Annika 1980

On 2011-08-18 06:54:37 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2011-08-18 09:42 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-08-17 08:55:00 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2011-08-17 11:44 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-08-17 08:17:41 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

You (and Tony and Bret and whoever else) up for a Google+ account?

Point being it's not a wide open space like facebook, but closed
'circles' around activities or people or such. More 'confined' than
facebook.

I would like to actually examine the concept before I commit myself. I
need to educate myself a bit first. So I will get back to you on that
idea.

I sent you an invite (I think).

Premise is you decide who are in your various circles. Less x-ing of
information. (eg: avoids a lot of the Facebook info sharing that's out
of your control).

I'm not sold on it yet, but anything that challenges Facebook to a mud
fight has got to be doing something right.

I have been looking at how G+ might work for an SI type forum/circle,
and the main con I can see is the closed aspect. Even now with the
dearth of active SI contributors, we still get the occasional casual
lurker making an entry. Since there is the potential to have some of the
current contributors not join G+, I have a feeling the G+ photo circle
would have fewer participants than those we are able to draw from
rpe35mm, rpd, rpdslr-e, and ap.

While G+ has an ability to isolate the various circles from each other,
and to only share an album, or stream/discussion with a specific circle
it is going to be a awkward, regardless of any improvement over FB. With
G+ it is going to be a by-invitation only, closed club with very little
opportunity to grow. Also unless all participants in a circle have the
ability to add to an album, for each SI type challenge/mandate there
will be a separate album for each entrants 3 shots rather than grouping
each mandate in a single album.
So I have a feeling G+ would be a little messy for an SI type forum, but
for a group of like interest folks it would be a pretty be good way to
come together.

I've come to pretty much a similar conclusion - hard to get people on
board, esp. new blood and lurkers.

Yup!

But, face it, NG forums are dead Jim.

Unfortunately, like many of us, it has aged to the point of retirement,
and there are few of the new generation who are even aware of the
existence of NG's.

I'm a member of a couple web based groups - the problem there is that
it's mostly fanbois who can't admit that there are actually downsides
to any equipment choice.

Again, web based groups have similar issues to G+, there has to be
awareness of the site and the ability to submit shots and comment
reasonably freely. Moderation & control usually detracts from that
element of free speech which exists in the NG's.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2011-08-18 10:16 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-08-18 06:54:37 -0700, Alan Browne


I'm a member of a couple web based groups - the problem there is that
it's mostly fanbois who can't admit that there are actually downsides
to any equipment choice.

Again, web based groups have similar issues to G+, there has to be
awareness of the site and the ability to submit shots and comment
reasonably freely. Moderation & control usually detracts from that
element of free speech which exists in the NG's.

One of them I belong to (Dyxum) has a very high photo submission rate,
many categories running at various times, open entry categories, robust
discussion. Photo quality is _EXCELLENT_.

And moderators who police behaviour keeping the tone a little more
civil. (I've been suspended for criticizing the mods via private
message - never mind in the open...)

It works well - except for the fawning/fanboi aspect and the over-policing.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 11:25:18 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2011-08-18 10:16 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-08-18 06:54:37 -0700, Alan Browne


I'm a member of a couple web based groups - the problem there is that
it's mostly fanbois who can't admit that there are actually downsides
to any equipment choice.

Again, web based groups have similar issues to G+, there has to be
awareness of the site and the ability to submit shots and comment
reasonably freely. Moderation & control usually detracts from that
element of free speech which exists in the NG's.

One of them I belong to (Dyxum) has a very high photo submission rate,
many categories running at various times, open entry categories, robust
discussion. Photo quality is _EXCELLENT_.

And moderators who police behaviour keeping the tone a little more
civil. (I've been suspended for criticizing the mods via private
message - never mind in the open...)

It works well - except for the fawning/fanboi aspect and the over-policing.

I don't have anyone around who critiques my photos except for the one
or two a month that I enter in a camera club competition. My wife and
children like everything I take and all I get from them is Flickr-like
attaboys.

I am a big believer in the outside eye seeing things that the amateur
photographer doesn't see in his/her own photos. When a photo of mine
is critiqued, and marked down for something, I don't always agree with
the critique but I do more often than not. I'm not talking about
"this is a crap photo" type of critique, but a real critique that
suggests a better crop leading to better composition, a comment on the
composition in general, or a comment about the processing.

