| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/01/2013 06:51:08 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by George:
Originally posted by sjhuls:
Of course looking at your average score given you probably are not going to give much of anything a good score. |
Heed your own advice, please, and don't attack others.
Anyway, my 2 cents:
In my book, you lost more points on the "meeting the challenge" aspect than you did on "execution." I'm sure this is what many others felt, so rather than assuming others didn't appreciate your technical effort (and going on to plug it here), consider whether the image was a good fit for the challenge. To me, reminders that flowers will wilt and wood will age are not what I expect from a "Spring" challenge. Because of that, I gave you a 5 instead of an 8.
Now that I see your technique, I have to say, nice job getting 4 tulips to look like... well, a lot; I would've never guessed there were only 4. However, I can't say I appreciate the photo more, I just appreciate that you know how to get a lot out of a little. That's a commendable character quality that I wish I had. What I don't appreciate is you plugging your image, when you could have written an official tutorial instead.
I still don't understand how it could get 1s or 2s, except for people not following directions (letting their thoughts on the legality of the photo affect the score they give). |
I'm not plugging my image, just the technique. How many people actually look at those tutorials? Plus that takes so much more effort and frankly I don't have the time. Once again I am not complaining about my score, not asking for people to gush over my photo. You pointing out that you gave me a 5 over an 8 really doesn't matter to me. I appreciate those who posted that they gave me a good score, but once again I didn't ask for that, they simply volunteered the information. When did I complain that my photo didn't get a good enough score?
How many people actually go back and read the comments on an image after a challenge after it is over? Maybe the top 3, even those that I've had place 4th and 5th don't get a lot of views after the challenge. The rest of the top 10 even less. I was on the bottom of the second page, I wanted to share what I had learned. How many people would have read my notes, if I had not created this thread with a catchy title? Maybe 5 if that many. Sorry if my approach makes you think I am trying to promote my image. And even if I was, what would I gain by it?
I guess if you don't care about learning a new technique simply ignore this thread. I just don't get why people have to get all defensive about not wanting to appreciate it. I was kidding with my title did you miss the little ;) I put by it? Like I said before the title was just a way to attract a little attention to this thread. I in no way meant that you HAVE to appreciate my image.
Yes, I realize this may not be everyone's cup of tea. And maybe some would be able to do a better job than I did. So I would encourage those people to try it and post your results. I for one would love to know how to have gotten a plain white background to look good and have the flowers exposed enough to see them. |
|
|
|
05/01/2013 06:58:47 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
I don't know if you include my question in your rant but this crap is exactly why I have curtailed my time on the site. You can't say anything anymore without someone taking offense. Mine was a legit question that I was curious about so if it offended you, my bad. I can't even see what you are talking about. Everyone was complimentary, one guy says he gave you a low score and I asked a question. Why people post things on the WORLD WIDE WEB and then complain about the responses they get is beyond me. |
Your comment was mild although the way you posed the question seemed a little like you were saying "Why in the world would you use just 4 flowers when it would be so much easier to just do a double exposure with a whole bouquet" I guess I didn't think you were asking a real question just trying to get a dig in. I apologize if your question was really legitimate. I don't mind getting critiques but Kobba's statement was not constructive, it was just mean. Your comment came right after his and I was already on the defensive. |
|
|
|
05/01/2013 07:33:39 PM · #28 |
Jenn, thank you for sharing your technique. I really have to try this. I love the result, but I was another who thought the background of the door a little bit overpowering when the tulips were the subject (7 from me). I love the plain background example that you have included. You are always generous with the sharing of your methods and I appreciate that a lot.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2013 09:08:18 PM · #29 |
thats a cool process. i m wondering how itd look on a black background or maybe all sepia with the brightness focused on flowers. Might have a project in my near-ish future.
thanks for sharing
edit: i for one try to make time on normal days to look at some form of education material for photography - including tutorials. Love them, please make if you have time and feel up to it.
Message edited by author 2013-05-01 21:10:50. |
|
|
|
05/01/2013 11:10:07 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by sjhuls:
I don't mind getting critiques but Kobba's statement was not constructive, it was just mean. |
You think that was mean? He was just being honest. You're too tender, sensitive and passive-aggressive. LOL
|
|
|
|
05/01/2013 11:20:10 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by sjhuls:
I don't mind getting critiques but Kobba's statement was not constructive, it was just mean. |
You think that was mean? He was just being honest. You're too tender, sensitive and passive-aggressive. LOL |
Your right, you win. That is what you want right. To win the debate, so I'll give up say I was too sensitive. I must have just been in a bad mood when he and you posted your comment. I really don't want to muddy this thread anymore. So please refrain from posting anymore about it and I will too.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2013 11:24:44 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
You're too tender, sensitive and passive-aggressive. LOL |
Where does this fit on the passive aggressive scale? |
|
|
|
05/01/2013 11:41:45 PM · #33 |
I did read with interest your explanation. Good work. The tulips on white background are more intersting for me; the ghostly quality is enhanced. If it was expert editing you could have worked with the rim of the vase to push further the eerie feeling.
