Google Plus

[Savageduck]

A few of us (at least three from the photo-groups) have been exploring
the potential of "Google Plus" or "G+" and it appears that it has an
expanding community of pros, photoshop pros, & talented hobbyists.
I am more impressed than I thought I would be, particularly with regard
to privacy issues and restrictions and limiting sharing of images. It
is simple to share an image, or an album with a limited select few in a
"circle" of friends, family, or photogeeks, or have them exposed to the
public. Downloading can be restricted to individual images in an album
or not at all.
It is also easy to exclude, or ignore the obvious pain in the ass.

There is much here to be inspired by and to learn from. Given some of
what I have seen so far has me truly humbled with regard to my ability
as a photographer.
I feel secure enough that I have come out from under the covers on G+
and I am not using my Usenet nom de Guerre, Savageduck there.

So check it out.
< http://www.google.com/intl/en/+/learnmore/ >
<
http://www.colbybrownphotography.com/blog/google-the-survival-guide-for-a-photographers-paradise/
>


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

To
>
add to my look at G+, take a look at some of what can be found there.
< http://www.photoextract.com/plus-extract/2011/9/28 >

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[tony cooper]

I'm not sure what the advantage is to the average amateur photograph.
I don't see any samples by real people.

I do note that the uploaded images are resized at a maximum size of
2048 pixels on the longest side. I upload images at half that
dimension to avoid causing the viewer to scroll. I hope all images
aren't uploaded at that size.

I also note that joining Google+ automatically enrolls you in Picasa
Web Albums and I don't do Picasa. With Lightroom and Bridge, I don't
want anything else trying to control my images.

I don't care for albums or photostreams or whatever you call them. I
prefer linking to one image without taking extra steps. But, that's
me.

I do link to a SmugMug gallery when I send family photos to relatives.
They can view it like a slideshow or one at a time.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[PeterN]

It looks similar in concept to Facebook.
But, some of those images were quite good.


--
Peter

[Savageduck]

In that batch there just what that individual considered his choice for
the top 38 images of Sept. 28.

There are many photo circles, some with shared images and some limited
to that circle. and at all levels, some even posted by "real people".

>
> I do note that the uploaded images are resized at a maximum size of
> 2048 pixels on the longest side. I upload images at half that
> dimension to avoid causing the viewer to scroll. I hope all images
> aren't uploaded at that size.

Images uploaded which are larger than that are downsized and they are
displayed at a uniform size in a viewer which works very well, and
permits the addition of comments. You also have the ability to restrict
the sharing or not.

>
> I also note that joining Google+ automatically enrolls you in Picasa
> Web Albums and I don't do Picasa. With Lightroom and Bridge, I don't
> want anything else trying to control my images.

Well you are more than halfway there with your new gmail address.

Like you I am using LR and Bridge. Picasa was never on my radar.
However I was prepared to explore the possibilities and it seems quite
workable. I would never think of using Picasa for primary storage or
back up, only as a tool for sharing since unless there are some changes
Apple is remove my current method of web distribution with iDisc +
Filechute.
I am also looking at Dropbox which gives me the closest to what I have
now, or Pogoplug where I would have my own "cloud" under my control.

My usual IDisc+FileChute:
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Bugatti-3977A2a.jpg >

Dropbox shared image:
< http://db.tt/f1b4zzu0 >

PogoPlug Information:
< http://www.pogoplug.com/products-pogoplug.html >

I will email a Picasa URL to you as I exist there in all my mundane self.

>
> I don't care for albums or photostreams or whatever you call them. I
> prefer linking to one image without taking extra steps. But, that's
> me.

What extra steps?
Your primary catalog is maintained on your hard drive. You are not
sharing directly from your hard drive, neither am I. To share on line
there will always be some sort of "extra step".

>
> I do link to a SmugMug gallery when I send family photos to relatives.
> They can view it like a slideshow or one at a time.

I do not use any of the image sharing services. When sending images to
friends or family I will either send links to those I care to share
which are stored in the 20GB I have on iDisc , either as individual
images, or web galleries I have produced with LR, or Bridge.

I see I have that same ability with G+ &/or Picasa.

All I am doing is exploring the possibilities with an open mind, and I
recognize the potential. It is certainly no worse than some of the
discussion found here, in some instances far superior, and educational.
So if there are any other than you who would care to explore they
should feel free to do so. There is no more I can do than put this out
there. Of the three photo-groups alumni who have engaged in this test
of G+, two of us are a little more active than the third. If they care
to reveal themselves her they can, I am not going to do that.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

From what I have seen G+ is much less controlling than FB, and lets you
secure your participation better than I have heard FB does.
I have never used FB so I have to rely on the hearsay. That said, I am
quite comfortable with my G+ experience so far, and it adds more to the
dialog for photographers of all levels of competence and expertise than
I have seen in the photo-groups lately.

It is worth exploring if only for want of the novelty of a new experience.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

BTW; noodling around it seems I can also copy an image URL from G+ with
a right click menu, which will give me something such as this:
DNC4396A.jpg


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

Aah! That doesn't work in UseNet as it does in email. I will have to
experiment further.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

Let's try this.

DNC4396A.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

On 2011-09-30 21:28:56 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:

> On 2011-09-30 21:26:40 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:

<<< LE SNIP >>>

>>>
>>> BTW; noodling around it seems I can also copy an image URL from G+ with
>>> a right click menu, which will give me something such as this:
>>> DNC4396A.jpg
>>
>> Aah! That doesn't work in UseNet as it does in email. I will have to
>> experiment further.
>
> Let's try this.
>
> DNC4396A.jpg

Nope!

Next attempt;

<
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-V95occF0Sic/ToJ51h1JjlI/AAAAAAAAAKY/JsZhkp27tFY/s1152/DNC4396A.jpg
>

or
< http://tinyurl.com/42to5u9 >


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[tony cooper]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:59:46 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> I also note that joining Google+ automatically enrolls you in Picasa
>> Web Albums and I don't do Picasa. With Lightroom and Bridge, I don't
>> want anything else trying to control my images.
>
>Well you are more than halfway there with your new gmail address.
>
>Like you I am using LR and Bridge. Picasa was never on my radar.

Doesn't Picasa automatically take over your image files?

>
>My usual IDisc+FileChute:
>< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Bugatti-3977A2a.jpg >
>
>Dropbox shared image:
>< http://db.tt/f1b4zzu0 >
>
>PogoPlug Information:
>< http://www.pogoplug.com/products-pogoplug.html >
>
>I will email a Picasa URL to you as I exist there in all my mundane self.
>
>>
>> I don't care for albums or photostreams or whatever you call them. I
>> prefer linking to one image without taking extra steps. But, that's
>> me.
>
>What extra steps?

All of my photos that I consider shareable with other people are
uploaded to SmugMug and into various galleries by category. There can
be any number of images on my site or within any gallery. There's no
space limit with SmugMug.

I can post a link to an individual photo or a link to a gallery with
many photos or a link to my SmugMug site with all the public
galleries. If I want to show just one image, I link to that image.

The difference you don't see my "photostream" unless I want you to.
No extra step is required to link to just one image or to a group of
images. Just a choice.

I can also set up a "private" gallery that requires a password to
access. I use this for family shots and sent the link and the
password via email.

I also have a gallery that is not password protected, but is not shown
when you open my site. I use this for "work in progress" where I link
to an image and send it to someone for suggestions.

>Your primary catalog is maintained on your hard drive. You are not
>sharing directly from your hard drive, neither am I. To share on line
>there will always be some sort of "extra step".

>All I am doing is exploring the possibilities with an open mind,

I understand. I use Google's gmail now, keep a Google calendar open
on the 2nd monitor, and use Google for search. I'm biased against
Picasa, though. I tried it once years ago and didn't like it.

Guy walks into a bar and sits down. The bartender walks over and asks
him if he wants a beer. The guy says "No thanks, I tried beer once
and didn't like it. Never tried it again."

A little later the bartender goes back and asks the guy if he wants a
mixed drink. The guy says "No thanks, I tried hard liquor once and
didn't like it. Never tried it again."

A little later the bartender goes back and asks the guy if wants a
Coke or something. The guy says "No thanks, I tried a soft drink once
and didn't like it. Never tried it again."

"Milk?" asks the bartender. The guy says "No thanks, I tried milk
once and didn't like it. Never tried it again."

A bit upset with a customer that wasn't buying anything, the bartender
asks the guy why he's in the bar in the first place. The guy says
"I'm waiting for my son. He's going to meet me here."

The bartender says "Only child, I presume".

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

"tony cooper" <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:v0sc87dtmcukf920v...@4ax.com...

> I'm not sure what the advantage is to the average amateur photograph.
> I don't see any samples by real people.

Brand name, number of subscribers, and access control. Beyond that the rest
is just bullshit.

Personally, I'd rather these protocols were handled at a low level instead
of just handing your assets over to yet another monopoly to monetize.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[Savageduck]

On 2011-09-30 21:39:01 -0700, tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> said:

> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:59:46 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>> I also note that joining Google+ automatically enrolls you in Picasa
>>> Web Albums and I don't do Picasa. With Lightroom and Bridge, I don't
>>> want anything else trying to control my images.
>>
>> Well you are more than halfway there with your new gmail address.
>>
>> Like you I am using LR and Bridge. Picasa was never on my radar.
>
> Doesn't Picasa automatically take over your image files?

No!
You have to actively upload each image file to Picasa or G+.

Yup! I looked at Picasa some years ago with somebody who was using it
for editing, and I didn't like that. The current version of Picasa Web
Albums and G+ seem far removed from that earlier editing software.

>
> Guy walks into a bar and sits down. The bartender walks over and asks
> him if he wants a beer. The guy says "No thanks, I tried beer once
> and didn't like it. Never tried it again."
>
> A little later the bartender goes back and asks the guy if he wants a
> mixed drink. The guy says "No thanks, I tried hard liquor once and
> didn't like it. Never tried it again."
>
> A little later the bartender goes back and asks the guy if wants a
> Coke or something. The guy says "No thanks, I tried a soft drink once
> and didn't like it. Never tried it again."
>
> "Milk?" asks the bartender. The guy says "No thanks, I tried milk
> once and didn't like it. Never tried it again."
>
> A bit upset with a customer that wasn't buying anything, the bartender
> asks the guy why he's in the bar in the first place. The guy says
> "I'm waiting for my son. He's going to meet me here."
>
> The bartender says "Only child, I presume".

He! He!



--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Paul Furman]

tony cooper wrote:
> All of my photos that I consider shareable with other people are
> uploaded to SmugMug and into various galleries by category. There can
> be any number of images on my site or within any gallery. There's no
> space limit with SmugMug.
>
> I can post a link to an individual photo or a link to a gallery with
> many photos or a link to my SmugMug site with all the public
> galleries. If I want to show just one image, I link to that image.
>
> The difference you don't see my "photostream" unless I want you to.
> No extra step is required to link to just one image or to a group of
> images. Just a choice.
>
> I can also set up a "private" gallery that requires a password to
> access. I use this for family shots and sent the link and the
> password via email.
>
> I also have a gallery that is not password protected, but is not shown
> when you open my site. I use this for "work in progress" where I link
> to an image and send it to someone for suggestions.

I'm pretty sure all this is possible with G+, or close, though people
will need to be signed up to get special permission stuff, I'm vouching
for the value of signing up. It's quite well executed and a lot of good
contributors up there. I never used picassa, I'm heavily invested in
flickr. I wouldn't bother if I didn't think it's good.

Here's an image in an album that I've only shared with one person, and
yes it looks like it can be shared as an individual image link:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-fZ9qlCFjmbw/ToOrk6EsfpI/AAAAAAAAAQg/QeAYANWYSDk/s885/benches1.jpg
Now that's not as secure as a password protected directory but it's
pretty useful. The way G+ works, you can share selectively but then,
whoever you share it with can then share it our again and make it
public, so it's not a place for top secret stuff, just a way to focus
social networking.

A recent feature they rolled out is the ability to share your circles of
contacts, so people have been building lists of photogs of various
persuasions and you can click on that to create those circles for yourself.

I've started a California native plant circle and began with invites
from a computer tech circle of folks who I know from another newsgroup,
I copied someone's filmmaker circle since I do a little time lapse video
and I expect I'll build a mandolin circle; something I'm learning. I
made a circle for a favorite musician as a 'fan club' type circle so I
can share some obscure stuff about that artist with them without
annoying my computer geek friends. If one of them turns out to like that
musician and photography, I'll add them to those circles too. Hovering
over a person's name, I can see what circles I've got them in, if I
forgot who they are.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:96KdnZEQnaMNrxrT...@giganews.com...

> A recent feature they rolled out is the ability to share your circles of
> contacts, so people have been building lists of photogs of various
> persuasions and you can click on that to create those circles for
> yourself.

Google is also an ad company and games like this are what they use to suck
people in so they can own your ass. It's not as obvious as a Flash game or
stupid kudos points but it's the same thing. Get's 'em every time...

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[Savageduck]

On 2011-10-01 08:38:12 -0700, "Charles E. Hardwidge"

I have yet to see a single ad on either Google Plus (G+) or the Picasa
Web Galleries. There has been some reported SPAM on G+, and that has
been shot down. I have not personally seen any.
So without exploring this yourself, tell us how it is going to get us.

