Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Google Plus

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Google Plus

 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2011
On 10/4/2011 10:15 AM, Paul Furman wrote:
> Savageduck wrote:
>> A few of us (at least three from the photo-groups) have been exploring
>> the potential of "Google Plus" or "G+" and it appears that it has an
>> expanding community of pros, photoshop pros, & talented hobbyists.

>
> Duck, and Tony, here's a critiquing effort that seems to be working OK:
> https://plus.google.com/s/BEHIND%20T...CRITIQUE?hl=en



Yup! That is a good example. While poking around that site I also saw a
lot of fluff. But, I guess that can't be helped.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2011
On 10/5/2011 12:31 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2011-10-05 07:47:50 -0700, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On 10/4/2011 10:15 AM, Paul Furman wrote:
>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>> A few of us (at least three from the photo-groups) have been exploring
>>>> the potential of "Google Plus" or "G+" and it appears that it has an
>>>> expanding community of pros, photoshop pros, & talented hobbyists.
>>>
>>> Duck, and Tony, here's a critiquing effort that seems to be working OK:
>>> https://plus.google.com/s/BEHIND%20T...CRITIQUE?hl=en
>>>

>>
>>
>> Yup! That is a good example. While poking around that site I also saw
>> a lot of fluff. But, I guess that can't be helped.

>
> Boy! You should have seen the hornets's nest I stirred up there
> yesterday, and the subsequent stream generated in defense of my remark
> concerning an image posted along with some of the "gushing" type comments.
> I made the comment, and the recipient was so offended he killed further
> comment in that particular "stream", however another individual who
> agreed with my point startd a new stream to discuss the issue. All very
> interesting.
>
> My original comment regarding the image in question:
> "um, …er, perhaps I would have handled this a little differently.
> I am not sure what you used here, it looks somewhat "Topaz" processed,
> or single image tone-mapped to me, and is not quite appealing to my taste.
> The image itself has a great appeal to it and otherwise works.
> I feel if you perhaps masked the effect in the sky and clouds, there
> might be other ways of dealing with the subjects and foreground."
>
> ....and the subsequent start of the new "Stream":
>
> "How do you feel about (negative) comments to your images?
>
> i was viewing a my stream and noticed where Leonard made a criticism of
> the image. The photographer responded rather harshly and essentially
> asked Leonard, "How dare you say something negative." (my words not his)
>
> When I supported Leonard's comments, another person jumped in and posted
> this comment, "I do not understand the purpose of people posting
> unsolicited negative or "I don't like this" comments...is there another
> reason besides serving their ego?"
>
> So it would appear that only positive comments are allowed.
>
> What do you think?"
>


Doesn't sound much different than any place else.
Some people post for praise, their egos need it. Others post either to
demonstrate a point, or they are seeking comment, negative or positive.
As I said earlier: when my image sucks I appreciate comments that help
me to understand why.


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
notbob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2011
On 2011-10-05, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> So it would appear that only positive comments are allowed.
>
> What do you think?"


Can't say. I only have negative thoughts on the matter.

nb
 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete A
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2011
On 2011-10-05 17:31:41 +0100, Savageduck said:

> Boy! You should have seen the hornets's nest I stirred up there
> yesterday, and the subsequent stream generated in defense of my remark
> concerning an image posted along with some of the "gushing" type
> comments.
> I made the comment, and the recipient was so offended he killed further
> comment in that particular "stream", however another individual who
> agreed with my point startd a new stream to discuss the issue. All very
> interesting.
>
> My original comment regarding the image in question:
> "um, …er, perhaps I would have handled this a little differently.
> I am not sure what you used here, it looks somewhat "Topaz" processed,
> or single image tone-mapped to me, and is not quite appealing to my
> taste.
> The image itself has a great appeal to it and otherwise works.
> I feel if you perhaps masked the effect in the sky and clouds, there
> might be other ways of dealing with the subjects and foreground."
>
> ...and the subsequent start of the new "Stream":
>
> "How do you feel about (negative) comments to your images?
>
> i was viewing a my stream and noticed where Leonard made a criticism of
> the image. The photographer responded rather harshly and essentially
> asked Leonard, "How dare you say something negative." (my words not his)
>
> When I supported Leonard's comments, another person jumped in and
> posted this comment, "I do not understand the purpose of people posting
> unsolicited negative or "I don't like this" comments...is there another
> reason besides serving their ego?"
>
> So it would appear that only positive comments are allowed.
>
> What do you think?"


