Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: rabanito on December 11, 2018, 01:38:22 pm
-
In the topic "Etiquette" I didn't find what I was looking for:
When I photograph people, I go to them, talk to them, ask for permission for taking the pictures, ask their names and, if possible, I chat a little with them.
That's the way I do it. Otherwise I don't take any picture.
Usually they are looking to the camera or the photographer. I like it this way.
So I expect - and I guess my "subjects" too - that their "portraits" are treated with respect they deserve when I show the pictures to other people. That they are never commented in a negative way. Not even as a joke.
And I assume that this is the way most of us in the forum do. I have no complaints.
But a rule in this respect seems to be missing. Or I missed it.
What do you think?
-
In the topic "Etiquette" I didn't find what I was looking for:
When I photograph people, I go to them, talk to them, ask for permission for taking the pictures, ask their names and, if possible, I chat a little with them.
That's the way I do it. Otherwise I don't take any picture.
Usually they are looking to the camera or the photographer. I like it this way.
So I expect - and I guess my "subjects" too - that their "portraits" are treated with respect they deserve when I show the pictures to other people. That they are never commented in a negative way. Not even as a joke.
And I assume that this is the way most of us in the forum do. I have no complaints.
But a rule in this respect seems to be missing. Or I missed it.
What do you think?
People (photographers) are all different, and do things in their own divers ways; many believe that if you ask the subjects (strangers) for permission, then you have defeated the point of the exercise, which is that you get to play at urban hunter.
Remove that element of frisson, and there is little point in wasting time photographing people you don't know. Why would you want to bother? You might as well go to the park and photograph a duck in the pond.
Rob
-
People (photographers) are all different, and do things in their own divers ways; many believe that if you ask the subjects (strangers) for permission, then you have defeated the point of the exercise, which is that you get to play at urban hunter.
Remove that element of frisson, and there is little point in wasting time photographing people you don't know. Why would you want to bother? You might as well go to the park and photograph a duck in the pond.
Rob
Well, there you go, that's reduced much of what I did in India to wasting my time photographing wild fowl.
(http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Bundi_2.jpg)
-
Remove that element of frisson, and there is little point in wasting time photographing people you don't know. Why would you want to bother? You might as well go to the park and photograph a duck in the pond.
Rob
Well, the same reason why I photograph two stones I don't know in the river or else.
But my subject was more that of respect for other humans, whether you ask for permission or not.
If I put a photo of my father and somebody WRITES that he looks like a criminal, it will upset me.
Or you do some cheap jokes on the image of a beautiful lady.
Let alone if there is his/her name there and his/her address.
So the point is that what is valid for say, the figure of my father should be valid for all humans as well.
In particular if they are identifiable.
-
Well, there you go, that's reduced much of what I did in India to wasting my time photographing wild fowl.
(http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Bundi_2.jpg)
Excuse me using your great photo to illlustrate the point
IMHO the man is allowing you to take his photograph.
Now anybody imagine I comment not the picture but the person there in some disrespectful manner.
I would certainly not be happy.
This is what I believe should be "regulated"
-
I can't believe you actually want more regulations; life is already overflowing with them, and with luck, the arts will still continue to manage to defeat them.
However, if you mean that one should not photograph people in a mocking or insulting way, then I agree with you, though you will still have to face the fact that one man's mockery is another's sense of humour, and you don't even need images to discover that.
How on Earth would you regulate such a rule of etiquette other than via self-regulation which, of course, opens the entire thing up to personal interpretation, as I just indicated a second or two ago?
However, perhaps you mean that from a strictly LuLa perspective, in which case, you might be suggesting that a Moderator be lumbered with the task... I don't think (hope) that will fly!
:-)
-
Excuse me using your great photo to illlustrate the point
IMHO the man is allowing you to take his photograph.
Now anybody imagine I comment not the picture but the person there in some disrespectful manner.
I would certainly not be happy.
This is what I believe should be "regulated"
You are talking about politeness rules of commenting on photos. Correct?
You are not talking about regulating the act of photographing, correct?
Let me tell you, if you pack the insult in a nice wrap and with a colorful ribbon, that’s fine here on Lula.
