Post by: petermfiore on December 13, 2018, 10:19:50 am
Posting images is fine...once comments are offered, welcomed or not, it's social media. Battle lines are drawn, a very different thing than a discussion in the real world. The are no rules here in that regard. In live face to face forums that I have taken a part in, civility still stands. Too much craziness exists here because of the anonymity of too many of the participants. No real names, makes for an ugly discourse. To debate with people in a live setting is thrilling, educational and informative. One knows the the caliber of who stands in front of you. Not here. Here it all goes to crap…
Peter
Post by: Two23 on December 13, 2018, 10:32:27 am
A lack of civility...
Posting images is fine...once comments are offered, welcomed or not, it's social media. Battle lines are drawn, a very different thing than a discussion in the real world. The are no rules here in that regard. In live face to face forums that I have taken a part in, civility still stands. Too much craziness exists here because of the anonymity of too many of the participants. No real names, makes for an ugly discourse. To debate with people in a live setting is thrilling, educational and informative. One knows the the caliber of who stands in front of you. Not here. Here it all goes to crap…
You make a good point, but I think it also depends on the individual. I also think removing political discussions has reduced the overall toxicity.
Kent in SD
(a lesser member)
Post by: KLaban on December 13, 2018, 11:05:36 am
A lack of civility...
Posting images is fine...once comments are offered, welcomed or not, it's social media. Battle lines are drawn, a very different thing than a discussion in the real world. The are no rules here in that regard. In live face to face forums that I have taken a part in, civility still stands. Too much craziness exists here because of the anonymity of too many of the participants. No real names, makes for an ugly discourse. To debate with people in a live setting is thrilling, educational and informative. One knows the the caliber of who stands in front of you. Not here. Here it all goes to crap…
Peter
Peter, I agree with much you have said.
I too would be keen to see a real name policy and have called for such in the past only to be told it would be unworkable.
That said, many folk here with something interesting to contribute already use real names or links to their work. I try to ignore the anonymous, particularly snipers. In reality and in truth there's plenty of sniping between those who I know and admire.
;-)
Post by: stamper on December 13, 2018, 11:17:31 am
Peter, I agree with much you have said.
I too would be keen to see a real name policy and have called for such in the past only to be told it would be unworkable.
That said, many folk here with something interesting to contribute already use real names or links to their work. I try to ignore the anonymous, particularly snipers. In reality and in truth there's plenty of sniping between those who I know and admire.
;-)
I don't see your real name?
Post by: Two23 on December 13, 2018, 11:20:56 am
I too would be keen to see a real name policy and have called for such in the past only to be told it would be unworkable.
Once upon a time, in the dawn of internet photography forums, I was active on the AOL Photo forum. Being naive I used my real name. There was a woman on the forum who was needing help with her photography, so I exchanged a number of emails with her in an innocent attempt to help. Slowly I began to realize she was a crazy person. Really, really crazy. She mistook my photography advice as a sign I truly loved her. Made no difference that I was happily married--my wife would "understand" and step aside. I told (not asked) her twice to stop emailing me and further emails would be quickly deleted. That night my home phone rang--it was her! She also had found my home address and was leaving her home in Californy in the morning and driving to my house. I told her if she showed up I would call the police, and to never call again. Needless to say I was a bit worried. What if she really did come, and my wife answered the door? It would not be pretty. I saw my next door neighbor out in the yard the next evening and he asked me how things were going. I told him that if he ever saw a car with California plates sitting in my drive way and a crazy looking woman sitting on my porch to go get his deer rifle. "Shoot her, " I said. We'll claim you were cleaning it and it accidentally went off. He nodded and replied, "Will do."
The crazy woman never showed up, but I haven't put my last name out on the internet since. My name really is "Kent," and I really do live in South Dakota. And, I really do own a deer rifle.
Kent in SD
Post by: KLaban on December 13, 2018, 11:30:38 am
I don't see your real name?
Stop sniping.
My name is K. Laban and there's a link to my website (http://www.keithlaban.co.uk) with every post.
Post by: KLaban on December 13, 2018, 11:33:55 am
Once upon a time, in the dawn of internet photography forums, I was active on the AOL Photo forum. Being naive I used my real name. There was a woman on the forum who was needing help with her photography, so I exchanged a number of emails with her in an innocent attempt to help. Slowly I began to realize she was a crazy person. Really, really crazy. She mistook my photography advice as a sign I truly loved her. Made no difference that I was happily married--my wife would "understand" and step aside. I told (not asked) her twice to stop emailing me and further emails would be quickly deleted. That night my home phone rang--it was her! She also had found my home address and was leaving her home in Californy in the morning and driving to my house. I told her if she showed up I would call the police, and to never call again. Needless to say I was a bit worried. What if she really did come, and my wife answered the door? It would not be pretty. I saw my next door neighbor out in the yard the next evening and he asked me how things were going. I told him that if he ever saw a car with California plates sitting in my drive way and a crazy looking woman sitting on my porch to go get his deer rifle. "Shoot her, " I said. We'll claim you were cleaning it and it accidentally went off. He nodded and replied, "Will do."
The crazy woman never showed up, but I haven't put my last name out on the internet since. My name really is "Kent," and I really do live in South Dakota. And, I really do own a deer rifle.
Kent in SD
I'm just the opposite, I won't post anything on the internet without a link to my identity.
Post by: Two23 on December 13, 2018, 11:35:38 am
I'm just the opposite, I won't post anything on the internet without a link to my identity.
Good luck! ;D
Kent in SD
Post by: stamper on December 13, 2018, 11:43:58 am
Stop sniping.
My name is K. Laban and there's a link to my website (http://www.keithlaban.co.uk) with every post.
[/quoteElan MediStop sniping.
My name is K. Laban and there's a link to my website (http://www.keithlaban.co.uk) with every post.
[/quoteStop sniping.
My name is K. Laban and there's a link to my website (http://www.keithlaban.co.uk) with every post.
You started the sniping. Even if everybody stated their real name you still would't know who you are relating to. By your own admission you admit you have been told it is unworkable. How do the members know that Keith Laban is your real name? :-\
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on December 13, 2018, 01:09:10 pm
I also think removing political discussions has reduced the overall toxicity.
