steve_spencer

I have a David King (12/20/04), who has a <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=457670"><b><u>very interesting gallery</b></u></a>(!?!). Could someone explain it to me? I guess I missed the boat.<br><br>-s<br><br><i>Ellen, - Genius SS indeed </i> lol :-)

Hey...

Two articles in New York Institute of Photography articles:<br><br>

 

Click <a href="http://www.nyip.com/tips/topic_firstslr0404.php">Here</a>.<br><br>

 

and <a href="http://www.nyip.com/tips/special_report1004.php">here</a>.<br><br>

 

I was thinking of getting a T-Shirt or sweatshirt made with "PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT A CRIME" in big red letters on the back.

 

To answer the above question, no, I don't have G SS in my workspace. <br><br>-s

This is my second attempt to enter this comment. I hope it doesn't double.<br><br>

 

Regarding Mr. Pehrson's date, I was looking at the wrong line, his is 1895-05-27 or something like that. A very old man, I guess. ??? <br><br>

 

Now, IF I were to play devil's advocate and think in a paranoid fashion, I would wonder if we are under some not-so-covert surveillance . ..I'm only half-kidding here.<br><br>

 

Have any of you been stopped or questioned while photographing in public? Has anyone stopped and taken your license plate number down while you were out photographing? <br><br>

 

I have had all those things happen, and in this, I am serious. I was questioned by: 1.)The police, for photographing scenic buildings in the city; 2.)A redneck for photographing an abandoned one-room schoolhouse from a public highway; 3.)An off-duty power company employee for photographing trees near a power line right of way from the side of a public highway; 4.)An unknown person pulled up and wrote my tag number down when I returned to my vehicle from photographing the moon over water from a public walkway on a public bridge, then he took off; None of these were confrontational encounters, but they made me very uncomfortable. I'm not making these up. <br><br>

 

If you want some interesting reading, go to www.photopermit.org and read the news articles, but especially the forums. Also www.freedomtophotograph.com (I might have that last url wrong). <br><br>

 

Food for thought.<br><br>

 

-s

I have a David Pehrson with no photos posted, who just joined, but Dave has critiqued photos and has a normal date. No GSS. <br><br>If anyone is bothered by me having them on my interesting persons list, just ask and I will remove.<br><br>There are some strange things on photonet - kind of like a box of chocolates: ya never know what you're gonna get . . . After all, <i>I</i> listed <i>Thomas Turk</i> as interesting. I find his comments highly amusing, and <i>occasionally</i> photographically valid. Moreover, peoples' reactions to his commentary are often priceless (See Joe Russo's portfolio) :)<br><br>-s

<div></div>

Well, when I gave a photo a 3/3 rating and didn't leave a comment as to why (I know it would have been nice, but it isn't required - I don't get my nose out of joint when I get low ratings - if I wasn't ready to take a low rating, I would not post my shots here). Anyhow, after rating this guy's photo, I quickly found out what kind of pshcyos are here. I don't think I deserved what happened next. All I did was leave that single rating, nothing else, and I got this psychotic email followed by some psychotic comments posted to one of my photos. I did not respond to the email, but did leave a polite but terse response to the personally derogatory comments asking the individual to have no further contact with me. He then deleted his comment from my photo AND MY COMMENT TOO (so he must have hacked photo.net's servers - yes, I've referred this to abuse@photo.net).

 

Here is the email (identifying references deleted for the time being, although I SHOULD publish it all):

 

 

>>>dear steve,

>>>

>>>i'm reading your profile and contemplating the part where you say,

>>>

>>>"I became very disenchanted with photography and abandoned it for

>>>almost 20 years, during which time I barely even took any pictures

>>>of my family,"

>>>

>>>and realizing that photo.net is having much the same effect on my

>>>pursuit of photography, thanks to people like yourself who leave

>>>shite ratings and then don't leave a contructive, technical

>>>comment explaining why.

>>>

>>>you gave my photo of [name deleted](a very famous brazilian model

>>>who has appeared on the covers of the world's fashion magazines,

>>>in the editorials, ad campaigns, and the pages of victoria's

>>>secret) a 3/3, or below average for both aesthetics and

>>>originality.

>>>

>>>the photo is here:

>>>http://www.photo.net/photodb/[deleted]

>>>

>>>i would rate my photo at the very least a 5 for originality, and a

>>>5 for aesthetics, or good/good. that would be conservative as

>>>some people i've shown it to, not to mention the other people who

>>>rated it have given it a 6 for aesthetics.

>>>

>>>so i would be interested in knowing your technical and

>>>compositional rationale for deciding that this photo is below

>>>average (i think i've almost had enough of photo.net, partly

>>>because i think a lot of people get their friends to give them

>>>high ratings).

