How can I improve my shoots?
Nomen Nescio
I am beginning to think I should give up on photography and just accept the job offered by Flicker
Borked Pseudo Mailed
sna...@mailinator.com
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/colleenm/3304843379/
>
> I am beginning to think I should give up on photography and just accept the job offered by Flicker
Try this for a sunrise:-
http://img147.imageshack.us/my.php?image=s20070306082428aazn8.jpg
Atheist Chaplain
news:12c5059l1sm0486sb...@4ax.com...
hmmm "flickr" rhymes with "arse licker"
the site where everybody will leave a nice comment for you, and expect the
same in return.
some people regard very ordinary photo's as "Remarkable" and "Gorgeous" and
"Fantastic"
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi
Chris Malcolm
> <sna...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> news:12c5059l1sm0486sb...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 6 May 2009 17:40:03 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
>> <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/colleenm/3304843379/
>>>
>>> I am beginning to think I should give up on photography and just accept
>>> the job offered by Flicker
>>
>> Try this for a sunrise:-
>>
>> http://img147.imageshack.us/my.php?image=s20070306082428aazn8.jpg
>>
> hmmm "flickr" rhymes with "arse licker"
> the site where everybody will leave a nice comment for you, and expect the
> same in return.
> some people regard very ordinary photo's as "Remarkable" and "Gorgeous" and
> "Fantastic"
Flickr as a site doesn't do that. It's the photo pools of certain
specific interest groups which do that. Not surprisingly some have
been set up to maximise the number of gorgeous comments you get to
every photo. Not surprisingly other groups with other purposes avoid
doing that. Not surprisingly some people subscribe to as many
congratulatory groups as they can find.
If that's your experience of Flickr one wonders what you're
doing hanging out in the kind of groups you're sneering at :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
Don Stauffer
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/colleenm/3304843379/
>
> I am beginning to think I should give up on photography and just accept the job offered by Flicker
>
Join a camera club and enter their competitions. Listen to the judge(s)
and don't be defensive.
Shoot LOTS of exposures.
Savageduck
> In article <4a02bb57$1...@news.x-privat.org>,
> "Atheist Chaplain" <abu...@cia.gov> wrote:
>
>> very ordinary photo's
>
>
> To be extraordinary you need something to be happening in the photo. You
> can't just take a picture of an object and expect it to be a great
> photo.
>
> You need 3 things: foreground, background and something else added in. A
> sunset doesn't cut it. It could be a great background though.
Agreed.
Sunsets and dawns provoke a great hope that the moment can be recorded,
and unless there is a truly dramatic sky with combinations of cloud,
mountains, atmospheric conditions etc. they become cliche.
... but the temptation to take the shot is difficult to resist.
I think most of us have done it at some time, here is a 2003 Salinas
Valley dawn;
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/SV_Dawn.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck
whisky-dave
"M-M" <nospa...@ny.more> wrote in message
news:nospam.m-m-21583...@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com...
> In article <4a02bb57$1...@news.x-privat.org>,
> "Atheist Chaplain" <abu...@cia.gov> wrote:
>
>> very ordinary photo's
>
>
> To be extraordinary you need something to be happening in the photo. You
> can't just take a picture of an object and expect it to be a great
> photo.
>
> You need 3 things: foreground, background and something else added in. A
> sunset doesn't cut it. It could be a great background though.
>
Is it the ability to make money via the 'something else' :)
Atheist Chaplain
news:76g415F...@mid.individual.net...
you assume too much grasshopper, I used to look at photos on flickr,
generally randomly and sometimes by category so I could get some motivation
and see just how good some people are. I soon noticed that some very
ordinary photos were getting rave reviews, and it was becoming more common.
I don't use flickr, I use Smugmug, nice, easy to personalise site and it
loads fast on my crappy Australian upload speed.
Chris Malcolm
> you assume too much grasshopper, I used to look at photos on flickr,
> generally randomly and sometimes by category so I could get some motivation
> and see just how good some people are. I soon noticed that some very
> ordinary photos were getting rave reviews, and it was becoming more common.
In which case your sneering criticism was as sensible as criticising a
library because while randomly browsing the shelves you'd noticed that
most of the books were rubbish.
--
Chris Malcolm
Atheist Chaplain
no my criticism is IMHO justified, after all you have absolutely no idea
just how much of Flickr I perused, your just assuming (again)
My opinion is just as justified as anyone else's, if you disagree then that
is your prerogative. but then it was you that also mentioned that it does
indeed happen "Flickr as a site doesn't do that. It's the photo pools of
certain specific interest groups which do that. Not surprisingly some have
been set up to maximise the number of gorgeous comments you get to every
photo."
