Jump to content

jordan2240

PhotoNet Pro
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,623

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by jordan2240

  1. jordan2240
    I have taken the rare trip within about an hour or two range from home specifically for photography (for example, my brother and I once did one to photograph covered bridges), but other than that, any dedicated photo trip has been to areas no more than 20 minutes or so away, but mostly within walking distance. Most recently, I get the camera out very little, but do take it on trips my wife and I take from time to time that aren't photography related (though I was sure I'd be using it a lot when we went to Ireland a couple of years ago - and I did).
  2. jordan2240
    A couple of years ago, I purchased a Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 because of its versatility. Was tired of carrying around multiple lenses to do different things, especially large, heavy telephoto ones, though I still liked using a telephoto range for nature shots in particular. I've found the FZ1000 to be the perfect camera for me. Does everything I need it to do as a hobbyist who takes pictures primarily for my own enjoyment. The FZ1000 (and newer FZ2500) both have 1 inch sensors, which is a bit larger and less noisy than the smaller sensors that typically accompany the 'bridge' camera segment. I imagine Canon and perhaps Nikon have similar offerings, but I am not familiar with them. If you want to look at sample shots I've taken with the FZ1000, you can find some here:Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 Shots Keep in mind that some post-processing work was done on most of these. All of the shots in my 'Ireland' folder where also taken with the FZ1000.
  3. jordan2240
    I lurk on these threads with some interest because I started the Post-Processing Challenge a number of years ago, but lost interest because it didn't develop into what I'd intended. I had hoped it would be a place where folks (both newbies and oldbies) could get help with and suggestions on how others might process an image, but instead it got more experimental, and most folks just wanted to have fun with the 'challenge' image. Nothing wrong with that direction and I'm glad to see a small group still maintains some interest. This week, I found JRC's interpretation very interesting given the stark difference in what the camera 'saw' and what he recalled seeing. Perhaps it's true, as Fred suggests, that what JR saw couldn't possibly have been reality, but I think his example serves to show that, with photography, the camera is only part of the equation. I've occasionally had people criticize post-processing as decreasing the integrity of an image, but these folks don't understand that the camera is limited by the algorithms designed by the programmers, and cannot possibly account for what each human eye 'sees.' So, I'd like to compliment JR on his example this week. I think it makes this one of the more useful 'Challenges' posted in a while.
  4. jordan2240
    From the rank amateur standpoint, I don't think the 2nd shot is a very good example of wider DOF because the trees are so dark it's hard to tell if they are in focus. And as someone else noted above, at distances, DOF becomes less obvious, so shooting that same scene at F4 and F16 might not reveal much difference.
  5. jordan2240
    True Fred. I've gotten 'likes' on comments in the other forum I referenced, and they do generate positive feelings, and most people who 'like' photos are, more likely than not, not looking for 'likes' in return. But I continue to think that the format makes it easier to breed 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' thinking than not having such does, and a simple 'Nice job' or 'I agree' response provides the same feedback.
  6. jordan2240
    Thanks to 'foto,' 'Hector,' 'Fred,' and 'john' for getting this back on track. This thread certainly took an unexpected diversion. 'Fred' did a good job of explaining to 'foto' what I was trying to say, so no need for me to go beyond that. John has provided a nice summary of what I've also felt. While I have used the 'like' function both here and in another forum I participate in (unrelated to photography (or golf)), I don't think anything is lost by not having it, and in its absence, encourages more meaningful conversation and lessens the opportunity for feel-good reciprocity, particular when discussing photos. Does it hurt anything, 'no,' but I think it 'dumbs down' a site like photo.net, which, for me anyway, I'd always held in somewhat hire regard than, say, 'facebook' and 'flickr.'
  7. jordan2240
    My absolutely favorite photography truth: "I think a photography class should be required in all educational programs because it makes you see the world rather than just look at it." - anonymous When I first started photography, I was amazed at how much more detail I saw in my usual environment.
  8. jordan2240
    Thanks to all who humored me with their comments. I'm officially declaring this thread dead, and will head back amongst the lurkers. Carry on and take the photos that YOU 'like.'
  9. jordan2240
    Very True Tim, but my concern when photo.net revamped and added this convention was that it opened itself up to being one of those sites that is driven by such motivation. In other words, it now makes available the 'drug' that feeds the 'like' addiction. Thanks for taking the time to look at the article.
  10. jordan2240
    It's not just me: Addicted to Likes: How Social Media Feeds Our Neediness
  11. jordan2240
    My position was fully expressed in my initial post. No new information necessary. The few folks who have responded seem to be ok with the 'like' convention, so I'll simply count myself in the minority.
  12. jordan2240
    By the way Tim, Fred and I aren't necessarily like-minded in terms of the 'like,' but he was certainly interpreting my position and reason for asking the question far better than Mark was.
  13. jordan2240
    Of course it's based on my perception, which, as I said above, is based on other experiences. What is your opinion of it based on?
  14. jordan2240
    I 'liked' Fred's post because I agreed with the points he was making, and had no reason to repeat them. Agreeing with someone's point in a discussion is hardly forming a clique. My opinion on the 'like' is based on what I've experienced on other sites where it or a similar convention is used, and I always felt photo.net was a little better than those sites. I no longer believe it is. My opinion on 'like' as a useful component of a photo-centric thread isn't likely to change, but I was curious as to what opinion others held. If they want to express their opinion by attacking mine, that's fine, but I don't know what question I could possibly ask of anyone whose is firmly entrenched in their thinking. I did respond to several posts with questions, one of which was answered, and one of which has not been up to now. My reason for asking the question was to find what others thought, not how many people agreed with me.
