Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: E Slagle on March 31, 2008, 10:38:18 am
-
I mean this as a construction criticism and not to flame...
Perhaps the greatest strength of Luminous Landscape and MR is the pithy content without being self-righteous or overtly controversial. The result, I believe has lead to an outstanding discussion board with many of the industries leaders freqently contributing. This I appreciate very much!
However, this past month LL has been wrought with controversy. I'm ok with "Your Camera Does Matter" and most of the baggage that followed; today though with the "Editor's Note" accompanying Sean Reid's article, I think, has 'crossed the line.'
The 'Editor's Note' is simply foolish and ridden with ego. I really hope the LL ship can be corrected and return to its roots. Please...
Good day, Eric
-
No. It will not be changed, because it says what I think and what I feel. If this is not to your likeing then there is little that I can do about it.
I can not respond to the opinions of a million different people each month (literally); only to what's in my own mind and heart.
Michael
-
the "Editor's Note" accompanying Sean Reid's article, I think, has 'crossed the line.'
The 'Editor's Note' is simply foolish and ridden with ego. I really hope the LL ship can be corrected and return to its roots. Please...
Good day, Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185704\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Eric,
This is not directed at you solely but rather as a general statement.
Have any readers here thought about the fact that this site is wholly owned by Michael? It is the way he makes his living and he is not only entitled to but has an obligation to, in my opinion, make his views known?
Michael has graciously made these forums available to anyone who wants them at no charge and with very little interference in what his GUESTS say about him and his website.
Inevitably, no good deed goes unpunished.
Its beyond me how so many people can accept someone's hospitality, help and advice and when an opinion comes up that is not to their liking make statements that are bodering on a personal attack.
If you don't like what someone has to say, you are all fre to put up your own website or publish a blog of your own, visit other forums and sites or just simply ignore it, but you have absolutely ZERO right to come into someone's "house" and insult them. I don't think any readers of this site would acept that kind of behaviour from one of their guests.
-
Eric,
This is not directed at you solely but rather as a general statement.
Have any readers here thought about the fact that this site is wholly owned by Michael? It is the way he makes his living and he is not only entitled to but has an obligation to, in my opinion, make his views known?
Michael has graciously made these forums available to anyone who wants them at no charge and with very little interference in what his GUESTS say about him and his website.
Inevitably, no good deed goes unpunished.
Its beyond me how so many people can accept someone's hospitality, help and advice and when an opinion comes up that is not to their liking make statements that are bordering on a personal attack.
If you don't like what someone has to say, you are all fre to put up your own website or publish a blog of your own, visit other forums and sites or just simply ignore it, but you have absolutely ZERO right to come into someone's "house" and insult them. I don't think any readers of this site would acept that kind of behaviour from one of their guests.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185711\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I fully agree with you Joe.
-
Michael can write whatever he wants on his website. Almost all the time what he writes is excellent. Michael used very good judgment in allowing Sean to write a follow-up. I hold Michael's opinions in high regard.
I regret that he called his readers "sub-optimal reader(s)" and compared them to ten year olds. Micheal appears angry in his writing on this topic and that is an unattractive quality that sullies his good reputation.
-
Eric,
Its beyond me how so many people can accept someone's hospitality, help and advice and when an opinion comes up that is not to their liking make statements that are bodering on a personal attack.
If you don't like what someone has to say, you are all fre to put up your own website or publish a blog of your own, visit other forums and sites or just simply ignore it, but you have absolutely ZERO right to come into someone's "house" and insult them. I don't think any readers of this site would acept that kind of behaviour from one of their guests.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185711\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The REAL issue, as I see it, is respect. I respect Micheal very much; his wonderful efforts have made LL into what it is. However, respect over time can be degraded and comments made in the "Editor's Note" (and others recently) are beginning to erode that respect to some degree.
My comment was a criticism and a fairly harsh one; I made this because I wanted to express an 'outsiders' recent perspective. MR is clearly a very bright man and I'm sure he can distinguish between a criticism and a personal insult/attack as you say.
If I'm in the minority--and I very well may be--on this perspective then I will have no trouble in re-evaluating my erroneous view.
Eric
-
Eric,
This is not directed at you solely but rather as a general statement.