Chris Malcolm
> no my criticism is IMHO justified, after all you have absolutely no idea
> just how much of Flickr I perused, your just assuming (again)
> My opinion is just as justified as anyone else's, if you disagree then that
> is your prerogative. but then it was you that also mentioned that it does
> indeed happen "Flickr as a site doesn't do that. It's the photo pools of
> certain specific interest groups which do that. Not surprisingly some have
> been set up to maximise the number of gorgeous comments you get to every
> photo."
Let me try to explain this very simply to you.
My newsagent has pornographic magazines on the top shelf. On the
bottom shelf it has such non-pornographic material as the Financial
Times, the New York Review of Books, New Scientist, and Practical
Photography. In terms of volume it has far more pornographic magazines
than it has on any other single topic. In fact even on a sub topic of
pornography such as Big Tits it has far more magazines than it has
devoted to such topics as literary criticism, higher education, or
photography.
However, like many of my neighbours I don't use the top shelf, and
have no problems buying bottom shelf magazines from a newsagent with
such a top shelf.
It would therefore be incorrect to suppose that everyone who uses that
newsagent buys pornographic magazines. In fact by choosing the right
magazines you could over time get quite a good education in some
topics, including photography, from my newsagent.
You have looked into Flickr and discovered that there are many groups
devoted to maximising the amount of praise you get in comments every
time you post a photograph. They have rules which they police such as
having to comment on five photographs every time you post one. They
compete with each other in quantity of praise and the rules which
deliver it.
There are also special interest groups devoted to teaching and
learning technical aspects of photography with such rules as that
every photograph you post must be accompanied by the full details of
how you took it and why you chose to do it that way. There are also
groups which mostly discuss the work of famous photographers and few
photographs are posted compared to the volume of discussion.
It is in fact possible to get a good education in many specialised
areas of photography by using the right Flickr groups. Some in fact
run organised courses.
So just as it would be incorrect to categorise everyone using my
newsagent as a pornography fan, it would be incorrect to categorise
everyone who uses Flickr as an Arse Licker.
Speaking personally not only have I improved my photographic skills a
lot with what I've learnt from Flickr, but I have made a number of
good local friends via Flickr whom I often meet in person. It's true
that the Arse Lickers are an annoyance, but like newsgroup trolls,
it's not too hard to avoid them. I found it well worth the effort of
doing so.
--
Chris Malcolm
Atheist Chaplain
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:76l48jF...@mid.individual.net...
Atheist Chaplain
I, like you also found Flickr to be useful in improving my meager
photographic skills, but my point still remains (however you try justify
yours) flickr had a cadre of arselickers, and they grow in number every day,
that's why I left and went to Smugmug, if I post a mediocre photo, I want to
know why it is mediocre, not have some self serving praise junkie try and
blow smoke up my arse. At east when someone takes the time to comment in
Smugmug I get told if its a good photo and why, I also get told if it sucks,
and why.
The end for me was when I posted a particularly lifeless photo as an
experiment and was told by the praise junkies how wonderful it was, hell
someone even mentioned that it had "Wonderful colour saturation" It didn't
by the way.
So defend flickr, I have no problem with that. But my experience was not
that, and please, if your trying to compare my personal experience to yours
with your snide little nudie magazine analogy, at least have the balls to
try harder to look down your nose.
I have not encountered any of the groups where there was any such rule as
you have to praise every (insert X number) for every shot you uploaded so I
bow to your obvious experience there, I have also encountered the "helpful"
groups as you describe, and again they helped lift my skills to just below
average (IMHO) But then I found some of them to often be polluted by
imperious gits who try and ignore the top shelf, but in reality, often sneak
a peek when they think no one is looking.
Aurelious Aristotle Finch
Chris Malcolm
[snip explanation since obviously too difficult]
>> So just as it would be incorrect to categorise everyone using my
>> newsagent as a pornography fan, it would be incorrect to categorise
>> everyone who uses Flickr as an Arse Licker.
>>
>> Speaking personally not only have I improved my photographic skills a
>> lot with what I've learnt from Flickr, but I have made a number of
>> good local friends via Flickr whom I often meet in person. It's true
>> that the Arse Lickers are an annoyance, but like newsgroup trolls,
>> it's not too hard to avoid them. I found it well worth the effort of
>> doing so.