...and it doesn't bother me one way or another who does, or does not
choose to use this concept. It just seems good enough at this stage to
let others see for themselves. So far the content just for
photographers is far superior to anything currently found in the
photo-newsgroups.

This is not the same as the Google search page. It is certainly a
competitor of FB, but there is a higher degree of user control. So far
this skeptical old fart is impressed.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[tony cooper]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:58:40 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:


>...and it doesn't bother me one way or another who does, or does not
>choose to use this concept. It just seems good enough at this stage to
>let others see for themselves.

I think the discussion is a good thing. It allows others to know
about a product that might interest them.

>So far the content just for
>photographers is far superior to anything currently found in the
>photo-newsgroups.

Far superior, though? That's like saying a Greyhound bus is far
superior to Volkswagen because you can transport more people on it.
That assumes that there is always a need to transport a lot of people.

What I've seen is that G+ allows you to link to a single image or link
to a group of images. My system, SmugMug, allows me to do the same
thing. I don't see a difference in image size or quality. No ads in
either. Advantage: a tie.

In the photo link you sent me (bicycle race), I can open your
"photostream" to the other pix and see a map pin for the location. I
have that option if I link to a gallery, but the option is denied if I
link to an image. I like that ability to choose what I put out there.
Advantage: SmugMug.

G+ evidently has extensive social sharing benefits with some
selectivity, but - like STDs - you don't know who your sharing partner
is sharing with. Advantage: G+ if you like the idea of social
sharing.

>This is not the same as the Google search page. It is certainly a
>competitor of FB, but there is a higher degree of user control. So far
>this skeptical old fart is impressed.

Yes, but you are looking for a replacement for something that is going
to be taken away.

[PeterN]

Back to the topic, I am looking for helpful critique on my images. Here,
there is some, but I would like more input. When my image totally sucks,
I wold like help in understanding why, so I can try to correct it next
time out.

--
Peter

[tony cooper]

I forgot a rather important point: SmugMug costs $40 per year. G+ is
free. Advantage: G+.

[tony cooper]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 14:01:53 -0400, PeterN
<pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

>Back to the topic, I am looking for helpful critique on my images. Here,
>there is some, but I would like more input. When my image totally sucks,
>I wold like help in understanding why, so I can try to correct it next
>time out.

I forget which one, but one of the Duck's links showed some images
with comments. They were not critiques, though. Just "Great
photograph. Thanks for sharing.". Similar to Flickr without the
awards, plaques, hosannas, and merit badges.

You can get good critiques in the DigitalGrin < http://www.dgrin.com/
> forums if you specifically request comments, but 80% of the
responses will be fluff. A few regulars there are quite helpful and
offer good suggestions. If you don't put "C&C wanted", you get fluff.

A good critique site where no one is hesitant about stepping on toes
would be great. You don't learn from fluff.

[Savageduck]

On 2011-10-01 14:12:48 -0700, tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> said:

> On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 14:01:53 -0400, PeterN
> <pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Back to the topic, I am looking for helpful critique on my images. Here,
>> there is some, but I would like more input. When my image totally sucks,
>> I wold like help in understanding why, so I can try to correct it next
>> time out.
>
> I forget which one, but one of the Duck's links showed some images
> with comments. They were not critiques, though. Just "Great
> photograph. Thanks for sharing.". Similar to Flickr without the
> awards, plaques, hosannas, and merit badges.

...and that is all avoidable.

>
> You can get good critiques in the DigitalGrin < http://www.dgrin.com/
>> forums if you specifically request comments, but 80% of the
> responses will be fluff. A few regulars there are quite helpful and
> offer good suggestions. If you don't put "C&C wanted", you get fluff.
>
> A good critique site where no one is hesitant about stepping on toes
> would be great. You don't learn from fluff.

The fluffers can be easily "blocked" or "ignored" in G+ after a quick
check to see what level of banishment you care to apply.

It is a matter of how you set up sharing within specific circles. Paul
F has for example created a circle titled "rec35mmshootin" where
images/albums shared to those in that circle can be limited to that
circle only. They can have re-sharing disallowed, and have downloading
not permitted. There are currently 16 in my edition of that circle. Any
images posted there with a tag in the dialog of "#rec35mmshootin"
should anticipate to receive some sort of C/C or deserving praise.

Obviously, if you just share an image or album unlimited to the public,
even if you request C/C specifically the fluff will arrive.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

...and there are ways of getting that in G+, it is never guaranteed
that you will actually get true C/C from the participants in the
photo-groups. Sometimes you get opinion and statements of personal
taste, which have little to do with constructive criticism, or sincere
advice on how to improve an image you and all viewers agree totally
sucks.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

On 2011-10-01 10:20:21 -0700, tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> said:

> On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:58:40 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>
>> ...and it doesn't bother me one way or another who does, or does not
>> choose to use this concept. It just seems good enough at this stage to
>> let others see for themselves.
>
> I think the discussion is a good thing. It allows others to know
> about a product that might interest them.
>
>> So far the content just for
>> photographers is far superior to anything currently found in the
>> photo-newsgroups.
>
> Far superior, though? That's like saying a Greyhound bus is far
> superior to Volkswagen because you can transport more people on it.
> That assumes that there is always a need to transport a lot of people.

Other than the ongoing contributions to the SI and those who actually
comment on them, we only have a handful of genuine requests for C/C in
the photo-groups

>
> What I've seen is that G+ allows you to link to a single image or link
> to a group of images. My system, SmugMug, allows me to do the same
> thing. I don't see a difference in image size or quality. No ads in
> either. Advantage: a tie.
>
> In the photo link you sent me (bicycle race), I can open your
> "photostream" to the other pix and see a map pin for the location. I
> have that option if I link to a gallery, but the option is denied if I
> link to an image. I like that ability to choose what I put out there.
> Advantage: SmugMug.

Consider that came out of Picasa Web Galleries unrestricted, not G+
since you are not currently using G+.

>
> G+ evidently has extensive social sharing benefits with some
> selectivity, but - like STDs - you don't know who your sharing partner
> is sharing with. Advantage: G+ if you like the idea of social
> sharing.

...and in the same way some of us choose to filter certain individuals
from discussion in the photo-groups, those with obvious social
afflictions can be excluded from your personal G+ stream. That includes
fluffers who are locked into constant gush mode.

>
>> This is not the same as the Google search page. It is certainly a
>> competitor of FB, but there is a higher degree of user control. So far
>> this skeptical old fart is impressed.
>
> Yes, but you are looking for a replacement for something that is going
> to be taken away.

...and that saddens me. I hadn't even thought of G+ until Apple made
the iCloud announcement, dooming the only part of iDisc I use, to
oblivion at the end of June 2012.

Dropbox continues to look like my working solution for July 2012.
G+ may well get more of my attention than the photo-groups.

For sending truly big files up to 2GB via email, a great solution is
wetransfer.com
< https://www.wetransfer.com/ >

Their free service will permit transfer of up to 2GB at a time, and
they retain the URL shared to that email address 2 weeks, after which
it is removed from their server. Once the recipient, or each of
multiple recipients have received the file, you are sent a confirmation
of receipt email.
Their pay option has longer retention and various other options.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

[PeterN]

On 10/1/2011 5:12 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 14:01:53 -0400, PeterN
> <pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Back to the topic, I am looking for helpful critique on my images. Here,
>> there is some, but I would like more input. When my image totally sucks,
>> I wold like help in understanding why, so I can try to correct it next
>> time out.
>
> I forget which one, but one of the Duck's links showed some images
> with comments. They were not critiques, though. Just "Great
> photograph. Thanks for sharing.". Similar to Flickr without the
> awards, plaques, hosannas, and merit badges.
>
> You can get good critiques in the DigitalGrin< http://www.dgrin.com/
>> forums if you specifically request comments, but 80% of the
> responses will be fluff. A few regulars there are quite helpful and
> offer good suggestions. If you don't put "C&C wanted", you get fluff.
>

Thanks, I will look there.

> A good critique site where no one is hesitant about stepping on toes
> would be great. You don't learn from fluff.
>
>

Yup! I don't really want to bother my younger daughter, who is my
severest critic. She works about 75-80 hrs per week and really needs
time for herself. Trust me, she doesn't hold back, or worry about saying
it nicely. Her comments are usually right.

We get good critiques at camera club, but they are strongly biased
towards CC "standards."

This year our parent organization is trying something new. A creative
category. the only limitation is that the image must be based on a
photograph. It cannot be pure digital artwork.
Nobody has defined the difference between the new category and what is
acceptable now. There is no change in regular submissions.





--
Peter

[Paul Furman]

tony cooper wrote:

> Savageduck wrote:
>
>> ...and it doesn't bother me one way or another who does, or does not
>> choose to use this concept. It just seems good enough at this stage to
>> let others see for themselves.
>
> I think the discussion is a good thing. It allows others to know
> about a product that might interest them.
>
>> So far the content just for
>> photographers is far superior to anything currently found in the
>> photo-newsgroups.
>
> Far superior, though? That's like saying a Greyhound bus is far
> superior to Volkswagen because you can transport more people on it.
> That assumes that there is always a need to transport a lot of people.
>
> What I've seen is that G+ allows you to link to a single image or link
> to a group of images. My system, SmugMug, allows me to do the same
> thing. I don't see a difference in image size or quality. No ads in
> either. Advantage: a tie.
>
> In the photo link you sent me (bicycle race), I can open your
> "photostream" to the other pix and see a map pin for the location. I
> have that option if I link to a gallery, but the option is denied if I
> link to an image. I like that ability to choose what I put out there.
> Advantage: SmugMug.

Advantage:G+ (unless I misunderstand your comment).

> G+ evidently has extensive social sharing benefits with some
> selectivity, but - like STDs - you don't know who your sharing partner
> is sharing with. Advantage: G+ if you like the idea of social
> sharing.

That's a good way of explaining how secure the limited sharing is.
Not very secure. Similar to passing on gossip to a select group.

>> This is not the same as the Google search page. It is certainly a
>> competitor of FB, but there is a higher degree of user control. So far
>> this skeptical old fart is impressed.
>
> Yes, but you are looking for a replacement for something that is going
> to be taken away.

What is going to be taken away? Facebook?

The ideal direction for these types of web sites is a more open platform
with a standard format/vocabulary of contacts, relationships files and
discussion threads. For example, I would like to be able to share my
flickr images on G+ full size or close but now it only provides
something like a 300 pixel thumbnail and you have to jump out to flickr
to see more. Flickr's API is not creating this restriction. G+ like any
web site will allow embedded youtube videos.

I would also like to be able to connect with people I know from flickr,
youtube and facebook on G+. That way these sites don't own you, they are
just competing on even ground for the elegance and value of their platform.

That can sort of be done in G+ using circles. I could create a circle
called rec.photo.digital and track down all you guys to put in there so
I could then filter for shared material from that group, and just by
putting that text: "rec.photo.digital" or "alt.photography" in my
shares, you could search for relevant discussions or photos. That last
part is sort of a makeshift way people have created daily themed
photography participation pools similar to the "shootin" on these groups.

See if this link works:
https://plus.google.com/s/Photography?hl=en

[Savageduck]

Tony was referring to my impending loss of iDisc, which in combination
with FileChute, I use for getting my images, web galleries, and files
out there. With the advent of iCloud, Apple is killing off the two
parts of iDisc I use, so among other things I am looking for a suitable
replacement. For me G+ might be a part of that, but not all.

>
> The ideal direction for these types of web sites is a more open
> platform with a standard format/vocabulary of contacts, relationships
> files and discussion threads. For example, I would like to be able to
> share my flickr images on G+ full size or close but now it only
> provides something like a 300 pixel thumbnail and you have to jump out
> to flickr to see more. Flickr's API is not creating this restriction.
> G+ like any web site will allow embedded youtube videos.
>
> I would also like to be able to connect with people I know from flickr,
> youtube and facebook on G+. That way these sites don't own you, they
> are just competing on even ground for the elegance and value of their
> platform.
>
> That can sort of be done in G+ using circles. I could create a circle
> called rec.photo.digital and track down all you guys to put in there so
> I could then filter for shared material from that group, and just by
> putting that text: "rec.photo.digital" or "alt.photography" in my
> shares, you could search for relevant discussions or photos. That last
> part is sort of a makeshift way people have created daily themed
> photography participation pools similar to the "shootin" on these
> groups.
>
> See if this link works:
> https://plus.google.com/s/Photography?hl=en

I was interested to find Dave Cross's (He is one of the Photoshop Guys
with Kelby)comment;
"Warning: Rant ahead
I've been really enjoying the G+ photography community, but I've
started noticing something lately that worries me a bit. Several times
in the past week photographs have been posted - including by some
well-known/heavily circled photographers that were, well, mediocre
IMHO. One in particular looked like a iPhone photo snapped on a foggy
morning. And yet the photos got like 80 or more comments like "Cool!"
"Awesome" and "Amazing!". Really?
What worries me is two things:
1. People are commenting for the sake of commenting, and/or giving
positive comment because of who it is
2. One word comments. As a photographer, as nice as it is to read
"Amazing", WHY did it amaze you? The colors? The composition? The
subject? If you're going to take the time to add a comment, why not
expand a bit and tell everyone what it is that makes you feel the way
you do about the photo?