Don’t expect to much from the etiquette here on Lula. A bit hypocrisy is not far away.
-
Excuse me using your great photo to illlustrate the point
IMHO the man is allowing you to take his photograph.
Now anybody imagine I comment not the picture but the person there in some disrespectful manner.
I would certainly not be happy.
This is what I believe should be "regulated"
I understand where you are coming from and wouldn't have been comfortable had someone here shown disrespect for the man I chose to photograph, but please, no more regulation!
-
You are talking about politeness rules of commenting on photos. Correct?
You are not talking about regulating the act of photographing, correct?
What you say is correct.
And probably I don't understand the idiosyncrasy.
I'll stick to landscape from now on :(
-
Here's one of Cartier-Bresson's fantastic street shots: https://www.icp.org/browse/archive/objects/lock-at-bougival-france. Do you really think he posed the people and the dogs? Here are some of my own street shots: https://luminous-landscape.com/on-street-photography/. Check the picture of the two boys next to their dad, standing over what's obviously one of his wife's shopping bags -- a picture I titled "Waiting for Mom." Do you really think I'd have caught the expressions on those kids' faces if I'd walked over and asked if it were okay to take their picture? There's a thing called "expectation of privacy." When you're out in public -- at least still in the United States -- you have no expectation of privacy. That's what makes real street photography possible.
-
Well, there you go, that's reduced much of what I did in India to wasting my time photographing wild fowl.
(http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Bundi_2.jpg)
No, Keith, your travel atmospherics are wonderful examples of their genre. They're just not street.
-
No, Keith, your travel atmospherics are wonderful examples of their genre. They're just not street.
Are they "travel atmospherics" if they are taken by a local photographer?
-
Are they "travel atmospherics" if they are taken by a local photographer?
Yes, they certainly are, especially if he has managed to find a stock agency that isn't already overflowing with the stuff.
I faced the local photographer problem soon after coming to live in Spain: my London agency asked me to stop sending in atmospheric travel shots of Spain because every agency in London was drowning under the weight of what they already held. At one stage, The Image Bank held 36,000 transparencies of the Eiffel Tower... you see a point to sending in one more?
After retiring when the industry turned into a bad joke, and after the hiatus before I found digital, I once again began to make local pictures but not what had been atmospherics denoting the perfect illustration of the traveller's dream: I began to shoot in order to please no more clients but just myself. That meant I never felt obliged to do "pretty" of even "interesting" again, just whatever turned me on at the time, or even do nothing at all. Hence, I stumbled onto what, for me, makes me think in the subjective 100% of the time, and I even shoot things that I'm not sure about at the moment but eventually, maybe after a month, turn out to have been worth the click. To me.
It's the subject matter that makes the definition, not so much the purpose; you can never escape genre, however much you try. It just is.
-
When you're out in public -- at least still in the United States -- you have no expectation of privacy. That's what makes real street photography possible.
That's true, it seems. Other countries, other laws, other cultures.
-
Yes, they certainly are, especially if he has managed to find a stock agency that isn't already overflowing with the stuff.
So an image of a homeless guy in New York is street but an image of a homeless guy in Mumbai is travel atmospherics. Maybe a Mumbai resident would think the image of the homeless guy in New York is travel atmospherics.
-
I think it all depends on the situation. Often I ask, and just as often the image is so fleeting that I just snap it. I'm never trying to make fun of people, I just want to catch an interesting image.
First photo grabbed, second photo asked the President if I could take his photo.
Kent in SD
-
So an image of a homeless guy in New York is street but an image of a homeless guy in Mumbai is travel atmospherics. Maybe a Mumbai resident would think the image of the homeless guy in New York is travel atmospherics.
No, Fab, an image of a homeless guy in New York isn't street. It's just a snapshot of a homeless guy. Unless. . . unless there's a story there that involves the homeless guy in something human besides just being a homeless guy. If he's just a homeless guy it may be travel atmospherics if he's a model of a local type, but if he's just a hobo it's probably not even that. The people in Keith's travel atmospherics tend to be classic examples of dignified humans. They're beautiful in their own way, but they aren't stories.