> I, like you also found Flickr to be useful in improving my meager
> photographic skills, but my point still remains (however you try justify
> yours) flickr had a cadre of arselickers, and they grow in number every day,
> that's why I left and went to Smugmug, if I post a mediocre photo, I want to
> know why it is mediocre, not have some self serving praise junkie try and
> blow smoke up my arse. At east when someone takes the time to comment in
> Smugmug I get told if its a good photo and why, I also get told if it sucks,
> and why.
> The end for me was when I posted a particularly lifeless photo as an
> experiment and was told by the praise junkies how wonderful it was, hell
> someone even mentioned that it had "Wonderful colour saturation" It didn't
> by the way.
> So defend flickr, I have no problem with that. But my experience was not
> that, and please, if your trying to compare my personal experience to yours
> with your snide little nudie magazine analogy, at least have the balls to
> try harder to look down your nose.
It's no effort I assure you. The point I was trying to explain to you
has completely gone over your head. I'm not denying the veracity of
your personal experience. I'm trying to explain to you why your
specific personal experience doesn't justify your sneering
generalisation based on rhyming "Flickr" with "Arse Licker".
> I have not encountered any of the groups where there was any such rule as
> you have to praise every (insert X number) for every shot you uploaded so I
> bow to your obvious experience there,
You clearly don't even know enough about how Flickr works to realise
that there's no need to "encounter" any such groups to experience the
fall out from them in commentary. No wonder you couldn't avoid the
arse lickers!
But a screen name like yours does suggest someone devoted to stirring
the sewage, quite apart from your general posting history.
--
Chris Malcolm
whisky-dave
"Atheist Chaplain" <abu...@cia.gov> wrote in message
news:4a05...@news.x-privat.org...
> I, like you also found Flickr to be useful in improving my meager
> photographic skills,
How does flickr improve your skills I though it was just a place to show
photos.
>but my point still remains (however you try justify yours) flickr had a
>cadre of arselickers, and they grow in number every day, that's why I left
>and went to Smugmug,
I didn;t want some of my more private photos diplayed on flickr so
I set up my own website.
I use flickr to display photos in a similar way some use exibition halls.
> if I post a mediocre photo,
Why would you want to,
> know why it is mediocre,
So again why post it ?
> not have some self serving praise junkie try and blow smoke up my arse.
If they see something good in it then why does that worry you.
I don;t see much of any talent in Picassos paintings and I wouldn't piss on
them
if they were on fire, but some seem to think they are great and actually
worth more
than the picture of the tennis player scratching her arse.
>At east when someone takes the time to comment in
> Smugmug I get told if its a good photo and why, I also get told if it
> sucks, and why.
Well that's because you are after self satisfaction, your primary reason for
posting
is to find out what people think of your photos.
My primary reason for showing photos is so that other people might get some
pleasure in viewing them.
> The end for me was when I posted a particularly lifeless photo as an
> experiment and was told by the praise junkies how wonderful it was,
So, I'm sure the Spice girls or any number of boy bands are told what
wonder singers they are or how talented they are, do I care,
I know what I think and what a 14 year-old thinks wont' change my mind.
> hell someone even mentioned that it had "Wonderful colour saturation" It
> didn't by the way.
Why worry.
>
> So defend flickr, I have no problem with that.
it's not flickr that need defending it's just a photo sharing site.
> But my experience was not that, and please, if your trying to compare my
> personal experience to yours with your snide little nudie magazine
> analogy, at least have the balls to try harder to look down your nose.
I'd personally would have compared the Times to a tabliod.
if I want to see good photographs of sporting events I wouldn't buy the
Times
> I have not encountered any of the groups where there was any such rule as
> you have to praise every (insert X number) for every shot you uploaded so
> I bow to your obvious experience there,
There's no groups where you have to praise anyone, what there are is groups
were
you have to comment on one and post one and other variations.
It's a comment and post not a paraise and post.
Maybe you have a reading comprehension issue or is it a visual comprehension
issue ;-)
>I have also encountered the "helpful" groups as you describe, and again
>they helped lift my skills to just below average (IMHO)
That's not so bad is it ?
Rungs of a ladder are best taken in small steps.
> But then I found some of them to often be polluted by imperious gits who
> try and ignore the top shelf, but in reality, often sneak a peek when they
> think no one is looking.
So you're saying you can't ignore them ?
tony cooper
wrote:
>It's no effort I assure you. The point I was trying to explain to you
>has completely gone over your head. I'm not denying the veracity of
>your personal experience. I'm trying to explain to you why your
>specific personal experience doesn't justify your sneering
>generalisation based on rhyming "Flickr" with "Arse Licker".
>
The problem with Flickr is finding a group where photographs are
reviewed and meaningful critiques are offered. There are so many
groups that are listed as "critique" groups where this is not the
case.