And if someone posts a photo that, let's face it, is "okay" (or worse
that okay), please don't feel compelled to be overly complimentary
because of who took the photo.
end of rant.
(feel free to leave comments like "amazing post". just kidding. Have a
happy Friday)"


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Paul Furman]

Savageduck wrote:
> tony cooper said:

>> PeterN wrote:
>>
>>> Back to the topic, I am looking for helpful critique on my images. Here,
>>> there is some, but I would like more input. When my image totally sucks,
>>> I wold like help in understanding why, so I can try to correct it next
>>> time out.
>>
>> I forget which one, but one of the Duck's links showed some images
>> with comments. They were not critiques, though. Just "Great
>> photograph. Thanks for sharing.". Similar to Flickr without the
>> awards, plaques, hosannas, and merit badges.
>
> ...and that is all avoidable.
>
>> You can get good critiques in the DigitalGrin < http://www.dgrin.com/
>>> forums if you specifically request comments, but 80% of the
>> responses will be fluff. A few regulars there are quite helpful and
>> offer good suggestions. If you don't put "C&C wanted", you get fluff.
>>
>> A good critique site where no one is hesitant about stepping on toes
>> would be great. You don't learn from fluff.
>
> The fluffers can be easily "blocked" or "ignored" in G+ after a quick
> check to see what level of banishment you care to apply.

I'm not sure you can be blocked completely but here's the way it could
be done in G+:

'Tag' your images or in the text where you 'share' them with the text:
"#photocrit". Then create a circle called "photocrit" and advertise your
intent to your photography circles. You probably want to post the ground
rules somewhere like discouraging flame wars, etc and explaining what
I'm explaining here.

Then when people reply showing interest, you add them to your photocrit
circle and invite them to do the same.

When you have a photo you want critiqued, share it with the photocrit
circle. You might also want to share it with your family but do that as
a separate "share" so Aunt Millie doesn't get offended. Critiques are
touchy and shouldn't be thrown out in the general public IMO you'd get
people freaking out and flame wars or just hurt feelings. With this
proposal, the tag #photocrit signals that the post is only shared with
that circle and that's the intent.

You can block people, I heard but haven't needed to. But the main thing
you would do there is remove them from your circles. If they stumbled
upon a second hand share of your work and commented there, I don't think
you can stop that and it would be weird if blocking just removed their
comments from your view but left other people's replies. I think you get
notified if someone shares one of your shares, since you might not
necessarily be in the sharer's circles if they didn't think to do that.


OK, now I finish reading your message and see I've repeated what you
said... a little more general and with more detail.

> It is a matter of how you set up sharing within specific circles. Paul F
> has for example created a circle titled "rec35mmshootin" where
> images/albums shared to those in that circle can be limited to that
> circle only. They can have re-sharing disallowed, and have downloading
> not permitted. There are currently 16 in my edition of that circle.

I've only got 3 including myself! I just did that one as a test. Feel
free to share your circle with me though. I haven't actually created the
#photocrit circle described above.

[Savageduck]

I am not pulling the trigger on blocking just yet, though I was
compelled to to block an evangelizing "God fearing" type who had
nothing to say but spread the word.

For others who show up as having seen something of mine, I check their
profile and some of their other postings before "adding back", so far
most seem benign without "trollish" intent. I just move on.

The G+ support page has some more concise information;
<
http://www.google.com/support/plus/bin/static.py?page=guide.cs&guide=1347964&topic=1358051&answer=1047934
>

and

<
http://www.google.com/support/plus/bin/static.py?page=guide.cs&guide=1347964&topic=1358057&answer=1053543

>

>
>
> OK, now I finish reading your message and see I've repeated what you
> said... a little more general and with more detail.

Yup! I think it can be done, but it might need some working out.
BTW: You might find this useful;
<
http://www.colbybrownphotography.com/blog/google-the-survival-guide-for-a-photographers-paradise/#uploading
>

Check "Block vs Ignore"

>
>> It is a matter of how you set up sharing within specific circles. Paul F
>> has for example created a circle titled "rec35mmshootin" where
>> images/albums shared to those in that circle can be limited to that
>> circle only. They can have re-sharing disallowed, and have downloading
>> not permitted. There are currently 16 in my edition of that circle.
>
> I've only got 3 including myself! I just did that one as a test. Feel
> free to share your circle with me though. I haven't actually created
> the #photocrit circle described above.

Damn! when it got to me there were more than 3, all with good
photography profiles and folks I had no idea existed beyond the 3
photo-group alumni.

I have made additional circles some of which have individuals in
common. So I currently have your "rec35mmshootin" (16) along with my
"Photogeeks"(8), "General Photography"(7), "NAPP" (6)for the Photoshop
LR folks, "Tech Geeks"(3), and my "Following"(0) circle is very empty.

>
>> Any
>> images posted there with a tag in the dialog of "#rec35mmshootin" should
>> anticipate to receive some sort of C/C or deserving praise.
>>
>> Obviously, if you just share an image or album unlimited to the public,
>> even if you request C/C specifically the fluff will arrive.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Paul Furman]

Savageduck wrote:

Yeah, the flickr-effect... but the way I see that is you just give
positive comments on stuff you like and the person (or yourself) will
have lots of photos that don't get comments, so those are the ones
lacking. But the other thing that happens on flickr is people comment
just to get people to look at their stuff, which can be pretty lame... I
play the game, it's friendly, I'll see someone commented on one of my
photos, then click to see what they've got and post a compliment on one
that I like of theirs. That kind of environment, if you say anything
critical, people will just delete your comments, be offended and walk
away... it simply isn't welcome. G+ is a lot like that too.

[Savageduck]

Yup! I am not, and never have been a flickr user.
It seems constructive criticism in G+ is only going to work in a closed
circle with limited sharing and locked albums.

Sad but true. I guess some folks are always going to reject any comment
they might perceive as pissing on their pet project. Especially in a
World of blanket approval.
I for one know that even my best work can benefit in some way from a
suggestion I had never thought of.

What truly impresses me is the demonstration of photographic talent I
have seen in G+. Much of it far and above anything I have been able to
produce, so for now I look to some of those folks as a source of
inspiration. Just for that I think it would be worth while for many in
the photo-groups to explore G+ even if they chose to not share anything.

For now I will continue to explore G+ and get what I can from it, and I
will probably use it for sharing to some tight circles, with an
occasional public share, or comment.

So far It looks as though I will use DropBox once I lose iDisc, since
iCloud is not going to do what that does for me now.
DropBox gives me 2GB of storage free, and 50GB for $99. I paid $99 for
20GB of iDisc space.

Here is a DropBox file URL:
< http://db.tt/t5rxmFNC >


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[tony cooper]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 15:23:40 -0700, Savageduck

<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2011-10-01 10:20:21 -0700, tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:58:40 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> ...and it doesn't bother me one way or another who does, or does not
>>> choose to use this concept. It just seems good enough at this stage to
>>> let others see for themselves.
>>
>> I think the discussion is a good thing. It allows others to know
>> about a product that might interest them.
>>
>>> So far the content just for
>>> photographers is far superior to anything currently found in the
>>> photo-newsgroups.
>>
>> Far superior, though? That's like saying a Greyhound bus is far
>> superior to Volkswagen because you can transport more people on it.
>> That assumes that there is always a need to transport a lot of people.
>
>Other than the ongoing contributions to the SI and those who actually
>comment on them, we only have a handful of genuine requests for C/C in
>the photo-groups

I think I misunderstood you. You mean far superior as far as photos
linked to in the newsgroups? Well, sure, but - except for the SI -
there's no impetus to link to photos in the newsgroup. That's not
much of a comparison.

We get people who pop in, drop off a few links, and never participate
otherwise. Like the guy with the Fish and Chips shot.

I thought you meant far superior to the other ways of doing the same
thing that others here in the newsgroup use.

>>
>> What I've seen is that G+ allows you to link to a single image or link
>> to a group of images. My system, SmugMug, allows me to do the same
>> thing. I don't see a difference in image size or quality. No ads in
>> either. Advantage: a tie.
>>
>> In the photo link you sent me (bicycle race), I can open your
>> "photostream" to the other pix and see a map pin for the location. I
>> have that option if I link to a gallery, but the option is denied if I
>> link to an image. I like that ability to choose what I put out there.
>> Advantage: SmugMug.
>
>Consider that came out of Picasa Web Galleries unrestricted, not G+
>since you are not currently using G+.

Sure, but not everyone is going to use G+.

>
>>
>> G+ evidently has extensive social sharing benefits with some
>> selectivity, but - like STDs - you don't know who your sharing partner
>> is sharing with. Advantage: G+ if you like the idea of social
>> sharing.
>
>...and in the same way some of us choose to filter certain individuals
>from discussion in the photo-groups, those with obvious social
>afflictions can be excluded from your personal G+ stream. That includes
>fluffers who are locked into constant gush mode.

G+ isn't affiliated with the Church of Scientology or the Hare
Krishnas, is it? You're beginning to sound a little culty. I guess
it's that Mac gene.

[tony cooper]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 19:25:13 -0400, PeterN
<pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

>This year our parent organization is trying something new. A creative
>category. the only limitation is that the image must be based on a
>photograph. It cannot be pure digital artwork.
>Nobody has defined the difference between the new category and what is
>acceptable now. There is no change in regular submissions.

We've had "Creative" for a while now. The rule is that any image that
combines two or more images must be entered in creative. Take the sky
from one image and drop in it another image, and you have a Creative
entry. Here's the Official description:

"Creative – An image, which is a composite of more than one unique
image, must be entered in this category. This does NOT include
bracketed images taken for High Dynamic range (HDR) purposes as these
images differ only by exposure and are not unique. However, any other
image that the photographer deems “creative” may also be entered into
this category."

Sadly, the "Creative" category is routinely abused. There have been
fewer entries in Creative than in Color, so people have been entering
regular photos in Creative just to get better odds of placing first.

Also, we can submit two images per month, but only one image per
category. So, if a person has two good color shots, one goes in Color
and one goes in Creative. (Mono is our third category)

I'd rather see Creative be limited to images that either combine two
or more images or are clearly manipulated...like an abstract.

[tony cooper]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 17:40:57 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>
>>> ...and it doesn't bother me one way or another who does, or does not
>>> choose to use this concept. It just seems good enough at this stage to
>>> let others see for themselves.
>>
>> I think the discussion is a good thing. It allows others to know
>> about a product that might interest them.
>>
>>> So far the content just for
>>> photographers is far superior to anything currently found in the
>>> photo-newsgroups.
>>
>> Far superior, though? That's like saying a Greyhound bus is far
>> superior to Volkswagen because you can transport more people on it.
>> That assumes that there is always a need to transport a lot of people.
>>
>> What I've seen is that G+ allows you to link to a single image or link
>> to a group of images. My system, SmugMug, allows me to do the same
>> thing. I don't see a difference in image size or quality. No ads in
>> either. Advantage: a tie.
>>
>> In the photo link you sent me (bicycle race), I can open your
>> "photostream" to the other pix and see a map pin for the location. I
>> have that option if I link to a gallery, but the option is denied if I
>> link to an image. I like that ability to choose what I put out there.
>> Advantage: SmugMug.
>
>Advantage:G+ (unless I misunderstand your comment).

I see giving access to the "photostream" when any single image is
linked to as a disadvantage. If you consider my "photostream" to be
all the images that I've put up on SmugMug, then I don't want to
automatically give access to anyone to see all of them when I link to
a specific image.

I do have the ability to make that link to the gallery in which the
image is located, or to my entire photo site, so I can have it either
way. I consider that an advantage.

>> Yes, but you are looking for a replacement for something that is going
>> to be taken away.
>
>What is going to be taken away? Facebook?

Something the Mac users have. I dunno. They misplaced a cloud or
something. Ask the Duck.

>That can sort of be done in G+ using circles. I could create a circle
>called rec.photo.digital and track down all you guys to put in there so
>I could then filter for shared material from that group, and just by
>putting that text: "rec.photo.digital" or "alt.photography" in my
>shares, you could search for relevant discussions or photos. That last
>part is sort of a makeshift way people have created daily themed
>photography participation pools similar to the "shootin" on these groups.

How does a stranger ever get in? Some guy who is a good photographer,
good at critiquing others, and takes critiques reasonably, but you
don't know him and no one in your circles know him.

>See if this link works:
>https://plus.google.com/s/Photography?hl=en

It works.

DigitalGrin has a similar thing going. The "DGrin Challenges"
continually offer themed "challenges" where images are submitted and
commented on. There are usually several different challenges going on
at the same time.

With DigitalGrin, though, anyone can enter and/or comment. There's no
"circle" aspect.

[Savageduck]

Certainly not. I have never been, and I am not now, a particular fan of
Picasa, but I am not above exploring the combined potential of G+ &
Picasa., and letting others here know there is an alternative which
might work for them.

It only makes sense to use G+ if those you share with regularly are
also G+ users and are part of a secure limited sharing circle. I am
sure I will have a few friends & family who will make use of G+, and we
will be able to share within those closed circles.
Personally I have always preferred iDisc and will in all likelihood use
DropBox or PogoPlug for the bulk of my casual postings in the future.
You know so of the goofy noodlings I come up with from time to time,
such as comparison shots,
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Sharon-Leopard-comp_01.jpg >
which I would never consider posting on G+ or Picasa Web Galleries.