You're lucky. My last positive comments on a Usenet picture submission
are still being dismantled by Tony. Bet you can't summarize this
diabolical exchange in a dozen or so lines

 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2011
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 10:53:22 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2011-10-05 09:56:20 -0700, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On 10/5/2011 12:31 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2011-10-05 07:47:50 -0700, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>
>>>> On 10/4/2011 10:15 AM, Paul Furman wrote:
>>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>> A few of us (at least three from the photo-groups) have been exploring
>>>>>> the potential of "Google Plus" or "G+" and it appears that it has an
>>>>>> expanding community of pros, photoshop pros, & talented hobbyists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Duck, and Tony, here's a critiquing effort that seems to be working OK:
>>>>> https://plus.google.com/s/BEHIND%20T...CRITIQUE?hl=en
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yup! That is a good example. While poking around that site I also saw
>>>> a lot of fluff. But, I guess that can't be helped.
>>>
>>> Boy! You should have seen the hornets's nest I stirred up there
>>> yesterday, and the subsequent stream generated in defense of my remark
>>> concerning an image posted along with some of the "gushing" type comments.
>>> I made the comment, and the recipient was so offended he killed further
>>> comment in that particular "stream", however another individual who
>>> agreed with my point startd a new stream to discuss the issue. All very
>>> interesting.
>>>
>>> My original comment regarding the image in question:
>>> "um, …er, perhaps I would have handled this a little differently.
>>> I am not sure what you used here, it looks somewhat "Topaz" processed,
>>> or single image tone-mapped to me, and is not quite appealing to my taste.
>>> The image itself has a great appeal to it and otherwise works.
>>> I feel if you perhaps masked the effect in the sky and clouds, there
>>> might be other ways of dealing with the subjects and foreground."
>>>
>>> ....and the subsequent start of the new "Stream":
>>>
>>> "How do you feel about (negative) comments to your images?
>>>
>>> i was viewing a my stream and noticed where Leonard made a criticism of
>>> the image. The photographer responded rather harshly and essentially
>>> asked Leonard, "How dare you say something negative." (my words not his)
>>>
>>> When I supported Leonard's comments, another person jumped in and posted
>>> this comment, "I do not understand the purpose of people posting
>>> unsolicited negative or "I don't like this" comments...is there another
>>> reason besides serving their ego?"
>>>
>>> So it would appear that only positive comments are allowed.
>>>
>>> What do you think?"
>>>

>>
>> Doesn't sound much different than any place else.
>> Some people post for praise, their egos need it. Others post either to
>> demonstrate a point, or they are seeking comment, negative or positive.
>> As I said earlier: when my image sucks I appreciate comments that help
>> me to understand why.

>
>...and that has always been my position. Give me a reason why you do
>not like what I have done with my image. Let me know if there is an
>issue with my treatment, or if the composition is off. Don't attack me
>personally, and perhaps I will be receptive, learn something and take
>that constructive criticism to heart.


I must say that you have behaved most gentlemanly when I have
commented on your images, even when those comments have been less than
complimentary.

We differ strongly on the use of HD in images. I feel that it is the
Devil's touch in any photograph no matter how lightly applied. You
don't use Topaz, to the best of my knowledge, but my bias against
garish treatment extends to Topazists. HD and Topaz were invented by
acolytes of Thomas Kinkaid.