It certainly has; and it's reduced my workload quite considerably too.
I too would be keen to see a real name policy and have called for such in the past only to be told it would be unworkable.
It would, for the reason that stamper has, somewhat unsubtly, illustrated. There are ways of verifying identities, of course, but they're expensive and time-consuming, and also pretty easy to evade.
My policy is to be considerably less lenient with anyone who posts anonymously and comes close to overstepping a boundary.
Jeremy
Post by: RSL on December 13, 2018, 02:01:01 pm
Post by: jeremyrh on December 13, 2018, 02:18:19 pm
I'd add to that: those who refuse to tell us generally where they are -- at least which continent, and who refuse to tell us how old they are. It's usually not difficult to determine at least the intellectual age of a poster, but it would help to know his physical age too.
I think people beyond a certain age should not be allowed to vote, since they have increasingly little to lose by making bad choices. Perhaps the same rule can be applied to posting on Lula?
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on December 13, 2018, 02:31:51 pm
I think people beyond a certain age should not be allowed to vote, since they have increasingly little to lose by making bad choices. Perhaps the same rule can be applied to posting on Lula?
You are certainly allowed to hold that opinion. It stands every bit as much chance of being implemented.
Jeremy
Post by: KLaban on December 13, 2018, 02:45:37 pm
My policy is to be considerably less lenient with anyone who posts anonymously and comes close to overstepping a boundary.
Jeremy
And that is as good as we can hope for. Statement, not question.
Post by: jeremyrh on December 13, 2018, 02:50:00 pm
You are certainly allowed to hold that opinion. It stands every bit as much chance of being implemented.
Jeremy
I don't doubt it. Which doesn't make either idea a bad one.
Post by: KLaban on December 13, 2018, 03:01:47 pm
...My policy is to be considerably less lenient with anyone who posts anonymously and comes close to overstepping a boundary.
Jeremy
I believe it was Michael who wished for a real name policy but realised it would be too difficult to police.
Post by: Rob C on December 13, 2018, 03:02:56 pm
I think people beyond a certain age should not be allowed to vote, since they have increasingly little to lose by making bad choices. Perhaps the same rule can be applied to posting on Lula?
Quite right; experience is impediment.
I love the idea of a novice cardiologist next time I have an "event"!
But that's nothing: Sky's Business slot tonight showed the new Lexus commercial made via artificial intelligence. The nice young lady from the agency refuted the notion that the creatives should feel threatened; my impression of the client was that he felt very pleased the way things were going... I wonder what that portends.
Soon, neither the young nor the old will have rôles to play; I wonder how things will be financed when nobody has to work, when nobody can work because they are human and fallible. Will the machines reproduce and maintain themselves? Will they even bother, since nobody will be around to use the products?
Imagine a time when every day will be like the weekend, with nobody off the streets at work, everywhere crowded out and no space to park your ass. Arnie, we'll need you back! You promised!
:-)
Post by: rabanito on December 13, 2018, 03:10:09 pm
The disadvantages could be many, since you risk being catalogued after the prejudices of other participants and not treated as equal.
Be your name Henri Cartier Bresson or Idi Amin Dada.
If you are just a number, you can be judged only by what you say or what pictures you post.
Post by: Rob C on December 13, 2018, 03:16:33 pm
I don't see the advantage of posting under the real name. Nor continent nor language.
The disadvantages could be many, since you risk being catalogued after the prejudices of other participants and not treated as equal.
Be your name Henri Cartier Bresson or Idi Amin Dada.
If you are just a number, you can be judged only by what you say or what pictures you post.
My favourite number was 13, in House: Olivia Wilde.
Post by: jeremyrh on December 13, 2018, 03:41:09 pm
I don't see the advantage of posting under the real name. Nor continent nor language.
The disadvantages could be many,
After posting on another (non-photo) forum, some other members found photos of my family and posted them, and posted items relating to my workplace. If someone wants to find out who I am, it's not hard, but I'm not a fan of using my real name here.
Post by: Two23 on December 13, 2018, 04:44:05 pm
I think people beyond a certain age should not be allowed to vote, since they have increasingly little to lose by making bad choices.
At one time in the U.S. you had to own property to vote. That way people who had nothing to lose couldn't keep voting for politicians who were generous with other people's money.
Kent in SD
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 13, 2018, 05:24:43 pm
At one time in the U.S. you had to own property to vote. That way people who had nothing to lose couldn't keep voting for politicians who were generous with other people's money.
Obviously the current system is significantly better. Nowadays they have managed to demonstrate so efficiently that the voice of people "not owning land" isn't heard that they don't bother voting anymore. ;D
But I guess this is a political comment...
Cheers,
Bernard
Post by: Alan Klein on December 13, 2018, 10:39:37 pm
I think people beyond a certain age should not be allowed to vote, since they have increasingly little to lose by making bad choices. Perhaps the same rule can be applied to posting on Lula?That's funny. And I thought that anyone under 50 shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Post by: Alan Klein on December 13, 2018, 10:43:20 pm
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 14, 2018, 12:21:27 am
People who give photo advice should post their own pictures so we know whether to take them seriously or not.
In fact that may not be needed.
In my view, a person submitting his work for public comment should be ready to accept comments and have the ability to assess the relevance of these comments, regardless of the resume of the person commenting.
When I ask my 6 years old daughter if she likes a photograph, I don't question her photographic skills if she answers no.
I am an average tennis player but I believe I have the ability to give relevant comments to players much better than me... if they are willing to listen and to accept the value of my advice for what it is without making it an ego thing.
Cheers,
Bernard
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on December 14, 2018, 12:31:52 am
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on December 14, 2018, 03:49:27 am
People who give photo advice should post their own pictures so we know whether to take them seriously or not.
That's silly. It would exclude nearly all critical thought, from critics of literature, music, musical performance, architecture, art... There need be no connection between being competent to offer serious critique and insight and the ability to do the particular task oneself.
The old line from Brendan Behan, "Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves" is amusing but doesn't affect the validity of critical insight.
