Creativity

[Alan Klein]

Click on "rabanito"
Click on "postings"
If you care, looc aat landscape showcase or any other where pics are published.
Portfolios? There is none. Nowhere but at home
I don't understand what the matter is.
If I give you my phone number will you find my pics better?
I doubt it 

That's a diversion.  I didn't ask for your phone number; just your photos.  When I look for a new doctor, I check their credentials to make sure they're not a "quack".   

[amolitor]

That is a secondary irritation. I have, occasionally, been asked for my pictures. When I querulously suggest that google could provide some answers, the response is (invariably) a demand that I lead the person by the hand.

Which suggests that the person in question isn't actually that interested, they're just lazily pushing back on me because they don't want to listen. I  cannot speak to how hard it is to find rabanito's pictures, because I don't care. I do know that it takes under a minute to google your way to some of my pictures.

I see no need to sell myself on an internet forum. Nobody is offering me even a small fraction of my hourly rate, here, or anywhere else  on the internet.

[Alan Klein]

That is a secondary irritation. I have, occasionally, been asked for my pictures. When I querulously suggest that google could provide some answers, the response is (invariably) a demand that I lead the person by the hand.

Which suggests that the person in question isn't actually that interested, they're just lazily pushing back on me because they don't want to listen. I  cannot speak to how hard it is to find rabanito's pictures, because I don't care. I do know that it takes under a minute to google your way to some of my pictures.

I see no need to sell myself on an internet forum. Nobody is offering me even a small fraction of my hourly rate, here, or anywhere else  on the internet.

This is a serious question.  How would I find you photos on the internet?

[amolitor]

Seriously?

I have a username on here, which, while not unique in the world is fairly distinctive. You could google it by itself and see what pops up. You could say to yourself 'self, I am interested in his photographs" and google instead my username with the word "photographs" added to the search. The results I get, which to be fair may not be quite what you get, contain a number of obvious misses "Joseph Molitor" probably is the wrong guy, and a few possibles, which are the right thing.

If you googled "amolitor photography" you'd likely get an even richer set of hits.

Would you know a priori that this particular Andrew Molitor is the guy you're talking to right now? No. But still, the natural next step is to click on one or more of the possible hits to see if it's the right guy (it is, and it ought to be pretty obvious.)

Now, this wouldn't work if i were named "John Smith" but it works fine for my own, not terribly common, name.

[rabanito]

That's a diversion.  I didn't ask for your phone number; just your photos.  When I look for a new doctor, I check their credentials to make sure they're not a "quack".

I'm not sure if you know what the origin of this discussion is.
I asked a question related to teaching in an Art School and I was told that without knowing who I am I wouldn't get an answer.
Not whether I am a good photographer, an "artist" or a Neanderthaler.
I accepted the answer. Period.

And now we're discussing the subject "real identity" as a conditio sin qua non for being taken seriously in this forum.
A digression as you may notice.
What has this with being a quack or a professor?
You can read what is written and discuss the matter. Independently of the photographic qualities of the other philosophers.
That's what this Coffee Corner is defined to serve
"A forum for discussion of topics of a general nature, ideally related to photography."

[Alan Klein]

Seriously?

I have a username on here, which, while not unique in the world is fairly distinctive. You could google it by itself and see what pops up. You could say to yourself 'self, I am interested in his photographs" and google instead my username with the word "photographs" added to the search. The results I get, which to be fair may not be quite what you get, contain a number of obvious misses "Joseph Molitor" probably is the wrong guy, and a few possibles, which are the right thing.

If you googled "amolitor photography" you'd likely get an even richer set of hits.

Would you know a priori that this particular Andrew Molitor is the guy you're talking to right now? No. But still, the natural next step is to click on one or more of the possible hits to see if it's the right guy (it is, and it ought to be pretty obvious.)

Now, this wouldn't work if i were named "John Smith" but it works fine for my own, not terribly common, name.

Sorry, but I didn't realize that was your name.

[Alan Klein]

Still, why not add a link to your profile page?  It would make things a lot easier.

[rabanito]

Ah, the prints.