Searching for "critique" in Flickr, I see 127 groups. Some are
specialized subject matter groups (rock climbing, diptychs and
triptychs, etc) and some list fewer than ten members. Some claim to
offer critiques, but the "critiques" offered are like the one I just
got "Hey way cool". You are in a specialized geographic group where
there is a common thread between the posters and, thus, more intimacy.
I did get one meaningful critique, but that was from a very
accomplished photographer who has me linked as a contact because we
know each other from another newsgroup. He didn't find me in the
forum where the image was.
I'm still looking for a Flickr group where meaningful critiques are
the norm. I haven't found it, and I don't deny that one exists, but
it's not easy to find one.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Atheist Chaplain
news:gu94dv$qm$1@qmul...
>
> "Atheist Chaplain" <abu...@cia.gov> wrote in message
> news:4a05...@news.x-privat.org...
>> "Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:76l48jF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>> I, like you also found Flickr to be useful in improving my meager
>> photographic skills,
>
> How does flickr improve your skills I though it was just a place to show
> photos.
>
because as some have said, there are people who will help by pointing out
ways to improve your shots, self assessment generally doesn't work all that
often.
>>but my point still remains (however you try justify yours) flickr had a
>>cadre of arselickers, and they grow in number every day, that's why I left
>>and went to Smugmug,
>
> I didn;t want some of my more private photos diplayed on flickr so
> I set up my own website.
> I use flickr to display photos in a similar way some use exibition halls.
>
Funnily enough Smugmug allows you to set up private folders, and again
anyone can set up a photo web site but how is that going to help improve
your skills, or are you already "Ansel Adams" in your own mind :-)
>> if I post a mediocre photo,
> Why would you want to,
>
because sometimes you don't know its mediocre unless you show it to others,
honest criticism is one of the fastest ways to learn what other people like
and where you might have gone wrong.
>> know why it is mediocre,
> So again why post it ?
>
see above
>> not have some self serving praise junkie try and blow smoke up my arse.
> If they see something good in it then why does that worry you.
It doesn't, but there are some who will put a positive comment expecting you
to return the favour, even though you suspect its not exactly the greatest
shot.
> I don;t see much of any talent in Picassos paintings and I wouldn't piss
> on them
> if they were on fire, but some seem to think they are great and actually
> worth more
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but honest peer praise is worth more
> than the picture of the tennis player scratching her arse.
>
>
> >At east when someone takes the time to comment in
>> Smugmug I get told if its a good photo and why, I also get told if it
>> sucks, and why.
> Well that's because you are after self satisfaction, your primary reason
> for posting
> is to find out what people think of your photos.
Exactly, I like to know what people honestly think and if there is some way
to make it a better shot.
> My primary reason for showing photos is so that other people might get
> some
> pleasure in viewing them.
Exactly, but what's the point if you think your posting the next ceiling of
the Sistine Chapel yet everyone else thinks it belongs in the cistern.
>
>> The end for me was when I posted a particularly lifeless photo as an
>> experiment and was told by the praise junkies how wonderful it was,
>
> So, I'm sure the Spice girls or any number of boy bands are told what
> wonder singers they are or how talented they are, do I care,
you obviously care enough to comment :-)
> I know what I think and what a 14 year-old thinks wont' change my mind.
>
>> hell someone even mentioned that it had "Wonderful colour saturation" It
>> didn't by the way.
> Why worry.
>
>>
>> So defend flickr, I have no problem with that.
> it's not flickr that need defending it's just a photo sharing site.
>
>> But my experience was not that, and please, if your trying to compare my
>> personal experience to yours with your snide little nudie magazine
>> analogy, at least have the balls to try harder to look down your nose.
>
> I'd personally would have compared the Times to a tabliod.
> if I want to see good photographs of sporting events I wouldn't buy the
> Times
>
>> I have not encountered any of the groups where there was any such rule as
>> you have to praise every (insert X number) for every shot you uploaded so
>> I bow to your obvious experience there,
>
> There's no groups where you have to praise anyone, what there are is
> groups were
> you have to comment on one and post one and other variations.
> It's a comment and post not a paraise and post.
> Maybe you have a reading comprehension issue or is it a visual
> comprehension issue ;-)
I didnt bring that up in the first place, it was Chris Malcolm that
mentioned those types of groups, see my comprehension is fine thanks, though
my eyesight is not improving with age so there might just be something in
that.
>
>>I have also encountered the "helpful" groups as you describe, and again
>>they helped lift my skills to just below average (IMHO)
>
> That's not so bad is it ?
> Rungs of a ladder are best taken in small steps.
