Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Indoor Photography

Reply
Thread Tools

Indoor Photography

 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-25-2011
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:10:00 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>"BobS" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>Bruce said:
>>
>>How dare you criticise Miguel's efforts?
>>
>>Just look at all the awards his image got!
>>
>>
>>
>>You're right but he doesn't let those awards go to his head either....
>>
>>Miguel asks for advice and then actually uses it to improve his photography.

>
>
>There is no evidence of any improvement here.
>
>Some months ago an expert photographer posted links to his own web
>site containing many images of the historical city of Lima. It was
>difficult to believe that his captivating, colourful, well-composed,
>detailed and pin sharp images were of the same city as Miguel's dull,
>low contrast, unsharp snapshots.
>
>Still, he didn't have quite as many "awards" as Miguel.
>


You don't pick up "awards" when you put your photographs up on your
own website. You pick up "awards" like picking up sandspurs at the
beach when you put your photographs up on Flickr. You get 'em whether
you want them or not.

You can blame Miguel for picking the worst photo host venue around,
but not for unsolicited "awards".




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-25-2011
tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>You can blame Miguel for picking the worst photo host venue around,
>but not for unsolicited "awards".



Please explain what you mean by "unsolicited" in this context.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-25-2011
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:10:55 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>You can blame Miguel for picking the worst photo host venue around,
>>but not for unsolicited "awards".

>
>
>Please explain what you mean by "unsolicited" in this context.


Wha? "Unsolicited" means "not requested". If I choose to go on
Flickr and post a comment and mark as a "favorite" some shot there, my
action is unsolicited by the photographer.

I know what you are driving at by asking, but simply using a host that
encourages ratings does not, de facto, solicit ratings.

I tried Flickr in 2008 and posted 8 photos. Only one received a
comment, and that was by a person who follows my photos and comments
on them wherever they are housed. I know him from another newsgroup.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tony213...n/photostream/

My premise is that Miguel is not very knowledgeable about what is
available in image hosts, and has used one that is easy for him to
work with. I don't think he's in it for the "awards".

My premise is also that Miguel is interested in improving his
photography, but has little ability to put suggestion into use. This
may be because of a language barrier, or may be that he simply doesn't
care.

He also multiple-posts instead of cross-posts despite being informed
that cross-posts are better if you insist on your post being in more
than one group.

You have to admit that the guy has balls. He's been smacked down by
so many people, but he keeps coming back. Most, like Sisker, would
turn-tail and run if their efforts met so much criticism.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-25-2011
tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:10:55 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>You can blame Miguel for picking the worst photo host venue around,
>>>but not for unsolicited "awards".

>>
>>
>>Please explain what you mean by "unsolicited" in this context.

>
>Wha? "Unsolicited" means "not requested". If I choose to go on
>Flickr and post a comment and mark as a "favorite" some shot there, my
>action is unsolicited by the photographer.
>
>I know what you are driving at by asking, but simply using a host that
>encourages ratings does not, de facto, solicit ratings.
>
>I tried Flickr in 2008 and posted 8 photos. Only one received a
>comment, and that was by a person who follows my photos and comments
>on them wherever they are housed. I know him from another newsgroup.



One of my students did some research into how these "award systems"
operate. It is all very entertaining.

The way it works is that people give ratings to get ratings. They
give spurious ratings of "excellent" to other people's images and get
them back in return. Had you followed that procedure, you would have
given many spurious ratings and got many back.

The ratings are spurious because no-one pays any attention to the
images, it's just a mutual award society, with awards given purely in
exchange for getting them back.


>You have to admit that the guy has balls. He's been smacked down by
>so many people, but he keeps coming back. Most, like Sisker, would
>turn-tail and run if their efforts met so much criticism.



He doesn't care what people think.

Contrary to his repeated statements to the contrary, he has no
intention of improving. He persists in posting the dullest and most
boring snapshots imaginable.

Once, he posted a video taken from the same camera position as his
terminally dull snapshot, and the video showed a wealth of fascinating
subjects just outside the angle of view of the still picture. It
appeared that he had deliberately chosen to avoid including anything
interesting in the still shot.

It would have been almost impossible to make a worse image from that
camera position. So my conclusion is that he is taking the ****, and
simply enjoys provoking negative responses to his many appalling
snapshots.

Still, we have seen worse in the SI on a great many occasions - that's
somewhere else where people enjoy exchanging false praise.

 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-25-2011
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:06:31 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:10:55 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>You can blame Miguel for picking the worst photo host venue around,
>>>>but not for unsolicited "awards".
>>>
>>>
>>>Please explain what you mean by "unsolicited" in this context.

>>
>>Wha? "Unsolicited" means "not requested". If I choose to go on
>>Flickr and post a comment and mark as a "favorite" some shot there, my
>>action is unsolicited by the photographer.
>>
>>I know what you are driving at by asking, but simply using a host that
>>encourages ratings does not, de facto, solicit ratings.
>>
>>I tried Flickr in 2008 and posted 8 photos. Only one received a
>>comment, and that was by a person who follows my photos and comments
>>on them wherever they are housed. I know him from another newsgroup.

>
>
>One of my students did some research into how these "award systems"
>operate. It is all very entertaining.
>
>The way it works is that people give ratings to get ratings. They
>give spurious ratings of "excellent" to other people's images and get
>them back in return. Had you followed that procedure, you would have
>given many spurious ratings and got many back.
>
>The ratings are spurious because no-one pays any attention to the
>images, it's just a mutual award society, with awards given purely in
>exchange for getting them back.
>

If no one pays attention to them, then why are you paying attention to
his?
>>You have to admit that the guy has balls. He's been smacked down by
>>so many people, but he keeps coming back. Most, like Sisker, would
>>turn-tail and run if their efforts met so much criticism.