-
No, Fab, an image of a homeless guy in New York isn't street. It's just a snapshot of a homeless guy. Unless. . . unless there's a story there that involves the homeless guy in something human besides just being a homeless guy.
I don't normally take photos of bums, but do you see a story here?
Kent in SD
-
Yes, they certainly are, especially if he has managed to find a stock agency that isn't already overflowing with the stuff.
I faced the local photographer problem soon after coming to live in Spain: my London agency asked me to stop sending in atmospheric travel shots of Spain because every agency in London was drowning under the weight of what they already held. At one stage, The Image Bank held 36,000 transparencies of the Eiffel Tower... you see a point to sending in one more?
After retiring when the industry turned into a bad joke, and after the hiatus before I found digital, I once again began to make local pictures but not what had been atmospherics denoting the perfect illustration of the traveller's dream: I began to shoot in order to please no more clients but just myself. That meant I never felt obliged to do "pretty" of even "interesting" again, just whatever turned me on at the time, or even do nothing at all. Hence, I stumbled onto what, for me, makes me think in the subjective 100% of the time, and I even shoot things that I'm not sure about at the moment but eventually, maybe after a month, turn out to have been worth the click. To me.
It's the subject matter that makes the definition, not so much the purpose; you can never escape genre, however much you try. It just is.
Adobe Stock has now 83,455 images of Eiffel tower. And 1,918,631 images of tomatoes.
-
The topic is about commenting on pictures.
Not about genres.
Please, don’t hijack another thread.
The point is: we all should take care to comment on the picture, not on the person who made it, or on the person(s) on the picture.
The point behind the point is this:
The Lula habitues should understand not all members follow all threads or are interested in the cross topic tongue in cheek jokes and shots to each other.
Not all members can follow or expect the subsurface links to US or international politics coming out of the blue.
That create confusion and unnecessary discussion.
I had the same with the intrinsic harmless comment of Slobodan about ‘tension at the border’ and Rabinato logically misunderstood the sarcasm about the comment on his picture, what was a comment on the comment of Slobodan.
That is how concealed messages in comments leads to discussion, even to unnecessary anger.
-
The topic is about commenting on pictures.
Not about genres.
Thank you for explaining.
I had no idea that there was a joke running around.
And there is also the possibility that the forists confused kolla children with - I suppose - mexicans.
Which is like mistaking a Spaniard for a Russian, IMHO ::)
Anyway, they are persons, whatever life made of them in the meantime-
I put a picture of those children and the first comment (not Slobodan's btw) I read is
"They look like rapists and drug dealers to me."
I was not involved in any joke and had no clue. Just showing a picture I like
I gave a very mild warning. I got an unsatisfactory response. As I thought it was going to escalate I removed the picture.
A pity IMO.
Sorry for making it too long. Probably a misunderstanding.
-
No, Keith, your travel atmospherics are wonderful examples of their genre. They're just not street.
Russ, I've never so much as suggested on LuLa that they are Street.
That said, are you just trying to piss me off by continuing to and insisting on placing my work into a "genre" that was a figment of Rob's imagination?
The topic is about commenting on pictures.
Not about genres
Please, don’t hijack another thread
Indeed!
-
you can never escape genre, however much you try. It just is.[/b]
I don't doubt for a moment that you believe this to be true, so much so that you'll not even stop at inventing genre of your own.
-
So an image of a homeless guy in New York is street but an image of a homeless guy in Mumbai is travel atmospherics. Maybe a Mumbai resident would think the image of the homeless guy in New York is travel atmospherics.
No. Travel atmospherics are positive representations: the term stems from its original use in the photostock business, where a particular photographic requirement was early recognized, that being images that shed a positive, interesting and alluring light on a destination, and that inspire people from outwith that area to come visit. Homeless is not a draw. The objective of those atmospherics was to sell travel.
The problem of eventual image overload, as described earlier, is that everybody with some skill is drawn to the same "interesting" locations and to produce the same generic images. Even more than Indian culture is the ubiquity of the desert island image, the blue sky, the white/golden/pink beach with the single palm tree swooping low over that sand with a hammock attached. If your budget allowed, you had a pretty blonde in that hammock, peferrably sipping a colourful cocktail that some invisible, out-of-shot bar had provided. The Tony Stone specialty, if memory serves, was to have that blue sky with a single white cloud.