>
true.
>
>> But then I found some of them to often be polluted by imperious gits who
>> try and ignore the top shelf, but in reality, often sneak a peek when
>> they think no one is looking.
>
> So you're saying you can't ignore them ?
well they keep commenting don't they :-)
Atheist Chaplain
sneering, how apropos
>
>> I have not encountered any of the groups where there was any such rule as
>> you have to praise every (insert X number) for every shot you uploaded so
>> I
>> bow to your obvious experience there,
>
> You clearly don't even know enough about how Flickr works to realise
> that there's no need to "encounter" any such groups to experience the
> fall out from them in commentary. No wonder you couldn't avoid the
> arse lickers!
As you say, but then you obviously know enough to bring up the apparent fact
that such groups do exist, maybe my comments are not as far from the mark as
you would like to believe.
might I ad that I was not a member of ANY groups on flickr, yet I still got
"drive by" commenting.
>
> But a screen name like yours does suggest someone devoted to stirring
> the sewage, quite apart from your general posting history.
>
Ahh the old fallback, nice to see it dragged out again, but then I expect no
less from someone whose imagination seems a might stifled, might I suggest
you loosen the old school tie a fraction.
> --
> Chris Malcolm
tony cooper
wrote:
>you assume too much grasshopper, I used to look at photos on flickr,
>generally randomly and sometimes by category so I could get some motivation
>and see just how good some people are. I soon noticed that some very
>ordinary photos were getting rave reviews, and it was becoming more common.
>I don't use flickr, I use Smugmug, nice, easy to personalise site and it
>loads fast on my crappy Australian upload speed.
I have a SmugMug page, and I read the SmugMug site - DigitalGrin -
where photos are displayed and critiqued. The critiques in
DigitalGrin range from "Nice shot" to constructively helpful. The
only advantage of DigitalGrin over Flickr is that there is one page
where the submissions are broken down by category (people, sports,
wildlife, macro, etc) and it is easier to skim through the
submissions.
Photo.net has a good critique forum, but the volume is high and the
critique forum images rotate so you have less exposure than in
DigitalGrin or Flickr. Again, comments range from meaningless praise
to helpful suggestions. It's all about individuals.
whisky-dave
> "whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
> news:gu94dv$qm$1@qmul...
>>
>> "Atheist Chaplain" <abu...@cia.gov> wrote in message
>> news:4a05...@news.x-privat.org...
>>> "Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:76l48jF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>>> I, like you also found Flickr to be useful in improving my meager
>>> photographic skills,
>>
>> How does flickr improve your skills I though it was just a place to show
>> photos.
>>
>
> because as some have said, there are people who will help by pointing out
> ways to improve your shots, self assessment generally doesn't work all
> that often.
The thing is I've never thought of flickr as a place to improve my photos.
I was a memeber of a photographic club where pictures were judged
by someone that was meant to know more about photgraphy than those
entering their pictures to be judged.
I had one picture that was entered in to the at the North London exibition
of
pictoral photography, I didn't learn a thing from that, no one commented
on the picture.
I wasn;t aware peolpe expected such things from flickr, I always assumed the
comment
were only meant to be "nice pussy how old is he" and those sort of comments
rather than, well you cleary shoudn;t have used a P&S but used a 50MP DSLR
if yuo reallt want the best picture of your cat.
I dount there's many pictures taken that could be better taken by someone
else.
As an example
http://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/3494607458/
Yes I know I should have cleared up, the backgrounds a little distracting.
I cut the top of the computer off, I should have waited until he turned
around.
it could have been framed better, the wires look a bit untidy.
>>>but my point still remains (however you try justify yours) flickr had a
>>>cadre of arselickers, and they grow in number every day, that's why I
>>>left and went to Smugmug,
>>
>> I didn;t want some of my more private photos diplayed on flickr so
>> I set up my own website.
>> I use flickr to display photos in a similar way some use exibition halls.
>>
>
> Funnily enough Smugmug allows you to set up private folders, and again
> anyone can set up a photo web site but how is that going to help improve
> your skills, or are you already "Ansel Adams" in your own mind :-)
Well I'd set up a site and ask for specified critasiscim rather than saying
my pussy
looks a bit scriffy, I'd state that I'd like comments of improving my
photography
rather than the choice of cat or computer.
For me and those I know flickr is like a photo album you get out when
friends come over
rather than a portfolio you take to an employer for a job interview.
>>> if I post a mediocre photo,
>> Why would you want to,
>>
>
> because sometimes you don't know its mediocre unless you show it to
> others, honest criticism is one of the fastest ways to learn what other
> people like and where you might have gone wrong.
