| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/13/2013 12:09:30 PM · #51 |
Double
Message edited by author 2013-12-13 12:10:12. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 12:20:54 PM · #52 |
| I've never understood why people visit a website and complain about it's content. Just like changing the channel on your TV if you don't like what's on, there are other websites that may have content more to your liking. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 12:24:26 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by LN13:
I've never understood why people visit a website and complain about it's content. Just like changing the channel on your TV if you don't like what's on, there are other websites that may have content more to your liking. |
It's this bizarre relationship he has with Cory, see...? |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 12:38:05 PM · #54 |
| Ok, Schlake, I'm willing to be "enlightened" by you. Show us samples of photographs you consider "good", whether on DPC or elsewhere. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 12:43:39 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Ok, Schlake, I'm willing to be "enlightened" by you. Show us samples of photographs you consider "good", whether on DPC or elsewhere. |
The quickest most narcissistic answer is obviously for you to look at my photographs. //schlake.us/daily/
About 100% of those are actual photographs. Not entirely 100%. Any image that has dashes in the name instead of slashes is probably a fake that I made in photoshop (sometimes they are just crops though).
|
|
|
|
12/13/2013 12:48:15 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by schlake:
The quickest most narcissistic answer is obviously for you to look at my photographs. |
The elephant in your profile pic is cute. Do you cuddle him a lot?
Message edited by author 2013-12-13 12:48:32. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 12:50:38 PM · #57 |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 12:54:16 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by schlake:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Ok, Schlake, I'm willing to be "enlightened" by you. Show us samples of photographs you consider "good", whether on DPC or elsewhere. |
The quickest most narcissistic answer is obviously for you to look at my photographs. //schlake.us/daily/
About 100% of those are actual photographs. Not entirely 100%. Any image that has dashes in the name instead of slashes is probably a fake that I made in photoshop (sometimes they are just crops though). |
these are legimately nooooot good. I am laughing. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 12:55:56 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by schlake:
The quickest most narcissistic answer is obviously for you to look at my photographs. |
The elephant in your profile pic is cute. Do you cuddle him a lot? |
No, never. He's on a broomstick too, I've never worn him. Or any of the others. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 12:56:01 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by schlake:
The quickest most narcissistic answer is obviously for you to look at my photographs. |
The elephant in your profile pic is cute. Do you cuddle him a lot? |
Probably not enough, but I suspect that's why he hangs out with Cory. ;) |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 12:56:26 PM · #61 |
Hi Schlake
What do you think of this? It's not a trap, but I'd be interested to have your opinion.
 |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 12:57:26 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Ok, Schlake, I'm willing to be "enlightened" by you. Show us samples of photographs you consider "good", whether on DPC or elsewhere. |
He's not even talking about good vs bad, Johanna: he's talking about real vs fake. My ribbon-winning cardinal image, for example, is "fake" because it's oversaturated. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 01:00:19 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by schlake:
The quickest most narcissistic answer is obviously for you to look at my photographs. //schlake.us/daily/
About 100% of those are actual photographs. |
Ok, I went and looked. Yes, it is clear that they are a photograph of something. Now tell me what it is about them that you think makes them "good". What seems "obvious" to me is that you have an issue with editing of any sort.
ETA - based on Bear's comment, as long as a photograph is not edited in any way, content is irrelevant?
Message edited by author 2013-12-13 13:03:31. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 01:03:40 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by mikeee:
Hi Schlake
What do you think of this? It's not a trap, but I'd be interested to have your opinion.
|
That one looks pretty real to me, if a bit fiddly in trying to get the exposure right. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 01:04:54 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Ok, Schlake, I'm willing to be "enlightened" by you. Show us samples of photographs you consider "good", whether on DPC or elsewhere. |
He's not even talking about good vs bad, Johanna: he's talking about real vs fake. My ribbon-winning cardinal image, for example, is "fake" because it's oversaturated. |
The idea that the image in a photograph is "real" is simply absurd to begin with. The thing itself is real...a photo is simply a representation of it as it was during the time the shutter was open. Even the thing itself is not as it was when the image was made; it's different. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 01:08:06 PM · #66 |
| This thread has taken a terrible turn can we get back to being insulted by Snaffles. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 01:08:10 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by schlake:
The quickest most narcissistic answer is obviously for you to look at my photographs. //schlake.us/daily/
About 100% of those are actual photographs. |
Ok, I went and looked. Yes, it is clear that they are a photograph of something. Now tell me what it is about them that you think makes them "good". What seems "obvious" to me is that you have an issue with editing of any sort.
