Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: For Chris Sanderson  (Read 8882 times)

Christopher Sanderson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2693
    • photopxl.com
Re: For Chris Sanderson
« Reply #20 on: February 20, 2018, 07:49:59 pm »

I wrote this on another thread recently, but still quite valid:

Where else [but here] can I discuss such things not with total, mostly anonymous strangers, but with real people who I got to know over the years reasonably well, from their photography, to their musings and writings about photography, from their professional history to their family history, forming a pretty good idea of who they are, and forming a respect for what they did in their life and with their life? Those are the people I am willing to listen to, engage with, exchange opinions, even if we disagree (especially if we disagree). And stay friends even if we politely disagree. Those who can not disagree politely, should be banned and the offending post removed. Not the thread.

Ahh! A volunteer moderator?

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: For Chris Sanderson
« Reply #21 on: February 20, 2018, 08:22:00 pm »

I think those posting in high dudgeon may benefit from a closer reading of posts and not just this one:

Fair enough, Chris.  My point still stands that Rob was suggesting that at 80+ his views stand above others who he is comparing with children (even more so with the comment actually being under 6 and not 60!).

Experience is valuable, but so is recognising that something is wrong and should be changed.

As to the other posts which I consider were inappropriate and out dated, I read them with care and in context (and they are the same story we've read from Rob for as long as I can remember him posting here - which is quite some portion of the 11 years I've been reading).

To each their own, of course, but I think the overreaction and dudgeon are more apparent in the feeling that expressing such views as BS is somehow offensive.  I think that folks needs to understand that ad hominem is a reliance on personal observations to prove a point, and not simply an exclamation of exasperation.
Logged
Phil Brown

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: For Chris Sanderson
« Reply #22 on: February 20, 2018, 08:23:59 pm »

That people are insulted by a different opinion is exactly the problem.

Not an opinion, mate.  An entire lifetime of being subjected to such behaviour and the attitude of "you're a child if you don't see I'm right" as a means of debate (talk about ad hominem!).
Logged
Phil Brown

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: For Chris Sanderson
« Reply #23 on: February 20, 2018, 08:25:38 pm »

Ahh! A volunteer moderator?

Because that worked so well before?

Moderating (having done it on a political forum based around gamers) for over a decade, is bloody hard, and mostly thankless.  You also have to be prepared to actually be moderate and to moderate.
Logged
Phil Brown

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: For Chris Sanderson
« Reply #24 on: February 20, 2018, 08:49:25 pm »

... An entire lifetime of being subjected to... "you're a child...

Time to grow up, Phil? ;)

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: For Chris Sanderson
« Reply #25 on: February 20, 2018, 08:57:41 pm »

Logged
Phil Brown

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: For Chris Sanderson
« Reply #26 on: February 20, 2018, 09:01:59 pm »

Ahh! A volunteer moderator?

Hehe... But you surely wouldn't want someone who was called on this forum by a (former) member "the rudest, nastiest person that's ever posted on LuLa" ;)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: For Chris Sanderson
« Reply #27 on: February 22, 2018, 07:10:01 am »

Rob, the fact that I agree with you and hoped for more reasoned responses to your posts, still leaves the overriding reason for my having locked the thread:
sadly, discussions such as this are apparently now outside the possiblity of reasoned debate on this forum and elsewhere.

An outside observer might only have to spend 24 hours looking at American television to understand how the deep polarization of opinions and the subsequent inability to find logical and respectful disagreement have poisoned public discourse. This cuts to both sides of the political spectrum.

Chris,

Sorry for the delay in response; I spent time yesterday in hospìtal in discussion with my cardio. and have three more tests set up - for whenever they can fit me in - which left attending to LuLa correspondence a little lower down my to do list!

I imagined that you might have been a little unwilling to close the thread; however, reading what you wrote does illustrate that you have allowed your decision to be made against your better judgement, and solely to the bleat of those who think that life is a simple + or - situation, with identical behavioural rules applying across the board, and the fact that some sections of the population do not live within those tight parameters has to be stopped at all costs, by any means possible. This really is a reversion to nothing other than Puritanical Absolutism.

I can tell you this (and fortunately for me, Farmer, I was older than six when it happened): I spent about five years of my young life stuck in a boarding school in India, an establishment run by a motley selection of American, Canadian and Australian-powered missionary followers whose antics and rules were to reveal to me, many decades later, that puritanical thought, coming from "Christian" denominations of all kinds, taken to extremes, share absolutely everything with the excesses of any Islamic totalitarianism we see today. No, heads were physically left intact - if bums not (I mean by canes), but minds...

Yes, Chris, I understand your point about US tv and what it breeds; the same is daily fare in British newspapers, and if you ever watch Sky News, you may be left wondering: whither the news?