I agree with that and if I want that I prefer to ask people that know about
that sort of thing.
If you look at flickr it's about sharing photos between friends/family.
>>> not have some self serving praise junkie try and blow smoke up my arse.
>> If they see something good in it then why does that worry you.
>
> It doesn't, but there are some who will put a positive comment expecting
> you to return the favour, even though you suspect its not exactly the
> greatest shot.
But some like things I don't and vica versa, I put a picture of a squirrel
on flickr, because it was fun to take, there I was walking along
on my way to work and there it was on a wall, so I just got my camera out of
my pocket
and shot a couple of pictures. I wasn;t aim to take the best picture ever of
a squirrel.
I know perhaps the backgroud couple have been more out of focus and the Sq.
a bit sharper, I should have perhaps lowered the ISO.
I wasn;t really interesed in hearing how bad it is compared to a pro in a
with �1000s worth of equipment and how they'd done it better.
Even if I did have a DSLR I wouldn;t carry it to work every day in my inside
pocket.
If I really wanted this to be seen as the best possible picture of a
squirrel ever taken
I would expect some pretty harsh criticism but I'm not really interested in
that.
But maybe I do know what you mean when I see all though blurry pictures
of a couples new born baby, I might be thinking that's an ugly brat, I'm
glad
it's a bit oput of focus and tehy really shouldnt; have taken it with snot
falling from it's nose.
>
>> I don;t see much of any talent in Picassos paintings and I wouldn't piss
>> on them
>> if they were on fire, but some seem to think they are great and actually
>> worth more
>
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but honest peer praise is worth more
Which is why I find it amusing that some of the impressionist painters have
been
so praised for paintings the way they captured the light etc... but now we
find it's because
they had blurred vision due to poor eye sight rather than an imaginative
skill.
>
>> than the picture of the tennis player scratching her arse.
>>
>>
>> >At east when someone takes the time to comment in
>>> Smugmug I get told if its a good photo and why, I also get told if it
>>> sucks, and why.
>> Well that's because you are after self satisfaction, your primary reason
>> for posting
>> is to find out what people think of your photos.
>
> Exactly, I like to know what people honestly think and if there is some
> way to make it a better shot.
I might consider joining such a thing if/when I have that sort of thing in
mind,
but for me flickr isn't for that.
If someone says my cat picture is great I don't see that as a tecnical
compliment
but do see it as a compliment for captuing the picture of my cat as he was
at the time
rather than polishiong him up for some cat show.
>
>> My primary reason for showing photos is so that other people might get
>> some
>> pleasure in viewing them.
>
> Exactly, but what's the point if you think your posting the next ceiling
> of the Sistine Chapel yet everyone else thinks it belongs in the cistern.
I'm not trying to sell them, although offers may be accepted.
>>> The end for me was when I posted a particularly lifeless photo as an
>>> experiment and was told by the praise junkies how wonderful it was,
>>
>> So, I'm sure the Spice girls or any number of boy bands are told what
>> wonder singers they are or how talented they are, do I care,
>
> you obviously care enough to comment :-)
well when I'm told a band is classed as better if they sell more, then I'm
sure that
upsets proper musicians. Same must go for pictures too.
>> I'd personally would have compared the Times to a tabliod.
>> if I want to see good photographs of sporting events I wouldn't buy the
>> Times
>>
>>> I have not encountered any of the groups where there was any such rule
>>> as you have to praise every (insert X number) for every shot you
>>> uploaded so I bow to your obvious experience there,
>>
>> There's no groups where you have to praise anyone, what there are is
>> groups were
>> you have to comment on one and post one and other variations.
>> It's a comment and post not a paraise and post.
>> Maybe you have a reading comprehension issue or is it a visual
>> comprehension issue ;-)
>
> I didnt bring that up in the first place, it was Chris Malcolm that
> mentioned those types of groups, see my comprehension is fine thanks,
> though my eyesight is not improving with age so there might just be
> something in that.
I guess it comes to us all, but at least with IS out shaking hands are less
of an issue.
Which is another interesting point if a photographer has shaky hands then
his photos
are likely to be blurry unless he uses a 'good' camera with a good IS.
system,
but how does that reflect on the photgrapher is he better or just better
equiped.
Chris Malcolm
I don't know if one exists in general terms. There are some
invitation-only groups which you have to apply to enter which claim to
offer good serious criticism and to expel the responders who can't
write sentences, but I haven't explored any of those.
It's not difficult to find good critical and teaching groups for very
specific aspects of photography, such as architectural photography,
studio lit portraits, or urban night life.
