E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Artbob wrote- "Maybe we come from different sides of art/photography. You seem to come from the Commercial side of photography. For me, Commercial was an occasional moonlighting job. My experiences are from the Fine Art side. It seems that talking about work face to face and in the open is more common in my environment.

"I would hope my approach helps some. Those who cannot accept it won't. The forum is called "For Your Consideration." It is to be expected by the open minded that the means of expressing "considerations" will vary. I try to asses the good and the bad, and, mostly importantly WHERE I am coming from and WHY, specifically, I evaluate something as good or bad".

Definitely! I am a commercial photogrhaer and I never packaged
myself as an "artist", however, I always did, and still continue to, constantly and consistently upgrade my education and skill level, participate in many workshops, seminars, critiquing sessions and competitions through my professional photograhers association. I am a perpetual student and teacher. There's a plethora of face to face interaction, commentary, critiquing and other artistic endeavors. This of course is done live and in person, literally in a face to face environment and not online where most participants are operating anonymously.

Nothing's perfect! Sometimes there is professional jealousy, bad competitors, back-stabbing and unfair practices in the industry but there is also lots of sharing, helpfulness, ethical behavior comradery and folks working toward mutual benefit.

My work is far from a an occasional moonlighting gig. It was an still is a means of support for my family that enabled us to raise and educate our kids, pay the bills and support our employees. Nothing all that sophisticated- lots of hard work good old nuts and bolts!

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

What I'm going to do with all of this, from the first posted photo until now, is use all of it as part a lecture or presentation, "Reality and Perceptions, Copyright and Critique, and Emotional Responses."

I will include my mistake of applying copyright law to the original photo while not seeing the small print request not to "mark" the photo.I think I'll include another person's hijacking of a photo post of mine on FYC to continue attacking me for this thread. The presentation's focus will be how we humans do not act rationally, even under the law or in the parameters of freedom of speech; an awareness of that when critiquing is useful in several ways, which I will try to cover. The photos and illustrations can be used under copyright law, and are helpful to understand, specifically, what was written about them.

My goal is broader, specific understanding of critiquing, both for the creator and those making a critique. And, as always, the working of the human mind trying to make sense of reality.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

This issue started with you causing annoyance by posting a shot which included your unrequested additions (overlays etc). I've gone back over the thread and the nearest you came to apologising was to say "So sorry you feel that way", then you went on to accuse the person you annoyed of being unfair, out of order, blocking learning and twisting the English usage of "edit".

What I saw a lot more of was you trying to justify yourself. The trouble is, every time you do that it raises the concern that, despite what you claim, you don't acknowledge or appreciate how unwelcome your unrequested additions are for some people. And that raises the concern that you may continue to make unrequested alterations to photos in the future. You've stated that you won't be altering any more of Graham's shots, but that's as far as it's gone, and that of itself isn't very reassuring because Graham is far from being alone in disliking any alterations to his images.

It's still not clear if you acknowledge that FYC doesn't prohibit editing of images. Several times in different places you've accused FYC of doing exactly that when you've been told several times that it doesn't.

Since you mention common usage, I can tell you that there's no shortage of people who would describe any additions to an image as "editing". And that is true regardless of however many dictionary definitions you manage to come up with.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Concerning your claims and for the record:
"This issue started with you causing annoyance by posting a shot which included your unrequested additions (overlays etc)."
Blaming the victim. The OP generated the annoyance. I did what I thought was permissible under the word "edit," which however many "people who would describe any additions to an image as "editing". They are outliers with a personal, not general, definition. Also,Neither you nor they have responded with a refutation in fact of that definition, nor, most revealingly, any knowledge of the common usage of illustrative lines such as I used in photography and art books. If you want to carry this forward, respond to the above ideas, as they are pertinent to the whole issue.

You wrote further, "I've gone back over the thread and the nearest you came to apologising was to say 'So sorry you feel that way'"

Here's the post where I thought I covered the situation:
jaymatt wrote:
Graham does have the following line on his posts: "Please do not Edit or mark my images in any way.”
I have something similar on mine."

My reply: "Did not read Graham's lines. Yours neither, but now I know. I respect your request, but cannot understand. Perhaps you can help by telling me why."

In a later post, I wrote:
"So there we have it. I did not edit, so what I did was not, as I understood it, against the section rules. However, Graham had added "marks" to editing his photos, and I missed that--my fault."
Again, let's look at that: "--MY FAULT" Apologize, as Graham continued to berate and not acknowledge a simple mistake, conflating it with his interpretation of "editing"? No.