Jeremy
Post by: rabanito on December 14, 2018, 04:33:38 am
That's silly. It would exclude nearly all critical thought, from critics of literature, music, musical performance, architecture, art... There need be no connection between being competent to offer serious critique and insight and the ability to do the particular task oneself.
Well said
Post by: Rob C on December 14, 2018, 04:50:44 am
That's silly. It would exclude nearly all critical thought, from critics of literature, music, musical performance, architecture, art... There need be no connection between being competent to offer serious critique and insight and the ability to do the particular task oneself.
The old line from Brendan Behan, "Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves" is amusing but doesn't affect the validity of critical insight.
Jeremy
Personally, I think Behan had it right. The rest, the eunuchs in the art world, are just hangin' on to the tram and raking in the fares. Look at the people they sometimes champion and ask yourself if those eunuchs are sane, crazy or just manipulative?
By example, they open the doors wide to any wannabe with the money to spend years in art education and more of them after that indulging in a fantasy of reflected glory and real financial enrichment. Power brokers all.
In the words of the mythical Glasgow conductress: come on, get off! (Translated for lucidity.)
;-)
Post by: Ivophoto on December 14, 2018, 05:00:22 am
People who give photo advice should post their own pictures so we know whether to take them seriously or not.
I would rather say: to see what level of skill they have.
It’s smart to take all criticisms serious. Also from that stranger in our midst.
Parents of adolescents know it is stupid to discard a comment based on the tone it is said.
The question if somebody needs to be taken serious based on skill is all fine except for those who have an extraordinary feeling of superiority.
And yet, listen to comments from somebody who is supposed a lesser photographer can be refreshing and in some cases reset your winded up ego.
Post by: Alan Klein on December 14, 2018, 05:43:41 am
On the other hand, once I start telling you how to prepare a superb meal, you'd want to know my experience.
Likewise, there are loads of people giving technical photo advice here. How do you sort through all that advice to see if it might work for you if you cannot see samples of their work and how they applied it? It's a way of checking references. Even if the advice is"valid", it might not be the result you want. Being able to see the advisor's samples, allows you to judge whether it's something you want to spend your time trying to do.
Post by: Ivophoto on December 14, 2018, 07:01:05 am
I'm sorry but my statement was not clear. I was not referring to people who give advice on your pictures. Of course, everyone has a right to his own aesthetic feelings. I'm a pretty good judge of what meals I eat and how well they taste although I'm not much of a chef.
On the other hand, once I start telling you how to prepare a superb meal, you'd want to know my experience.
Likewise, there are loads of people giving technical photo advice here. How do you sort through all that advice to see if it might work for you if you cannot see samples of their work and how they applied it? It's a way of checking references. Even if the advice is"valid", it might not be the result you want. Being able to see the advisor's samples, allows you to judge whether it's something you want to spend your time trying to do.
Sam Dilleman is a Belgian painter. He is known for his particular style and in some circles he considered as a bungler.
I happen to know early work of Sam and it is of such a high level of skill beyond believe.
At a point in his artistic career he decided to develop a more abstract style, highly intelligent but understood by only a few.
Do you think it would help an intermediate skilled painter to judge the advise of Sam by looking to his latest work? Would the advice of Sam be worthless?
This is the problem with art, photo’s, paintings, music, all art forms where the appreciation is subjective and depending on the level of understanding of the observer.
Post by: rabanito on December 14, 2018, 07:18:21 am
Usually they command the technique but have little to say but to suggest "buy this or that"
I would not be much interested in their opinion on my photography.
Other photographers try to express what they have in their souls. Almost nobody can tell them what it is.
But often they lack the technique. That is where help can help.
From those I'm glad to hear "I like your picture" Maybe this person is a little like me and this is gratifying.
I accept "I don't like it" . But that only means that we are different. A fact of life.
Post by: Alan Klein on December 14, 2018, 08:18:52 am
Post by: Ivophoto on December 14, 2018, 08:25:14 am
I guess I'm still not clear. I'm not referring to people's opinion of my photos. Everyone has a right to their opinion. I'm referring to people who give technical advice on how to prepare better pictures either with new programs, new techniques, or different applications. It's these people who don't show their pictures I won't listen to because there's no way to judge what they're saying is accurate or even if accurate is something that I would want to copy. Those people should show their pictures.
You are clear. And I don’t necessarily disagree.
What I want to explain is this:
By measuring the work of your critics and adopt your willingness to accept advise accordingly, you are indirectly limited in your learning curve to your level of understanding.
It’s not black and white, you do have a point to a certain extent, only I would be careful in judging the work of my critics. Maybe I am at a point they’ve forgotten already a long time.
Post by: faberryman on December 14, 2018, 09:07:57 am
I guess I'm still not clear. I'm not referring to people's opinion of my photos. Everyone has a right to their opinion. I'm referring to people who give technical advice on how to prepare better pictures either with new programs, new techniques, or different applications. It's these people who don't show their pictures I won't listen to because there's no way to judge what they're saying is accurate or even if accurate is something that I would want to copy. Those people should show their pictures.You are missing out on a lot of good advice.
Post by: RSL on December 14, 2018, 09:15:52 am
I guess I'm still not clear. I'm not referring to people's opinion of my photos. Everyone has a right to their opinion. I'm referring to people who give technical advice on how to prepare better pictures either with new programs, new techniques, or different applications. It's these people who don't show their pictures I won't listen to because there's no way to judge what they're saying is accurate or even if accurate is something that I would want to copy. Those people should show their pictures.
I’d go a bit further than Alan’s gone. If somebody’s critiquing in a photography forum, it’s not unreasonable to assume he’s interested in photography and probably makes photographs. If all he does is critique but never shows his own work I’d have to assume he doubts the value of his work and is embarassed to show it. If that’s the case I’d have to ask why, since he can’t produce results satisfactory to himself, he feels he understands photography well enough to critique. A lot of us remember Isaac, who used to post critiques here on LuLa. His criques were emphatic, but, as I recall, often off the mark. Isaac posted one picture. I think it was a fencepost, though I don’t remember for sure. But Isaac was quick to critique landscape, street, portraiture, etc., etc,. etc. I’ve always wondered why Isaac felt he was qualified to critique the works of others when he apparently had no confidence in his own.