I appciate all the explorations. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 07:51:57 AM · #34 |
Okay, I agree both that the comments came out meanly (whether or not intentional) and that you were passive aggressive in taking the feedback. Sometimes the way people say things stick in my craw, too - but don't let that deter you from sharing. I am SO GRATEFUL for you for posting how you did it, and the technique - it inspired me to play around and try more with time photography. It's outside the box for anything I've done - and I thank you sincerely for sharing it.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2013 08:52:34 AM · #35 |
It's mind-bogglingly mean-spirited, is what it is. Slowly but steadily we've seen DPC morph from a place where people have something to say into a place where people pick apart the motivations and style of everything others have to say. End result? Meaningful photographic content is disappearing and negative feedback is crushing discourse.
Honestly, people, what does it MATTER precisely *how* Jenn set out to draw attention to her message, or what her motivations are? Is the MESSAGE interesting? That's all that matters... |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 09:11:35 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's mind-bogglingly mean-spirited, is what it is. Slowly but steadily we've seen DPC morph from a place where people have something to say into a place where people pick apart the motivations and style of everything others have to say. End result? Meaningful photographic content is disappearing and negative feedback is crushing discourse.
Honestly, people, what does it MATTER precisely *how* Jenn set out to draw attention to her message, or what her motivations are? Is the MESSAGE interesting? That's all that matters... |
Whats most most mind boggling to me Robert is all this crap over 2 misinterpreted comments. To me what is mean spirited is how the OP apparently wants to dwell on these comments instead of the multiple positive messages and words of thanks that have been posted. I am really starting to loathe this place, I can't for the life of me figure out why I keep renewing and coming back at this point.....force of habit I guess.... |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 09:14:24 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's mind-bogglingly mean-spirited, is what it is. Slowly but steadily we've seen DPC morph from a place where people have something to say into a place where people pick apart the motivations and style of everything others have to say. End result? Meaningful photographic content is disappearing and negative feedback is crushing discourse.
Honestly, people, what does it MATTER precisely *how* Jenn set out to draw attention to her message, or what her motivations are? Is the MESSAGE interesting? That's all that matters... |
It's blatantly obvious by this experience that you simply cannot talk about your own photos anymore. I don't ever dare to say anything about my own photos because I cannot come up with the correct verbiage to sufficiently cushion the message with enough disclaimers that it's not a complaint, I'm not looking for praise, and so on. And when you do go to great lengths to keep things light — such as using deliberate humor and emoticaons int he title of a thread — you get accused of passive aggressiveness, a term many of the contributors in this thread should probably look up again, because you keep saying that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.
Sadder still that people talk about the desire to leave DPC because there are people here that don't want to tolerate generally rude behavior. That's the wrong way around.
And the sharing community goes back underground to their PMs. And we're not talking about photography anymore, are we. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 09:19:29 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's mind-bogglingly mean-spirited, is what it is. Slowly but steadily we've seen DPC morph from a place where people have something to say into a place where people pick apart the motivations and style of everything others have to say. End result? Meaningful photographic content is disappearing and negative feedback is crushing discourse.
Honestly, people, what does it MATTER precisely *how* Jenn set out to draw attention to her message, or what her motivations are? Is the MESSAGE interesting? That's all that matters... |
Whats most most mind boggling to me Robert is all this crap over 2 misinterpreted comments. To me what is mean spirited is how the OP apparently wants to dwell on these comments instead of the multiple positive messages and words of thanks that have been posted. I am really starting to loathe this place, I can't for the life of me figure out why I keep renewing and coming back at this point.....force of habit I guess.... |
There's that, too, yes; people let themselves be goaded. But, here's the thing of it; If I make a statement and you respond to it, then I misinterpret your response, it still doesn't usually turn into a gore-fest until people start piling on and it flies out of control. All that's needed is a little restraint, on both sides, and a willingness by *spectators* to let it lie. I'm not necessarily even referring specifically to THIS thread anymore; just contentious threads in general.
People on BOTH sides (OPs and respondents) seem to either not understand or not care that they are choking the life out of discourse by focusing on motivation to the exclusion of substance. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 09:22:08 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Sadder still that people talk about the desire to leave DPC because there are people here that don't want to tolerate generally rude behavior. That's the wrong way around.