>>
>>>
>>> G+ evidently has extensive social sharing benefits with some
>>> selectivity, but - like STDs - you don't know who your sharing partner
>>> is sharing with. Advantage: G+ if you like the idea of social
>>> sharing.
>>
>> ...and in the same way some of us choose to filter certain individuals
>> from discussion in the photo-groups, those with obvious social
>> afflictions can be excluded from your personal G+ stream. That includes
>> fluffers who are locked into constant gush mode.
>
> G+ isn't affiliated with the Church of Scientology or the Hare
> Krishnas, is it? You're beginning to sound a little culty. I guess
> it's that Mac gene.

How on Earth did you end up coming to that conclusion?
I remain blissfully cult free. However I reserve the right to examine
the "Cult of G+".

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[tony cooper]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 19:58:29 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>Yeah, the flickr-effect... but the way I see that is you just give
>positive comments on stuff you like and the person (or yourself) will
>have lots of photos that don't get comments, so those are the ones
>lacking. But the other thing that happens on flickr is people comment
>just to get people to look at their stuff, which can be pretty lame... I
>play the game, it's friendly, I'll see someone commented on one of my
>photos, then click to see what they've got and post a compliment on one
>that I like of theirs. That kind of environment, if you say anything
>critical, people will just delete your comments, be offended and walk
>away... it simply isn't welcome. G+ is a lot like that too.

I cannot fathom objecting to a critical critique and then blocking the
person who made it. Bruce has labeled every photograph I've ever
submitted to the Shoot-In as "crap" or worse, and I've never blocked
him.

I don't always agree with my critics, but I certainly don't get
offended. I feel they just see something I don't see or like
something I don't like.

The only thing that really bothers me about critiques is when someone
makes a suggestion that is patently impossible. Had I been around
then, and taken a photo, I can imagine someone saying: "Good photo of
the Hindenburg disaster, but you should have shot it in the morning
light."

(The Hindenburg caught fire at 7:25 PM)

[Savageduck]

On 2011-10-01 20:53:07 -0700, tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> said:

> On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 19:25:13 -0400, PeterN
> <pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> This year our parent organization is trying something new. A creative
>> category. the only limitation is that the image must be based on a
>> photograph. It cannot be pure digital artwork.
>> Nobody has defined the difference between the new category and what is
>> acceptable now. There is no change in regular submissions.
>
> We've had "Creative" for a while now. The rule is that any image that
> combines two or more images must be entered in creative. Take the sky
> from one image and drop in it another image, and you have a Creative
> entry. Here's the Official description:
>
> "Creative – An image, which is a composite of more than one unique
> image, must be entered in this category. This does NOT include
> bracketed images taken for High Dynamic range (HDR) purposes as these
> images differ only by exposure and are not unique. However, any other
> image that the photographer deems “creative” may also be entered into
> this category."

That is odd since HDR is ultimately more than just a combination of
exposures and each is a creative interpretation of the scene. It has
moved beyond the initial bad rap from the over processed images which
were pretty awful and disturbing into a tool for creativity.
I give you:
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-MB62-comp.jpg >
and/or
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/7858-Comp-1w.jpg >

>
> Sadly, the "Creative" category is routinely abused. There have been
> fewer entries in Creative than in Color, so people have been entering
> regular photos in Creative just to get better odds of placing first.
>
> Also, we can submit two images per month, but only one image per
> category. So, if a person has two good color shots, one goes in Color
> and one goes in Creative. (Mono is our third category)
>
> I'd rather see Creative be limited to images that either combine two
> or more images or are clearly manipulated...like an abstract.

Agreed, but why wouldn't B&W (Mono)be considered creative?

As a matter of fact it is all creative, since the image wouldn't exist
without the creative thought of the photographer.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

On 2011-10-01 21:21:57 -0700, tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> said:

> On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 19:58:29 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, the flickr-effect... but the way I see that is you just give
>> positive comments on stuff you like and the person (or yourself) will
>> have lots of photos that don't get comments, so those are the ones
>> lacking. But the other thing that happens on flickr is people comment
>> just to get people to look at their stuff, which can be pretty lame... I
>> play the game, it's friendly, I'll see someone commented on one of my
>> photos, then click to see what they've got and post a compliment on one
>> that I like of theirs. That kind of environment, if you say anything
>> critical, people will just delete your comments, be offended and walk
>> away... it simply isn't welcome. G+ is a lot like that too.
>
> I cannot fathom objecting to a critical critique and then blocking the
> person who made it. Bruce has labeled every photograph I've ever
> submitted to the Shoot-In as "crap" or worse, and I've never blocked
> him.

Bruce has issued a blanket condemnation of all the SI work, and he
would probably also issue blanket condemnations of work in any forum.
However there are time when folks presenting work from quality
portfolios can only be admired for their work and then the criticism
amounts to a difference in taste or plain jealousy.
You might not like HDR, but the talent of photographers such as Trey
Ratcliff cannot be denied.
< http://www.stuckincustoms.com/ >

...and then there are folks such as Lotus Carroll, Trout Monfalco, Gary
Beilby, and many others, all photographers I am sure bruce would not
care to be compared with.
< http://500px.com/lotuscarroll >
< http://galleries.troutmonfalco.com/ >
< http://beilby.com/photogallery.php >

>
> I don't always agree with my critics, but I certainly don't get
> offended. I feel they just see something I don't see or like
> something I don't like.

I guess we have a similar philosophy on that point. There are times I
will consider a sincerely offered constructive criticism and attempt
some changes. There are time I will defend my work.

>
> The only thing that really bothers me about critiques is when someone
> makes a suggestion that is patently impossible. Had I been around
> then, and taken a photo, I can imagine someone saying: "Good photo of
> the Hindenburg disaster, but you should have shot it in the morning
> light."
>
> (The Hindenburg caught fire at 7:25 PM)

;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[tony cooper]

It always was a tool, and it's still one used badly by most.

I have yet to see an HDR image that could not have been processed as a
regular image and been as good as the HDR image. The "Irene M" is a
nice image, but you could make the one on the left equally nice
without employing HDR. I don't think I've *ever* seen the sky seem
more interesting when treated with HDR as compared to not.

>>
>> Sadly, the "Creative" category is routinely abused. There have been
>> fewer entries in Creative than in Color, so people have been entering
>> regular photos in Creative just to get better odds of placing first.
>>
>> Also, we can submit two images per month, but only one image per
>> category. So, if a person has two good color shots, one goes in Color
>> and one goes in Creative. (Mono is our third category)
>>
>> I'd rather see Creative be limited to images that either combine two
>> or more images or are clearly manipulated...like an abstract.
>
>Agreed, but why wouldn't B&W (Mono)be considered creative?

Mono, in our rules, means "one color". Sepia images go in Mono.
Black and white is one color: black. Mono hangs in as a separate
category because it existed long before we were digitally manipulating
images.

>As a matter of fact it is all creative, since the image wouldn't exist
>without the creative thought of the photographer.

The creative you refer to above is the adjective use. "Creative" in
the club's rules is a noun: a category, a "thing" as in "person,
place, or thing".

[Paul Furman]

Flickr is awesome. Not for the sparkly icon comments (those get deleted)
but because it's a very sophisticated program for cataloging annotating,
sharing and searching photos. I've been able to develop 'circles' of
photogs on there which are comparable to what G+ offers and it's very
interesting to see what gets views, through various search engines, etc.
That's pretty valuable critiquing.

G+ is pretty cool, and I like it but I doubt it'll be the grand
repository of my archive that flickr has become. As it stands, I think
I'll share select photos on G+ and flickr just gets everything with any
potential. Really weird crappy stuff that I want to post for other
reasons goes elsewhere but flickr gets all 237 shots from my latest
adventure and G+ will get just 3 or 4 of those.

[Savageduck]

Possibly, but then the result would have been distinctly different. It
is all a matter of interpretation and the result derived through
processing. The HDR result is never going to be the equivalent of a
differently processed single exposure, it is fundamentally different.
Here is the "0" adjusted image along with the same RAW file processed
as a single image in CS5 and the 5 exposure HDR, all quite different.
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Irene-Comp_01w.jpg >

> I don't think I've *ever* seen the sky seem
> more interesting when treated with HDR as compared to not.

There we differ, there are times I have seen HDR improve the sky in a
particular image, to make it more interesting. I have also seen HDR
ruin an image.

Then it seems to be a matter of taste since HDR has moved beyond this
particular area of distain you hold. I might not produce the best
examples of HDR, but there are those who produce undeniably better and
unique works for having used the technique.

>
>
>>>
>>> Sadly, the "Creative" category is routinely abused. There have been
>>> fewer entries in Creative than in Color, so people have been entering
>>> regular photos in Creative just to get better odds of placing first.
>>>
>>> Also, we can submit two images per month, but only one image per
>>> category. So, if a person has two good color shots, one goes in Color
>>> and one goes in Creative. (Mono is our third category)
>>>
>>> I'd rather see Creative be limited to images that either combine two
>>> or more images or are clearly manipulated...like an abstract.
>>
>> Agreed, but why wouldn't B&W (Mono)be considered creative?
>
> Mono, in our rules, means "one color". Sepia images go in Mono.
> Black and white is one color: black. Mono hangs in as a separate
> category because it existed long before we were digitally manipulating
> images.

OK! That makes sense.

>
>> As a matter of fact it is all creative, since the image wouldn't exist
>> without the creative thought of the photographer.
>
> The creative you refer to above is the adjective use. "Creative" in
> the club's rules is a noun: a category, a "thing" as in "person,
> place, or thing".

Then this raises the question, "When in the thinking of the club, does
a photograph cross the threshold from "Color" or "Mono" to "Creative"?

It seems to me there is some odd thinking in the classification your
club is using for its competitions.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Paul Furman]

Savageduck wrote:
> Paul Furman said:

> ...

>> OK, now I finish reading your message and see I've repeated what you
>> said... a little more general and with more detail.
>
> Yup! I think it can be done, but it might need some working out.
> BTW: You might find this useful;
> <
> http://www.colbybrownphotography.com/blog/google-the-survival-guide-for-a-photographers-paradise/#uploading
>
> Check "Block vs Ignore"
>
>>> It is a matter of how you set up sharing within specific circles. Paul F
>>> has for example created a circle titled "rec35mmshootin" where
>>> images/albums shared to those in that circle can be limited to that
>>> circle only. They can have re-sharing disallowed, and have downloading
>>> not permitted. There are currently 16 in my edition of that circle.
>>
>> I've only got 3 including myself! I just did that one as a test. Feel
>> free to share your circle with me though. I haven't actually created
>> the #photocrit circle described above.
>
> Damn! when it got to me there were more than 3, all with good
> photography profiles and folks I had no idea existed beyond the 3
> photo-group alumni.

OK, sorry, those 16 are mostly my compute/engineer/arch geeks friends
who are also interested in photography plus a random early handful of
others and the three from here.

I grabbed a couple early shared circles; one is 250, the other 150, now
my G+ stream is overflowing though I must say most are quite good, that
requires me doing some weeding out as well.

[tony cooper]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 23:00:36 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:


>> It always was a tool, and it's still one used badly by most.
>>
>> I have yet to see an HDR image that could not have been processed as a
>> regular image and been as good as the HDR image. The "Irene M" is a
>> nice image, but you could make the one on the left equally nice
>> without employing HDR.
>
>Possibly, but then the result would have been distinctly different. It
>is all a matter of interpretation and the result derived through
>processing. The HDR result is never going to be the equivalent of a
>differently processed single exposure, it is fundamentally different.

That's why I say below that any HDR image should be entered in
Creative in our competitions.

>>> As a matter of fact it is all creative, since the image wouldn't exist
>>> without the creative thought of the photographer.
>>
>> The creative you refer to above is the adjective use. "Creative" in
>> the club's rules is a noun: a category, a "thing" as in "person,
>> place, or thing".
>
>Then this raises the question, "When in the thinking of the club, does
>a photograph cross the threshold from "Color" or "Mono" to "Creative"?

That's pretty simple. If the image has more than one color, it must
be entered in Color or Creative. If the image is a composite of more
than one image, or is extensively modified in post-processing, it must
be entered in Creative. The rest can go in Color.

>It seems to me there is some odd thinking in the classification your
>club is using for its competitions.

Why? It's dead simple. The only loose end is "What is 'extensively
modified'?" We leave that up to the submitter's conscience. All the
stuff you normally do to an image is OK. Beyond that is not even if
you are good enough at it for the modifications not to be noticed.

The most frequent reason to classify an image as "Creative" is the use
of something from another image. You have a nice harbor scene, but it
needs a sailboat that wasn't there. Lift one from another photo you
took the day before, put it in the harbor, and you have a Creative
entry.

The second is extensive manipulation. This time you have a harbor
scene with a sailboat in it, but you decide to have three sailboats.
You make a selection of the sailboat in the photo and copy/paste it in
twice changing the positions slightly. One image, but extensive
manipulation and a Creative entry.

Then, there are textures, artistic filters, and other things added to
photographs that are extensive modifications. Personally, I think
noticeable use of Topaz and similar plug-ins, and any HDR should be
included in Creative, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Topaz is popular with my club's members, and it usually makes the
images as garish and unrealistic as HDR.