Have any readers here thought about the fact that this site is wholly owned by Michael? It is the way he makes his living and he is not only entitled to but has an obligation to, in my opinion, make his views known?
Michael has graciously made these forums available to anyone who wants them at no charge and with very little interference in what his GUESTS say about him and his website.
Inevitably, no good deed goes unpunished.
Its beyond me how so many people can accept someone's hospitality, help and advice and when an opinion comes up that is not to their liking make statements that are bodering on a personal attack.
If you don't like what someone has to say, you are all fre to put up your own website or publish a blog of your own, visit other forums and sites or just simply ignore it, but you have absolutely ZERO right to come into someone's "house" and insult them. I don't think any readers of this site would acept that kind of behaviour from one of their guests.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185711\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Very well put.
-A very different Eric
-
My reading comprehension remark was not aimed at anyone on this forum, or any discussion here either.
Unfortunately there is one well known discussion forum on the net where a great many trolls and know-nothings hang out, and it was there that people with what I ingraciously described as having sub-optimum reading skills reside.
I have a pretty thick skin, but occasionally it makes me feel a little better when I have an opportunity to offer a mild jibe at some of my less charitable critics. Not terribly mature of me, I know, but maybe as I get older I'll grow up a bit (or grow an ever thicker skin).
Or – maybe I've just been hanging out with the irascible Mr. Schewe too much.
Michael
-
I do not agree that you always have to nice to the host. The whole reason you want to have a forum is to discuss and debate. Shut down different opinion and 3 cheers to the host is not a good idea. Whilst I understand that Michael cannot and probably shall not listen to all million people say or bend his principle and view, having and appreciate a different counterpoint is important.
I feel a bit sad about the whole scenario. I subscribe to Michael and Sean. Not that a few dollars matter to them or as Michael seem to say, care about some of his reader's opinion, but I just care about theirs. However, to attack Ken Rockwell (which I cannot say I have paid one dollar to him) is strange. Part of my major reads are Michael, Sean and him. I hope the other guys would not join in; please not Thom and Bjørn Rørslett. No.
Ken is of a different kind of writer. He does not, based upon my reading of his web site after so many years, really say that the camera does not matter. Until recently, a lot of his photos are done by 4x5 and he still said that.
Why is there such a fight? Perhaps, instead of feeling sad, may I perhaps try to say a bit different. An opinion may not be that matter to Michael or Sean but perhaps it may add to the overall discussion, if there is any.
The key important guiding point I would say is 1) can the site has us to appreciate what the artist do even though one may not the artist and 2) can the site help one to extend oneself to know more, perhaps by trying more (even out of one's depth).
In this regards, I would not go in depth in this Michael owned web site to explain what we have learnt from him e.g. expose to the right, horse of course etc. and in Sean case, how the idea that ranger finder is still relevant today. They gave us food of thought which I knew I would not know by myself.
But Ken also helped a bit here.
For example, after reading his web site, I tried 4x5 and learnt a lot about film handling, the wooden camera, how to deal with perspective (by buying books he recommended). Taking photos on something in reverse with a lope is quite interesting. I guess I would not do this if I just read Michael and Sean site. May be they have said something about it, but it does not motive you as Ken site does. Sometimes Michael and Sean is a bit too serious. Sorry to say that but that American is funny and lighthearted to the extent that he can push you over your fence without knowing it.
Also, one reason at that time I started to read his web site (when I am reading Michael) is that he is providing a counterpoint to Michael. He is on a different type of camera (Nikon, for more professional one I know one would have to go to Thom and Bjorn -- which I still remember the first time I read Bjorn into the night ...). Of course, you cannot completely trust on face value a guy who do review of lens by reading brochure some of the times. But he stated so for those review he did this vs those he owned and tried. Along this line, the difference could be very striking. For example, he still talked about 4x5, he still talked about 5D lately, he still talk about old manual Nikon lens on D3.
As an aid to learner, I think Ken has its place. He is not perfect and has been attacked being inconsistent etc. in a lot of web sites, many of which I am not care unlike this one. But some of this points are really based upon actual experience of a guy who try to learn and does not restrict oneself to mainly new and expensive.
In fact, one thing attract to me is that may be perhaps he talk about something we can try and he is emphasis about it for a while (e.g. Casio Digital Camera is really fast compared with others I have tried on).