The Shoot-In disappoints me in that there is very little in the way of
critiques. In fact, comments on other people's photos is very low. I
like it, of course, when someone says "Good shot", but I really want
to hear "It would be a better shot if you...".

I'd be interested in participating in a group where there is a
substantial number of photos posting and an emphasis on critiques.
I tried PhotoSig, but the emphasis there is on rating enough photos so
you can post your own. The result is the "ratings" are usually not
very helpful.

Some critiques just don't make sense to me. This photo was critiqued
by a photography professor at a local college and her comment was "I'd
like it better if the photo had been cropped down to just the white
window around the horse." It's the colored wall
frame-outside-of-a-frame that appeals to me.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photog...6_VCfu3-XL.jpg






--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 2011-08-18 12:11 , tony cooper wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 11:25:18 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2011-08-18 10:16 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-08-18 06:54:37 -0700, Alan Browne


I'm a member of a couple web based groups - the problem there is that
it's mostly fanbois who can't admit that there are actually downsides
to any equipment choice.

Again, web based groups have similar issues to G+, there has to be
awareness of the site and the ability to submit shots and comment
reasonably freely. Moderation& control usually detracts from that
element of free speech which exists in the NG's.

One of them I belong to (Dyxum) has a very high photo submission rate,
many categories running at various times, open entry categories, robust
discussion. Photo quality is _EXCELLENT_.

And moderators who police behaviour keeping the tone a little more
civil. (I've been suspended for criticizing the mods via private
message - never mind in the open...)

It works well - except for the fawning/fanboi aspect and the over-policing.

I don't have anyone around who critiques my photos except for the one
or two a month that I enter in a camera club competition. My wife and
children like everything I take and all I get from them is Flickr-like
attaboys.

I am a big believer in the outside eye seeing things that the amateur
photographer doesn't see in his/her own photos. When a photo of mine
is critiqued, and marked down for something, I don't always agree with
the critique but I do more often than not. I'm not talking about
"this is a crap photo" type of critique, but a real critique that
suggests a better crop leading to better composition, a comment on the
composition in general, or a comment about the processing.

The Shoot-In disappoints me in that there is very little in the way of
critiques. In fact, comments on other people's photos is very low. I
like it, of course, when someone says "Good shot", but I really want
to hear "It would be a better shot if you...".

I'd be interested in participating in a group where there is a
substantial number of photos posting and an emphasis on critiques.
I tried PhotoSig, but the emphasis there is on rating enough photos so
you can post your own. The result is the "ratings" are usually not
very helpful.

Some critiques just don't make sense to me. This photo was critiqued
by a photography professor at a local college and her comment was "I'd
like it better if the photo had been cropped down to just the white
window around the horse." It's the colored wall
frame-outside-of-a-frame that appeals to me.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photog...6_VCfu3-XL.jpg

Dyxum is quite good for feedback. It is a Sony oriented group, however.
There are Nikon and Canon oriented groups as well.

I like critiquing - but haven't made time for it. As you may recall I
don't just say good or bad but go into some detail (unless it is a
really uninteresting, dull, crappy shot). Good critique takes time.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On 2011-08-18 12:11 , tony cooper wrote:

Some critiques just don't make sense to me. This photo was critiqued
by a photography professor at a local college and her comment was "I'd
like it better if the photo had been cropped down to just the white
window around the horse." It's the colored wall
frame-outside-of-a-frame that appeals to me.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photog...6_VCfu3-XL.jpg

I like that with one (minor) caveat.

You're right. The solids make the photo. Photos like this with solid,
colorful walls are powerful. Further, with the bars in the background,
it draws the eye around the image.

As to prof photo, tell her to stuff it. She missed an important
complement in that the inside of the window frame (edges) are orange.
Having the orange wall around the white area is a superb complement, IMO.

My (very minor) caveat is in the diagonal formed at the top not being
complemented by a diagonal a the bottom - it is near horizontal. Had
you been able to shoot from slightly higher (level to the mid height of
the window), the diagonals would have been balanced (or shoot from quite
a bit lower and have a weak (bottom) and strong (top) diagonal.