>BTW; here is the image I commented on;
>< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Jeff-LS-01.jpg >


This photograph is a good example of the righteous goodness of my
bias. It could be an interesting composition of family fun, but it
spoiled by the competition of the sky treatment. The viewer sees
first the sky and then the haystacks and the people.

Sadly, the photographer has devoted time to the sky treatment, but
didn't process so the people are clearly visible. It was the third
time I looked at the image before I noticed the person bending over in
front of the woman with baby.

I know some here expect the predictable crop comment from me, so here
goes: Most of the foreground needs cropping out. The whole of the
foreground adds nothing to what a slice of the foreground would add,
and the mass of brownness - plus the sky - sandwiches the interesting
part of the image into almost nothingness.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2011
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 19:31:51 +0100, Pete A
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 2011-10-05 17:31:41 +0100, Savageduck said:
>
>> Boy! You should have seen the hornets's nest I stirred up there
>> yesterday, and the subsequent stream generated in defense of my remark
>> concerning an image posted along with some of the "gushing" type
>> comments.
>> I made the comment, and the recipient was so offended he killed further
>> comment in that particular "stream", however another individual who
>> agreed with my point startd a new stream to discuss the issue. All very
>> interesting.
>>
>> My original comment regarding the image in question:
>> "um, er, perhaps I would have handled this a little differently.
>> I am not sure what you used here, it looks somewhat "Topaz" processed,
>> or single image tone-mapped to me, and is not quite appealing to my
>> taste.
>> The image itself has a great appeal to it and otherwise works.
>> I feel if you perhaps masked the effect in the sky and clouds, there
>> might be other ways of dealing with the subjects and foreground."
>>
>> ...and the subsequent start of the new "Stream":
>>
>> "How do you feel about (negative) comments to your images?
>>
>> i was viewing a my stream and noticed where Leonard made a criticism of
>> the image. The photographer responded rather harshly and essentially
>> asked Leonard, "How dare you say something negative." (my words not his)
>>
>> When I supported Leonard's comments, another person jumped in and
>> posted this comment, "I do not understand the purpose of people posting
>> unsolicited negative or "I don't like this" comments...is there another
>> reason besides serving their ego?"
>>
>> So it would appear that only positive comments are allowed.
>>
>> What do you think?"

>
>You're lucky. My last positive comments on a Usenet picture submission
>are still being dismantled by Tony. Bet you can't summarize this
>diabolical exchange in a dozen or so lines


The only image that you were positive about was the bird in Brighton.
You said you enjoyed it. You said nothing positive about the Fish &
Chips shot, and suggested that it should be binned.

You did say the version I did removing all those things was "restful".


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete A
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2011
On 2011-10-05 20:18:19 +0100, tony cooper said:

> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 19:31:51 +0100, Pete A
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-10-05 17:31:41 +0100, Savageduck said:
>>
>>> Boy! You should have seen the hornets's nest I stirred up there
>>> yesterday, and the subsequent stream generated in defense of my remark
>>> concerning an image posted along with some of the "gushing" type
>>> comments.
>>> I made the comment, and the recipient was so offended he killed further
>>> comment in that particular "stream", however another individual who
>>> agreed with my point startd a new stream to discuss the issue. All very
>>> interesting.
>>>
>>> My original comment regarding the image in question:
>>> "um,
>>> er, perhaps I would have handled this a little differently.
>>> I am not sure what you used here, it looks somewhat "Topaz" processed,
>>> or single image tone-mapped to me, and is not quite appealing to my
>>> taste.
>>> The image itself has a great appeal to it and otherwise works.
>>> I feel if you perhaps masked the effect in the sky and clouds, there
>>> might be other ways of dealing with the subjects and foreground."
>>>
>>> ...and the subsequent start of the new "Stream":
>>>
>>> "How do you feel about (negative) comments to your images?
>>>
>>> i was viewing a my stream and noticed where Leonard made a criticism of
>>> the image. The photographer responded rather harshly and essentially
>>> asked Leonard, "How dare you say something negative." (my words not his)
>>>
>>> When I supported Leonard's comments, another person jumped in and
>>> posted this comment, "I do not understand the purpose of people posting
>>> unsolicited negative or "I don't like this" comments...is there another
>>> reason besides serving their ego?"
>>>
>>> So it would appear that only positive comments are allowed.
>>>
>>> What do you think?"