Overall he is very unlike Michael in style. But one must point out as in some previous submit on Michael previous article, that overall speaking, he has no difference in his opinion in many aspects and substances (even about the camera does matter). He may say in a very funny way. But as a reader of his site, you simply know.
In general, Michael doing something we can look at remotely and only on DVD (which I purchase all or unfortunately now has to be downloaded which I no doubt will lose some). I can only recall Michael talk about a Digital Camera of $10 once. Other than perhaps Canon G9 and recently Ricoh GX100, I really a bit hard time to recall something in the level we can try on. Even his Contax and Rolli (?) is a bit high on the bill. Perhaps his professional years of the twin lens camera era is ok. Otherwise, only very lately I found that I have the same equipment as Michael used in his front page (D300 and 70-200). Of course, that is Michael. We want to see him extend the boundary as an artist. But still and well, whilst I like to agree with Sean on Van Gough, I did know that even Van Gough has used straw he picked on the field to draw some of his drafts. Not just every time to get his brother to pay, may I say. He cared the tool, but still he enthustically draw if he has limited equipment and wealth to spend with. In that sense, if Michael sometimes talk about something we can use and experiment with e.g. 5D and 24-120 lens compared with D3 and 24-70. What are the difference in its draw (as Sean would say). Not another dpreview but a serious artist would say.
Please do not mistake me. Being on this site and subscribe and buying all LL DVDs meant that I do enjoy very much artists talk to artist (like the one Michael talked with the Breaded men who seemed to be quite frequent now as he is also in the Lightroom Tutorial; btw, quite like the doggie who run away). Still, as part of the "prosumer" group or a bit serious but not rich amateur group, I think I would think that the world without Ken (and for that matter, Michael and Sean) would be very sad. In fact, this whole debate is a bit sad as it does not give us reader anything "useful" but just mud throwing between two (now three) guys who are next to each other in my Safari Tabbed group. May be I separate them a bit in the tabbed group and it may help. A senseless thinking perhaps, just as the whole "debate" is senseless.
Well, just my opinion and mainly perhaps to claim myself down. I hope it does not spoil the party and angered the host.
-
My goodness; what I want to know is how so many of you have so much time in the day for all this back and forth? I'm trying to keep up with all of this back and forth.
Are you all wealthy? You don't have to work? How do you have all this extra time?
Michael, great forum, don't agree all the time (so what), but please post the "Cliff Notes" link.
-
Are you all wealthy? You don't have to work? How do you have all this extra time?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=185758\")
Lol, well you have to do something whilst scanning those negs and slides!
Interesting remark by Michael, wonder what he exactly is saying though. Ala the well known forum where ill informed trolls gather..obviously DPreview, though if you do bother to look, there is some useful information on that site in the forums.
If you look at the heated debates on there, it's 98% down to my nikon smokes your canon, posted in the canon forum etc etc. Or did I miss a recent gripping thread which has upset Michael??
One should always remember, that its important to not take these things so personal. I don't agree with Michael on a number of areas, but that does not kill the element of having some respect. I do think that the entire debate on this camera does not matter, has possibly gone on a bit now.
Maybe we should start on something new?
[a href=\"http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm]http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm[/url]
What about Ken's infamous "megapixel myth", or maybe we could use another round of "digital V film" again ;-)
-
My only complaint about Michael's introduction and the "sub-optimal reading skills" line was that he didn't add "sub-optimal thinking skills." Nobody in their right mind thinks cameras don't matter. The whole "controversy" must have been supported by people who didn't bother to read the article. Sean's article adds some interesting perspective, but wasn't really necessary. The original was clear enough.
JC
-
I
I feel a bit sad about the whole scenario. I subscribe to Michael and Sean. Not that a few dollars matter to them or as Michael seem to say, care about some of his reader's opinion, but I just care about theirs. However, to attack Ken Rockwell (which I cannot say I have paid one dollar to him) is strange.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185755\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi DNG88,
I'm not sure why you feel that I was attacking Ken Rockwell. I wrote an essay about why photographic tools matter but are not the essence of photography. I made no reference to Mr. Rockwell at all. I'm glad that you enjoy RR.
