Why are members posting so many photos in the Main Section? (Page 2): The occasional Attic posts in the main section bother me much more ...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The occasional Attic posts in the main section bother me much more ...

Bill_de Loc: US

RWR wrote:

It isn’t only pictures. No matter there are appropriate sections for nearly every subject from astronomical to wedding photography, those and about everything else gets posted here nearly every day. With little oversight, main discussion has become one great dumping ground.

It is monitored and many posts are moved. It's not a perfect world. Then again, there is a bigger problem IMHO with threads that belong here when they start and turn into garbage with the same few people bickering among themselves and taking over a thread.

As for a critique forum, I'd like to see one where the OP posts a picture and cannot post again in that thread. If you have to defend or explain a photo, it isn't working. The OP would be better served reading the replies and taking or rejecting whatever suggestions are made. PM's can be used if a one on one discussion is needed.

Right now there are 37 sections with a possible two more on the way. If that was condensed the traffic might pick up in individual threads making them more interesting. And, tying this to the OP, it would be easier to pick a section or the correct sections.

---

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Bill_de wrote:

It is monitored and many posts are moved. It's not... (show quote)

There are several posts on page one right now on software - little chance they’ll be moved. This is typical.

Bill_de Loc: US

RWR wrote:

There are several posts on page one right now on software - little chance they’ll be moved. This is typical.

I was unaware there was a software section. I guess I'm not alone.
I also couldn't find a list of what is allowed in this section.

--

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Jim Bianco wrote:

Whats the big deal,is it a major crime,it;s not the end of the world because people are posting photos in wrong section there is always one person that has to make a big deal out of it. Jim Bianco

We are a lot more than one!!!!!

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

via the lens wrote:

I think the way this forum is set up people, espec... (show quote)

👍👍👍👍👍👍

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Bill_de wrote:

I was unaware there was a software section. I guess I'm not alone.
I also couldn't find a list of what is allowed in this section.

I'm also curious about this "software section". I thought the questions here about software were ultimately "how do you do ... ?" questions, which fit in perfectly here.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Bill_de wrote:

If you have to defend or explain a photo, it isn't working.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Recently I posted a picture at the Gallery from over forty years ago, explaining it had been taken with a box camera. One of the responses was that it needed sharpening. I chose to ignore that comment, but obviously the person commenting was unfamiliar with the qualities of box cameras and film. That image was as sharp as it was getting, and from experience I can guarantee that the only effect of sharpening would be to make grain issues worse.

Bill_de Loc: US

rehess wrote:

Maybe yes, maybe no. Recently I posted a picture at the Gallery from over forty years ago, explaining it had been taken with a box camera. One of the responses was that it needed sharpening. I chose to ignore that comment, but obviously the person commenting was unfamiliar with the qualities of box cameras and film. That image was as sharp as it was getting, and from experience I can guarantee that the only effect of sharpening would be to make grain issues worse.

My thought is that the critique is primarily to help the person who took the picture. So, in this case you did exactly what I suggested. You ignored the comment. With that knowledge the person who made the comment would still see a picture that wasn't acceptably sharp to them. Knowing it came from a box camera wouldn't change the choice of their next camera.
It may have sidetracked the thread into a conversation on the box camera, not the image.

Just a thought. I don't expect everybody, or even anybody, to agree with me. I'm used to that.

--

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Bill_de wrote:

I was unaware there was a software section. I guess I'm not alone.
I also couldn't find a list of what is allowed in this section.--

Post-Processing Digital Images: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-116-1.html

“A section devoted to the art and practice of processing digital images. Discussion of processing techniques for any and all software is encouraged. Questions and examples of your work are welcome.”

Bill_de Loc: US

RWR wrote:

Post-Processing Digital Images: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-116-1.html

“A section devoted to the art and practice of processing digital images. Discussion of processing techniques for any and all software is encouraged. Questions and examples of your work are welcome.”

Thanks. I went through the list, obviously with my brain not functioning. Now that you point it out, it is obvious that post processing would be about software.

--

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Bill_de wrote:

Thanks. I went through the list, obviously with my brain not functioning. Now that you point it out, it is obvious that post processing would be about software.

--

I hate it when I have to think before doing something!

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

RWR wrote:

Post-Processing Digital Images: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-116-1.html

“A section devoted to the art and practice of processing digital images. Discussion of processing techniques for any and all software is encouraged. Questions and examples of your work are welcome.”

They may talk about software, but that is certainly not the name of the section, nor do people typically refer to it as such; you may call it whatever you want to, but please be a little more understanding when we don't all understand you at first try.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

rehess wrote:

They may talk about software, but that is certainly not the name of the section, nor do people typically refer to it as such; you may call it whatever you want to, but please be a little more understanding when we don't all understand you at first try.

I think my last post explained it better than my previous post. Sorry for any confusion.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

RWR wrote:

I hate it when I have to think before doing something!

As in "remaining unimpeded by the thought process"?