>
>He doesn't care what people think.


That's opinion.

>Contrary to his repeated statements to the contrary, he has no
>intention of improving. He persists in posting the dullest and most
>boring snapshots imaginable.


Ah, well, so what? It take an action on your part to open the links
and look at the photo. If you choose to take that action, that's on
you. I haven't followed a link to one of his photos for quite some
time.

>Still, we have seen worse in the SI on a great many occasions - that's
>somewhere else where people enjoy exchanging false praise.


Some are good, some aren't. That's about par for any group of
amateurs.

You'd have more credibility as a critic, though, if you had the balls
to hold your own up for review.

I critique other people's submissions, but I post my own submissions
which other people can critique. They can look at my photos and
decide if I'm in any position to critique theirs.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
otter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2011
On Aug 25, 9:24*am, M-M <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article
> <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>
> *otter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > *I think I will take a no-negative post policy
> > towards Miguel

>
> Why?


I don't like being negative. It's affects my attitude. And I've come
to the conclusion that it is pointless with Miguel. Like Bruce said,
I think he is taking the **** with posting these. The geranium butt
was priceless.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2011
tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>You'd have more credibility as a critic, though, if you had the balls
>to hold your own up for review.



My balls are my own and I am not in the habit of holding them, or any
other part of my anatomy, up for review by anyone - except my partner.
Perhaps not even then.

 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2011
On 8/25/2011 1:06 PM, Bruce wrote:
> tony cooper<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:10:55 +0100, Bruce<(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> tony cooper<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You can blame Miguel for picking the worst photo host venue around,
>>>> but not for unsolicited "awards".
>>>
>>>
>>> Please explain what you mean by "unsolicited" in this context.

>>
>> Wha? "Unsolicited" means "not requested". If I choose to go on
>> Flickr and post a comment and mark as a "favorite" some shot there, my
>> action is unsolicited by the photographer.
>>
>> I know what you are driving at by asking, but simply using a host that
>> encourages ratings does not, de facto, solicit ratings.
>>
>> I tried Flickr in 2008 and posted 8 photos. Only one received a
>> comment, and that was by a person who follows my photos and comments
>> on them wherever they are housed. I know him from another newsgroup.

>
>
> One of my students did some research into how these "award systems"
> operate. It is all very entertaining.
>
> The way it works is that people give ratings to get ratings. They
> give spurious ratings of "excellent" to other people's images and get
> them back in return. Had you followed that procedure, you would have
> given many spurious ratings and got many back.
>
> The ratings are spurious because no-one pays any attention to the
> images, it's just a mutual award society, with awards given purely in
> exchange for getting them back.
>
>
>> You have to admit that the guy has balls. He's been smacked down by
>> so many people, but he keeps coming back. Most, like Sisker, would
>> turn-tail and run if their efforts met so much criticism.

>
>
> He doesn't care what people think.
>
> Contrary to his repeated statements to the contrary, he has no
> intention of improving. He persists in posting the dullest and most
> boring snapshots imaginable.
>
> Once, he posted a video taken from the same camera position as his
> terminally dull snapshot, and the video showed a wealth of fascinating
> subjects just outside the angle of view of the still picture. It
> appeared that he had deliberately chosen to avoid including anything
> interesting in the still shot.
>
> It would have been almost impossible to make a worse image from that
> camera position. So my conclusion is that he is taking the ****, and
> simply enjoys provoking negative responses to his many appalling
> snapshots.
>
> Still, we have seen worse in the SI on a great many occasions - that's
> somewhere else where people enjoy exchanging false praise.
>


I was not going to say anything, but changed my mind.
SI is a fun venue where honest critique is sometimes received.
We realize that your images are above reproach. Goo Lord you have never
published a link to the place where your images are posted.
I suspect your cynical comments are nothing more than a cover for your
own deficiencies.



--
Peter
Still waiting for Nikon's big announcement.
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2011
On 8/26/2011 6:06 AM, Bruce wrote:
> tony cooper<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> You'd have more credibility as a critic, though, if you had the balls
>> to hold your own up for review.

>
>
> My balls are my own and I am not in the habit of holding them, or any
> other part of my anatomy, up for review by anyone - except my partner.
> Perhaps not even then.
>


IOW non-existent.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2011
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:06:49 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>You'd have more credibility as a critic, though, if you had the balls
>>to hold your own up for review.

>
>
>My balls are my own and I am not in the habit of holding them, or any
>other part of my anatomy, up for review by anyone - except my partner.
>Perhaps not even then.


That's fine. It's up to you to decide if you want to put yourself out
there or not. It doesn't seem right to me, though, for you to
criticize the work of others when you are unwilling to submit your own
work for comparison.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Photography Cafe is the Place to Share your Photography! Patzt Digital Photography 0 08-14-2005 06:20 AM
F stops and indoor photography? starcolony Digital Photography 27 06-10-2005 06:50 PM
Indoor Photography Robert Reznikoff Digital Photography 21 03-16-2005 04:35 AM
Nikon D2X: Dave Black's Indoor Sports Photography Workshop deryck lant Digital Photography 1 03-01-2005 12:04 PM
Indoor sports photography with D70 Cynicor Digital Photography 22 01-12-2005 11:17 AM



Advertisments