Cheers,
Sean
-
Oh for the love of Pete, doesn't a guy have a right be pissed off once in awhile? Frankly if it were me there'd be an awful lot more venting...
-
I mean this as a construction criticism and not to flame...
Perhaps the greatest strength of Luminous Landscape and MR is the pithy content without being self-righteous or overtly controversial. The result, I believe has lead to an outstanding discussion board with many of the industries leaders freqently contributing. This I appreciate very much!
However, this past month LL has been wrought with controversy. I'm ok with "Your Camera Does Matter" and most of the baggage that followed; today though with the "Editor's Note" accompanying Sean Reid's article, I think, has 'crossed the line.'
The 'Editor's Note' is simply foolish and ridden with ego. I really hope the LL ship can be corrected and return to its roots. Please...
Good day, Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185704\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I was so surprised at several of the posts in this thread, I had to go back and re-read what Michael wrote.
I am still surprised. What he said makes total sense to me, quite apart from his right to say it, and I simply cannot understand the negative reactions. As I cannot understand them, I won't say any more about them
And Sean Reid's essay is outstanding. Well said, Sean.
Bill
-
Been said before, and this is what I get out of all this..my view is:
"You camera matters, but a lot less, than what you do with it"
Michael may mock those for in his words "Duhhhh! Of course talent and artistic skill are also necessary"...but its just as dumb to point out you need xyz tools/gear for certain photographic tasks. State the obvious..gasp.
I don't think people are that thick! Either way..
In the grand scheme of things, most sites are based heavily on tech talk, and nothing wrong with that. Most places talk about the elusive "image quality", and test it in just about every way possible. What we really should be talking about, is "quality images"
That is the real rub. I dont go into galleries and take a microscope to test out the print quality, I dont care really what was used to take the shot. Does it work, do I like it??
I neither up or downgrade a photo based on the equipment used. Again, this states the obvious. Tools that are used are subjective at best, you might like that M8 loads, I might not..who gives cares anyway? Do I need an article pointing out to me that my hanimex 110 film cheapo isnt the ideal choice for low light sports shooting? Um no I do not..thanks very much..
Instead we find an article telling us about shutters and you need a lens..well you dont say!!! Breaking news to me. I will just pull my knuckles up off the ground..because its all too much to take in..
The entire Rebuttal piece is based on telling us what we already know. Wow what a revelation indeed. What counts more Michael..you or the camera? You tell me..I think we know the real answer to that one. You seemed to do well with that cheap minolta stuff you had in the 60's.. Maybe Ken Rockwell should have stated the obvious in his article too, yeah you will have limitations with that pinhole, again a bit obvious to all.
Photography is about taking photos, amazingly..a fact that often escapes us all at the best of times. And before anyone comes blasting in, I am not saying there is no merit talking about is this a good lens choice, xyz..is this suited to that. I am talking about what counts, and what REALLY matters, that folks is the image.
-
I was so surprised at several of the posts in this thread, I had to go back and re-read what Michael wrote.
I am still surprised. What he said makes total sense to me, quite apart from his right to say it, and I simply cannot understand the negative reactions. As I cannot understand them, I won't say any more about them
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185907\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I hadn't read the article when I came upon this thread. After reading the thread, I expected some kind of outlandish statements on Michael's part. However, I didn't see anything in the article to warrant a strong reaction. Much ado about nothing.
PS Nice article by Sean Reid.
--John
-
The first paragraph of Sean Reids essay is spot on. Very good!
Please keep up the very good work Michael.
don
-
My reading comprehension remark was not aimed at anyone on this forum, or any discussion here either.
Unfortunately there is one well known discussion forum on the net where a great many trolls and know-nothings hang out, and it was there that people with what I ingraciously described as having sub-optimum reading skills reside.
I have a pretty thick skin, but occasionally it makes me feel a little better when I have an opportunity to offer a mild jibe at some of my less charitable critics. Not terribly mature of me, I know, but maybe as I get older I'll grow up a bit (or grow an ever thicker skin).
Or – maybe I've just been hanging out with the irascible Mr. Schewe too much.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185729\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have stopped reading that forum altogether. The ratio of useful contributors to trollish fanboys has gotten so low as to make it an irritating and worthless read.