I find a good way to find good criticism is to start it yourself by
giving your photograph a description which includes what you were
trying to achieve, why, by what means, and what you think of how far
you managed to get. I then make sure my photograph is easy for people
with the right kind of interests to find it by tagging it
appropriately. That discourages those who can't write sentences, and
encourages intelligent responses.
I've got most of my most useful criticism either by using that method,
or by finding someone who is particularly good at doing what I'd like
to be able to do but am bad at, and seeing if they're willing to
discuss their methods. Some can't be bothered, some regard them as
trade secrets, but some are very willing to help an enquirer.
Another way of learning is to find photographs of the same thing to
compare with your own. Flickr's various kinds of tagging, geotagging,
and searching, make that very easy. I find it's quite easy to find
photographs which are better than mine :-) I can then try to work out
what's different, and try to copy the masters.
Last but certainly not least for me is the local social aspect, which
probably varies a lot by locality. There are quite a number of
geographically localised Flickr groups who use Flickr to set up social
meetings, photographic expeditions, technique tutorial sessions, etc..
In fact I'm sometimes now hailed by someone in the street I've never
met in person, but we recognise each other through having seen each
other's photographs.
I guess in sum what I'm saying is it's like friendship in general: you
get out what you put in.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
> "Atheist Chaplain" <abu...@cia.gov> wrote in message
> news:4a05...@news.x-privat.org...
>> "Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:76l48jF...@mid.individual.net...
>> I, like you also found Flickr to be useful in improving my meager
>> photographic skills,
> How does flickr improve your skills I though it was just a place to show
> photos.
Specific to photographs there's descriptions, tags, notes, and
comments, all of which are used by some people to invite and supply
criticism and help. Then there are special interest groups with
discussion threads, some of which are about specific aspects of
photography and are sometimes used for very detailed discussions of
specific photographs.
>>but my point still remains (however you try justify yours) flickr had a
>>cadre of arselickers, and they grow in number every day, that's why I left
>>and went to Smugmug,
> I didn;t want some of my more private photos diplayed on flickr so
> I set up my own website.
> I use flickr to display photos in a similar way some use exibition halls.
Flickr has lots of ways of controlling the display of
photographs. There are four general categories of viewers: everyone,
friends, family, and nobody. Friends and family must be Flickr
members. You can use and combine these categories as you like for
viewing permissions. In addition to that there are guest passes, which
you issue to specific individuals who need not belong to Flickr, which
allow them to see either one specified photograph, or one specified
category of photograph (you invent the category and use it as you
like).
So some of my Flickr photographs can be seen by anyone, some can only
be seen by one specific person, and sundry variations between those
two extremes.
--
Chris Malcolm
whisky-dave
> whisky-dave <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>> "Atheist Chaplain" <abu...@cia.gov> wrote in message
>> news:4a05...@news.x-privat.org...
>>> "Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:76l48jF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>>> I, like you also found Flickr to be useful in improving my meager
>>> photographic skills,
>
>> How does flickr improve your skills I though it was just a place to show
>> photos.
>
> Specific to photographs there's descriptions, tags, notes, and
> comments, all of which are used by some people to invite and supply
> criticism and help.
That's what I was referring to it's people (others) rather than a site
People have commented on others photos for years.
>Then there are special interest groups with
> discussion threads, some of which are about specific aspects of
> photography and are sometimes used for very detailed discussions of
> specific photographs.
But it's still people, when I fiorst started photography we had a person
standing in front of us telling us what is good/bad about our shots.
Didnt; mean we had to take any notice, but they were judge and placed
in an order 1st 2nd 3rd or given marks out 20.
In that way we could compate how we werre improving over time.
>
>>>but my point still remains (however you try justify yours) flickr had a
>>>cadre of arselickers, and they grow in number every day, that's why I
>>>left
>>>and went to Smugmug,
>
>> I didn;t want some of my more private photos diplayed on flickr so
>> I set up my own website.
>> I use flickr to display photos in a similar way some use exibition halls.
>
> Flickr has lots of ways of controlling the display of
> photographs. There are four general categories of viewers: everyone,
> friends, family, and nobody. Friends and family must be Flickr
> members.
That was a problem most of my friends aren't flickr memebers.
> You can use and combine these categories as you like for
> viewing permissions. In addition to that there are guest passes, which
> you issue to specific individuals who need not belong to Flickr, which
> allow them to see either one specified photograph, or one specified
> category of photograph (you invent the category and use it as you
> like).
>
> So some of my Flickr photographs can be seen by anyone, some can only
> be seen by one specific person, and sundry variations between those
> two extremes.