Post by: rabanito on December 14, 2018, 09:21:22 am
I’d go a bit further than Alan’s gone. If somebody’s critiquing in a photography forum, it’s not unreasonable to assume he’s interested in photography and probably makes photographs. If all he does is critique but never shows his own work I’d have to assume he doubts the value of his work and is embarassed to show it.
Or he is a great photographer who doesn't want to be recognized by his work but else has a lot to say...
Post by: RSL on December 14, 2018, 09:25:51 am
Post by: rabanito on December 14, 2018, 09:33:46 am
Out of love for photography one great photographer could mix with us pawns and teach a little so that photography in the whole is improved.
Others may have so gigantic egos that, even being good at their metier and believing they are the best of the best, would not suffer the slightest critique from us peons.
I know of both kinds.
And maybe there are other reasons of couse
Post by: faberryman on December 14, 2018, 09:36:20 am
Post by: Rob C on December 14, 2018, 10:31:38 am
At one time in the U.S. you had to own property to vote. That way people who had nothing to lose couldn't keep voting for politicians who were generous with other people's money.
Kent in SD
That made damned good sense.
We have several parties in the UK with that inclination: generosity with the money of others.
I'd go one further, and say that a minimum, measured level of education should be mandatory if you want to vote. It could both encourage people to pay attention in school and thus get the right to vote and, incidentally perhaps, a better chance at a better job. Win all round for the individual, and a worthwhile instance of carrot on stick.
Based on what logic would the vote of a guy with a straw hanging out of his ear and a match from his lips be as valuably valid as that of an architect or lawyer? (In my innocence, I assume neither of the latter two types are given to getting themselves rolled in the hay - at least not just before voting.) Perhaps another class of person that might justifiably be denied a vote would be the politician: he or she is the last group that I would trust with my wallet; I feel I'd have more chance of getting it back intact from our friend with the straw. Unfortunately for my thesis, there are as many over-educated nutters as of any other kind.
;-)
Post by: jeremyrh on December 14, 2018, 11:46:13 am
That made damned good sense.
Well remember we tried it ourselves, in Northern Ireland. Didn’t work out too well.
But we tread on forbidden ground ...
Post by: Alan Klein on December 14, 2018, 11:47:03 am
You are clear. And I don’t necessarily disagree.
What I want to explain is this:
By measuring the work of your critics and adopt your willingness to accept advise accordingly, you are indirectly limited in your learning curve to your level of understanding.
It’s not black and white, you do have a point to a certain extent, only I would be careful in judging the work of my critics. Maybe I am at a point they’ve forgotten already a long time.
Which me reminds of the joke about Jack and his new girlfrioend.
So Jack meets his friend, Bill, and ask him what he thinks of her.
An Bill tells him him that it's up to Jack because it's Jack's girlfriend.
Jack responds saying that No, it's only important what YOU think of her.
Post by: Ivophoto on December 14, 2018, 11:59:57 am
Which me reminds of the joke about Jack and his new girlfrioend.
So Jack meets his friend, Bill, and ask him what he thinks of her.
An Bill tells him him that it's up to Jack because it's Jack's girlfriend.
Jack responds saying that No, it's only important what YOU think of her.
Well, if I would have listened to my mother what she said about my first girlfriend, I would have saved big bucks In avoiding a divorce. .
Post by: Alan Klein on December 14, 2018, 12:02:04 pm
You are missing out on a lot of good advice.How do I know I'm getting good advice? Is that how I should pick a surgeon? Just listen to every Tom, Dick or Harry who has an opinion. Where's the discernment? If he's a curator or gallery owner, and can't shoot worth a damn, well OK. At least he has business sense in knowing what sells even if it doesn't fit my own aesthetic style.
But to listen to someone who's still shooting snapshots that he's afraid to post on the internet, and change the way I shoot based on his advise? Don't get me wrong. He may be giving good advice. But how to I know it's good advice? He doesn't tell me his name, goes by the name "Smartshot", doesn;t tell me where he lives, doesn't tell me how long he;s been shooting, doesn;t show me samples of his work. I'd be better off asking him what surgeon I should use rather than about my photo techniques. Then he tells me to switch to manual control and the new mirrorless camera if I want to be a better photographer. Well, Duh. And I should follow his advice and spend money and time retraining myself? I'd rather do surgery on myself. :)
Post by: Alan Klein on December 14, 2018, 12:04:04 pm
You know what the say about your photo work. If you want to know how great it is, ask your mother. :)
Well, if I would have listened to my mother what she said about my first girlfriend, I would have saved big bucks In avoiding a divorce. .
Post by: faberryman on December 14, 2018, 12:05:54 pm
How do I know I'm getting good advice? Is that how I should pick a surgeon? Just listen to every Tom, Dick or Harry who has an opinion. Where's the discernment? If he's a curator or gallery owner, and can't shoot worth a damn, well OK. At least he has business sense in knowing what sells even if it doesn't fit my own aesthetic style.I'd judge him on the quality of the advice given rather than on the quality of his photographs. You should be able to discern that on your own without reference to his work. As for advice from a gallery owner, do you ask your barber to give you a trendy haircut?
But to listen to someone who's still shooting snapshots that he's afraid to post on the internet, and change the way I shoot based on his advise? Don't get me wrong. He may be giving good advice. But how to I know it's good advice? He doesn't tell me his name, goes by the name "Smartshot", doesn;t tell me where he lives, doesn't tell me how long he;s been shooting, doesn;t show me samples of his work. I'd be better off asking him what surgeon I should use rather than about my photo techniques. Then he tells me to switch to manual control and the new mirrorless camera if I want to be a better photographer. Well, Duh. And I should follow his advice and spend money and time retraining myself? I'd rather do surgery on myself. :)
Post by: stamper on December 14, 2018, 12:10:15 pm
How do you judge that quality if there isn't anything else to back up the words?
Post by: faberryman on December 14, 2018, 12:14:32 pm
How do you judge that quality if there isn't any else to back up the words?You must have little confidence in your own judgment if you are only relying on resumes.