It is interesting that the topic of the importance of equipment has such legs across the forums. There is certainly a lot of discussion. I doubt the issue is closed. I think, as Sean pointed out, as long as the manufacturers are doing so much marketing people will always perceive that a new camera will make them better photographers.
-
Or – maybe I've just been hanging out with the irascible Mr. Schewe too much.
Yes, it's the Schewe effect :-) I know I get all worked up after reading his posts.
-
However, this past month LL has been wrought with controversy. I'm ok with "Your Camera Does Matter" and most of the baggage that followed; today though with the "Editor's Note" accompanying Sean Reid's article, I think, has 'crossed the line.'
The 'Editor's Note' is simply foolish and ridden with ego.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185704\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The introduction is just an energic way to state an obvious truth.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What is at issue here is not whether the "camera matters" or not, as any regular reader of LL forums will know the typical subscriber here is well capable of deciding this "old chessnut" without falling into stupid assumptions:the problem is Michaels article and his intro to Sean Reid's article.
It must be abundantly clear to all members of these forums that Michael reacts badly to any criticism constuctive or otherwise indeed he responds with the verbal weapons of the bully by name calling and denigration of his critics, he unfortunately portrays himself in a very poor light which is very dissappointing to those of us who admire his other traits and achievements. Old dogs don't learn new tricks and leopards don't change their spots so it looks like we will have to tolerate Michael's occassional lapse's of civility.
-
The personal angle is interesting. I have been on the receiving end of some of the most vicious and spiteful messages in threads on other groups for the simple reason I have expressed a degree of praise for the controversial subject of microstock photo libraries to a more traditionally minded audience (in a similar thread here, the response was mostly altogether more civilised, in keeping with the high standard we get on the LL most of the time).
I am therefore only too well aware how easy it is for vigrorous debate to slip in to personal insults. Keeping a level head in those circumstances is remarkably difficult, even for someone like myself trained as a litigator, and thus not averse to the odd spat
My point is that this is not, in my view, the place for sycophancy and that politely disagreeing with Michael or the established view should not of itself be grounds for criticism. In fact the problem with a lot of groups is they can become seen by a few regulars as a kind of fiefdom where outsiders with an alternative viewpoint are unwelcome (e.g. my microstock views promulgated on traditionally minded stock forums). I hope that attitude does not gain a hold here.
But having said that, the LL is not I think headed in the wrong direction. It remains one of the webs best sites for serious photographers. I enjoy it enormously.
Quentin
-
One of the problems with "writing " something is that you never get to know if the reader has taken away the intended message, and with the web open to anyone with an internet connection then a wide variety of skills may be demonstrated, or not.
A number of issues can occur, one being language differences or how words are used differently in different countries.
But often we bring our own views, expectations and opinions to an article, based on its headline. Most folks are careful, but sometimes this can lead to a mis-reading the message, especially when you add the fact it is easy to skim through the text very quickly, and often pay even less attention to replies.
Also I've found on a number of forums that there are a few people who seem to delight, not in the sharing or news and info, but promoting a more extreme, provocative opinion in order to generate emotional and passionate responses.
Whatever, if you have an opinion and write it reasonably well, it is enormously frustrating when people respond in such away that demonstrates that they have not bothered to understand the authors view point, even if they disagree with it.
-
...but promoting a more extreme, provocative opinion in order to generate a emotional and passionate responses.
Whatever, if you have an opinion and write it reasonably well, it is enormously frustration when people respond in such away that demonstrates that they have not bothered to understand the authors view point, even if they disagree with it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186092\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Michael made the mistake of not making a reasoned and informed response to the rockwell article, instead using a poor choice of words, and a one sided angry rant to counter it.
"One of the hoariest of the hoary cliches is that a good photographer can take a good photograph with just about any camera. Horseshit"
I honestly expected an intelligent and reasoned counter article to the one from Ken, pointing out a few things, and making his own statement. But then you get this stuff thrown up on your screen..how can you take that seriously?? Worse than that anyone who does not agree with Michael is unable to read properly.
So weak is his argument, he has to invite a guest on to put up an article...which in is the one "his should have been". I would have had a bit more respect had he asked someone who did not agree with him to write one!