Now, Sharon and I do not know one another at all, but I will not forget that she commented on my website's professional pictures (mostly calendar girls because I had none of the fashion stuff left) in a very positive manner, pleased that they did not represent an objectification of women, but rather treated femininity in a holistic manner. She was right then, and still is: I have always respected the girls I worked with, even if some, at times, were absolutey not the ones I might have chosen for the gigs had the casting been left in my remit. (I even make reference to this in my website.) What I will say, to Sharon as to any other woman reading this is: have you ever considered the power of diffusing a difficult situation by the simple act of just laughing out loud in the person's face? Derision is a very strong weapon, and that some woman thinks your advances are laughable will crush any erection to zero. Physical attack is something entirely else, and I would imagine far more rare than hopeful flirtation. Which is exactly where Bardot and Deneuve came to the argument. Deny and demonise flirtation and you end up with today's situation where people are scared of making a direct, person-to-person approach: they end up spending their salaries on dating web sites. How bloody tragic; is that what the feminists wanted? You have to advertise you are available instead of doing the reseach in a normal manner? Yuck! How reminiscent of the call girl racket, whose listing are published openly and legally over entire pages of some Mallorcan newspapers.

Photography of models is not just about how they look; even more than that it is about what they are able to give to you, and what the photographer is able to extract from their offering. That is interpersonal chemistry, and it is not interchangeable, which is borne out by the way some people right at the top can work well together and others equally placed, not.

If you are away somewhere on assignment, there is a helluva lot of money riding on the back of you coming home with good photographs. Anyone but an idiot understands that creating a bad atmosphere on the job will not produce good work, and that all it will produce is your last gig for that client footing the bill. So, what to do? How can you tell what's desired by your model companion(s)? You are not making pictures with her/them 24/24; there is a lot of time together doing nothing photographic. Exactly as Slobodan wrote, there are all sorts of women with whom you have to interface professionally. There is the girl who will sulk if she thinks you don't want to bed her; there is the one who counts photographer and celebrity scalps and the other, "normal" one who just gets on with the job and gives you her best work. As in many cases you never meet the girl until you invite her to the casting, you have as little idea what you are jetting away with as has she. You both work on trust, but as I outlined above, what are the expectations? You have to figure it out pretty damned quickly at the start of the artificial relationship away from base.

My solution? To run away from the problem by making it impossible to surface: as soon as the gigs became big enough budget-wise, I made my wife a partner in the business and she was able to come with me on foreign shoots both to assist physically on the job, but more importantly, to keep temptation out of the way and to moderate model mindsets. In one case, it was the model's husband who refused to allow his wife to go on trips if the snapper was single. (Note the word "allow"...)

Perhaps model photography is no country for old married men; perhaps female models should only go on assignment with gay male snappers; perhaps male models should only work with lesbian photograhers. There! at a stroke, all of LuLa's bleeding hearts will be happy at last! Until the next excuse arises.

On a more general note, Chris, reference to the age of six does not imply an absolute; there are those as dumb when they die as old people as there those wise beyond their years at twenty. What the reference was supposed to be applying to was the mindset that never grows up; that thinks life is a set of golden rules, that perfect equilibriuim is attainable, that there exists, anywhere, a standard of spiritual and moral perfection. No, it does not exist and it never will, because in truth, humans instinctively do not desire it. Were it ever attained, it would be the end of the species as we know it and signal the creation of the human cypher.

Why some cannot differentiate the difference between approving of bad intersexual behaviour and understanding why it does and will ever exist, defeats me. As I said, it's a problem playing out between their own ears.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2018, 07:14:23 am by Rob C »
Logged

Two23

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 827
Re: For Chris Sanderson
« Reply #28 on: February 22, 2018, 08:52:08 am »

Chris,

Sorry for the delay in response; I spent time yesterday in hospìtal in discussion with my cardio. and have three more tests set up - for whenever they can fit me in -


Hope everything checks out OK for you.  By coincidence, I have an annual check up with a cardiologist tomorrow.  A year ago I was nearly dead!  Since then I've climbed to ~10,000 ft. on Mt. Ranier, rode my bicycle 42 miles in the mountains, and gone pheasant hunting when it was 15F below zero.  It's been an amazing year for me.  I hope you get a good report.


Kent in SD
Logged
Qui sedes ad dexteram Patris,
miserere nobis.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: For Chris Sanderson
« Reply #29 on: February 22, 2018, 09:14:04 am »


Hope everything checks out OK for you.  By coincidence, I have an annual check up with a cardiologist tomorrow.  A year ago I was nearly dead!  Since then I've climbed to ~10,000 ft. on Mt. Ranier, rode my bicycle 42 miles in the mountains, and gone pheasant hunting when it was 15F below zero.  It's been an amazing year for me.  I hope you get a good report.


Kent in SD

Thank you; it's a long-running combination of two heart-attacks, two stents and God knows how many more wanting to find a home within! Combinations of beta blockers for the heart treatment and eye-drops containing more of the same mean that the addition is often not helpful. Finally (?) the drops have been changed for others not containing betas, so we shall see what we hope we shall continue to be able to see. The heart betas are currently supended, and so I am running relatively free of additives other than aspirin, pills to protect the stomach from them, and another pill to keep cholesterol down.

I hope your own tests prove to show good results! None of us needs enemies inside.

;-)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: For Chris Sanderson
« Reply #30 on: February 22, 2018, 09:26:37 am »

Hey Rob
Please stick with it! That you "find and pass on links to photographic websites and books" and just as important, links to music, is what I look for most in this Forum. I for one appreciate hugely what you write.
Best regards
Tony


Thank you very much, Tony; it is good to feel one is not shouting into the wind. It's difficult to continue writing in a space without knowing whether it means anything to anyone other than the self.