Even in goode olde Scotland, travel atmospherics were big busines for local Scottish photographers.
In all my years there I saw Loch Lomond twice in beautiful summery light; every other trip that water looked black, the sky grey, yet each year there were dozens of calendars being sent abroad to the Scottish diaspora showing the place all sunny, with flowers blossoming on the banks. All I ever saw on the banks were twigs and dead, blackened branches. Oh - and a couple of times, one of my models.
Travel atmospherics used to be very good business, as did Slobodan's cityscapes. It's his misfortune that he was born too late to make the best financial return on that skill that he has; all the big picture agencies had pages after pages of city. Why? Because they fulfilled not only travel promotion needs but business motivational image needs, too. Today, they go for cents to the photographer. What a waste.
-
No. Travel atmospherics are positive representations: the term stems from its original use in the photostock business, where a particular photographic requirement was early recognized, that being images that shed a positive, interesting and alluring light on a destination, and that inspire people from outwith that area to come visit. Homeless is not a draw. The objective of those atmospherics was to sell travel....
Despite having been a contributor to various photo stock agencies from the 1980s until today I've never come across the category Travel Atmospherics and certainly never come across a genre within the arts of the same name, other than, of course, here on LuLa.
-
I don't doubt for a moment that you believe this to be true, so much so that you'll not even stop at inventing genre of your own.
Ah Keith, you credit me with too much creativity!
;-)
-
Despite having been a contributor to various photo stock agencies from the 1980s until today I've never come across the category Travel Atmospherics and certainly never come across a genre within the arts of the same name, other than, of course, here on LuLa.
That surprises me, very much indeed.
It does not surprise me that you have not come across it within the art world. That's a different world.
-
That surprises me, very much indeed.
It does not surprise me that you have not come across it within the art world. That's a different world.
What is the relevance or wisdom of associating your long remembered category/genre within the stock agency business to my images posted here on LuLa?
-
What is the relevance or wisdom of associating your long remembered category/genre within the stock agency business to my images posted here on LuLa?
That's an easy one: the relevance is derived from what they generally are, which is stuff you have shot on your travels in various bits of Greece and, now, India.
They represent good examples of the material that agencies wanted because they had keen buyers waiting in the form of travel brochure and travel poster clients. Quite why you appear to me to have taken this as some sort of put down escapes me; on the contrary, they fulfil the function very well and are to be lauded. It would be interesting to learn how else you'd categorize them, though I do appreciate that, for some reason best known to yourself, doing that's somehow taboo.
Of the ones you've posted here, two, for me, go further and onto another category, that of fine art. Those two are the rear shot of the girl by the window, and the shot of the young lad, the Artful Dodger, as it were, with the mischievous look on his face.
Quite how the first reference to travel atmospherics photography arose here in LuLa I can't remember, and I sure as hell don't intend rereading all this material, even if it's my own; enough trouble writing it in the first instance!
I can't think of any series of photographic works that doesn't fall into one category or another. The moment a series of similarly themed works exists it is, then, by definition, a genre of one kind or another, with or without a popularly recognised name.
Rob
-
Artists abhor being labeled...
Peter
-
Artists abhor being labeled...
Peter
+1.
-
The topic is about commenting on pictures.
Not about genres.
Please, don’t hijack another thread.
The point is: we all should take care to comment on the picture, not on the person who made it, or on the person(s) on the picture.
The point behind the point is this:
The Lula habitues should understand not all members follow all threads or are interested in the cross topic tongue in cheek jokes and shots to each other.
Not all members can follow or expect the subsurface links to US or international politics coming out of the blue.
That create confusion and unnecessary discussion.
I had the same with the intrinsic harmless comment of Slobodan about ‘tension at the border’ and Rabinato logically misunderstood the sarcasm about the comment on his picture, what was a comment on the comment of Slobodan.
That is how concealed messages in comments leads to discussion, even to unnecessary anger.
?