>>
>> You're lucky. My last positive comments on a Usenet picture submission
>> are still being dismantled by Tony. Bet you can't summarize this
>> diabolical exchange in a dozen or so lines

>
> The only image that you were positive about was the bird in Brighton.
> You said you enjoyed it.


Really? Then kindly explain that statement considering the first reply
to the OP's 3 images of Brighton was my reply "I greatly enjoyed all
three images for very different reasons..."

You made a derogatory comment about my reply - no need to apologise,
I'm used to it. Another poster also quite liked the images and you made
a derogatory remark to him. Each time I've called you task over your
rude and unnecessary reply to him, you snip that part of my post as if
it never happened.

> You said nothing positive about the Fish &
> Chips shot, and suggested that it should be binned.


That was not one of the 3 images in the original post. You found it in
the OP's photostream and said it was the only image worthy of comment.
Your subsequent edit of it, using your own suggestions, was the image I
said should be deleted because it looked a bl**dy mess.

> You did say the version I did removing all those things was "restful".


Your next edit was interesting and enjoyable as a bit of fun. As a
presentable image, it had too many faults to list.

 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2011
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:22:57 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>> I must say that you have behaved most gentlemanly when I have
>> commented on your images, even when those comments have been less than
>> complimentary.

>
>I understand from whence your comments come, and I have years of being
>on the receiving end of verbal abuse and legitimate threats originating
>from the gutter.


So you are saying that my comments are verbal abuse coming from the
gutter? Gracious.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2011
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 22:21:07 +0100, Pete A
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> You said nothing positive about the Fish &
>> Chips shot, and suggested that it should be binned.

>
>That was not one of the 3 images in the original post. You found it in
>the OP's photostream and said it was the only image worthy of comment.
>Your subsequent edit of it, using your own suggestions, was the image I
>said should be deleted because it looked a bl**dy mess.
>

Really, now? Here's what you said:

"To summarize thus far: You have improved the original image. You have
previously stated that your suggestions would make this an interesting
shot therefore I will comment on your crop as if I hadn't seen the
original. (No offence intended to the OP.)

Does it interest me? Only for about 10 seconds. What is the subject?
My eyes dart around all over the place trying to find something, but
they are constantly drawn to the clutter. It is a bloody mess. What is
the bright red thing behind the chair? The lamp above the sign is so
ugly, as are the wires and the lamp at the left side on the brickwork.
Why is the arch on the right cut-off just as it gets interesting?"

So it is the clutter of the lamp, the wires, the red thing, and the
arch that makes it a bloody mess. Not my "subsequent edit". What was
left in, not what was taken out by the crop, is what bothers you.

>> You did say the version I did removing all those things was "restful".