I have no beef with MR or indeed KR, I am sure they are both really nice blokes. These new desperate attempts to get the message across are all too late..it reminds me of the Clay V Cooper fight in 63', we know who really won, and we know who was glazed eyes all over in the corner..time wasting to get a leg back in the ring.
-
So weak is his argument, he has to invite a guest on to put up an article...which in is the one "his should have been". I would have had a bit more respect had he asked someone who did not agree with him to write one!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186119\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, I contacted Michael and offered to write an essay because I had some thoughts on the subject that I thought might be of interest to some other readers. It's very rare now that I write for any site other than my own but this new essay was my idea, not Michael's.
Cheers,
Sean
-
It is interesting how the whole thing is viewed as a tiff between MR & KR. As far as I can tell, apart from a brief reference, and maybe a tongue in cheek follow up, KR hasn't actually been involved in this at all - rather he's maintained a dignified silence ... or maybe he just doesn't give a damn.
MR chose KR's article as a windmill to tilt against. Unfortunately, this ended up looking like an ad hominen attack, which distracted from the actual core of the article. Strange, bad judgement, and totally unnecessary, and one can't help but wonder if it did all come out of a conversation with Jeff "Mr Tactful" Schewe.
Anyway, wth. Sean Reid's article was very well written and made MR's point far better than he did himself. So it all worked out fine.
-
Never have so many said so little for so long.
If ever there was a pointless argument, this is it:
1) Better equipment is capable of capturing better images.
Sweet hour!
2) Those with more developed creative talent are capable of creating better photographs.
Stop the press!
1 + 2 = 3
Holy bayer pattern Bat Man!
-
One of the problems with "writing " something is that you never get to know if the reader has taken away the intended message, and with the web open to anyone with an internet connection then a wide variety of skills may be demonstrated, or not.
A number of issues can occur, one being language differences or how words are used differently in different countries.
But often we bring our own views, expectations and opinions to an article, based on its headline. Most folks are careful, but sometimes this can lead to a mis-reading the message, especially when you add the fact it is easy to skim through the text very quickly, and often pay even less attention to replies.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186092\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[My Bold]
This is my particular bug bear and what is probably what MR alludes to with his reading skills comment. Even here with what appears to be a brighter than average forum, people still do not read posts correctly and suddenly an argument ensues. Simply because people are too lazy to read carefully.
Online without the non-verbal clues that make up so much of how we communicate when talking, people should be extra careful about reading carefully before responding. I tend to read and reread posts before responding, to reduce the chance of that happening. Doesn't stop that happening to me sadly though.
One of my signatures for particularly illiterate forums is "Please read all the words in my post and not just the ones you like. And preferably in the order I wrote them"
-
To the OP - Much ado about nothing i think.
While I can't say that his choice of associations leads to his betterment in my view, that's for him to decide. I personally shudder at the thought, but that's his cross to bear...
Regarding his recognition that there are few people with writing or comprehension skills frequenting a particular forum, I can't understand why anyone would either object or criticize him for stating the obvious. Is it a form of misguided political correctness on your part?
I don't always agree with what MR says, but so what? Let's be thankful that we can view things differently sometimes and promote discussion. Let the man voice his opinion and speak his mind; he does the same thing for you, doesn't he? If you don't like it, then you don't have to read those comments. There are lots of other good things on this site to occupy your time and mind. In many ways, it's like visiting that other 3-letter UK-based site beginning with a "D" and ending with a "R" that no one wants to name for some strange reason; you can choose when you want to expose yourself to the individuals that you find there, or you can choose to go elsewhere. Pretty simple actually.
-
My reading comprehension remark was not aimed at anyone on this forum, or any discussion here either.
Unfortunately there is one well known discussion forum on the net where a great many trolls and know-nothings hang out, and it was there that people with what I ingraciously described as having sub-optimum reading skills reside.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185729\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Michael, the problem with all online forums is that people do not always read carefully before responding. Probably as they are visiting forum, whilst doing something else and quickly run off a post.
Even here where the caliber of poster is somewhat higher than elsewhere, some posters rather obviously skim a post, then fire off a wildly innaccurate reply. My policy is if I am on a forum, is to read carefully before responding and reread again - in context of other previous posts. And I don't do it when I'm doing other things.