P.S. That "Photo Mystery" photo by Trey Ratcliff is dead ugly in my
estimation. His "Bridges in Zurich" is Kinkaidian ugly as are many of
his other HDR pieces.

I give him credit for being a good photographer, and having a good eye
for the photographable, but he often ruins in post what he captures
with his camera. Several are one step shy of glow paint on velvet.
He has many non-bastardized photos in his portfolio that are
excellent, though.

That's a customized SmugMug website, by the way.

[Paul Furman]

Paul Furman wrote:
> Savageduck wrote:
>> Paul Furman said:
>> ...
>>> OK, now I finish reading your message and see I've repeated what you
>>> said... a little more general and with more detail.
>>
>> Yup! I think it can be done, but it might need some working out.
>> BTW: You might find this useful;
>> <
>> http://www.colbybrownphotography.com/blog/google-the-survival-guide-for-a-photographers-paradise/#uploading
>>
>>
>> Check "Block vs Ignore"
>>
>>>> It is a matter of how you set up sharing within specific circles.
>>>> Paul F
>>>> has for example created a circle titled "rec35mmshootin" where
>>>> images/albums shared to those in that circle can be limited to that
>>>> circle only. They can have re-sharing disallowed, and have downloading
>>>> not permitted. There are currently 16 in my edition of that circle.
>>>
>>> I've only got 3 including myself! I just did that one as a test. Feel
>>> free to share your circle with me though. I haven't actually created
>>> the #photocrit circle described above.
>>
>> Damn! when it got to me there were more than 3, all with good
>> photography profiles and folks I had no idea existed beyond the 3
>> photo-group alumni.
>

> OK, sorry, those 16 are mostly my computer/engineer/arch geeks friends

> who are also interested in photography plus a random early handful of
> others and the three from here.

I wrote: "I'm calling this circle: rec35mmshootin..." when sharing it
with you because I had just at that moment created the rec35mmshootin
for the purpose of that share. I didn't finish explaining that. I shared
my list of 16 photogs with you and the other guy from here.

> I grabbed a couple early shared circles; one is 250, the other 150, now
> my G+ stream is overflowing though I must say most are quite good, that

> does require me doing some weeding out as well.

[Savageduck]

Aah! The rest of the story!

Well, certainly some of those you included have some good photographic
skils demonstrated.
Our anonymous "other guy from here" seems to have suspended his
exploration of G+. Though I think that was after seeing if it might
work for an SI type concept. However it seems there are others who are
picking up a similar baton for G+, Eric Leslie for example, and again,
it is not a competition, just shooting to a theme, (mandate if you will.
< http://ericleslie.com/guides/daily-photography-themes-googleplus/ >

>
>
>> I grabbed a couple early shared circles; one is 250, the other 150, now
>> my G+ stream is overflowing though I must say most are quite good, that
>> does require me doing some weeding out as well.

Yup! I think having 150-250 in any given circle even if some of those
are duplicates is waay too many to make sense.
I am not trying to keep score with who has added me or how many I am
following, all I want is a manageable experience. I limit myself by
resisting the temptation to add one and all. That way I reduce the crap
in the stream.

...and I am certainly going to weed out more of those who are not worth
following and add more who are.

>>
>>
>>> I have made additional circles some of which have individuals in common.
>>> So I currently have your "rec35mmshootin" (16) along with my
>>> "Photogeeks"(8), "General Photography"(7), "NAPP" (6)for the Photoshop
>>> LR folks, "Tech Geeks"(3), and my "Following"(0) circle is very empty.
>>>
>>>>> Any
>>>>> images posted there with a tag in the dialog of "#rec35mmshootin"
>>>>> should
>>>>> anticipate to receive some sort of C/C or deserving praise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously, if you just share an image or album unlimited to the public,
>>>>> even if you request C/C specifically the fluff will arrive.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Paul Furman]

tony cooper wrote:

OK, you mean the direct .jpg type link with no context? That works with
G+ too and it means the photo is not truly secure, like a
password-protected directory would be.

> I do have the ability to make that link to the gallery in which the
> image is located, or to my entire photo site, so I can have it either
> way. I consider that an advantage.

At the bottom of this post I point out an uncertain situation regarding
albums vs photos vs shares on G+.

>>> Yes, but you are looking for a replacement for something that is going
>>> to be taken away.
>>
>> What is going to be taken away? Facebook?
>
> Something the Mac users have. I dunno. They misplaced a cloud or
> something. Ask the Duck.
>
>> That can sort of be done in G+ using circles. I could create a circle
>> called rec.photo.digital and track down all you guys to put in there so
>> I could then filter for shared material from that group, and just by
>> putting that text: "rec.photo.digital" or "alt.photography" in my
>> shares, you could search for relevant discussions or photos. That last
>> part is sort of a makeshift way people have created daily themed
>> photography participation pools similar to the "shootin" on these groups.
>
> How does a stranger ever get in? Some guy who is a good photographer,
> good at critiquing others, and takes critiques reasonably, but you
> don't know him and no one in your circles know him.

There are lots of opportunities for cross-pollination. The daily themes
below are hosted by someone who takes it upon themselves to promote
their theme and invite people. I think they generally post with a full
public share and it's the #hash tag that allows them to be searched, not
so much circles. Some involve I think somehow posting to a public album
and requires asking the admin to join, then he adds you to that
circle... I haven't figured it all out, the one I'm talking about is
"Selfie Sunday" running every two weeks:
http://levimoore-photographyandme.blogspot.com/2011/09/selfy-sunday-project-faq.html
OK, I just explained it in that FAQ I think. BAsically you hand your
photo over to the organizer and he posts it. The same as the shootin.
Then you find your photo and tag your name onto it. For example:
https://plus.google.com/photos/115961021629090154025/albums/5656088743723708657?hl=en

>> See if this link works:
>> https://plus.google.com/s/Photography?hl=en
>
> It works.
>
> DigitalGrin has a similar thing going. The "DGrin Challenges"
> continually offer themed "challenges" where images are submitted and
> commented on. There are usually several different challenges going on
> at the same time.
>
> With DigitalGrin, though, anyone can enter and/or comment. There's no
> "circle" aspect.

Well, you have to be registered on their site, right? But then I guess
anyone on the web can see, just not comment?

I agree it is kind of odd that a limited share on G+ is never again
visible to anyone that wasn't on the original limited share list (in
those circles). But you can re-share the post or photo to a wider group,
just that the secondary shares won't show posts to the limited share thread.

As an experiment, I just tried re-sharing one of my limited shares and
got this message: "This post was originally shared with a limited
audience – remember to be thoughtful about who you share it with."

Also I realized there is no way to point a link to any post, no matter
if it was a public share, all you can do is search for matching phrases
in the post. I'm not sure if that holds for comments on photos where the
comments are made while the photo is expanded, on the side. One can also
comment to the 'share' which might include one or more photos or an
album and some text. I'm up for an experiment if anyone's curious.

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 08:54:08 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

I don't know you mean, there.


Here's a link to an image of mine that is in a gallery on my SmugMug
site:
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photography/Miscellanea/i-kpHSZvW/0/X3/2008-11-4-1-X3.jpg

This link does not let you easily access the other photos I have in
that gallery, or the site itself. If I want to restrict comments to
this image and this image only, linking this way allows me to do this.

I fully understand that you can alter the link to access the gallery
or the site, but that doesn't bother me. After all, anyone can look
me up on SmugMug and do the same thing.

What I don't like about the Flickr links I've seen is that they
automatically show the "photostream" and I think this encourages
people to go to the other images.

When I want to encourage them, I link to the gallery itself (a topical
"photostream") or the site.

>That works with
>G+ too and it means the photo is not truly secure, like a
>password-protected directory would be.

I'm not thinking about password-secure links. Just links that
exercise a minimal amount of control over what the viewer sees.

>> I do have the ability to make that link to the gallery in which the
>> image is located, or to my entire photo site, so I can have it either
>> way. I consider that an advantage.
>

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 08:54:08 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>> DigitalGrin has a similar thing going. The "DGrin Challenges"
>> continually offer themed "challenges" where images are submitted and
>> commented on. There are usually several different challenges going on
>> at the same time.
>>
>> With DigitalGrin, though, anyone can enter and/or comment. There's no
>> "circle" aspect.
>
>Well, you have to be registered on their site, right? But then I guess
>anyone on the web can see, just not comment?

Anyone can view anything in DigitalGrin, but to post or to comment you
have to register. It's been so long since I registered that I forget
what is required.


The "DGrin Challenges" is currently running a "Shoot-In" type thing
with the theme of "mono". All images must be current and taken
between September 19th and October 3rd. Single color, but any single
color. Any subject. No editing restrictions.

The "winner" is based on a poll of the readers. The duration of
challenges is short, and they always have one going with some theme.
Winners get a free year's SmugMug Pro account and a $100 gift
certificate for prints or photo gifts. Runners-up get a free year's
SmugMug Standard account.

Quarterly, the top five vote getters of each round compete in a
Mega-Challenge (judged by votes from viewers) with the winner
receiving a free lifetime SmugMug Pro account, a $300 gift certificate
for prints or photo gifts, and some other goodies.

All images submitted are on view, and comments and critiques are
encouraged. Most of the comments are fluff, but some are critiques.

Interestingly, you can get a critique if you post a question about
what you intend to enter. You can post links to several versions and
ask which is best and why.

I haven't participated in the Challenges, but I may. It's not that
easy since you have only two weeks to find a subject that matches the
theme and submit the image.

If you want to find out more, go to http://www.dgrin.com/ and go to
the "The DChallenges" under "Shots".

[Paul Furman]

That's what I meant. You can do that on flickr and G+ too.

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 10:13:31 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>

Perhaps I just haven't noticed, but the Flickr links seem to always
include the photostream. Whether this is a standard "feature" or if
there's a choice involved in setting the link, I don't know.
The Duck's G+ link allowed the photostream access, too.

[Paul Furman]

You have to jump through a couple simple hoops to make a link, and I've
rarely bothered unless I want to post a full size original so it
re-sizes to fit your screen conveniently like this:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6124/6202728108_1fe454df0b_o.jpg
Or if you just want a clean gallery image they can be linked like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/6202213499/in/photostream/lightbox/

BTW I explored some more in G+ with a redwood forest gallery I posted in
here before. I didn't realize I had only shared it with a limited circle
although I did share one pic publicly. That one was the only one you'd
see if checking my G+ profile, and it didn't show as being part of an
album. But if I hand out the link to the album, that shows the other
pic. There were six and I just now deleted the four that got no comments
- the intent was to solicit critiques to help cull the batch. Now, the
comments that were made to a limited circle are not visible to the
public. I'm going to share the new culled album now and see if that
changes. Nope. In fact it looks like a person who is not logged into G+
can't see comments on photos at all. I'm using another browser to test,
that one isn't logged in. Here's the gallery in question:
https://plus.google.com/photos/111673610719549238312/albums/5644620128387248641/5644620201412717906?hl=en
It shows a little cartoon balloon in the corner with the number of
comments on each photo but you can't see any, even a test comment I just
made after making it a public share.

Checking further, you only have to be logged into some kind of google
account like gmail to see those comments.

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 12:16:22 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>

> Nope. In fact it looks like a person who is not logged into G+
>can't see comments on photos at all. I'm using another browser to test,
>that one isn't logged in. Here's the gallery in question:
>https://plus.google.com/photos/111673610719549238312/albums/5644620128387248641/5644620201412717906?hl=en
>It shows a little cartoon balloon in the corner with the number of
>comments on each photo but you can't see any, even a test comment I just
>made after making it a public share.
>
>Checking further, you only have to be logged into some kind of google
>account like gmail to see those comments.

I opened the site when I was logged in to Google. I keep logged in to
use GMail and the calendar. The comments are visible. (I have never
registered as a G+ user)

I logged out and re-opened the link. The comments are not visible.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> It is a matter of how you set up sharing within specific circles. Paul
> F has for example created a circle titled "rec35mmshootin" where
> images/albums shared to those in that circle can be limited to that
> circle only. They can have re-sharing disallowed, and have downloading
> not permitted.

Where is the "take over computer" box to disable screenshots?

-Wolfgang

[Savageduck]

On 2011-10-03 07:05:11 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg

So?
If that is your concern, why bother with any on-line presence at all?

I understand that somewhere out there you have your images displayed in
a manner that at minimum they would be vulnerable to a screen capture.

Both Paul Furman & I have just been saying that G+ has an active
photography community made up of pros, and hobbyists who are providing
interesting, educational, entertaining, and in some cases, inspiring
content, which some in the photo-groups might care to explore.

If you have some reason for rejecting the idea without actually even
looking at the concept, that's OK.

There are certainly aspects of the idea which don't suit me but I
cannot deny the apparent worth of it.
So if you care to try, once you have set up, search for photography
circles, and follow what they add to the stream. You might be surprised
at what some of these folks have to offer.
If you do try G+ here are a few names you might care to follow, or add
to a photography specific "circle" for staters, that includes looking
through their albums. Some of them run separate web sites and/or blogs.

+Scott Jarvie
+Eric Leslie
+Matt Kloskowski
+Moose Peterson
+Thomas Hawk
+Trout Monfalco
+Trey Ratcliff
+Gary Beilby
+Charles Lupica
+Giuseppe Basile

...and if those folks aren't paranoid with this concept I certainly
have little reason to be.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

[tony cooper]

Forgive me for being a bit of a skeptic, but are guys like Matt
Kloskowski flocking to G+ because of what G+ has to offer, or because
Google is paying them a fee so G+ will be associated with big names?

