paddler4 Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 Wow. What started as a simple discussion of MTF tests of a lens segued into ad hominem garbage, gratuitous vulgar language, and now right-wing polemics. I actually thought this was a photography forum. Silly me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted August 6, 2019 Author Share Posted August 6, 2019 In this thread, you got JDMvW's #27 post to thank for that. No, anyone who cares to check will discover Phil S's long post (13ff) ranting how unimportant technology is for photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted August 6, 2019 Author Share Posted August 6, 2019 Never mind, everybody. It's just Phil S trying to kill another web site before he moves on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddler4 Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 What a stagnant site like PN needs is a bit more character and a bit more imagination, and I for one happen to possess and be possessed by both in spades if I may say so myself. Not the nouns your posts suggested. Maybe I'll go ahead and go create just that kind of photography site instead of whining about it here. Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 We all think we are creative and original. The truth, however, rests only in the opinions of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 There are plenty of us on this site who are scientists or otherwise technically minded and enjoy geeking out over some of this stuff. Frankly, I don't understand why some posters in this thread(and other threads) like Phil S and Ludmilla seem to want to take shots at the people who enjoy doing that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 Okay, maybe Eh? My only comment was questioning whether the quality of some lenses varied so much. Okay, perhaps not in this thread... But you are constantly critical of things like people who post long-winded answers to questions or even technical discussions of technique to photograph certain items-basically I sense a general disdain from you of anything that doesn't fit photography EXACTLY as you see it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 As for my occasional reaction to long-winded(your definition) posts don’t you think those posters are fair game? No, they're not fair game. Just because YOU don't see value in them(as the tone of your since-deleted post seems to make abundantly clear doesn't mean that others don't. I seem to recall a disdain for members who you perceive as older in that same comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddler4 Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 As for my occasional reaction to long-winded(your definition) posts don’t you think those posters are fair game? No, not IMHO. This is in theory a forum in which people trade ideas and help each other learn, not a place for people to score points against each other. I follow this forum only intermittently. I follow it because there are people here who know things I don't and from whom I can learn, and there are occasionally people whom I can help. I returned to this forum recently, and I was really disappointed by the tone of many threads. I won't name names, but there are people whose posts suggest that they enjoy arguments for arguments' sake, and it's fairly common for posters to insult each other with little or no reason. One person who participated in a few threads I followed recently was so foul-mouthed and nasty that he would have been banned from one other forum I follow. Like it or not, digital photography is a technical medium, and some people are interested in learning about the technical aspects. If you aren't, just skip those posts. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 It takes all sorts to make a world, paddler. This is a public forum and you are going to meet allsorts-is that not of a interest to you? Or, just those of like minds? Ignore, what you are not comfortable with and enjoy the rest. Simple. And yes, folks who enjoy the technical aspects, just enjoy. The real world is not about kiss and cuddles, and neither is photography or art. Look further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 I’m not sure if either Ben or paddler4 know what long-winded means so here’s the definition long-winded ADJ 1 tiresomely long 2 capable of energetic activity without becoming short of breath > ˌlong-’windedly ADV > ˌlong-’windedness N And guess what well respected moderator of the Nikon forum said this recently I rest my case. I don't see any case for you to rest...perhaps I lack the intelligence to understand the pseudo-intellectualism that I often perceive. The fact remains that you are quite often patronizingly critical of things that you really seem to have no understanding of. I can't cite specific examples because the posts were deleted, but none the less you seem to show a general dislike of technical discussions and also people giving in-depth answers. There again, the moderators have cleaned up evidence I could point to so as to support this statement. Whatever the case, from my perspective it's tiresome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddler4 Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 Of course, it’s easier to talk about cameras and lenses and sensors and pixels and bleeping MTF charts than about the motivations of the ones behind the camera or why you made the picture in the first place. No, it's often not. I can easily explain why I took photos, but figuring out why processing didn't work as I wanted, or what some alternative ways of taking or processing the photo might be, can be complicated. In any case, it is a pointless argument. People who aren't interested in one side or the other can skip those posts. I personally don't care a whit what the balance is. What bothered me is tone. I'm watching this site to learn and, occasionally, to explain. Insults and gratuitous arguments don't help. Neither do postings like this one: F$ck all this bullshit wannabe geekery circle jerk off nonsense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 No, Phil S, what you are is rude and obnoxious. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to speak in those terms just because you don't like one particular thread. What on earth is wrong with talking about MTF charts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddler4 Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 I guess I'm an expressionist. yes, that kind of vulgar garbage certainly places you in the same category as Berthold Brecht and D. H. Lawrence. First, I’m not responsible for your faux outrage. You are. I doubt it's faux, but that is for Ben to say. In either event, you are responsible because it's your behavior. This is simply trolling. Best response is to ignore it. Responding just reinforces it. Given how many people frequent this site because they are interested in photography, it's a shame the moderators allow this to continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c_watson1 Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 None of this actually matters now. Site traffic cratered long ago. Back in the day, Greenspun and the Mods locked this and other rudderless threads, outed trolls and voted them off the site for high-sticking. "No photographic objective" was the usual grounds for deleting OT posts. It worked. Too much behavior on PN now that one could find in DSM V's collected personality disorders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridges Posted August 13, 2019 Share Posted August 13, 2019 (edited) Moderator, please remove Phil S. from this thread, please. Geez...... Edited August 13, 2019 by bridges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now