-
That's an easy one: the relevance is derived from what they generally are, which is stuff you have shot on your travels in various bits of Greece and, now, India.
They represent good examples of the material that agencies wanted because they had keen buyers waiting in the form of travel brochure and travel poster clients. Quite why you appear to me to have taken this as some sort of put down escapes me; on the contrary, they fulfil the function very well and are to be lauded. It would be interesting to learn how else you'd categorize them, though I do appreciate that, for some reason best known to yourself, doing that's somehow taboo.
Of the ones you've posted here, two, for me, go further and onto another category, that of fine art. Those two are the rear shot of the girl by the window, and the shot of the young lad, the Artful Dodger, as it were, with the mischievous look on his face.
Quite how the first reference to travel atmospherics photography arose here in LuLa I can't remember, and I sure as hell don't intend rereading all this material, even if it's my own; enough trouble writing it in the first instance!
I can't think of any series of photographic works that doesn't fall into one category or another. The moment a series of similarly themed works exists it is, then, by definition, a genre of one kind or another, with or without a popularly recognised name.
Rob
Which would be germane if the images of mine to which you refer had anything to do with stock agencies or their clients. They were not captured with commercial intention or gain and will never be marketed. I believe there is a fundamental difference here between the the artist and the commercial artist.
You are right in thinking that I don't have any time for the placing of anyone or anyone's images into little boxes, but if gets your rocks off then who am I to spoil your fun?
-
I don't normally take photos of bums, but do you see a story here?
Kent in SD
No, Kent. What I see is two pictures: (1) A hobo asleep on a street. (2) Two girls walking down a street. There’s no connection between the two. If there are any stories here they are: (1) A bum’s asleep. (2) Two girls are walking.
Ho hum. Yawn.
-
?
Hahahaha, Russ
From the last 10 or so messages this is the one "on topic"
The rest - I believe - is a personal discussion between 2 members who think that with"etiquette" was meant "label" :-)
Just my humble opinion...
;)
-
Russ, I've never so much as suggested on LuLa that they are Street.
That said, are you just trying to piss me off by continuing to and insisting on placing my work into a "genre" that was a figment of Rob's imagination?
Indeed!
When I die and go to hell, I expect I will be put in a room full of guys (yes, always guys) spending eternity arguing about what is and isn't street photography. Maybe I should go to church more often!
-
When I die and go to hell, I expect I will be put in a room full of guys (yes, always guys) spending eternity arguing about what is and isn't street photography. Maybe I should go to church more often!
Regarding that argument and definition, I wouldn't have a clue or a care. Perhaps listen to those who would have you believe they do: the preachers here on LuLa.
-
The topic is about commenting on pictures. Not about genres.
Nope. This thread (read the original post) is about whether or not to ask strangers on the street for permission to take their photo.
-
Nope. This thread (read the original post) is about whether or not to ask strangers on the street for permission to take their photo.
Nope (read the original post on a not selective manner):
In the topic "Etiquette" I didn't find what I was looking for:
So I expect - and I guess my "subjects" too - that their "portraits" are treated with respect they deserve when I show the pictures to other people. That they are never commented in a negative way. Not even as a joke.
This thread is a reaction on comments given on a picture of Rabanito.
-
Nope. This thread (read the original post) is about whether or not to ask strangers on the street for permission to take their photo.
Sorry. I initiated the topic
Ivophot is right.
-
No, Fab, an image of a homeless guy in New York isn't street. It's just a snapshot of a homeless guy. Unless. . . unless there's a story there that involves the homeless guy in something human besides just being a homeless guy. If he's just a homeless guy it may be travel atmospherics if he's a model of a local type, but if he's just a hobo it's probably not even that. The people in Keith's travel atmospherics tend to be classic examples of dignified humans. They're beautiful in their own way, but they aren't stories.
As you yourself said, sometimes the story is hidden. If you can't find a story in an image of a homeless guy, so much the worse for you. You should take your cue from those giving the elaborate interpretations of the street image (or was it staged?) in the Best Street of 2018 thread. And you give yourself away. I don't think the term "hobo" has been used since the 1930s. Finally, I am shocked that you would think my hypothetical homeless guy in NYC was not dignified.