[notbob]

On 2011-10-03, tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Forgive me for being a bit of a skeptic, but are guys like Matt
> Kloskowski flocking to G+ because of what G+ has to offer, or because
> Google is paying them a fee so G+ will be associated with big names?

....or are total rubes and attracted by the invite exclusivity?

I'm reminded of the quote by whomever: "I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY
CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER".

nb

[Whisky-dave]

On Oct 3, 3:05 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com>
wrote:

Is that such a problem, because those screenshots will be of
relatively low quality.

[Savageduck]

I imagine that folks such as Kloskowski, Kelby, Peterson, and quite a
few others are using G+, just as they do Twitter and FB, which they
also use as a tool to increase their web presence. They are pros who
are ultimately there for improving their bottom line. G+, FB, & Twitter
are cheap ways of doing that. I doubt if they are getting any Google
sponsorship. What G+ has to offer them is an increased web presence.

There is still a value to what these guys post, regardless of their
motives, and the occasional unobtrusive injection of self promotion. It
is certainly not in appearance SPAM.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

Then don't apply, but there is nothing stopping you from looking in the window.

BTW: the remark is a Groucho Marxism, which usually goes along the
lines of, "I don't care to belong to a club which would have me as a
member".


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I forgot a rather important point: SmugMug costs $40 per year. G+ is
> free. Advantage: G+.

And another one: SmugMug isn't in the position to collect and
to correlate all your data. Google is (and does). Google
lives by showing ads, as relevant as they can make it.
Advantage: SmugMug.

-Wolfgang

[Savageduck]

On 2011-10-03 09:06:40 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg

While that is true for Google search site, I have yet to see any
advertising in Google Plus, G+, and I have never received any SPAM in
my Gmail account. I can't say that is because of Google's gmail spam
filters or not, there has just not been any.
I can't say the same for my other email accounts where my filters deal
with SPAM.

Here are screen shots of my G+ Stream page, my G+ Photos page, which
shows shots from folks in my "Circles", and my very thin "Circles" page
showing those in my circles. You will note that right now I have yet to
add friends & family to my circles as I still consider my use of G+ to
be in a test phase. There are no ads to be seen on those pages. So
where are these ads of which you speak?
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/G+%20Stream-01w.jpg >
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/G+%20Images-01w.jpg >
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/G+%20Circles-01w.jpg >

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Paul Furman]

I assume there *will* be ads, like google search results. Presumably not
horrid blinking ads but...

[Paul Furman]

Savageduck wrote:
> A few of us (at least three from the photo-groups) have been exploring
> the potential of "Google Plus" or "G+" and it appears that it has an
> expanding community of pros, photoshop pros, & talented hobbyists.

Duck, and Tony, here's a critiquing effort that seems to be working OK:
https://plus.google.com/s/BEHIND%20THE%20LENS%20-%20PHOTO%20CRITIQUE?hl=en

[PeterN]

> ....and if those folks aren't paranoid with this concept I certainly

> have little reason to be.

You left out Rick Sammon.

I am still considering trying it.

--
Peter

[PeterN]

Yup! That is a good example. While poking around that site I also saw a
lot of fluff. But, I guess that can't be helped.

--
Peter

[Savageduck]

Boy! You should have seen the hornets's nest I stirred up there
yesterday, and the subsequent stream generated in defense of my remark
concerning an image posted along with some of the "gushing" type
comments.
I made the comment, and the recipient was so offended he killed further
comment in that particular "stream", however another individual who
agreed with my point startd a new stream to discuss the issue. All very
interesting.

My original comment regarding the image in question:
"um, …er, perhaps I would have handled this a little differently.
I am not sure what you used here, it looks somewhat "Topaz" processed,
or single image tone-mapped to me, and is not quite appealing to my
taste.
The image itself has a great appeal to it and otherwise works.
I feel if you perhaps masked the effect in the sky and clouds, there
might be other ways of dealing with the subjects and foreground."

...and the subsequent start of the new "Stream":

"How do you feel about (negative) comments to your images?

i was viewing a my stream and noticed where Leonard made a criticism of
the image. The photographer responded rather harshly and essentially
asked Leonard, "How dare you say something negative." (my words not his)

When I supported Leonard's comments, another person jumped in and
posted this comment, "I do not understand the purpose of people posting
unsolicited negative or "I don't like this" comments...is there another
reason besides serving their ego?"

So it would appear that only positive comments are allowed.

What do you think?"

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[notbob]

On 2011-10-05, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> So it would appear that only positive comments are allowed.
>
> What do you think?"

Can't say. I only have negative thoughts on the matter.

nb

[PeterN]

On 10/5/2011 12:31 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2011-10-05 07:47:50 -0700, PeterN <pete...@nospam.verizon.net> said:
>
>> On 10/4/2011 10:15 AM, Paul Furman wrote:
>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>> A few of us (at least three from the photo-groups) have been exploring
>>>> the potential of "Google Plus" or "G+" and it appears that it has an
>>>> expanding community of pros, photoshop pros, & talented hobbyists.
>>>
>>> Duck, and Tony, here's a critiquing effort that seems to be working OK:
>>> https://plus.google.com/s/BEHIND%20THE%20LENS%20-%20PHOTO%20CRITIQUE?hl=en
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yup! That is a good example. While poking around that site I also saw
>> a lot of fluff. But, I guess that can't be helped.
>
> Boy! You should have seen the hornets's nest I stirred up there
> yesterday, and the subsequent stream generated in defense of my remark
> concerning an image posted along with some of the "gushing" type comments.
> I made the comment, and the recipient was so offended he killed further
> comment in that particular "stream", however another individual who
> agreed with my point startd a new stream to discuss the issue. All very
> interesting.
>
> My original comment regarding the image in question:

> "um, …er, perhaps I would have handled this a little differently.

> I am not sure what you used here, it looks somewhat "Topaz" processed,
> or single image tone-mapped to me, and is not quite appealing to my taste.
> The image itself has a great appeal to it and otherwise works.
> I feel if you perhaps masked the effect in the sky and clouds, there
> might be other ways of dealing with the subjects and foreground."
>

> ....and the subsequent start of the new "Stream":

>
> "How do you feel about (negative) comments to your images?
>
> i was viewing a my stream and noticed where Leonard made a criticism of
> the image. The photographer responded rather harshly and essentially
> asked Leonard, "How dare you say something negative." (my words not his)
>
> When I supported Leonard's comments, another person jumped in and posted
> this comment, "I do not understand the purpose of people posting
> unsolicited negative or "I don't like this" comments...is there another
> reason besides serving their ego?"
>
> So it would appear that only positive comments are allowed.
>
> What do you think?"
>

Doesn't sound much different than any place else.
Some people post for praise, their egos need it. Others post either to
demonstrate a point, or they are seeking comment, negative or positive.
As I said earlier: when my image sucks I appreciate comments that help
me to understand why.


--
Peter

[Savageduck]

...and that has always been my position. Give me a reason why you do
not like what I have done with my image. Let me know if there is an
issue with my treatment, or if the composition is off. Don't attack me
personally, and perhaps I will be receptive, learn something and take
that constructive criticism to heart.

BTW; here is the image I commented on;
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Jeff-LS-01.jpg >

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Pete A]

You're lucky. My last positive comments on a Usenet picture submission
are still being dismantled by Tony. Bet you can't summarize this
diabolical exchange in a dozen or so lines :)

[Dudley Hanks]

"Pete A" <pete3....@nospam.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2011100519315199169-pete3attkins@nospamntlworldcom...

> On 2011-10-05 17:31:41 +0100, Savageduck said:
>
>> Boy! You should have seen the hornets's nest I stirred up there
>> yesterday, and the subsequent stream generated in defense of my remark
>> concerning an image posted along with some of the "gushing" type
>> comments.
>> I made the comment, and the recipient was so offended he killed further
>> comment in that particular "stream", however another individual who
>> agreed with my point startd a new stream to discuss the issue. All very
>> interesting.
>>
>> My original comment regarding the image in question:

>> "um, .er, perhaps I would have handled this a little differently.

>> I am not sure what you used here, it looks somewhat "Topaz" processed, or
>> single image tone-mapped to me, and is not quite appealing to my taste.
>> The image itself has a great appeal to it and otherwise works.
>> I feel if you perhaps masked the effect in the sky and clouds, there
>> might be other ways of dealing with the subjects and foreground."
>>
>> ...and the subsequent start of the new "Stream":
>>
>> "How do you feel about (negative) comments to your images?
>>
>> i was viewing a my stream and noticed where Leonard made a criticism of
>> the image. The photographer responded rather harshly and essentially
>> asked Leonard, "How dare you say something negative." (my words not his)
>>
>> When I supported Leonard's comments, another person jumped in and posted
>> this comment, "I do not understand the purpose of people posting
>> unsolicited negative or "I don't like this" comments...is there another
>> reason besides serving their ego?"
>>
>> So it would appear that only positive comments are allowed.
>>
>> What do you think?"
>
> You're lucky. My last positive comments on a Usenet picture submission are
> still being dismantled by Tony. Bet you can't summarize this diabolical
> exchange in a dozen or so lines :)
>

I shutter to imagine how they'd react to SuperZee's critiques...

Take Care,
Dudley

[Savageduck]

A simple click should deal with blocking that individual.
He wouldn't have the luxury of a Usenet client which allowed him to
constantly morph into a new ...er, "Mothman" persona. He would be
constantly opening new Google accounts and that would be a pain in the
butt, even for him.

BTW Dudley, I think that G+ might be a useful forum for you to explain
your predicament and how you are using photography with the limitations
you are overcoming.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[tony cooper]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 10:53:22 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2011-10-05 09:56:20 -0700, PeterN <pete...@nospam.verizon.net> said:
>
>> On 10/5/2011 12:31 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2011-10-05 07:47:50 -0700, PeterN <pete...@nospam.verizon.net> said:
>>>
>>>> On 10/4/2011 10:15 AM, Paul Furman wrote:
>>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>> A few of us (at least three from the photo-groups) have been exploring
>>>>>> the potential of "Google Plus" or "G+" and it appears that it has an
>>>>>> expanding community of pros, photoshop pros, & talented hobbyists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Duck, and Tony, here's a critiquing effort that seems to be working OK:
>>>>> https://plus.google.com/s/BEHIND%20THE%20LENS%20-%20PHOTO%20CRITIQUE?hl=en
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yup! That is a good example. While poking around that site I also saw
>>>> a lot of fluff. But, I guess that can't be helped.
>>>
>>> Boy! You should have seen the hornets's nest I stirred up there
>>> yesterday, and the subsequent stream generated in defense of my remark
>>> concerning an image posted along with some of the "gushing" type comments.
>>> I made the comment, and the recipient was so offended he killed further
>>> comment in that particular "stream", however another individual who
>>> agreed with my point startd a new stream to discuss the issue. All very
>>> interesting.
>>>
>>> My original comment regarding the image in question:

>>> "um, …er, perhaps I would have handled this a little differently.

I must say that you have behaved most gentlemanly when I have
commented on your images, even when those comments have been less than
complimentary.

We differ strongly on the use of HD in images. I feel that it is the
Devil's touch in any photograph no matter how lightly applied. You
don't use Topaz, to the best of my knowledge, but my bias against
garish treatment extends to Topazists. HD and Topaz were invented by
acolytes of Thomas Kinkaid.

>BTW; here is the image I commented on;
>< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Jeff-LS-01.jpg >

This photograph is a good example of the righteous goodness of my
bias. It could be an interesting composition of family fun, but it
spoiled by the competition of the sky treatment. The viewer sees
first the sky and then the haystacks and the people.

Sadly, the photographer has devoted time to the sky treatment, but
didn't process so the people are clearly visible. It was the third
time I looked at the image before I noticed the person bending over in
front of the woman with baby.

I know some here expect the predictable crop comment from me, so here
goes: Most of the foreground needs cropping out. The whole of the
foreground adds nothing to what a slice of the foreground would add,
and the mass of brownness - plus the sky - sandwiches the interesting
part of the image into almost nothingness.

[tony cooper]

The only image that you were positive about was the bird in Brighton.
You said you enjoyed it. You said nothing positive about the Fish &
Chips shot, and suggested that it should be binned.

You did say the version I did removing all those things was "restful".

[Savageduck]

I understand from whence your comments come, and I have years of being
on the receiving end of verbal abuse and legitimate threats originating
from the gutter. So there is little said in any of these well insulated
forums which penetrates my thick skin.
...and slow as I am, I do learn.

There are certainly issues which stir my ire and get me saying things I
probably should think twice about, but there it is, the last time I
checked I still qualified as human.

>
> We differ strongly on the use of HD in images. I feel that it is the
> Devil's touch in any photograph no matter how lightly applied. You
> don't use Topaz, to the best of my knowledge, but my bias against
> garish treatment extends to Topazists. HD and Topaz were invented by
> acolytes of Thomas Kinkaid.