And the sharing community goes back underground to their PMs. And we're not talking about photography anymore, are we. |
IMO, if moderators would take a more active role in steering attitudes towards the positive, we could get back on track. It would cause a lot of friction for a while, but friction is what we have anyway, so... |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 09:40:44 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's mind-bogglingly mean-spirited, is what it is. Slowly but steadily we've seen DPC morph from a place where people have something to say into a place where people pick apart the motivations and style of everything others have to say. End result? Meaningful photographic content is disappearing and negative feedback is crushing discourse.
Honestly, people, what does it MATTER precisely *how* Jenn set out to draw attention to her message, or what her motivations are? Is the MESSAGE interesting? That's all that matters... |
Whats most most mind boggling to me Robert is all this crap over 2 misinterpreted comments. To me what is mean spirited is how the OP apparently wants to dwell on these comments instead of the multiple positive messages and words of thanks that have been posted. I am really starting to loathe this place, I can't for the life of me figure out why I keep renewing and coming back at this point.....force of habit I guess.... |
There's that, too, yes; people let themselves be goaded. But, here's the thing of it; If I make a statement and you respond to it, then I misinterpret your response, it still doesn't usually turn into a gore-fest until people start piling on and it flies out of control. All that's needed is a little restraint, on both sides, and a willingness by *spectators* to let it lie. I'm not necessarily even referring specifically to THIS thread anymore; just contentious threads in general.
People on BOTH sides (OPs and respondents) seem to either not understand or not care that they are choking the life out of discourse by focusing on motivation to the exclusion of substance. |
+1 I personally wouldn't even try to ask for feedback on here anymore. People are just outright mean. I stick to posting light hearted links to things I find amusing now. No more attacks. It's a shame that a place I used to enjoy so much feels like a place that I can only be a bystander on now. But, I don't see it changing anytime soon. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 09:46:39 AM · #41 |
Typical forum keyboard warriors. There's a reason I do all my critiquing in PM with people I respect and whose opinions I value.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2013 09:48:09 AM · #42 |
I still stand by my original critique that no matter how hard something is to do and how much effort you put into it, if the results aren't there, the effort doesn't matter. In doing anything, there's almost never a reason to do things in a difficult manner if equivalent results can be achieved with less effort in other ways. In some art, the process of creation IS part of the art itself, but that's not really the case here.
If that assessment is "mean", so be it. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 09:51:53 AM · #43 |
As with most things, I suspect its not the message so much as the delivery.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2013 10:02:52 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Garry:
As with most things, I suspect its not the message so much as the delivery. |
Or the sensitivity of the receiver. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 10:09:33 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Garry:
As with most things, I suspect its not the message so much as the delivery. |
Or the sensitivity of the receiver. |
Sensitivity of the receiver notwithstanding, it ought be the responsibility of the person making the comment to formulate an opinion in such a manner that the message can be transmitted without causing a negative reaction.
There exists a monumental amount of difference between calling something a "spade" as opposed to say "a f@$&$#g shovel".
Therein lies the difference... and NO this is directed to anyone in particular.
Ray
|
|
|
|
05/02/2013 10:12:27 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Garry:
As with most things, I suspect its not the message so much as the delivery. |
Or the sensitivity of the receiver. |
Sensitivity of the receiver notwithstanding, it ought be the responsibility of the person making the comment to formulate an opinion in such a manner that the message can be transmitted without causing a negative reaction.
There exists a monumental amount of difference between calling something a "spade" as opposed to say "a f@$&$#g shovel".
Therein lies the difference... and NO this is directed to anyone in particular.
Ray |
Nor was my post. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 10:20:19 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's mind-bogglingly mean-spirited, is what it is. Slowly but steadily we've seen DPC morph from a place where people have something to say into a place where people pick apart the motivations and style of everything others have to say. End result? Meaningful photographic content is disappearing and negative feedback is crushing discourse.
Honestly, people, what does it MATTER precisely *how* Jenn set out to draw attention to her message, or what her motivations are? Is the MESSAGE interesting? That's all that matters... |
Whats most most mind boggling to me Robert is all this crap over 2 misinterpreted comments. To me what is mean spirited is how the OP apparently wants to dwell on these comments instead of the multiple positive messages and words of thanks that have been posted. I am really starting to loathe this place, I can't for the life of me figure out why I keep renewing and coming back at this point.....force of habit I guess.... |
There's that, too, yes; people let themselves be goaded. But, here's the thing of it; If I make a statement and you respond to it, then I misinterpret your response, it still doesn't usually turn into a gore-fest until people start piling on and it flies out of control. All that's needed is a little restraint, on both sides, and a willingness by *spectators* to let it lie. I'm not necessarily even referring specifically to THIS thread anymore; just contentious threads in general.