Post by: rabanito on December 14, 2018, 12:16:48 pm
I'd judge him on the quality of the advice given rather than on the quality of his photographs. You should be able to discern that on your own without reference to his work.Right
I don't care much for the pics of Robert Adams, for example (I know, I am an ignoramus)
But I read his essays and they make sense to me
Post by: Alan Klein on December 14, 2018, 12:17:58 pm
I'd judge him on the quality of the advice given rather than on the quality of his photographs. You should be able to discern that on your own without reference to his work. As for advice from a gallery owner, do you ask your barber to give you a trendy haircut?Check out my avatar picture to know the answer there. :)
Post by: stamper on December 14, 2018, 12:24:10 pm
You must have little confidence in your own judgment if you are only relying on resumes.
I have confidence in my judgement but then again it probably isn't the best in the world. If someone reads a book and repeats a portion of the book without understanding it then it can be misleading? If someone has a degree from a college then they will be worth listening to.
Post by: Alan Klein on December 14, 2018, 12:25:45 pm
I'd judge him on the quality of the advice given rather than on the quality of his photographs. You should be able to discern that on your own without reference to his work. As for advice from a gallery owner, do you ask your barber to give you a trendy haircut?If I look a someone's photos and they appear very well done, then I'll listen to their advice more often than from someone who shows nothing or so-so work. Isn't that true in every endeavor? There's so much nonsense in forums that you have to use a lot of discernment. First off, there are sixteen opinions on every issue. How do you prioritize the advice given? When I go into a vegetable market, I like to sample a grape from each type before I buy. Why buy a whole bunch, take them home, and be disappointed?
Post by: Alan Klein on December 14, 2018, 12:26:28 pm
I have confidence in my judgement but then again it probably isn't the best in the world. If someone reads a book and repeats a portion of the book without understanding it then it can be misleading? If someone has a degree from a college then they will be worth listening to.What if they're engineering majors?
Post by: faberryman on December 14, 2018, 12:57:48 pm
If I look a someone's photos and they appear very well done, then I'll listen to their advice more often than from someone who shows nothing or so-so work. Isn't that true in every endeavor? There's so much nonsense in forums that you have to use a lot of discernment. First off, there are sixteen opinions on every issue. How do you prioritize the advice given? When I go into a vegetable market, I like to sample a grape from each type before I buy. Why buy a whole bunch, take them home, and be disappointed?I suspect thatyou are not nearly as critical of their credentials when the comment is "good shot". Really, someone posts "+1" and you look up their work before accepting the compliment?
Post by: Rob C on December 14, 2018, 01:01:35 pm
What if they're engineering majors?
If you need some engineering done, whom better to consult?
Naturally, you wouldn't necessarily consult one about snaps, though.
That said, even people in colleges can be suspect; I recall watching Bailey say he'd burn down the art college that refused him entry when he wanted to start, because he is dyslexic and didn't have the required list of exam results. How ironic, in the event: Britains most successful photographic star not considered good enough.
:-)
Post by: Alan Klein on December 14, 2018, 01:45:17 pm
I suspect thatyou are not nearly as critical of their credentials when the comment is "good shot". Really, someone posts "+1" and you look up their work before accepting the compliment?Compliments are nice but they're not advice. What I'm referring to is someone says to raise the temperature on the film developer two degrees and your tones will be more evenly spread out. So then you check to see their photos and there are none there. What am I supposed to do? Change my developer temperature based on with that guy said? Shouldn't I have be able to see what he's doing with his shots to make a decision what I should do first?
Post by: Ivophoto on December 14, 2018, 01:48:46 pm
What if they're engineering majors?
Yes, I would rely on the judgment of an engineer on my pictures.
Post by: Ivophoto on December 14, 2018, 01:50:20 pm
Compliments are nice but they're not advice. What I'm referring to is someone says to raise the temperature on the film developer two degrees and your tones will be more evenly spread out. So then you check to see their photos and there are none there. What am I supposed to do? Change my developer temperature based on with that guy said? Shouldn't I have be able to see what he's doing with his shots to make a decision what I should do first?
You could try it. If you never ever want to take a risk to get disappointed, you miss a lot.
Post by: Ivophoto on December 14, 2018, 01:56:04 pm
I never saw the man effectively doing what he is telling, but I know enough of driving a motorcycle to judge he isn’t talking bullshit.
Post by: faberryman on December 14, 2018, 02:06:56 pm
Compliments are nice but they're not advice. What I'm referring to is someone says to raise the temperature on the film developer two degrees and your tones will be more evenly spread out. So then you check to see their photos and there are none there. What am I supposed to do? Change my developer temperature based on with that guy said? Shouldn't I have be able to see what he's doing with his shots to make a decision what I should do first?I am certainly not suggesting that you accept every piece of advice you receive on the internet. Surely you can sort the wheat from the chaff without doing a deep dive on every poster.
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 14, 2018, 02:11:30 pm
What if they're engineering majors?It would be quite important if one were taking pictures of trains.
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 14, 2018, 02:14:06 pm
That's correct. You probably should have clarified the statement to read, "At one time in the US you had to be a white male and own property to be able to vote." That was the "original" intent.
At one time in the U.S. you had to own property to vote. That way people who had nothing to lose couldn't keep voting for politicians who were generous with other people's money.
Kent in SD
Post by: Rob C on December 14, 2018, 02:28:21 pm
That's correct. You probably should have clarified the statement to read, "At one time in the US you had to be a white male and own property to be able to vote." That was the "original" intent.
In the more expensive bits of London, that could apparently be problematic.
I wonder what the criterion would be in the illegal settlements in Palestinian areas...
Life is sometimes not so much a lottery as a mockery.
Rob
Post by: RSL on December 14, 2018, 02:31:02 pm
That's correct. You probably should have clarified the statement to read, "At one time in the US you had to be a white male and own property to be able to vote." That was the "original" intent.