Both can be useful tools, however judicial use of either was not used
by most of the early adopters. Also, for some reason many users of
Topaz tend to make adjustments for the sake of adjusting, and little
appreciation of just how bad the result can be. The majority of them
seem to be of the "more is better" school, leading to images which can
only be thought of as a mess.
Some of the early examples of HDR had a similar problem, but it seems
to have transcended that phase with those who are producing quite good
HDR images.
I certainly don't like seeing every image rendered as an HDR as the
recent trend of some landscapes, particularly those originating from
the UK, has been lately.
...and while you might be a traditionalist some HDR images are
undeniable good to great works of art, without the taint of Kinkade,
who provokes nausea at the mere thought of his work.
I stopped going to a restaurant which served superb food in Templeton,
CA, because one of the female proprietors decided that since they were
located in a restored Victorian house, decoration with Kinkade art was
appropriate. That spoilt the place for both my wife and me. It has
since closed.

>
>> BTW; here is the image I commented on;
>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Jeff-LS-01.jpg >
>
> This photograph is a good example of the righteous goodness of my
> bias. It could be an interesting composition of family fun, but it
> spoiled by the competition of the sky treatment. The viewer sees
> first the sky and then the haystacks and the people.
>
> Sadly, the photographer has devoted time to the sky treatment, but
> didn't process so the people are clearly visible. It was the third
> time I looked at the image before I noticed the person bending over in
> front of the woman with baby.
>
> I know some here expect the predictable crop comment from me, so here
> goes: Most of the foreground needs cropping out. The whole of the
> foreground adds nothing to what a slice of the foreground would add,
> and the mass of brownness - plus the sky - sandwiches the interesting
> part of the image into almost nothingness.

In this image we are as one. ;-)


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Dudley Hanks]

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2011100512083474933-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...

Thanks, SD, for the encouragement, but http-based sites like Google, Yahoo,
Facebook, etc don't work well with my screen reader.

I tried keeping a Facebook account going for a while, only to let it lapse
because my reader constantly misread the screen, causing no end of confusion
when uploading pics, updating status, etc.

Besides, I've learnt a lot from yourself, and the others on this group, even
from SuperZee, and have made good progress.

Still, I may check it out, and see how blind-friendly the interface for that
system is, as soon as I find a bit of spare time.

Take Care,
Dudley

[Pete A]

Really? Then kindly explain that statement considering the first reply
to the OP's 3 images of Brighton was my reply "I greatly enjoyed all
three images for very different reasons..."

You made a derogatory comment about my reply - no need to apologise,
I'm used to it. Another poster also quite liked the images and you made
a derogatory remark to him. Each time I've called you task over your
rude and unnecessary reply to him, you snip that part of my post as if
it never happened.

> You said nothing positive about the Fish &
> Chips shot, and suggested that it should be binned.

That was not one of the 3 images in the original post. You found it in
the OP's photostream and said it was the only image worthy of comment.
Your subsequent edit of it, using your own suggestions, was the image I
said should be deleted because it looked a bl**dy mess.

> You did say the version I did removing all those things was "restful".

Your next edit was interesting and enjoyable as a bit of fun. As a
presentable image, it had too many faults to list.

[tony cooper]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:22:57 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>> I must say that you have behaved most gentlemanly when I have
>> commented on your images, even when those comments have been less than
>> complimentary.
>
>I understand from whence your comments come, and I have years of being
>on the receiving end of verbal abuse and legitimate threats originating
>from the gutter.

So you are saying that my comments are verbal abuse coming from the
gutter? Gracious.

[Savageduck]

Not quite, that was my way of saying that over time I have learned to
control some of my sensitivity regarding criticism and verbal abuse,
and not take things personally. That gives me the benefit of learning
from that constructive criticism offered sincerely.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[tony cooper]

Really, now? Here's what you said:

"To summarize thus far: You have improved the original image. You have
previously stated that your suggestions would make this an interesting
shot therefore I will comment on your crop as if I hadn't seen the
original. (No offence intended to the OP.)

Does it interest me? Only for about 10 seconds. What is the subject?
My eyes dart around all over the place trying to find something, but
they are constantly drawn to the clutter. It is a bloody mess. What is
the bright red thing behind the chair? The lamp above the sign is so
ugly, as are the wires and the lamp at the left side on the brickwork.
Why is the arch on the right cut-off just as it gets interesting?"

So it is the clutter of the lamp, the wires, the red thing, and the
arch that makes it a bloody mess. Not my "subsequent edit". What was
left in, not what was taken out by the crop, is what bothers you.

>> You did say the version I did removing all those things was "restful".
>
>Your next edit was interesting and enjoyable as a bit of fun. As a
>presentable image, it had too many faults to list.

[PeterN]

On 10/1/2011 11:53 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 19:25:13 -0400, PeterN
> <pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> This year our parent organization is trying something new. A creative
>> category. the only limitation is that the image must be based on a
>> photograph. It cannot be pure digital artwork.
>> Nobody has defined the difference between the new category and what is
>> acceptable now. There is no change in regular submissions.
>
> We've had "Creative" for a while now. The rule is that any image that
> combines two or more images must be entered in creative. Take the sky
> from one image and drop in it another image, and you have a Creative
> entry. Here's the Official description:
>
> "Creative – An image, which is a composite of more than one unique
> image, must be entered in this category. This does NOT include
> bracketed images taken for High Dynamic range (HDR) purposes as these
> images differ only by exposure and are not unique. However, any other
> image that the photographer deems “creative” may also be entered into
> this category."
>
> Sadly, the "Creative" category is routinely abused. There have been
> fewer entries in Creative than in Color, so people have been entering
> regular photos in Creative just to get better odds of placing first.
>
> Also, we can submit two images per month, but only one image per
> category. So, if a person has two good color shots, one goes in Color
> and one goes in Creative. (Mono is our third category)
>
> I'd rather see Creative be limited to images that either combine two
> or more images or are clearly manipulated...like an abstract.
>

For us "creative" has no clear definition. As explained to me, the
category was created because of some strong requests by some who have
had no success with abstracts in our regular categories. We have the
option of entering an image in either creative, digital, color print or
monochrome print. With three entries permitted in each category, that
amounts to twelve images each month. I have a serious question as to
whether creative will be a success, but will participate.

--
Peter

[PeterN]

On 10/2/2011 12:09 AM, Savageduck wrote:


<snip>


> It only makes sense to use G+ if those you share with regularly are also
> G+ users and are part of a secure limited sharing circle. I am sure I
> will have a few friends & family who will make use of G+, and we will be
> able to share within those closed circles.
> Personally I have always preferred iDisc and will in all likelihood use
> DropBox or PogoPlug for the bulk of my casual postings in the future.
> You know so of the goofy noodlings I come up with from time to time,
> such as comparison shots,
> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Sharon-Leopard-comp_01.jpg >
> which I would never consider posting on G+ or Picasa Web Galleries.


Why?

BTW that would be a really interesting shot if you removed the railing.





--
Peter
Members of Congress should wear NASCAR uniforms so we all know who
sponsored them.

[PeterN]

On 10/2/2011 12:21 AM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 19:58:29 -0700, Paul Furman<paul-@-edgehill.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, the flickr-effect... but the way I see that is you just give
>> positive comments on stuff you like and the person (or yourself) will
>> have lots of photos that don't get comments, so those are the ones
>> lacking. But the other thing that happens on flickr is people comment
>> just to get people to look at their stuff, which can be pretty lame... I
>> play the game, it's friendly, I'll see someone commented on one of my
>> photos, then click to see what they've got and post a compliment on one
>> that I like of theirs. That kind of environment, if you say anything
>> critical, people will just delete your comments, be offended and walk
>> away... it simply isn't welcome. G+ is a lot like that too.
>
> I cannot fathom objecting to a critical critique and then blocking the
> person who made it. Bruce has labeled every photograph I've ever
> submitted to the Shoot-In as "crap" or worse, and I've never blocked
> him.
>
> I don't always agree with my critics, but I certainly don't get
> offended. I feel they just see something I don't see or like
> something I don't like.
>
> The only thing that really bothers me about critiques is when someone
> makes a suggestion that is patently impossible. Had I been around
> then, and taken a photo, I can imagine someone saying: "Good photo of
> the Hindenburg disaster, but you should have shot it in the morning
> light."
>
> (The Hindenburg caught fire at 7:25 PM)

Sometimes we get judges who make comments such as; "You should have
moved three feet to the right, when that would have sent me over a cliff.


--
Peter

[Savageduck]

On 2011-10-06 13:16:57 -0700, PeterN <pete...@nospam.verizon.net> said:

> On 10/2/2011 12:09 AM, Savageduck wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>> It only makes sense to use G+ if those you share with regularly are also
>> G+ users and are part of a secure limited sharing circle. I am sure I
>> will have a few friends & family who will make use of G+, and we will be
>> able to share within those closed circles.
>> Personally I have always preferred iDisc and will in all likelihood use
>> DropBox or PogoPlug for the bulk of my casual postings in the future.
>> You know so of the goofy noodlings I come up with from time to time,
>> such as comparison shots,
>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Sharon-Leopard-comp_01.jpg >
>> which I would never consider posting on G+ or Picasa Web Galleries.
>
>
> Why?
>
> BTW that would be a really interesting shot if you removed the railing.

That is not my original shot.

The reason I would not consider posting that comparison on G+ or Picasa
Web Galleries, is , it was done to illustrate a usenet photo-group
specific question, specifically one raised in thread in
alt.graphics.photoshop, iDisc gives me the flexibility to link to such
images without bothering to log into any particular host site.

Certainly if a discussion or stream regarding a similar issue arose in
G+ I would be able to share that image there or use the same URL as I
did above. However come June 2011, with the demise of the parts of
iDisc I use now I will have to find another way to deal with doing a
similar thing, and DropBox looks to be the most hassle free
replacement, though not as simple as my current setup.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[PeterN]

On 10/5/2011 3:13 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 10:53:22 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-10-05 09:56:20 -0700, PeterN<pete...@nospam.verizon.net> said:
>>
>>> On 10/5/2011 12:31 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>> On 2011-10-05 07:47:50 -0700, PeterN<pete...@nospam.verizon.net> said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/4/2011 10:15 AM, Paul Furman wrote:
>>>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>>> A few of us (at least three from the photo-groups) have been exploring
>>>>>>> the potential of "Google Plus" or "G+" and it appears that it has an

>>>>>>> expanding community of pros, photoshop pros,& talented hobbyists.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Duck, and Tony, here's a critiquing effort that seems to be working OK:
>>>>>> https://plus.google.com/s/BEHIND%20THE%20LENS%20-%20PHOTO%20CRITIQUE?hl=en
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup! That is a good example. While poking around that site I also saw
>>>>> a lot of fluff. But, I guess that can't be helped.
>>>>
>>>> Boy! You should have seen the hornets's nest I stirred up there
>>>> yesterday, and the subsequent stream generated in defense of my remark
>>>> concerning an image posted along with some of the "gushing" type comments.
>>>> I made the comment, and the recipient was so offended he killed further
>>>> comment in that particular "stream", however another individual who
>>>> agreed with my point startd a new stream to discuss the issue. All very
>>>> interesting.
>>>>
>>>> My original comment regarding the image in question:

>>>> "um, …er, perhaps I would have handled this a little differently.

From the Duck's comment, I can imagine the reaction if I mentioned that
the sunlight seems to reflect from different sides of some clouds.

>
> I know some here expect the predictable crop comment from me, so here
> goes: Most of the foreground needs cropping out. The whole of the
> foreground adds nothing to what a slice of the foreground would add,
> and the mass of brownness - plus the sky - sandwiches the interesting
> part of the image into almost nothingness.
>
>


--

Peter

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On 2011-10-03 07:05:11 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg

>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>

>>> It is a matter of how you set up sharing within specific circles. Paul
>>> F has for example created a circle titled "rec35mmshootin" where
>>> images/albums shared to those in that circle can be limited to that
>>> circle only. They can have re-sharing disallowed, and have downloading
>>> not permitted.
>>
>> Where is the "take over computer" box to disable screenshots?
>>
>> -Wolfgang

> So?

So the idea of disallowing resharing works only with people that
a) would respect such wishes anyway
b) are too inexperienced to make a screen shot

In other words ... it creates a false sense of security.

> If that is your concern, why bother with any on-line presence at all?

> I understand that somewhere out there you have your images displayed in
> a manner that at minimum they would be vulnerable to a screen capture.

Of course it is, and I understand that it is, and I have
taken both the steps I feel I need and the serenity not to
worry to handle that.

> Both Paul Furman & I have just been saying that G+ has an active
> photography community made up of pros, and hobbyists who are providing
> interesting, educational, entertaining, and in some cases, inspiring
> content, which some in the photo-groups might care to explore.

> If you have some reason for rejecting the idea without actually even
> looking at the concept, that's OK.

I don't reject the idea, I just say that "trust the bank with your
money" isn't a good idea when the bank is, say, Lehman Brothers.
There is no such thing as 'limited sharing'. All I need is
a camera photographing the screen --- something I assume is
available in a photographic commumity.

While you can make such sharing harder (and while that is more
than enough for quite some legal requirements), you cannot presume
that your shots will *never* be visible to the internet at large.
That's all.

> There are certainly aspects of the idea which don't suit me but I
> cannot deny the apparent worth of it.
> So if you care to try, once you have set up, search for photography
> circles, and follow what they add to the stream. You might be surprised
> at what some of these folks have to offer.
> If you do try G+ here are a few names you might care to follow, or add
> to a photography specific "circle" for staters, that includes looking
> through their albums. Some of them run separate web sites and/or blogs.