Had you followed the profs suggestion it would have looked like a cheesy
photoshop effect with barf inducing powers.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:11:41 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:
: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 11:25:18 -0400, Alan Browne
: wrote:
:
: On 2011-08-18 10:16 , Savageduck wrote:
: On 2011-08-18 06:54:37 -0700, Alan Browne
:
:
: I'm a member of a couple web based groups - the problem there is that
: it's mostly fanbois who can't admit that there are actually downsides
: to any equipment choice.
:
: Again, web based groups have similar issues to G+, there has to be
: awareness of the site and the ability to submit shots and comment
: reasonably freely. Moderation & control usually detracts from that
: element of free speech which exists in the NG's.
:
: One of them I belong to (Dyxum) has a very high photo submission rate,
: many categories running at various times, open entry categories, robust
: discussion. Photo quality is _EXCELLENT_.
:
: And moderators who police behaviour keeping the tone a little more
: civil. (I've been suspended for criticizing the mods via private
: message - never mind in the open...)
:
: It works well - except for the fawning/fanboi aspect and the over-policing.
:
: I don't have anyone around who critiques my photos except for the one
: or two a month that I enter in a camera club competition. My wife and
: children like everything I take and all I get from them is Flickr-like
: attaboys.
:
: I am a big believer in the outside eye seeing things that the amateur
: photographer doesn't see in his/her own photos. When a photo of mine
: is critiqued, and marked down for something, I don't always agree with
: the critique but I do more often than not. I'm not talking about
: "this is a crap photo" type of critique, but a real critique that
: suggests a better crop leading to better composition, a comment on the
: composition in general, or a comment about the processing.
:
: The Shoot-In disappoints me in that there is very little in the way of
: critiques. In fact, comments on other people's photos is very low. I
: like it, of course, when someone says "Good shot", but I really want
: to hear "It would be a better shot if you...".
:
: I'd be interested in participating in a group where there is a
: substantial number of photos posting and an emphasis on critiques.
: I tried PhotoSig, but the emphasis there is on rating enough photos so
: you can post your own. The result is the "ratings" are usually not
: very helpful.
:
: Some critiques just don't make sense to me. This photo was critiqued
: by a photography professor at a local college and her comment was "I'd
: like it better if the photo had been cropped down to just the white
: window around the horse." It's the colored wall
: frame-outside-of-a-frame that appeals to me.
:
: http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photog...6_VCfu3-XL.jpg

I don't think your critic is right, but I'd like it better if there were a bit
more orange on the top and left. As it is, the white frame looks cramped into
the upper left corner.

I've been known to submit fairly long Shoot-In criticisms, but haven't done so
lately. One problem I have is that the pictures are usually posted on Monday.
That's our late day at work, so I don't get home until almost 8:30; then I
have to get up at 4:30 to catch my train the next morning. It doesn't leave
much time for writing, and sometimes (this last time for example) the group
seems to lose interest in criticism by the second or third day.

Bob

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 21:23:00 +1000, Noons
wrote:

Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 18/08/2011 9:14 AM:


Come on back, Bret; Noons and DMac haven't been seen here for ages. We miss

Speak for yourself, low-life troll.

Oh, good. Now I can kill file you again.

rwalker wrote,on my timestamp of 20/08/2011 9:51 AM:


Oh, good. Now I can kill file you again.

Oh, good. Like: I give a **** what you might think or do?

On 2011-08-23 10:43:35 -0700, Pete A said:

On 2011-08-23 18:35:01 +0100, Pete A said:

On 2011-08-23 18:05:55 +0100, Annika1980 said:

On Aug 18, 9:54*am, Alan Browne
wrote:

I've come to pretty much a similar conclusion - hard to get people on
board, esp. new blood and lurkers.


What do you expect from a group of Luddites who still worship film?

I would like to join in with the activities of this group, but my
attempt to grow beyond name calling, stereotyping, and labelling is an
area of self-improvement that occupies most of my time. I'm definitely
not "new blood" so I shall post or luck as I see fit.

Maybe even continue to lurk; what an appropriate Freudian slip!

A lurky slip.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2011-08-23 19:37:21 +0100, Savageduck said:

On 2011-08-23 10:43:35 -0700, Pete A said:

On 2011-08-23 18:35:01 +0100, Pete A said:

On 2011-08-23 18:05:55 +0100, Annika1980 said:

On Aug 18, 9:54*am, Alan Browne
wrote:

I've come to pretty much a similar conclusion - hard to get people on
board, esp. new blood and lurkers.


What do you expect from a group of Luddites who still worship film?

I would like to join in with the activities of this group, but my
attempt to grow beyond name calling, stereotyping, and labelling is an
area of self-improvement that occupies most of my time. I'm definitely
not "new blood" so I shall post or luck as I see fit.

Maybe even continue to lurk; what an appropriate Freudian slip!

A lurky slip.