Not exactly, Alan. It was taken for granted that if you were interested in voting you were a white male. There was a lot of other stuff taken for granted too, like slavery. It wasn't a matter of "intent." It simply was the way society worked, and not just here in the U.S. Hindsight's always is twenty-twenty, and some take full advantage of that when criticizing what past society did in the past.
But this is getting awfully close to politics, so let's drop it.
Post by: Alan Klein on December 14, 2018, 02:36:47 pm
You could try it. If you never ever want to take a risk to get disappointed, you miss a lot.Why not take your own advice and post some of your pictures?
Post by: faberryman on December 14, 2018, 02:41:30 pm
Why not take your own advice and post some of your pictures?Ivo has posted quite a few photos in threads here at LuLa.
Post by: jeremyrh on December 14, 2018, 02:49:14 pm
Compliments are nice but they're not advice. What I'm referring to is someone says to raise the temperature on the film developer two degrees and your tones will be more evenly spread out. So then you check to see their photos and there are none there. What am I supposed to do? Change my developer temperature based on with that guy said? Shouldn't I have be able to see what he's doing with his shots to make a decision what I should do first?
I'd suggest listening to the advice, considering it in your own mind and seeing if it made any sense. If it does, or it seems probable, you could try it. If not, you could file it away and maybe return to it if you see the same advice given elsewhere.
Post by: Alan Klein on December 14, 2018, 04:06:41 pm
Ivo has posted quite a few photos in threads here at LuLa.It would be more helpful if they were in a central location.
Post by: Two23 on December 14, 2018, 04:13:08 pm
It would be quite important if one were taking pictures of trains.
I do that!
An aside (but not far off the main topic.) I posted the below night shot on a Facebook page belonging to a railroad magazine's editor. I mentioned how I used 16 flash and it took me about two hours to set it all up and test. Some guy then posted, "I could have done that with three flash." ;D Railfan photography is full of guys that live in their parents' basement and don't have much of a social life. (A higher percentage of Aspberger's than the general population!) It also has more than its share of a-holes who are very jealous of any who obviously has more skill than they do. I know the poster of that comment to be one of those. He has an established reputation as a know-it-all. Finding his statement farcical I pressed him, reminding him of the geometric fall off of light and the need to match each individual flash to an overall exposure using an assortment of techniques. I posted that I would be most grateful if he would share how he could take the shot using only three flash considering the overall scope of the scene and the distances of the elements in the photo from each other? No response. I then asked if he had any experience at all with such photography, and he responded he used to do it but got bored with it. I followed up by asking for a link to those shots as I wished to learn more from a master photographer. No response, LOL! ;D So anyway, my point is that some genres of photography seem to have more a-holes and wind bags than others.
Kent in SD
Post by: Alan Klein on December 14, 2018, 04:18:28 pm
Post by: Two23 on December 14, 2018, 04:38:31 pm
Kent: Reminds me of the comment in a movie scene from "Jerry Maguire": "Show me the money."
There is a bit of folk wisdom I heard about while living in rural Missouri of a practice called "coon hound." The gist of it is a raccoon is running from a hound and takes to the water. The dog follows, and the raccoon entices the dog into deeper and deeper water. Finally when the dog is in way over its head, the coon will jump on the back of the dog's neck and drown it!
Kent in SD
Post by: James Clark on December 14, 2018, 06:11:23 pm
Not exactly, Alan. It was taken for granted that if you were interested in voting you were a white male. There was a lot of other stuff taken for granted too, like slavery.
For the Lula curious, this is unequivocally wrong. (Edit: It would be more correct to say that if you weren't a white male, you were thought not qualified to wield the power of the vote, not that you had no desire to participate in self governance.)
(Me, B.A. History, 1993)
Quote
I long to hear that you have declared an independancy—and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If perticuliar care and attention is not paid to the Laidies, we are determined to foment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or representation.Abagail Adams, 1776
Quote
...You complain that widows are not represented [in the Virginia legislature], and that being temporary possessors of their estates ought not to be liable to the tax. The doctrine of representation is a large subject, and it is certain that it ought to be extended as far as wisdom and policy can allow; nor do I see that either of these forbid widows having property from voting, notwithstanding it has never been the practice either here or in England....This, then, is the widow’s security as well as that of the never married women, who have lands in their own right, for both of whom I have the highest respect, and would at any time give my consent to establish their right of voting…Richard Henry Lee, 1778
This isn't politics - it's history :). (Slavery wasn't "taken for granted" either, FWIW.)
Post by: RSL on December 14, 2018, 07:47:39 pm
For the Lula curious, this is unequivocally wrong.
(Me, B.A. History, 1993)
Depends on where you were located, B.A. History. What you were told about it also depends on when you got your B.A. in history.
Post by: James Clark on December 14, 2018, 08:24:08 pm
Depends on where you were located, B.A. History. What you were told about it also depends on when you got your B.A. in history.
Re: location, it's true that then, as now, southerners were radically ignorant of the fallout from the racial implications of their assumptions. What I was told about it is irrelevant, though, as is befitting of my education I'm citing primary sources, not repeating someone else's interpretations. Your contention was that suffrage restrictions were in place because men of the time were unaware of any concept to the contrary. It's clearly established by writings of the era that they were, in fact, aware of the possibilities and desires of women and other minorities, ergo your understanding is incorrect.
To be fair, certainly SOME (many?) individuals would not have even considered that any other than white men of property would want to vote, nor would SOME have considered slavery to be anything other than the natural state of things for certain people. But to assert that this was the general logic behind the laws as written in the colonial era is incorrect. Ultimately though, I'm not sure it mattered. We can agree that whether by ignorance of desire or ignorance of capability, the attitudes were certainly a product of their times, and indeed considerably more progressive than that governing ideals of most nations at the time.
(Still not political, but drifting into sociology!)
Post by: RSL on December 15, 2018, 07:13:27 am
(Still not political, but drifting into sociology!)
Close enough for me, James.
Post by: drmike on December 15, 2018, 09:09:58 am
How ironic, in the event: Britains most successful photographic star not considered good enough.
Surely one of Britain's successful stars.
;)
Mike
Post by: Rob C on December 15, 2018, 09:14:12 am
Surely one of Britain's successful stars.