-
If I’ve ever said the story in a street photograph is hidden, Fab, I misspoke. If you could give me a link to where I said it I’d appreciate it. Maybe you’re misinterpreting the term “ambiguous” to mean hidden. The two words aren’t synonymous by any stretch of the imagination. And by using the term “hobo,” yes, I’m giving myself away. In other words, I’m making clear I understand the English language. It’s a term used often in literature, even in the 2000’s. “Bum” is another of those “old” terms that describe so much in a single word, unlike the term "homeless."
And as far as your “dignified” hobo is concerned, I probably should turn you loose on the dozens of hobo pictures I’ve shot, especially the one I printed and gave a copy of to the guy next time I saw him. He started crying and said, “That’s the first time anybody’s taken my picture in twenty years.” Try that some time, Fab.
-
If I’ve ever said the story in a street photograph is hidden, Fab, I misspoke. If you could give me a link to where I said it I’d appreciate it. Maybe you’re misinterpreting the term “ambiguous” to mean hidden. The two words aren’t synonymous by any stretch of the imagination. And by using the term “hobo,” yes, I’m giving myself away. In other words, I’m making clear I understand the English language. It’s a term used often in literature, even in the 2000’s. “Bum” is another of those “old” terms that describe so much in a single word, unlike the term "homeless."
And as far as your “dignified” hobo is concerned, I probably should turn you loose on the dozens of hobo pictures I’ve shot, especially the one I printed and gave a copy of to the guy next time I saw him. He started crying and said, “That’s the first time anybody’s taken my picture in twenty years.” Try that some time, Fab.
Are you trying to say the word ‘bum’ is a word without pejorative?
Are you trying to say the word ‘hobo’ is not a somewhat offensive term?
Just asking.....
-
Are you trying to say the word ‘hobo’ is not a somewhat offensive term?
As far as I know - or better, I was told - Jack London was a hobo.
-
Are you trying to say the word ‘bum’ is a word without pejorative?
Are you trying to say the word ‘hobo’ is not a somewhat offensive term?
Just asking.....
I'm not saying anything you're likely to understand, Ivo. Don't sweat it.
-
I'm not saying anything you're likely to understand, Ivo. Don't sweat it.
Thanks for your kind words, Russ.
-
Thanks for your kind words, Russ.
Join the club Ivo. I've been told I am too ignorant to understand him too. It one of his many dodges. If he can't explain himself or knows his explanation is specious (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here), he just says you are too ignorant to understand, and doesn't respond. Pretty transparent.
-
Join the club Ivo. I've been told I am too ignorant to understand him too. It one of his many dodges.
Yep, see my reply #7 in this thread.
-
When I die and go to hell, I expect I will be put in a room full of guys (yes, always guys) spending eternity arguing about what is and isn't street photography. Maybe I should go to church more often!
The deepest pit of photographers' hell is for people who argue over bird photos.
Kent in SD
-
That's true, it seems. Other countries, other laws, other cultures.
At last - he gets it.
-
I can't believe you actually want more regulations; life is already overflowing with them, and with luck, the arts will still continue to manage to defeat them.
However, if you mean that one should not photograph people in a mocking or insulting way, then I agree with you, though you will still have to face the fact that one man's mockery is another's sense of humour, and you don't even need images to discover that.
He is referring to a picture he posted and to which I responded with a comment intended as a joke with Slobo, which he interpreted as an insult directed at the subject of the photo. I deleted my comment, explained the joke, and apologised for any offence caused, but he is apparently still whining on about it.
-
He is referring to a picture he posted and to which I responded with a comment intended as a joke with Slobo, which he interpreted as an insult directed at the subject of the photo. I deleted my comment, explained the joke, and apologised for any offence caused, but he is apparently still whining on about it.
As you can ascertain elsewhere, I didn't mention your name.
You are not the only participant that may think that because they are semi-anonymous everything goes.
A common problem in the social networks
That's why "etiquette" is regulated.
Because some people don't know where the limits are.
Your private jokes with another person you can make via private post, IMHO.