ETA - based on Bear's comment, as long as a photograph is not edited in any way, content is irrelevant? |
I think good to me mostly means interesting. Is there something interesting to look at in the picture that is obvious. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 01:13:02 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by schlake:
Not the same feast for everyone looks like a photograph that could be taken, and I suspected it was a photograph, but then I saw the meta-data and I'm not so sure anymore. |
ISO 1600, f5/6, 1/50 sec. D600+Tamron24-70 2.8
What makes you suspect the original is so different from the edited version? |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 01:13:14 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by schlake:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by schlake:
The quickest most narcissistic answer is obviously for you to look at my photographs. //schlake.us/daily/
About 100% of those are actual photographs. |
Ok, I went and looked. Yes, it is clear that they are a photograph of something. Now tell me what it is about them that you think makes them "good". What seems "obvious" to me is that you have an issue with editing of any sort.
ETA - based on Bear's comment, as long as a photograph is not edited in any way, content is irrelevant? |
I think good to me mostly means interesting. Is there something interesting to look at in the picture that is obvious. |
Ok, thanks. So, are you willing to concede that "interesting" is different for everyone? |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 01:14:35 PM · #70 |
| Turkey broth. Very interesting. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 01:15:16 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by schlake:
Not the same feast for everyone looks like a photograph that could be taken, and I suspected it was a photograph, but then I saw the meta-data and I'm not so sure anymore. |
ISO 1600, f5/6, 1/50 sec. D600+Tamron24-70 2.8
What makes you suspect the original is so different from the edited version? |
There is a lot more photoshop meta data in it than I'm used to seeing.
Message edited by author 2013-12-13 13:16:28. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 01:16:11 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by schlake:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by schlake:
The quickest most narcissistic answer is obviously for you to look at my photographs. //schlake.us/daily/
About 100% of those are actual photographs. |
Ok, I went and looked. Yes, it is clear that they are a photograph of something. Now tell me what it is about them that you think makes them "good". What seems "obvious" to me is that you have an issue with editing of any sort.
ETA - based on Bear's comment, as long as a photograph is not edited in any way, content is irrelevant? |
I think good to me mostly means interesting. Is there something interesting to look at in the picture that is obvious. |
Ok, thanks. So, are you willing to concede that "interesting" is different for everyone? |
Well, sure. That's a no brainer. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 01:26:00 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by schlake:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by schlake:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by schlake:
The quickest most narcissistic answer is obviously for you to look at my photographs. //schlake.us/daily/
About 100% of those are actual photographs. |
Ok, I went and looked. Yes, it is clear that they are a photograph of something. Now tell me what it is about them that you think makes them "good". What seems "obvious" to me is that you have an issue with editing of any sort.
ETA - based on Bear's comment, as long as a photograph is not edited in any way, content is irrelevant? |
I think good to me mostly means interesting. Is there something interesting to look at in the picture that is obvious. |
Ok, thanks. So, are you willing to concede that "interesting" is different for everyone? |
Well, sure. That's a no brainer. |
No, it's not a no-brainer, Schlake, based on how you rail against the work on DPC. But I am honest when I said I wanted to learn about what YOU like, since it is clearly nothing on this site. I like different things than you do, period. A difference of tastes is not a reason to be disparaging about another person's preferences. Thank you for sharing. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 01:40:04 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by schlake:
Originally posted by mikeee:
Hi Schlake
What do you think of this? It's not a trap, but I'd be interested to have your opinion.
|
That one looks pretty real to me, if a bit fiddly in trying to get the exposure right. |
Interesting. Spot on regarding the processing. I use GIMP, no plug-ins etc. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 01:43:11 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by schlake:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by schlake:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by schlake:
The quickest most narcissistic answer is obviously for you to look at my photographs. //schlake.us/daily/
About 100% of those are actual photographs. |
Ok, I went and looked. Yes, it is clear that they are a photograph of something. Now tell me what it is about them that you think makes them "good". What seems "obvious" to me is that you have an issue with editing of any sort.
ETA - based on Bear's comment, as long as a photograph is not edited in any way, content is irrelevant? |
I think good to me mostly means interesting. Is there something interesting to look at in the picture that is obvious. |
Ok, thanks. So, are you willing to concede that "interesting" is different for everyone? |
Well, sure. That's a no brainer. |
No, it's not a no-brainer, Schlake, based on how you rail against the work on DPC. But I am honest when I said I wanted to learn about what YOU like, since it is clearly nothing on this site. I like different things than you do, period. A difference of tastes is not a reason to be disparaging about another person's preferences. Thank you for sharing. |
I like lots of the images on this site. I'm just sad that this is supposedly a site about photography that doesn't require submissions to be photographs. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/20/2025 04:36:03 PM EDT.