;)
Mike
Yes indeed, as I indicated, but I think he won the biscuit.
;-)
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 15, 2018, 11:13:39 am
Not exactly, Alan. It was taken for granted that if you were interested in voting you were a white male. There was a lot of other stuff taken for granted too, like slavery. It wasn't a matter of "intent." It simply was the way society worked, and not just here in the U.S. Hindsight's always is twenty-twenty, and some take full advantage of that when criticizing what past society did in the past.It's not politics but factual. States set up laws for voting and only 6% of the white male population was eligible to vote initially. Interest in voting had nothing to do with it. As per the Constitution, slaves did not have citizenship and were counted as 3/5 of a person for census purposes. They did not get the right to vote until the 14th amendment was passed in 1868. Women did not get the right to vote until a lot later; I think Wyoming was the first state to have universal suffrage. Full voting rights were not in place until the 19th amendment was ratified in 1920.
But this is getting awfully close to politics, so let's drop it.
This timeline (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in_the_United_States) is useful for those wanting further information.
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 15, 2018, 12:04:55 pm
It's not politics but factual. States set up laws for voting and only 6% of the white male population was eligible to vote initially. Interest in voting had nothing to do with it. As per the Constitution, slaves did not have citizenship and were counted as 3/5 of a person for census purposes. They did not get the right to vote until the 14th amendment was passed in 1868. Women did not get the right to vote until a lot later; I think Wyoming was the first state to have universal suffrage. Full voting rights were not in place until the 19th amendment was ratified in 1920.
This timeline (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in_the_United_States) is useful for those wanting further information.
Thanks, this is very interesting, but in general people prefer mythology to facts.
Post by: RSL on December 15, 2018, 12:12:53 pm
It's not politics but factual. States set up laws for voting and only 6% of the white male population was eligible to vote initially. Interest in voting had nothing to do with it. As per the Constitution, slaves did not have citizenship and were counted as 3/5 of a person for census purposes. They did not get the right to vote until the 14th amendment was passed in 1868. Women did not get the right to vote until a lot later; I think Wyoming was the first state to have universal suffrage. Full voting rights were not in place until the 19th amendment was ratified in 1920.
This timeline (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in_the_United_States) is useful for those wanting further information.
Thanks for the refresher, Alan. That was all taught in grade school when I was in grade school. Since your age is N/A it’s unlikely it was taught in grade school when you were in grade school. You probably learned it in college.
Yes, I shouldn’t have used the term “interested in voting.” It’s confusing. But you gotta remember I was around in the days when Congress fixed things with “separate but equal” schools. I was going through a course at Air University at Maxwell AFB in Montgomery Alabama shortly after that went into effect. We lived out in the country, not far from a separate but equal school where they taught the girls to do housework and the boys to do farm work. They kept blacks from voting with taxes and other similar disincentives. I won’t go into the other disincentives that were in place. When I came out at night there always were Klan flyers under the wipers on my car. Earlier, when I went through pilot training in Texas, women could vote, but they couldn’t own property free and clear as long as their husbands were alive.
I could go on and on about situations in those days that we all see as big problems now. But unless you lived in that time you have absolutely no grasp of public attitudes then. As I said, “Hindsight always is twenty-twenty.” You can gaze out your posterior orifice and make all sorts of judgements about what the world should have been like before you were in it.
But this is too close to politics to go on with.
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 15, 2018, 12:15:36 pm
That made damned good sense.
We have several parties in the UK with that inclination: generosity with the money of others.
I'd go one further, and say that a minimum, measured level of education should be mandatory if you want to vote. It could both encourage people to pay attention in school and thus get the right to vote and, incidentally perhaps, a better chance at a better job. Win all round for the individual, and a worthwhile instance of carrot on stick.
Based on what logic would the vote of a guy with a straw hanging out of his ear and a match from his lips be as valuably valid as that of an architect or lawyer? (In my innocence, I assume neither of the latter two types are given to getting themselves rolled in the hay - at least not just before voting.) Perhaps another class of person that might justifiably be denied a vote would be the politician: he or she is the last group that I would trust with my wallet; I feel I'd have more chance of getting it back intact from our friend with the straw. Unfortunately for my thesis, there are as many over-educated nutters as of any other kind.
;-)
I am sure you were being hyperbolic for amusement, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Accusing political parties of being generous with other people's money is funny. Isn't that what all lobbying is in aid of? Believing that this desire occurs in some parties and not others is an odd point of view. The municipal/regional authorities in Long Island recently handed over millions (if not a billion or more) to Amazon so they could build a warehouse there. You'd think that Amazon, of all companies, could afford investing in their own future without the need of taxpayer help.
Maybe we should restrict voting to CEOs only. After all, they're not biased, they're always thinking of what's best for the country. And they're successful and probably spent some time in school too, so they meet a lot of criteria. :)
Post by: faberryman on December 15, 2018, 12:18:39 pm
A lack of civility...
Posting images is fine...once comments are offered, welcomed or not, it's social media. Battle lines are drawn, a very different thing than a discussion in the real world. The are no rules here in that regard. In live face to face forums that I have taken a part in, civility still stands. Too much craziness exists here because of the anonymity of too many of the participants. No real names, makes for an ugly discourse. To debate with people in a live setting is thrilling, educational and informative. One knows the the caliber of who stands in front of you. Not here. Here it all goes to crap...
Post by: amolitor on December 15, 2018, 01:34:15 pm
1. Made up their mind that the critic's pictures are garbage, and
2. wishes only to confirm that impression, and
3. invariably will, regardless of what the critic's pictures look like.
Furthermore, I do not think a "real names" policy changes incivility much. It is not the anonymity as much as the distance/medium. Facebook has, I believe, a real names policy, and is not exactly famous for its civil and uplifting discussions.
Post by: Rob C on December 15, 2018, 02:08:32 pm
I am sure you were being hyperbolic for amusement, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Accusing political parties of being generous with other people's money is funny. Isn't that what all lobbying is in aid of? Believing that this desire occurs in some parties and not others is an odd point of view. The municipal/regional authorities in Long Island recently handed over millions (if not a billion or more) to Amazon so they could build a warehouse there. You'd think that Amazon, of all companies, could afford investing in their own future without the need of taxpayer help.