And:
YOU DIDN'T EXPLAIN YOUR JOKE NOR SAID I'M SORRY. EVER.
You can revise our exchange in the forum if you doubt it.
Somebody had to explain you manners. That's not "whining", friend.
And now enough, I'm sick and tired of this subject.
Behave better in the future and please let's just talk photography.
That is in the first place why we're here.
-
Because some people don't know where the limits are.
The limits are not where you say they are "my friend". I notice that your elevated sensibilities did not prevent you from addressing a personal insult to me - a hypocrite as well as a whiner - not an attractive combination.
(If it matters, my apology and Slobo's explanation of the "joke" are in posts 181 and 183 of that thread. Note that the only non-deleted posts with my comment still visible are ones that you could delete yourself if you actually cared about them, rather than an excuse to be a drama queen)
-
As you can ascertain elsewhere, I didn't mention your name.
You are not the only participant that may think that because they are semi-anonymous everything goes.
A common problem in the social networks
That's why "etiquette" is regulated.
Because some people don't know where the limits are.
Your private jokes with another person you can make via private post, IMHO.
And:
YOU DIDN'T EXPLAIN YOUR JOKE NOR SAID I'M SORRY. EVER.
You can revise our exchange in the forum if you doubt it.
Somebody had to explain you manners. That's not "whining", friend.
And now enough, I'm sick and tired of this subject.
Behave better in the future and please let's just talk photography.
That is in the first place why we're here.
No. This is the Coffee Corner, where we are allowed to discuss anything we like apart from politics, race, religion, national suicide and probably even sex, though not many are interested in sex, photography and politics being so much more divisive to debate, and so much more likely to warm me up in this freezing building in the Mediterranean. Maybe not; maybe sex is now openly more complicated than it used to be, but I'm so much older than I used to be, and no longer give a flying fig about sex, no longer knowing anybody with whom I'd like to share some. Which in a sense, is a relief from knowing far too many people with whom it would have been a pleasure to share my hidden delights.
The secrets of Pandora's box, then, not that I ever knew a Pandora, I hasten to add.
In a way, you could describe the Coffee Corner as a sanctuary, a little place where you can still be in LuLa, but yet able to escape from the deadening thrub of wishfull photographic thinking and, with luck, exchange an idea or two about something else.
Michael thought of everything.
Rob
-
No. This is the Coffee Corner, where we are allowed to discuss anything we like apart from politics, race, religion, national suicide and probably even sex, though not many are interested in sex, photography and politics being so much more divisive to debate, and so much more likely to warm me up in this freezing building in the Mediterranean. Maybe not; maybe sex is now openly more complicated than it used to be, but I'm so much older than I used to be, and no longer give a flying fig about sex, no longer knowing anybody with whom I'd like to share some. Which in a sense, is a relief from knowing far too many people with whom it would have been a pleasure to share my hidden delights.
The secrets of Pandora's box, then, not that I ever knew a Pandora, I hasten to add.
In a way, you could describe the Coffee Corner as a sanctuary, a little place where you can still be in LuLa, but yet able to escape from the deadening thrub of wishfull photographic thinking and, with luck, exchange an idea or two about something else.
Michael thought of everything.
Rob
There is a glitch here, Rob.
The cross topic interactions with sometimes hidden links to earlier situations are spreading like a fungus to other parts of Lula where other members not necessarily understands what’s going on. Don’t be surprised about reactions like Rabanito’s.
There is a huge trap opening here on Lula, don’t fall into it.
-
No. This is the Coffee Corner, where we are allowed to discuss anything we like apart from politics, race, religion, national suicide and probably even sex, though not many are interested in sex, photography and politics being so much more divisive to debate, and so much more likely to warm me up in this freezing building in the Mediterranean. Maybe not; maybe sex is now openly more complicated than it used to be, but I'm so much older than I used to be, and no longer give a flying fig about sex, no longer knowing anybody with whom I'd like to share some. Which in a sense, is a relief from knowing far too many people with whom it would have been a pleasure to share my hidden delights.
I'm pretty sure I've never suggested a ban on talking about sex. It might provide some light relief. And no, that wasn't intended as a double entendre.