It is so easy to misread tone as well online, so one needs to be very careful with humour and even if flagged with smilies, people take the daftest things at face value or the wrong way.
I have a good friend who I have known since I was 12-13, but I won't bother contacting him via email during day for this very reason. Even with someone I know so very well, misunderstandings occur especially when multitasking i.e doing several jobs sub-optimally!
The reaction of the OP to your intro being a case in point of misreading and misunderstanding. I like many other read your site to hear your views even if I may not always agree with them. But they are always well thought out and interesting.
-
There is a strong part of me that hopes Michael's most recent article was, in part, meant as a silent snub to this thread. If we could have more like it, I would certainly be one of the grateful ones.
-
There is a strong part of me that hopes Michael's most recent article was, in part, meant as a silent snub to this thread. If we could have more like it, I would certainly be one of the grateful ones.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187762\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree the "Balmoral Mist Deconstructed" article is very refreshing over the endless chatter about equipment. Great Job Michael!!!
-
[My Bold]
Even here with what appears to be a brighter than average forum...[/i]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186417\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
After having discussed this article with folks on several different websites, I'm sorry to say that you can add "more vulgar and insulting" to your list of adjectives describing some of the posters, as well as the owner, of this site.
-
After having discussed this article with folks on several different websites, I'm sorry to say that you can add "more vulgar and insulting" to your list of adjectives describing some of the posters, as well as the owner, of this site.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187905\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When someone who is rude and vulgar visits my home, I ask them to leave. When visiting elsewhere, when my host is rude and vulgar, I simply leave.
Get it?
Michael
-
[My Bold]
This is my particular bug bear and what is probably what MR alludes to with his reading skills comment. Even here with what appears to be a brighter than average forum, people still do not read posts correctly and suddenly an argument ensues. Simply because people are too lazy to read carefully.
Online without the non-verbal clues that make up so much of how we communicate when talking, people should be extra careful about reading carefully before responding. I tend to read and reread posts before responding, to reduce the chance of that happening. Doesn't stop that happening to me sadly though.
One of my signatures for particularly illiterate forums is "Please read all the words in my post and not just the ones you like. And preferably in the order I wrote them"
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186417\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's always a bit frustrating for me when I get responses to my posts where the person misses one or two words and therefore misunderstands my question or statement. However, I'm sure I have been guilty of that as well. I joined this forum when I got a new printer, but have stayed here because of the generally high level of communication, willingness to share knowledge and help others. This forum is head and shoulders above many others out there.
An aside: I checked out your Futt Futt Futt link and I loved it, especially the Abstract, Observed, and Pixus categories. Great images! You must really have a good camera!...(just kidding!)
-
When someone who is rude and vulgar visits my home, I ask them to leave. When visiting elsewhere, when my host is rude and vulgar, I simply leave.
Get it?
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187916\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But that's the whole point here, Michael. Go back and take a look at who was first to throw around vulgar terms. It wasn't the visitors who brought that here. We came here and found it when it didn't exist elsewhere. It's your house, you can run it as you please, but you will also be judged by the company you keep.
-
His point, I belive, is if you don't like what he says in his house (or his forums, site), then your welcome to leave. Who did what to whom and when, is irrelevant to that point.
Mark
-
His point, I belive, is if you don't like what he says in his house (or his forums, site), then your welcome to leave. Who did what to whom and when, is irrelevant to that point.
Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187933\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would take it as that. But...
And if you are in the business of presenting your site to the public, I think I would rather not have a certain few words on there, might put people off a tad. That is just smart business sense..
I am no stranger to heated debates, but there is civil way to act..and some words have no place on a site or forum.
I am still waiting for that "spanking" it never happened..wonder why. ;-)
-
I am still waiting for that "spanking" it never happened..wonder why. ;-)
Perhaps because most people think you would enjoy it too much?
-
Perhaps because most people think you would enjoy it too much?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187956\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lol, a bit of fun never hurt.
Being honest, I even I tire of this debate now.
Maybe time for another "digital v film" article to liven things up a bit ;-)
-
Relax guys. I've got Michael all figured out.
He's human!
Please don't change, Michael.
Gene
-
An aside: I checked out your Futt Futt Futt link and I loved it, especially the Abstract, Observed, and Pixus categories. Great images! You must really have a good camera!...(just kidding!)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187917\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ta muchly.
