Re: Google Plus

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by PeterN, Oct 5, 2011.

  1. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    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 THE LENS - PHOTO 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
    PeterN, Oct 5, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 10/5/2011 12:31 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-10-05 07:47:50 -0700, PeterN <> 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 THE LENS - PHOTO 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
    PeterN, Oct 5, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. PeterN

    notbob Guest

    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
    notbob, Oct 5, 2011
    #3
  4. PeterN

    Pete A Guest

    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 :)
    Pete A, Oct 5, 2011
    #4
  5. PeterN

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 10:53:22 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2011-10-05 09:56:20 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 10/5/2011 12:31 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2011-10-05 07:47:50 -0700, PeterN <> 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 THE LENS - PHOTO 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
    tony cooper, Oct 5, 2011
    #5
  6. PeterN

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 19:31:51 +0100, Pete A
    <> 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
    tony cooper, Oct 5, 2011
    #6
  7. PeterN

    Pete A Guest

    On 2011-10-05 20:18:19 +0100, tony cooper said:

    > On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 19:31:51 +0100, Pete A
    > <> 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.
    Pete A, Oct 5, 2011
    #7
  8. PeterN

    tony cooper Guest

    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
    tony cooper, Oct 5, 2011
    #8
  9. PeterN

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 22:21:07 +0100, Pete A
    <> 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
    tony cooper, Oct 6, 2011
    #9
  10. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    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<> said:
    >>
    >>> On 10/5/2011 12:31 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>> On 2011-10-05 07:47:50 -0700, PeterN<> 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 THE LENS - PHOTO 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
    PeterN, Oct 7, 2011
    #10
  11. "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > 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.


    Hah. Hah. Tony said "crop".

    --
    Charles E. Hardwidge
    Charles E. Hardwidge, Oct 14, 2011
    #11
  12. "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > I know some here expect the predictable crop comment from me,...


    Yep.

    --
    Charles E. Hardwidge
    Charles E. Hardwidge, Oct 14, 2011
    #12
  13. PeterN

    John Turco Guest

    Savageduck wrote:
    >
    > > On 2011-10-05 11:40:32 -0700, "Dudley Hanks" said:
    > >> "Pete A" wrote in message


    <heavily edited for brevity>

    > >> 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 :)

    > >
    > >
    > > I shutter to imagine how they'd react to SuperZee's critiques...

    >
    >
    > A simple click should deal with blocking that individual.
    > He wouldn't have the luxury of a Usenet client which allowed him
    > to constantly morph into a new ...er, "Mothman" persona. He would
    > be constantly opening new Google accounts and that would be a pain
    > in the butt, even for him.


    <edited>

    Our P&S fancier (i.e., "Mothman") is long gone, apparently.

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, Oct 27, 2011
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Abso
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,649
  2. JW
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    593
  3. LadyLollipop
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    953
    LadyLollipop
    Mar 11, 2005
  4. Scott Smith

    New Sony Camera Group plus site (Google)

    Scott Smith, Aug 6, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    286
    Scott Smith
    Aug 6, 2006
  5. tony cooper

    Re: Google Plus

    tony cooper, Oct 1, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    41
    Views:
    866
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Dec 2, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page