Maybe we should restrict voting to CEOs only. After all, they're not biased, they're always thinking of what's best for the country. And they're successful and probably spent some time in school too, so they meet a lot of criteria. :)
No, no! Giving money to the Amazons of this world isn't help: it's "incentive" to encourage them to build in your bailiwick! It creates jobs, you see, slave jobs, AFAIK. So within a couple of centuries or more, that money will have been returned to the community whence it was raised, unless the company vanishes, of course, or the community also sinks under the waves.
Let's see: the alternatives are rebuilding old car plants and foundries, bringing back more trains and digging more coal out of the ground where it was so safely stored out of harm's (our) way.
:-)
Post by: James Clark on December 15, 2018, 04:54:24 pm
In my experience, the vast majority of the time that someone "requests" to see a critic's pictures, the asker has:
1. Made up their mind that the critic's pictures are garbage, and
2. wishes only to confirm that impression, and
3. invariably will, regardless of what the critic's pictures look like.
Furthermore, I do not think a "real names" policy changes incivility much. It is not the anonymity as much as the distance/medium. Facebook has, I believe, a real names policy, and is not exactly famous for its civil and uplifting discussions.
Agreed 100%
Post by: Rob C on December 16, 2018, 04:32:02 am
It's always been my position that people must find their own way; in the end, that's the way they will find joy or whatever else they seek. Trying to implement instructions from a third party strikes me as downing a beer when you'd far rather sip a gin and tonic. The best that third party can offer you is help to recognize the appropriate glass.
Civility depends on a lot of background influences, though, as well as personal proclivities. I'm not so sure at all that the medium is the cause, though I do expect that for some it releases them of the pressure to behave properly just because their identity might remain unknown to their peers. A cowardly approach, then, which of itself means the perp recognizes the error of his ways, but can't resist, this adding failure upon failure.
Yet, have we not all already met the person who is rude and aggressive in all circumstances? Perhaps we are just bumping into him again online, too.
Rob
Post by: petermfiore on December 16, 2018, 08:24:05 am
Could we drop this entire line of discussion and return to photography? To get us back on track, I'll quote the original post:
Thank you Franklin for the nudge...
How did, and why did this thread meander into the weeds on Voting rights...
Peter
Post by: jeremyrh on December 16, 2018, 09:39:19 am
Thank you Franklin for the nudge...
How did, and why did this thread meander into the weeds on Voting rights...
Peter
To be fair, the original post didn't have much to do with photography, and the progression to voting rights was via a consideration of how to judge the value of opinions.
Post by: petermfiore on December 16, 2018, 09:45:56 am
To be fair, the original post didn't have much to do with photography, and the progression to voting rights was via a consideration of how to judge the value of opinions.
...it had to do with a lack of civility in the discussing of Images. Not voting rights, which at best was a short walk into the weeds.
Peter
Post by: JNB_Rare on December 16, 2018, 10:26:37 am
Could we drop this entire line of discussion and return to photography? To get us back on track, I'll quote the original post:
The issue is much wider than photography and it predates social media. I remember when our company first introduced email (long before microcomputers). Within days there were email firestorms and insulting language the like of which we'd never seen/heard before. Some of it was due to poor language and/or misinterpretation of what was written. Much was caused by people simply being more casual/flippant. In a face-to-face meeting there are body/facial/intonation clues to accompany words. Emoticons are a poor substitute (though they're better than nothing). As someone who, in the past, has administered such communications systems, I can't count how many times I've had to send out cautionary messages, talk to people in person, and even hold "training sessions" on email/digital media etiquette.
In the early days, we talked about the growing need for "digital education", to address issues such as etiquette, truth, and digital malevolence (viruses, scams, trolls, cyber bullying) in this new medium. Most of those discussions were drowned by the tidal wave of the Internet. I still believe that the basics (language and communication, critical thinking) are vitally important skills, and should be 'top of mind' in school curriculum.
All this is to say that there is no easy solution, especially with international participation and differing/evolving social/cultural norms. One can only ask for and model civility (thank-you, Peter), hope that civil behaviour and language is reciprocated, and monitor/intervene when things get out of hand (hats off to the monitors – it's a thankless job).
Post by: Rob C on December 16, 2018, 01:24:38 pm
So much contemporary usage of poor language and grammar does not help - all that nonsense of i where it should be I, and the rest of the shortcuts that texting has produced. Is it really so difficult to use capital letters where they apply? Is it cool to appear ignorant? Maybe it is.
Rob
Post by: RSL on December 16, 2018, 01:37:02 pm
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 16, 2018, 05:54:19 pm
Civility depends on a lot of background influences, though, as well as personal proclivities. I'm not so sure at all that the medium is the cause, though I do expect that for some it releases them of the pressure to behave properly just because their identity might remain unknown to their peers. A cowardly approach, then, which of itself means the perp recognizes the error of his ways, but can't resist, this adding failure upon failure.
A worthwhile discussion requires an honest desire to exchange points of view. Exchange means to listen as well as to talk. Some people just can't do that.
Post by: petermfiore on December 16, 2018, 07:35:46 pm
A worthwhile discussion requires an honest desire to exchange points of view. Exchange means to listen as well as to talk. Some people just can't do that.
An added bonus of a face to face event...
Peter
Post by: Rob C on December 17, 2018, 04:06:03 am
An added bonus of a face to face event...
Peter
Indeed, and why
:-)
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 17, 2018, 07:00:32 am
Indeed, and whyvirtuousvirtual sex will never replace the real thing where both remain as options.
:-)
Sorry to go off on another tangent, which some people don't appreciate, but have a listen to this series of podcasts about that very topic: BBC 4's Addicted to Sex. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06qhs5t/episodes/downloads). It consists of 6 episodes, which appears daunting at first but the combined length is probably less than 2 hours, and, well, it's about sex, which is rarely boring.
Post by: petermfiore on December 17, 2018, 07:01:22 am
...Some people just can't do that.
to listen as well as to talk...A must for a mature individual to be taken seriously.
Peter