>>>

>>>first of all, in the originality department: in the few months i

>>>have been on photo.net, i have not seen one single portrait of a

>>>famous person, much less a world class fashion model. i also feel

>>>that the photo even appears to be a portrait where some time was

>>>put into it, however the truth is i was nervouse as hell, my hand

>>>was shaking, and i had exactly 20 seconds to take two photos.

>>>this was a backstage snapshot in a very hectic environment. i

>>>don't see how there's anything "below average" about it as far as

>>>originality, and especially compared to the other photos on

>>>photo.net.

>>>

>>>for example, your portfolio like the vast majority of what i see

>>>on this site consists of nature, trees, flowers, and landscapes.

>>>it's so boring that i don't even bother commenting on the nature

>>>shots unless it's something truly spectacular. so in that

>>>context, giving my photo a 3 for originality is just laughable.

>>>are you jealous that you're not backstage with 20 famous brazilian

>>>models drinking champagne in new york, and taking it out on me?

>>>

>>>now, regarding aesthetics: my first question has to do with your

>>>possible bias towards my meager 4 megapixel canon powershot,

>>>compared with your 6x7's and 4x5's. did you decide that no

>>>digital shots taken with such an inferior camera could ever

>>>be "average?" i personally feel that considering the shooting

>>>conditions (my nervousness; i've only just started learning that

>>>camera one month ago, the expediency that was required to get the

>>>shot, etc.), the photo actually compares to some portraits where a

>>>whole roll was shot and the best one selected.

>>>

>>>i also made use of photoshop to bring out certain details and

>>>adjust the color. do you feel the filters are too obvious and

>>>don't look natural? this is the information i'm looking for to

>>>encourage me to continue with this hobby.

>>>

>>>anyway, i'm just perplexed and also very frustrated with this web

>>>site and people like you who rate negatively and refuse to comment

>>>constructively. i almost feel as though i need to start stroking

>>>other photographers on here in order to get biased but better

>>>ratings so my photos will have a better chance at getting seen.

>>>

>>>i challenge you to reply with a full technical and compositional

>>>explanation justifying your "below average" rating. i'm 29 years

>>>old, attended art school briefly, and music and art are my

>>>passion. right now i think photo.net is incestuous and biased.

>>>

>>>thank you... and yes this is a rant and i'm pissed off and about

>>>to leave photo.net as a disenchanted photographer.

>>>

>>>[name deleted]

 

HERE IS THE COMMENT HE LEFT ON MY PHOTO:

 

>Recent Comments on Photos

>here's a comment, since you didn't reply to my email: why did you rate my

>photo at the following link a 3/3 (below avg./below avg.):

>http://www.photo.net/photodb/[deleted]

>

>and why did you not leave a comment explaining why you would rate it so poorly

>so i have an opportunity to consider it's potential flaws and resubmit the

>photo?

>

>your crappy rating does nothing to advance my knowledge of photography; all it

>does is result in fewer users seeing my photo due to it's lower ranking.

>

>i won't bother rating "[deleted]", but i will sincerely comment and say that

>it's far too light (the value level from lightest to darkest never reaches

>black - and my flat screen monitor is calibrated), the photoshop filter is

>distractingly obvious and removes all of the potential interesting details

>that might otherwise be visible in the leaves and the wood, and the subject

>matter is boring and unoriginal. and since i didn't submit a rating for it

>(although i agree with the one person who did), i can't be accused of

>"retaliatory rating."

>

>i do however feel that your rating of my photo is "retaliatory" in the sense

>that it's actually a very good photo of subject matter you will never be

>within a five mile radius of, not to mention two feet away from.

>

>- eagerly awaiting your technical, aesthetic, and compostionally masterful

>reply to my request for a simple comment.

>

>-- (September 20, 2003) on [deleted]

 

I WROTE A RESPONSE TO THIS MESSAGE. I DON'T HAVE IT SAVED, BUT THE GIST OF IT WAS:

 

Mr. [deleted]

 

If you had approached me in a civilized manner requesting a comment as to why I rated your photo a 3/3, I would gladly have given one (even though photo.net's rules do not require one). I might have even been inclined to raise my rating as it seems everyone else liked the photo so much more than I did.

 

However, your first response to me was to send me a hateful, abusive, derogatory email, then this abusive comment. I do not respond to abuse. Your abuse needs to stop right now. I have nothing further to say to you.

 

-Steve Spencer

 

HE THEN DELETED HIS COMMENT AND MINE AND LEFT THIS 'NICE' ONE TO COVER UP HIS ACTS:

 

you got the message

 

value scale too bright (no true black in the image) and too little contrast; photoshop filter distracting and too obvious. i would prefer to see the details in the leaves and the wood, or perhaps see the PS filter applied more subtly. the use of photoshop effects in the scene with the road/sunbeams is much more justifiable than in this case. p.s. - still awaiting your technical critique -- [name deleted]

 

WHAT DO YOU GUYS MAKE OF THIS NUTCASE? >

>

>

>

>>