>
>Your next edit was interesting and enjoyable as a bit of fun. As a
>presentable image, it had too many faults to list.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-07-2011
On 10/5/2011 3:13 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 10:53:22 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-10-05 09:56:20 -0700, PeterN<(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>
>>> On 10/5/2011 12:31 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>> On 2011-10-05 07:47:50 -0700, PeterN<(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/4/2011 10:15 AM, Paul Furman wrote:
>>>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>>> A few of us (at least three from the photo-groups) have been exploring
>>>>>>> the potential of "Google Plus" or "G+" and it appears that it has an
>>>>>>> expanding community of pros, photoshop pros,& talented hobbyists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Duck, and Tony, here's a critiquing effort that seems to be working OK:
>>>>>> https://plus.google.com/s/BEHIND%20T...CRITIQUE?hl=en
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup! That is a good example. While poking around that site I also saw
>>>>> a lot of fluff. But, I guess that can't be helped.
>>>>
>>>> Boy! You should have seen the hornets's nest I stirred up there
>>>> yesterday, and the subsequent stream generated in defense of my remark
>>>> concerning an image posted along with some of the "gushing" type comments.
>>>> I made the comment, and the recipient was so offended he killed further
>>>> comment in that particular "stream", however another individual who
>>>> agreed with my point startd a new stream to discuss the issue. All very
>>>> interesting.
>>>>
>>>> My original comment regarding the image in question:
>>>> "um, …er, perhaps I would have handled this a little differently.
>>>> I am not sure what you used here, it looks somewhat "Topaz" processed,
>>>> or single image tone-mapped to me, and is not quite appealing to my taste.
>>>> The image itself has a great appeal to it and otherwise works.
>>>> I feel if you perhaps masked the effect in the sky and clouds, there
>>>> might be other ways of dealing with the subjects and foreground."
>>>>
>>>> ....and the subsequent start of the new "Stream":
>>>>
>>>> "How do you feel about (negative) comments to your images?
>>>>
>>>> i was viewing a my stream and noticed where Leonard made a criticism of
>>>> the image. The photographer responded rather harshly and essentially
>>>> asked Leonard, "How dare you say something negative." (my words not his)
>>>>
>>>> When I supported Leonard's comments, another person jumped in and posted
>>>> this comment, "I do not understand the purpose of people posting
>>>> unsolicited negative or "I don't like this" comments...is there another
>>>> reason besides serving their ego?"
>>>>
>>>> So it would appear that only positive comments are allowed.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?"
>>>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't sound much different than any place else.
>>> Some people post for praise, their egos need it. Others post either to
>>> demonstrate a point, or they are seeking comment, negative or positive.
>>> As I said earlier: when my image sucks I appreciate comments that help
>>> me to understand why.

>>
>> ...and that has always been my position. Give me a reason why you do
>> not like what I have done with my image. Let me know if there is an
>> issue with my treatment, or if the composition is off. Don't attack me
>> personally, and perhaps I will be receptive, learn something and take
>> that constructive criticism to heart.

>
> I must say that you have behaved most gentlemanly when I have
> commented on your images, even when those comments have been less than
> complimentary.
>
> We differ strongly on the use of HD in images. I feel that it is the
> Devil's touch in any photograph no matter how lightly applied. You
> don't use Topaz, to the best of my knowledge, but my bias against
> garish treatment extends to Topazists. HD and Topaz were invented by
> acolytes of Thomas Kinkaid.
>
>> BTW; here is the image I commented on;
>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Jeff-LS-01.jpg>

>
> This photograph is a good example of the righteous goodness of my
> bias. It could be an interesting composition of family fun, but it
> spoiled by the competition of the sky treatment. The viewer sees
> first the sky and then the haystacks and the people.
>
> Sadly, the photographer has devoted time to the sky treatment, but
> didn't process so the people are clearly visible. It was the third
> time I looked at the image before I noticed the person bending over in
> front of the woman with baby.


From the Duck's comment, I can imagine the reaction if I mentioned that
the sunlight seems to reflect from different sides of some clouds.


>
> I know some here expect the predictable crop comment from me, so here
> goes: Most of the foreground needs cropping out. The whole of the
> foreground adds nothing to what a slice of the foreground would add,
> and the mass of brownness - plus the sky - sandwiches the interesting
> part of the image into almost nothingness.
>
>



--
Peter
 
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
c plus plus code comparator furqan shaikh C++ 6 11-12-2008 06:14 AM
Invoking c function in a c plus plus function... Rahul C++ 9 03-25-2008 05:24 PM
C plus plus vs C Sharp The LoxFather C Programming 23 08-14-2003 03:51 AM
C plus plus vs C Sharp The LoxFather C++ 23 08-14-2003 03:51 AM



Advertisments