For example, and to illustrate what people's posts can mean to me: I miss Cooter's appearances, now almost never except within the moving image zones, where I have little interest and of which I have even less knowledge. I can understand why he seems to have given up trying, though I do hope the reality may be he just has too much work to do to spend more time on the forums.

Rob

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: For Chris Sanderson
« Reply #31 on: February 22, 2018, 09:55:47 am »

I echo Tony's compliments.
Rob, it's always a delight to read your posts, which are often more interesting and more insightful than some of the articles on the front page.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: For Chris Sanderson
« Reply #32 on: February 22, 2018, 11:40:23 am »

Hi Kevin,

I am with you and Chris on this, all the way. Women belong as well behind the camera as in front of it.

But any human on the planet, weather a photographer, a model, a shuttle commander, Kiowa Warrior pilot or inventor of Kevlar deserves one thing in common and that is respect.

Best regards
Erik




I fully support Chris on this.  No other photography forum allows topics like this.  I have said it before and I'll say it again.  This is a forum with the focus on photography. Any other type of debate must be taken elsewhere.  Rob, I respect you, your work, your experience and especially your contributions to this site.  But the topic is a sensitive one and got off track and for the most part was not photo related.  I am a firm believer in the amazing contributions that women have made in the field of photography.  The first influential photographer that set me on my way was a woman, Barbara Blondeau . . .  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Blondeau

I hope you continue to be part of our forum.  However, I received too many emails about this topic and we made a choice to close it even after we asked to use some moderation. 

Let's stay focused on photography.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: For Chris Sanderson
« Reply #33 on: February 22, 2018, 12:15:26 pm »

But any human on the planet, weather a photographer, a model, a shuttle commander, Kiowa Warrior pilot or inventor of Kevlar deserves one thing in common and that is respect.

Really, Erik? How about the kid who just murdered 17 of his classmates? Do you respect him? What, exactly, do you mean by "respect?"
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4763
    • Robert's Photos
Re: For Chris Sanderson
« Reply #34 on: February 22, 2018, 12:21:47 pm »

Really, Erik? How about the kid who just murdered 17 of his classmates? Do you respect him? What, exactly, do you mean by "respect?"

I would regard this kind of post as unnecessary baiting, the very thing that helped get those other threads closed and deleted. Do you think these questions served any purpose?
Logged
--
Robert

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: For Chris Sanderson
« Reply #35 on: February 22, 2018, 12:37:59 pm »

Really, Erik? How about the kid who just murdered 17 of his classmates? Do you respect him? What, exactly, do you mean by "respect?"


Exactly; it's just a catch-all phrase often without meaning. Black gangsters as well as the Mafia espouse its use to what purpose, really, that approaches anything to do with good behaviour?

Everybody not totally insane understands that one can't go around lifting skirts and otherwise making a general pest of oneself; that needs no clarification nor does it need constant repetition. I have not read a single poster in this thread suggest that unwanted attentions are okay; the general idea is that you understand a no for a no. Yet, despite the clear lack of evidence, some continue to wallow in this belief that others are saying yes, go for it, rape and pillage to your heart's content! How absurd.

It's not what you say nor even the way you say it; what it seems that it is is what others want you to have said.

Incidentally, rather than folks whimper for the locking of threads, why not simply exercise their divine right to ignore them and the writers they hate, and leave the field to those with something to contribute? Of course, I do understand that for many that's not enough: they crave the satisfaction of saying to themselves, look what I did, I made a difference and spoiled something all by myself!

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: For Chris Sanderson
« Reply #36 on: February 22, 2018, 01:03:14 pm »

Hi Russ,

Mea culpa, I did not mention the proper context.

Let's put it this way, every human deserves respects by birth, but may also forfeit it by action or inaction under circumstances.

Best regards
Erik


Really, Erik? How about the kid who just murdered 17 of his classmates? Do you respect him? What, exactly, do you mean by "respect?"
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

DP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 727
Re: For Chris Sanderson
« Reply #37 on: February 22, 2018, 01:27:32 pm »

may also forfeit it by action or inaction under circumstances.

and judges are ?
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: For Chris Sanderson
« Reply #38 on: February 22, 2018, 02:50:18 pm »

and judges are ?
The members of Lula, of course.   :D
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: For Chris Sanderson
« Reply #39 on: February 22, 2018, 03:33:40 pm »

I echo Tony's compliments.
Rob, it's always a delight to read your posts, which are often more interesting and more insightful than some of the articles on the front page.

Thanks; if that's true, then it may be because I don't care much about cameras and lenses, knowing that only two or three ever made a huge difference to my life; I would name them as the Exaka Varex lla, the Nikon F and the Hassy 500 series. They made the basic, practical aspects of work more easy to handle. What I do care about a geat deal is pictures and special photographers, whom I find fascinating if only because they have the gift of doing what they do appear easy and natural. Easy it cannot be, but natural (to them) decidedly!

;-)
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up