Nikon Forum, where the Picture of the Week thread is called "Nikon Wednesday Pic", there are currently 150 posts in this week's thread, and none one has posted more than one picture, which goes to show that the picture of the week concept is not difficult to understand and that, perhaps, there's more sense of community and respect for others on that forum.</p>

<p>Actually, as I won't be able to post this Sunday, I was going ask someone else to be the first one to post this week; but, having thought about the general issues raised by your post, I'll go further and stop posting to this thread altogether in the future, not only because of the issue of multiple posts, which are becoming more frequent, and the attitude this reveals, but because the total number of posts , about 25 per week on the average, has become so low that it makes posting here much less interesting. (There's no need to reply to this post).</p>

<p>—Mitch/Bangkok</p>

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

<p>? No need to reply?<br>

Wish I could get away with that when I have a point to make.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Thanks guys for killing one of the fun weekly postings on this forum IMO. Mitch, thanks a million for hosting this thread this last long bit. I hope you will reconsider. <br>

Knut, why would a newbie be in any way offended by simply being reminded of the thread intent by the thread generator? The "feeling" of the post, didn't seem to me that it would offend any mature adult. In fact, I've also noticed that some of the newer posters have been posting several photos at once. While it's not the end of the world, it does start to clutter the intent of this one thread. If it were my thread, I would have said something similar.<br>

I'm just kind of floored how you interpreted the intent of that post. Is their a language issue or something? </p>

[charlie lemay]

<p>Some people take themselves too seriously. My post was not rude on it's own, just a reflection of the rudeness directed at me and others. I mirrored the offending words to point out that obliviousness is always someone else's problem. Without instructions heading up the thread it can easily be interpreted as submitting work to be considered "Picture of the Week." Even though I have been a member for nearly 1o years, it never occurred to me that only one image per post was an understood rule. A nice way to say the same thing would have been "Hey everyone, the original intent of this thread is to post your single best image of the week. If we keep posting multiples, we'll need to change the name?" Less authoritarian, more inclusive and respectful and raising the awareness of us oblivious types without taking us to the woodshed.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Sorry, what rudeness was that? So you were confused about the thread, and corrected, like get over it. I saw no rudeness directed at you Charlie.</p>

[charlie lemay]

<p>Barry,<br>

I actually did not perceive any comments as rude, only overly officious and overstated. Mitch found my response "rude" when I used the same sentence elements he did to point out one of his obvious mistakes. I never said I was confused, I just never noticed this was a one post thread. Now that I know, I will certainly honor that.</p>

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

<p>One or two or three posts just isn't that serious Barry. We have always had multiple posters, as far back as I can remember. I hosted this thread for well over a year, & there were always a few(never more than three).There is, (or was), a POW site initiated by Kyle Cassidy, a former member of this forum-I think the first of its kind, and virtually every photog in it has a double, an "alternate", every so often. Sometimes you don't wanna choose.<br>

Moderators have the authority to insist on one post per person per week. I don't see a moderator icon nect to Mitch's name, so IMO he is merely expressing an opinion. If anyone has a sense of rudeness it probably comes from the feeling that Mitch is putting himself in a position of authority which he doesn't have.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p> It's all good. Thanks for pointing out the nuances of your motivation for the exchange. Plus now everyone will know from Mitch's statements, overly officious or not, that its a single photo of the week thread.<br>

Unfortunately, in the exchange we lost our host....</p>

<p> </p>

[leotomlin]

<p><img src="http://www.realify.com/~leo/F1010015.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Rome. Leica M7, 50mm f/2</p>

[kens]

<p>Leo, that is gorgeous. That kind of resolution and contrast I would expect from 120 film.</p>

[leotomlin]

<p>Ken, Thanks! But it's just plain 'ol TMAX 400.</p>

[kens]

<p>Did you develop and scan the film yourself?</p>

[david_glad_nelson]

<p>In perusing the posts, it's not difficult to see who actually take not only themselves, but also their snapshots, and even their names too seriously</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>You're right Jack, it's really no big thing, but it has been happening more lately and looks like some of the newer posters didn't get that its supposed to be 1. It was also no big thing to remind folk as well.. </p>

[Nowhereman]

<p>Today, I looked in again on this thread and can only say that I now see, in the light of the self-righteous posts made subsequently, how appropriate it was to write that no response was necessary. Firstly, as Barry stated, no mature adult would feel insulted by a statement suggesting that only one picture a week be posted in a picture of the week thread. Secondly, only people looking for an argument would consider officious a suggestion made by a thread initiator rather than a moderator: now, that is truly legalistic and, yes, officious — as well as taking oneself too seriously. Generally, though, I never cease to be amazed by how people writing on an internet forum don't hesitate to write in an offensive manner at the slightest imagined slight, as they would never do speaking to someone face to face.</p>

<p>—Mitch/Bangkok</p>