> +Scott Jarvie
> +Eric Leslie
> +Matt Kloskowski
> +Moose Peterson
> +Thomas Hawk
> +Trout Monfalco
> +Trey Ratcliff
> +Gary Beilby
> +Charles Lupica
> +Giuseppe Basile

> ...and if those folks aren't paranoid with this concept I certainly
> have little reason to be.

I'd not be paranoid with ordinary works[1], but I'd be with photos
showing someone drunken and doing silly or disgusting things.
Maybe your next boss will see them, searching for you. Maybe your
SO will. Maybe your parents. Or your children. etc.

And that's where people (i.e. normal people, not photo
connoisseurs) *will* try to share. And you can bet they have a
photo mobile, a screen capture program and technical savvy amongst
them --- but not enough common sense not to share everything
'funny'. Poof goes the 'no resharing'. People *must* keep that
in mind.


-Wolfgang

[1] at worst, you'll be out of a few prints as the price of
becoming a household name. :-)

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On 2011-10-03 09:06:40 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg

>> tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> I forgot a rather important point: SmugMug costs $40 per year. G+ is
>>> free. Advantage: G+.

>> And another one: SmugMug isn't in the position to collect and
>> to correlate all your data. Google is (and does). Google
>> lives by showing ads, as relevant as they can make it.
>> Advantage: SmugMug.

> While that is true for Google search site, I have yet to see any
> advertising in Google Plus, G+, and I have never received any SPAM in
> my Gmail account.

Google is known to be a data collector and correllator with
massive computational power.
That's not necessary bad or evil; it's just dangerous, as
Google *must* look out for itself first.

> showing those in my circles. You will note that right now I have yet to
> add friends & family to my circles as I still consider my use of G+ to
> be in a test phase. There are no ads to be seen on those pages. So
> where are these ads of which you speak?

The ads do not necessarily have to appear on these pages.
Remember that Google AdWords are all over the Internet. In
these you'll find the added knowledge google gains ...

Remember: Google lives by making money, mostly by selling ads.
Everything they do must in some way help that goal, or will
get axed. Maybe G+ will have a paid premium mode; maybe
there'll be ads, but certainly the relationships known to
Google *will* be used.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 3:05 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com>

> wrote:
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>> > It is a matter of how you set up sharing within specific circles. Paul
>> > F has for example created a circle titled "rec35mmshootin" where
>> > images/albums shared to those in that circle can be limited to that
>> > circle only. They can have re-sharing disallowed, and have downloading
>> > not permitted.

>> Where is the "take over computer" box to disable screenshots?

> Is that such a problem, because those screenshots will be of
> relatively low quality.

You're thinking 'stolen' prints. I'm thinking 'embarrassing/job
killing/divorce material photos'.

-Wolfgang

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> writes:

I gotta say, a little low on sympathy for anybody who posts job-killing
/ divorce level photos of themselves to the internet (or lets anybody
else take such photos).

[Savageduck]

Agreed, but stupidity knows no bounds.

So far I haven't seen anything that would meet that category of candid
shot shared in +G.
...but it is early days yet!

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> writes:

>> You're thinking 'stolen' prints. I'm thinking 'embarrassing/job
>> killing/divorce material photos'.

> I gotta say, a little low on sympathy for anybody who posts job-killing
> / divorce level photos of themselves to the internet (or lets anybody
> else take such photos).

There is no way to make sure no such photos are ever taken
but to never engage in anything that may be offensive to a
future boss/partner in a future society with changed values.
Especially if one might change the country in the meantime.

I guess there are enough countries and moral variations in
the world that there must be one I'm not conforming with.

-Wolfgang

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

"tony cooper" <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fsnp871gnqk83evt6...@4ax.com...

> So it is the clutter of the lamp, the wires, the red thing, and the
> arch that makes it a bloody mess. Not my "subsequent edit". What was
> left in, not what was taken out by the crop, is what bothers you.

Hah. Hah. Tony said "crop".

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

"tony cooper" <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:a5ap87pp6kqf7l16b...@4ax.com...

> I know some here expect the predictable crop comment from me,...

Yep.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> writes:
>
>>> You're thinking 'stolen' prints. I'm thinking 'embarrassing/job
>>> killing/divorce material photos'.
>
>> I gotta say, a little low on sympathy for anybody who posts job-killing
>> / divorce level photos of themselves to the internet (or lets anybody
>> else take such photos).
>
> There is no way to make sure no such photos are ever taken
> but to never engage in anything that may be offensive to a
> future boss/partner in a future society with changed values.
> Especially if one might change the country in the meantime.

It's not likely that things will change in really fundamental ways
really fast -- to the point where things done before the change would be
held against everybody. Precisely because too many people would be
affected.

I'm just fairly conservative about what I admit in print, including on
the web. Seems a good general policy.

> I guess there are enough countries and moral variations in
> the world that there must be one I'm not conforming with.

Sure, but if you moved there, they'd know you came from a place with
different values and assumed you had (for example) consumed alcohol in
your previous country, even if it's not legal in Saudi Arabia or
wherever. They'd assume that even if it wasn't true, so the photos
probably aren't important.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> writes:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> writes:

>>>> You're thinking 'stolen' prints. I'm thinking 'embarrassing/job
>>>> killing/divorce material photos'.

>>> I gotta say, a little low on sympathy for anybody who posts job-killing
>>> / divorce level photos of themselves to the internet (or lets anybody
>>> else take such photos).

>> There is no way to make sure no such photos are ever taken
>> but to never engage in anything that may be offensive to a
>> future boss/partner in a future society with changed values.
>> Especially if one might change the country in the meantime.

> It's not likely that things will change in really fundamental ways
> really fast

I would rather disagree. I've seen enough fundamental changes
happening in short time spans. Just imagine you posted being an
avid fan of now former North-African leaders, or being a staunch
supporter of Irak's former ruler ... or just think what happened
to public mores between the 20's and the 50's and the 80's.

> -- to the point where things done before the change would be
> held against everybody.

Oh, being a (former) member of the Gestapo or Stasi or SS
(especially the ones guarding the mass murder camps ...

Or just being a slave holder from the south, moving to the
north ...

Or maybe you just had a lot of Japanese friends shortly before
Pearl Harbor. Or maybe you are a devout muslim and of Middle
East extraction ... and then 9/11 happens.

> Precisely because too many people would be
> affected.

Sure ... you'd need a 'Persilschein' to whitewash yourself.
It wouldn't really work as planned, but your Nazi-membership
would otherwise be held against you.

And who says that your future boss/partner must hold a majority
oppinion? Just say you had an abortion and said person thinks
it's better to murder doctors than to allow abortion? Or you
had a divorce and married again (or even just used preservatives
or had sex before marriage), and said person is a staunch,
conservative catholic?

> I'm just fairly conservative about what I admit in print, including on
> the web. Seems a good general policy.

You're a former law officer and a gun person. That's enough to
dislike or even hate and kill you, for some people.

Add in, say, the perception that law officers are all corrupt and
fake evidence --- and maybe that'll even be based on some truth
in 20 years (hell, it's not even outright false now, there are
bad cops ...) --- and anyone in that direction will be suspect
to most people.

Maybe there'll even be ... actions by some rather extremist NRA
members that'll be used to turn the population against weapon
owners, in the name of TERRORISM, DRUGS and THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

>> I guess there are enough countries and moral variations in
>> the world that there must be one I'm not conforming with.

> Sure, but if you moved there, they'd know you came from a place with
> different values

Yes. They'd know that. Some places think the US is an arch devil.
And obviously thus every former resident of the US represents that.
Not every society is open, accepting and liberal.

> and assumed you had (for example) consumed alcohol in
> your previous country, even if it's not legal in Saudi Arabia or
> wherever.

Oh, they probably think more of stealing their small children and
eating them alife in a cult to the devil. They might suspect
that, but they'll need some 'evidence' ...

> They'd assume that even if it wasn't true, so the photos
> probably aren't important.

They'd assume the worst, and use any "evidence" against you.
Walking with your (unveiled) daughter through the city? Obviously
you have a faible for wanton younger women ... or professionals.
Eating ice cream in a cafe with your grand children? Probably a
child molester. Drunk party? Orgy. Kissing on the street?
Sexual predator and shameless monster.


You with two females (you were having a party and they thought it
cute to have you photographed while each kissed your cheek)? Your
wife might think you're having a double affair. Some people would,
even if it was completely harmless.

A topless photo here might not even raise an eyebrow,
somewhere else it's the same as a hardcore porno.


Point is, even when there are only completely innocent photos of
you, someone will take offense and someone might even do some
photoshopping. And the more risky the photo, the more people
might want to misinterpret it. Mores change, sometimes within
months, often within a decade or two.

Given that, and given people like to share gossip and scandals,
Google+'ses sharing limitation is not as secure as it seems
at first.

-Wolfgang

[Savageduck]

On 2011-10-16 14:48:32 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg

Why is it, it seems as though you don't really pay attention to who
anybody is in these photo-groups, or what they might have said about
themselves?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> Why is it, it seems as though you don't really pay attention to who
> anybody is in these photo-groups, or what they might have said about
> themselves?

What exactly do you refer to?

Maybe you refer to the fact that I'm not the best person to
remember all details about everyone, or that I don't care too
much where someone lives ... this just isn't that important to me.

-Wolfgang

[Savageduck]

On 2011-10-28 08:50:57 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg

I refer to the fact that you make unfounded statements about posters in
your responses to them.
If you had not edited (or perhaps even read) your response to Davis
Dyer-Bennet, which I based my remark on you might have understood.

It seems to me you actually have no idea who you are responding to,
given the obvious lack of thought and association to anything they have
shared about themselves in these photo-groups.
It seems that you are hypocritical enough to contradict yourself within
two posts, since you make false, accusatory and deliberately insulting
remarks about individuals, so it IS "that important" to you.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Pete A]

Over-complication of the situation: each time I've seen an ad hominem
in the reply I've also seen a plethora of pseudo-science. He's not the
only one that does it :-)

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2011-10-28 08:50:57 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
> <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> said:

>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>>> Why is it, it seems as though you don't really pay attention to who
>>> anybody is in these photo-groups, or what they might have said about
>>> themselves?

>> What exactly do you refer to?

>> Maybe you refer to the fact that I'm not the best person to
>> remember all details about everyone, or that I don't care too
>> much where someone lives ... this just isn't that important to me.

>> -Wolfgang

> I refer to the fact that you make unfounded statements about posters in
> your responses to them.

Really? Could you point them out?

> If you had not edited (or perhaps even read) your response to Davis
> Dyer-Bennet, which I based my remark on you might have understood.

I have to apologise, I failed again conveying what I tried to say.

I *thought* the examples I gave were clearly not meant to apply
to him personally, but as examples where in a few decades public
opinion changes a lot, and how that may affect many people.
And mostly those who're innocent enough to completely rely on
the protection Google Plus offers.

If I was unclear in that aspect and if the examples were taken
as personally applying to David in any way, I apologise.

And yes, David _said_ he is fairly conservative in what he
publishes. I happen tp know that he has/had a side that's, ah,
non-standard enough that some people will react, ah, very negative.
I know that because I've been reading in the right places for the
last 2 decades to read what he wrote back then. (A quick check
shows mostly, but not completely, covered tracks, so I certainly
won't out him.) So please excuse me for a grain of salt here.

> It seems to me you actually have no idea who you are responding to,
> given the obvious lack of thought and association to anything they have
> shared about themselves in these photo-groups.
> It seems that you are hypocritical enough to contradict yourself within
> two posts, since you make false, accusatory and deliberately insulting
> remarks about individuals, so it IS "that important" to you.

As I said, I'm sorry. Obviously my English isn't good enough to
transmit what I try to say. I must work harder on that. Could you
kindly tell me exactly where in my reply you got the impression
that I insulted David, so that I may be clearer next time?

-Wolfgang

[David Dyer-Bennet]

And I was actively ignoring possible personal applications, and sticking
to the substantive discussion.

It IS true that standards change. I do think some things are so
widespread that standard on them can't change quickly -- the generation
where everybody really DOES do them can't be entirely written off. At
least if you're in that generation, and everybody has been open about
it, there's not so much risk being open yourself. Admitting that you
lived with a woman before you were married, in the 1980s, just can't
become dangerous in the USA, too many people did it then. But it was a
big deal in the 1930s, or considerably later for that matter, the kind
that could get you socially ostracized and possibly make you
unemployable, at least above blue-collar level.

>> It seems to me you actually have no idea who you are responding to,
>> given the obvious lack of thought and association to anything they have
>> shared about themselves in these photo-groups.
>> It seems that you are hypocritical enough to contradict yourself within
>> two posts, since you make false, accusatory and deliberately insulting
>> remarks about individuals, so it IS "that important" to you.
>
> As I said, I'm sorry. Obviously my English isn't good enough to
> transmit what I try to say. I must work harder on that. Could you
> kindly tell me exactly where in my reply you got the impression
> that I insulted David, so that I may be clearer next time?

Maybe I missed things, or maybe I just run a very thick skin. I suspect
that some styles of fairly aggressive argument look more psersonal to
some people than to others, and I tend towards the "not personal" end of
the scale of interpretations.