Well, that's what I do.
If you want to see my work, that's the end product.
The rest is preparatory work. An approximation.
But of course again, that's what I do.
And it is also photography. Isn't it?

[Alan Klein]

[/size]
I'm not sure if you know what the origin of this discussion is.
I asked a question related to teaching in an Art School and I was told that without knowing who I am I wouldn't get an answer.
Not whether I am a good photographer, an "artist" or a Neanderthaler.
I accepted the answer. Period.


And now we're discussing the subject "real identity" as a conditio sin qua non for being taken seriously in this forum.
A digression as you may notice.
What has this with being a quack or a professor?
You can read what is written and discuss the matter. Independently of the photographic qualities of the other philosophers.
That's what this Coffee Corner is defined to serve
"A forum for discussion of topics of a general nature, ideally related to photography."

[/size]I'm sorry.  I didn't realize that only your diversionary posts are acceptable.  I hope you can forgive me. 

[rabanito]

I'm sorry.  I didn't realize that only your diversionary posts are acceptable.  I hope you can forgive me.

I don't understand this answer.
I've been always talking respectfully to you, even if we don't agree

[Alan Klein]

I don't understand this answer.
I've been always talking respectfully to you, even if we don't agree

It's disrespectful to me when you assume only your posts count. 

[rabanito]

It's disrespectful to me when you assume only your posts count.

Was not my intention.
I apologize then

[Alan Klein]

Fair enough.  We both have something important to say.  Thanks.

[Rob C]

Tht's how it is.
There is no conditio a priori for participating in this forum such as having a webpage,a flickpage, an instagram page, a facebook account or whatever.
I JUST DON'T HAVE ANY. 
About one hit wonders. And so what?
I'm not here to show off or prove anything. Come on, Rob...

But that's evasion: this is not really specifically about you, as far as I am concerned, but with the general concept of listening or not listening to what people have to say, people who provide no visible reason to believe in anything they say. Those people might be stars in disguise, but unless they show us, we can never know, so why would we allow them to influence us?

I feel the pain about not having a website or other permanently accessible means of showing one's colours on the mast. Before I had a website I would be challenged here every now and again for my views on fashion photography or whatever I happened to have been writing about, and the frustration of not having any visible means of defending myself was almost unbearable. I am certainly a self-confessed digital technophobe, and it took a lot of help and prodding until a French member here put me in touch with Weebly, at which stage, I realised I could hack the relative simplicity of the platform. Better yet, unless I wanted a personal number plate, as it were, it was available free!

The trouble with one-hit wonders, in this context, is obvious: they can provide no consistent track record of sustained visual reliability and/or competency; why believe they know anything? Anyone can get lucky once or twice.

About whether you are here or not here to show off doesn't figure; what figures is whether anyone not able to demonstrate ability should be taken at their word. Sadly, this applies not only to photographers, but to writers on photography too.

;-)

[rabanito]

Better yet, unless I wanted a personal number plate, as it were, it was available free!

;-)

What's a PNP?

[LesPalenik]

PNP - Pukaskwa National Park is on Lake Superior, in Northern Ontario, Canada.

https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/on/pukaskwa

[rabanito]

PNP - Pukaskwa National Park is on Lake Superior, in Northern Ontario, Canada.

Ouch! Sorry 

I meant "personal number plate" as told by Rob C

[LesPalenik]

You could drive to PNP in a car adorned with a personal number plate.
It's a long drive (over 1,000km northwest from Toronto), but it would be worth a visit. Just watch out for black bears.

[Rob C]

Ouch! Sorry 

I meant "personal number plate" as told by Rob C

The address of your website, if you want it to appear as distinctly free from the otherwise Weebly name-connected version. For that, you pay an annual fee.

No, you don't get anything physical; that's reserved for the analogue world of do-it-yourselfers.

:-)

[LesPalenik]

You seem to think that Google has all answers 
Well I tried it just for fun. Look at the result:

About 8’630’000 results (0.64 seconds)

But I respect your caution.
It's your right

That could be a Gerber (i.e. Hans Gerber), rather common Swiss name. 9 million hits on a good day. But Shania Twain, another Swiss citizen, shows almost twice as many hits.