  15. jordan2240
    I don't think anyone would disagree with this. But isn't the seeking of others' approval exactly what having a 'like' function fosters?
  16. jordan2240
    How did I know you'd be for the wrong team Mark!
  17. jordan2240
    Well, this has certainly turned into an unexpected pissing contest. All I can say at this point is 'Go Eagles!'
  18. jordan2240
    Thanks again Fred. You're right on with your assessment. Once the issue was raised and responded to in the Nature forum, I thought it might be interesting to approach the subject in a forum that got a much broader audience (or so I assume it does). Why Mark takes issue with such or views it as an obsession, I have no idea. Perhaps it says more about his way of thinking than mine.
  19. jordan2240
    JDM, just curious, if someone 'likes' a picture you've posted in a thread, do you feel any sense of obligation to 'like' theirs as well, even if you don't particularly like it?
  20. jordan2240
    Fred, I 'liked' your post because, as I said in my original post, I see 'liking' in a different context in discussion threads than in threads where pictures are the primary focus. Thanks for trying to clear that up with mark. Certainly, I have no 'obsession' with the issue.
  21. jordan2240
    Mark, points taken. It is indeed a simple internet forum in which participation is voluntary. But I am interested in how many folks have been deterred by pnet fostering a more typical 'social networking' format.
  22. jordan2240
    Fred G., valid point about the clubs of the 80s. Once I started realizing I was seeing the same people week after week, and they were in-turn seeing me, I bagged that scene. Certainly there have always been means for creating shallow relationships, now more than ever (a swipe of the thumb can now determine your dating life), but I try to avoid them, which is why I was disappointed when photo.net opened itself up to such more than it had been. Tim, I'm sure your opinion is shared by many, which there would be no discussion without. As I commented to Fred, I think the 'Like' option cheapens some of the forums by creating greater opportunity for cliquish behavior. Why does it bother me - I guess because I never much cared for cliques and don't think their judgement is particularly fair. If I was still heavily involved in photography, the 'Like' option would not necessarily keep me from posting in picture-focused threads here, but it's simply an addition I am not fond of.
  23. jordan2240
    Sandy, I am a count-every-stroke golfer, and I don't take 'gimmies' no matter how close the ball is to the hole (because I know I can miss most any putt).
  24. jordan2240
    In response to Tim (and I don't know that he was specifically addressing his response to me), I like myself just fine, and while I haven't posted on pnet under the new format, I have posted on flickr, where a 'favorite' is similar to a 'like.' But I never posted anything there in the hopes of it being 'faved,' as I agree that photography is a very personal pursuit, and unless you are doing it or plan to be doing it for money, shouldn't care what others think of it. But I can assure you that many people, some not legit, mass fave photos in hopes that you will fave thiers as well. But I think the whole social media convention of 'liking' something is a means of fostering, shallow, meaningless interaction between people, which I find to be one of the major flaws of social media. I don't think it's far-fetched to claim that the self-esteem of many people is based on how 'successful' they are on social media, and success is measured in part by how many 'likes' you receive, so I was quite disappointed when photo.net applied this same convention, because I never thought of it as a 'social media' site, and don't particularly like such sites because of the shallow relationships they foster (I do not have Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc. accounts). To me, if you really want to show appreciation for someone's work, you will make a meaningful comment.
  25. jordan2240
    I have not been active on photo.net for some time now, but do still lurk because I enjoy some of the forums and the conversation. The main reason for my inactivity has been a wane in an interest in photography. I've become more interested in golf, which I equally stink at. But I also disliked the addition of the social convention of 'Likes' when photo.net was revamped. I mentioned this in a thread in the nature forum, and the thoughtful responses made me wonder if it might not be an interesting topic of discussion to avail to a larger audience. I realize this isn't going to change a thing, so it's merely a discussion for discussion's sake. I do not like the 'like' feature for picture-focused forums. For discussion forums, it has a bit of a different connotation for me, and merely indicates you agree with what someone else has stated, but for the picture-focused forums, I think there is a tendency for it to breed cliquish and reciprocal behavior, and don't think it really provides any benefit. If I have a picture on flickr, for example, that is 'faved' by someone, I feel somewhat obligated to look at that person's work and 'fave' something in return, just because it seems the nice thing to do. I'd actually prefer that people not 'fave' my pics, but comment if they feel I've done something notable (or crappy). I think we all know people who 'like' other entries in hopes of getting 'likes' in return. There is a local wildlife photographer who does some nice work, but she'd also get hundreds of 'faves' for a snapshot of dung as well. In one of the forums I follow on here, there if a very small participation base, and it seems that nearly every entry is 'liked' by the regulars, and I really think it's done more to encourage participation than express an opinion of the posted shot. However, I've seen some new participants on occasion that don't get the same number of 'likes,' and I think that proves to be discouraging to them. So just wondering, what do others think? Is the 'like' liked by many? Would the effort and thought that goes into a brief comment be more appreciated?
×
×
  • Create New...