Actually quite a few of those were taken on an Ixus II, an ancient 2.1MP Canon, which also produced some of the most popuar images in my print folio.
-
I mean this as a construction criticism and not to flame...
The 'Editor's Note' is simply foolish and ridden with ego. I really hope the LL ship can be corrected and return to its roots. Please...
Good day, Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185704\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I was away from the web for several days and I was dismayed to return here to find this. It is your ship that needs to be corrected, not Michael Reichmann's. Constructive criticism does not include branding views as foolish and their authors as "ridden with ego". There is nothing constructive, useful or valuable tarnishing a topic with subjective and baseless allegations.
-
Relax guys. I've got Michael all figured out.
He's human!
No way!
That's simply not allowed. If it were true, he would be allowed to run a site that he owns and takes responsibility for in ways that make him happy.
-
I used to work as a car-metalworker. Fixing things and building new parts. For example Jaguar has many hand-built parts.
A fool with a good tool is still a fool my car fixing teacher used to say.
Good tools matters a lot. The more skill you have the more you can use the tool. Also the more tools you got the variety you can do. A beginner doesnt see the difference between two tools that are similar. But from experience you learn that tools matter for the result. Experience makes you understand the importance off tools.
I think the same is so with photography tools.
I just doesn't really understand this hard feelings. I think people are to attached with their tools and ego. I thought both articles are excellent. I just doesn't understand why some people get so worked up.
I am just 28 years old, not claiming to be wise or anything. But I learn't in life there often many opposite rational theories that both are right depends what your background is. To only see one truth is to limit yourself. I would also almost call it to follow a dogma. Dogmas arn´t good.
I agree completely with the articles, I also can´t see the rudeness or vulgar in them. But I think I lack the background from those that see it.
No, absolute no. I dont think Luminous Landscape is heading in a wrong direction. This site to me focus on both parts that interest me. Both the craft and tools. I think the focus is balanced.
-
Or – maybe I've just been hanging out with the irascible Mr. Schewe too much.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185729\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Poor Jeff. Why does everyone blame ol' Schewebacca for their own sins?
-
Poor Jeff. Why does everyone blame ol' Schewebacca for their own sins?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191664\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I need to know. Was Schewebacca in common use before I came up with it?
-
It goes back at least to this:
http://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/26/raw-wa...e-resurrection/ (http://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/26/raw-wars-%e2%80%93-episode-7-empire-resurrection/)
The original thread here seems to be gone now, sadly.
-
I hate being last to a party.
-
Dogmas arn´t good.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188903\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I always thought a dogma was a man's best friend
-
Except when your dogma eats my karma.
Michael
-
Except when your dogma eats my karma.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191726\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Isn't a karma a sort of mild curry??
Mike
-
Isn't a karma a sort of mild curry??
Mike
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191728\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Didn't VW make a karma??
don
-
Very well said!
I used to work as a car-metalworker. Fixing things and building new parts. For example Jaguar has many hand-built parts.
A fool with a good tool is still a fool my car fixing teacher used to say.
Good tools matters a lot. The more skill you have the more you can use the tool. Also the more tools you got the variety you can do. A beginner doesnt see the difference between two tools that are similar. But from experience you learn that tools matter for the result. Experience makes you understand the importance off tools.
I think the same is so with photography tools.
I just doesn't really understand this hard feelings. I think people are to attached with their tools and ego. I thought both articles are excellent. I just doesn't understand why some people get so worked up.
I am just 28 years old, not claiming to be wise or anything. But I learn't in life there often many opposite rational theories that both are right depends what your background is. To only see one truth is to limit yourself. I would also almost call it to follow a dogma. Dogmas arn´t good.
I agree completely with the articles, I also can´t see the rudeness or vulgar in them. But I think I lack the background from those that see it.
No, absolute no. I dont think Luminous Landscape is heading in a wrong direction. This site to me focus on both parts that interest me. Both the craft and tools. I think the focus is balanced.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188903\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Isn't a karma a sort of mild curry??
Mike
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191728\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes and quite good when poured over dogma with a nice naan.
-
Oiy. Why don't you all go out and use your 'equipment' instead of brain farting in this thread?
Regards, Art.