People on BOTH sides (OPs and respondents) seem to either not understand or not care that they are choking the life out of discourse by focusing on motivation to the exclusion of substance. |
Bear, I'm with you on this one. Your post is very well worded. But I do wish that those who have been driven away by those who consistently choose to point out the negative would stop being silent (I'm guilty of this too). And by that I mean, don't disappear or withdraw that just endorses the negative behavior to continue unabated to the detriment of the community- post helpful things you have found from other websites. If you found a new technique or tried something new with good results and want to share, please don't hesitate to do so. If there is a thread where someone decides to share info you can choose to ask questions, discuss it in cordial terms, or even just thank them for sharing.
Now I do have a questions about the technique because it got me thinking as to the WHY a plain white backdrop did not work but one that had texture (the door) did.
Could it be because the distance of the white backdrop from the main subject might have something to do with it? Or maybe it could be because a plain white backdrop reflected back more light than the door and the floor did because their reflective qualities are less? Of course a background that is a solid flat color is not going to show off the outline of an object as well as one that has texture (like the door).... or will it? |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 10:45:50 AM · #48 |
I have remained silent after my post, but feel it is time that I speak up and express my views on this whole matter.
This is a photography site that has at its core the running of photo challenges and a place for people to learn and grow as photographers. Because of the nature of the site, a person shows their appreciation for a photograph by assigning a score and/or leaving comments on the photo. That score given can be based on technical aspects of the photo, emotional response or any combination that the voter wishes to use. That said:
The title of the thread was confrontational to begin with. Then in the text basically said they are creating this thread to force people to take a second look and appreciate their photograph. Well I took a second look, mentioned why I did not appreciate the photo while voting and stated that even taking a second look I still do not appreciate the photo anymore. The thread title and accompanying text (to me and the way I read it) is an attack on those who did not appreciate it (appreciation on this site is measured by votes/comments so they are saying that they feel it did not score high enough given all the work involved). If I was not attacked after my post I would have been happy to engage in a civil discussion, but I decided to not go that route. I also do not feel that there was anything mean in the way I worded my post, if anyone read it that way it was not what I intended. If I see a photo that interest me, I will go back to see if the photographer posted how they did it. I have never sent in a validation request, but feel that the tone of the thread was an attack on the person/s who did ask for validation of this photograph.
 sjhuls reply to my post was a direct attack on me and was intended to be an attack. Just because I have a lower voting average then you does not show I do not understand, appreciate, or value a photograph. I am so sick of people on this site using that as a way to say that someone who posted a critique does not know what they are talking about. I have a system for voting that I have used on this site from day one. Each challenge is a contest and there can only be one winner, I give one 10 per challenge and the only 9's are from the handful I was considering for the winner. I also give few 8's, 7's, or 6's, not because I have no clue about photography, but because that is my system for voting. That is how I vote and I am sure everyone has their own system and not everyone will agree on any one system. In one of your post you mention that you are not plugging your image because what would you gain from it. Well, I do not know you personally but the feeling of self worth, validation as a photographer, any number of things come to mind when someone puts something artistic out there for people to see.
There are many other ways the thread could have been named and the wording in the text that would have a) gotten people to read the thread and b) not come off confrontational. If you can not take criticism then you need to either a) develop a thicker skin or b) don't put yourself out there for it.
I had hoped this would die after seeing all the blatant attacks on people, but people could not let it go. This is the last I will say about this subject and no matter how hard anyone tries to get a response by attacking this post, I will not respond in any way. In closing I will say that I stand by my post, feel there is no reason to apologize, and that there was nothing mean or an attack in what I posted.
Have a wonderful day,
Ronnie |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 11:13:29 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by CNovack:
Now I do have a questions about the technique because it got me thinking as to the WHY a plain white backdrop did not work but one that had texture (the door) did.
Could it be because the distance of the white backdrop from the main subject might have something to do with it? Or maybe it could be because a plain white backdrop reflected back more light than the door and the floor did because their reflective qualities are less? Of course a background that is a solid flat color is not going to show off the outline of an object as well as one that has texture (like the door).... or will it? |
This is a good question and I was puzzled about it myself. I actually think part of it was that the door was reflective with glossy paint so it got exposed properly in less time. The white backdrop is just sort of a canvas like material and doesn't reflect much. Now that you brought it up I think using a shiny painted plain white background would have solved things.
Just a note: the white example I posted had quite a bit of editing done to it to make the background appear whiter. In the unedited photo it was much darker. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 11:23:51 AM · #50 |
| I was wondering: why did you choose to move the flowers? You could get the same result (and it would have been pretty easier) having all the flowers (10-15) you needed and expose them only for, I'd say, 60 seconds. |
|