I do a similar thing but it';s still people that judge pictures, and the
majority
of those that use flickr are people that take photos and like looking at
them,
I don;t consider them photographers in the same way I did those at the
camera club.
In the same way you can either choose to judge a film by the reviewers
or by the number of people that go and see it.
I also occasionally watch Americas next top model, see if I can get any
tips.
But I doubt I'll make a model. But these pros take 50+ shots to get one good
one,
and then they have the cheek to blame the model because her hand is sticking
out
in the wrong place.
> --
> Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
> "Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:76t1etF...@mid.individual.net...
>> whisky-dave <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>> "Atheist Chaplain" <abu...@cia.gov> wrote in message
>>> news:4a05...@news.x-privat.org...
>>>> "Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:76l48jF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>but my point still remains (however you try justify yours) flickr had a
>>>>cadre of arselickers, and they grow in number every day, that's why I
>>>>left
>>>>and went to Smugmug,
>>
>>> I didn;t want some of my more private photos diplayed on flickr so
>>> I set up my own website.
>>> I use flickr to display photos in a similar way some use exibition halls.
>>
>> Flickr has lots of ways of controlling the display of
>> photographs. There are four general categories of viewers: everyone,
>> friends, family, and nobody. Friends and family must be Flickr
>> members.
> That was a problem most of my friends aren't flickr memebers.
Easy enough to give them a guest pass to a set, then anything you put
in that set (which you might call "friends") is visible to all those
you gave the pass to. In other words you can set up and manage your
own categories of visibility quite easily, without using either the
official flickr categories, or requiring anyone to belong to Flickr.
Some people seem to be complaining that they found it difficult to
avoid the arse lickers of Flickr who enthuse with more exclamation
marks than words about your photographs in the hope of persuading you
to respond in the same way to their photographs. I guess I must just
have been lucky in not having anything in my photographs or their
tags, descriptions, etc., which attracted the arse lickers. It's true
there's lots of them, and it wouldn't surprise me if they comprised
the great majority of Flickr users. But I haven't found avoiding them
any more of a problem than avoiding unwanted pornography on the web.
--
Chris Malcolm
whisky-dave
> whisky-dave <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>> "Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:76t1etF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> whisky-dave <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>>> "Atheist Chaplain" <abu...@cia.gov> wrote in message
>>>> news:4a05...@news.x-privat.org...
>>>>> "Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:76l48jF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>>>>>but my point still remains (however you try justify yours) flickr had a
>>>>>cadre of arselickers, and they grow in number every day, that's why I
>>>>>left
>>>>>and went to Smugmug,
>>>
>>>> I didn;t want some of my more private photos diplayed on flickr so
>>>> I set up my own website.
>>>> I use flickr to display photos in a similar way some use exibition
>>>> halls.
>>>
>>> Flickr has lots of ways of controlling the display of
>>> photographs. There are four general categories of viewers: everyone,
>>> friends, family, and nobody. Friends and family must be Flickr
>>> members.
>
>> That was a problem most of my friends aren't flickr memebers.
>
> Easy enough to give them a guest pass to a set, then anything you put
> in that set (which you might call "friends")
True, but I rarely bother.
before things like flickr I used to create web sutes/pages.
Now if someone doesnl;t use flickr and they want to see my pictures that's
not
my prolbem. it's theirs :)
> Some people seem to be complaining that they found it difficult to
> avoid the arse lickers of Flickr who enthuse with more exclamation
> marks than words about your photographs in the hope of persuading you
> to respond in the same way to their photographs. I guess I must just
> have been lucky in not having anything in my photographs or their
> tags, descriptions, etc., which attracted the arse lickers.
True, but then sometimes I don;t mind my arse licked for the right reasons.
> It's true
> there's lots of them, and it wouldn't surprise me if they comprised
> the great majority of Flickr users. But I haven't found avoiding them
> any more of a problem than avoiding unwanted pornography on the web.
An interesting analogy, but when I see people saying that my picture of my
cat and computer is great I don't; see that as a compliment to my
photography
but more of a compliment of me seeing a picture and displaying it and
that others will get pleasure from. These pictures aren't in competition
with anyone
or anything else. Yes and someone that tell me I have a cute kitty, I might
well go
and look at their flickr' and I might tell they they have a sweet pussy, but
that isn;t
arse licking it just means they ahve posted a 'nice' piture if their cat
doing whatever.
Or perhaps it's just jealousy that some get annoyed while some get
dozens of comments of how cute their kitty is while others get perhaps
half a dozen critical reviews of their rusted tin picture, which is of
excellent quality
has no real interest for the majority.