Jeremy
-
No. This is the Coffee Corner, where we are allowed to discuss anything we like apart from politics, race, religion, national suicide and probably even sex, though not many are interested in sex, photography and politics being so much more divisive to debate, and so much more likely to warm me up in this freezing building in the Mediterranean. Maybe not; maybe sex is now openly more complicated than it used to be, but I'm so much older than I used to be, and no longer give a flying fig about sex, no longer knowing anybody with whom I'd like to share some. Which in a sense, is a relief from knowing far too many people with whom it would have been a pleasure to share my hidden delights.
The secrets of Pandora's box, then, not that I ever knew a Pandora, I hasten to add.
In a way, you could describe the Coffee Corner as a sanctuary, a little place where you can still be in LuLa, but yet able to escape from the deadening thrub of wishfull photographic thinking and, with luck, exchange an idea or two about something else.
Michael thought of everything.
Rob
Hi Rob
I am sorry to contradict what you are saying.
The place where this happened was
"Street Showcase / Re: On the Streets: an open image sharing thread "
That is not a "sanctuary" where you can be disrespectful at will.
In this "Coffee Corner" nothing of the sort happened until now
Maybe you answered too fast? 8)
-
In this "Coffee Corner" nothing of the sort happened until now
Maybe you answered too fast? 8)
Maybe you haven't been here long enough...
-
Hi Rob
I am sorry to contradict what you are saying.
The place where this happened was
"Street Showcase / Re: On the Streets: an open image sharing thread "
That is not a "sanctuary" where you can be disrespectful at will.
In this "Coffee Corner" nothing of the sort happened until now
Maybe you answered too fast? 8)
Maybe you posted this "complaint" in the wrong space - why not continue your argument where it apparently happened, instead?
Rob
-
And now enough, I'm sick and tired of this subject.
And yet ...
Hi Rob
[yadda yadda yadda]
In the words of the old country song "how can I miss you, when you won't go away?"
-
I'm pretty sure I've never suggested a ban on talking about sex. It might provide some light relief. And no, that wasn't intended as a double entendre.
Jeremy
Nothing like a little mention of sex to perk one up!
How on Earth do you find the time to keep your finger on this - pulse - and have a working week too? My granddaughter's also a lawyer, and she works until nine at night many times a week, though they do lay on transport for her when that happens.
She's currently on holiday on Nevis, but I don't think they provided transport for that.
;-)
-
The image in question was uploaded to The On the Streets: an open image sharing thread " where subsequently unfortunate comments were made and apologies issued. IMO as the instigator of the thread that should have sufficed and this current thread never started.
Done: time to move on.
-
Maybe you posted this "complaint" in the wrong space - why not continue your argument where it apparently happened, instead?
Rob
But Rob. I HATE having to contradict you again:
I cite from the beginning of the thread:
"So I expect - and I guess my "subjects" too - that their "portraits" are treated with respect they deserve when I show the pictures to other people. That they are never commented in a negative way. Not even as a joke.
And I assume that this is the way most of us in the forum do. I have no complaints. (bold in the original)"
I asked for the behaviour rules, that's all.
No complainatss, no names given
-
The image in question was uploaded to The On the Streets: an open image sharing thread " where subsequently unfortunate comments were made and apologies issued. IMO as the instigator of the thread that should have sufficed and this current thread never started.
Done: time to move on.
Ditto.
Fortunately you didn't use the word "perpetrator" ;D ;D
-
How on Earth do you find the time to keep your finger on this - pulse - and have a working week too? My granddaughter's also a lawyer, and she works until nine at night many times a week, though they do lay on transport for her when that happens.
Oh, I work long hours; but the great thing about being self-employed (as most barristers are) is that I can divert myself from my work for a few minutes whenever I like. I find it quite relaxing (mostly) and I return to the task in hand feeling refreshed. At this precise moment, I've had enough for the day and I'm waiting in Chambers for the traffic to die down a bit before driving home. I'll do some more reading this evening.
Problems (and perceived problems, which aren't necessarily the same thing) tend to be dragged forcibly to my attention. The "report to moderator" button is not underused.
Jeremy