Furthermore, as jmatt and I continued to discuss, respectfully, the problem ("I guess, while I understand the feeling of "it suits me, leave it alone," I do not see that as a worthwhile position if getting better is a desire."), you seem to have misunderstood or not read previous posts about my agreeing with the common definition of "edit" and my missing Graham's notation at the bottom of his posts, thus throwing gasoline on dying embers:

Nov 9, 2019 14:17:52 #
R.G. (a regular here) (online) Joined: Sep 5, 2012 Posts: 11703 Loc: Scotland
"some people want it. Isn't that enough of a reason for you? I'll say again - some people don't like anybody doing anything to the product of their creative efforts. If you don't acknowledge that fact you'll carry on causing annoyance or even offence. It would be a simple thing to just respect those wishes, whether you understand them or not, or whether you relate to them or not."

Rather annoying, as the issue had been solved.

You also write in this post I am responding to, "you went on to accuse the person you annoyed of being unfair, out of order, blocking learning and twisting the English usage of "edit".
BS, only the last two, as I demonstrated. I did not know you also had a rule that truth cannot be used if it annoys.

As for "editing" images, perhaps you have forgotten that a while back, in a similar brouhaha, I wrote that even thought this "rule" went against learning, and although it seems only to salve some big egos, I would not edit. Now that Graham includes illustrative "marks" in a rogue definition of "edit"and you seem to agree, I won't do that either. ("Asking permission" is an unnecessary burden--not done anywhere I know where a critique is involved.) You, and others, will have lost some valuable information.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

(My highlighting).

(My highlighting).

Just a little reminder for you, since you're denying what you said.

If you genuinely see yourself as a victim in this, then I would describe your thinking as deluded.

I'll re-state my main concern:- If you continue doing what you're doing you'll continue to cause annoyance and in some cases offence.

I would refute that they are as small a minority as you suggest, but even if it were true, do you intend to ignore their personal preferences because you don't agree with them, or because they don't conform to your much-vaunted dictionary definition (which I would describe as being too narrow)?

So you see "asking permission" as an unnecessary burden? I should warn you that if you ignore what's being said to you here and continue to post images with unrequested additions, you will be banned from this section.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Your threats are childish and incomprehensible to me, kicking the hell out of a dead, and by now rotting horse. You do what you have to do.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

It should be clear to you now that your image alterations, when they're unwanted, can be a cause of annoyance and possibly offence. If you continue to show a lack of concern for that possibility I'll have no hesitation in banning you, especially since asking permission is apparently too much bother for you.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

You have totally misunderstood, as your remarks show. As a moderator of things myself, I think you do a very poor job, narrowly focused, not understanding others, and rather a bully. You hurt more than you help, in my opinion. No need to repeat the forum rules, as I've already responded positively. That you did go off again is yet another indication that you do not pay attention, and want to control people.

Graham Smith Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

You dare to call R.G a bully? you are probably the most overbearing, pompous blowhard that I have come across on any forum and that goes back to the days of bulletin boards. Calling yourself a teacher is a disservice to the teaching profession.

fergmark Loc: norwalk connecticut

Thank you Graham.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Graham, yes, I do "dare," because I was a professor, who had to look at things skeptically, keeping my emotions and opinions separate from known facts. Check the posts, the one that started this. SEE if what I observed is true or not. Graham, as I see it, you are a decent photographer, with quite a following because decent, but narrow-minded and hyper sensitive. I take those into account now.

Fergmark, I am disappointed in your opinion, which I respect, and would certainly pay close attention to any specific refutation or confirmation of my assessment you find.

Graham Smith Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

A Professor eh? Do you think that I hadn't already discovered that. Would you prefer me to tip my hat, tug my forelock, bow deeply or prostrate my self at your feet? I would draw the line at washing your feet.

PS: you can try to insult, denigrate me, or whatever as much as you like because I just don't give a tinker's cuss.

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Gentlemen, PLEASE!

All of this is serving no purpose or doing any good.

Verbal brawls are only turning this forum into nothing more than an online urinating match.

I am not playing "cop" or " schoolyard hall monitor, just a concerned peaceful member requesting peace and decorum.

Thank you!

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Again, irrelevancy. No, perhaps you are projecting when you mentioned an expectation of "tipping your hat." It should be clear to you that I was backgrounding my bona fides in regards to skeptical and objective thinking. I don't like how anything PERCEIVED BY YOU AS UNFLATTERING, even though a compliment and some questions (see my initial post in this mess below) becomes a victim cry against the injustice of it all. And you dare, dare, to denigrate the courtesy of others.

The post that started it all, apparently:
artBob (a regular here) (online) Joined: May 5, 2012 Posts: 4188 Loc: Near Chicago

Graham Smith wrote:
The framing isn't the best, the boy's feet are on the bottom, but it was shot with a Leica with framing lines in the viewfinder and they are not easy in a fast moving shot

I replied:
"Actually, the composition seems fine, a radial, as shown with the structural lines in the illustration.. I do wonder, however, what caused the strange perspective distortion of what should be slightly converging lines, as in the illustration."

To which you replied:
"Nov 7, 2019 15:39:00 #
Graham Smith (a regular here) (online) Joined: Jun 12, 2013 Posts: 6859 Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

artBob wrote:
Actually, the composition seems fine, a radial, as shown with the structural lines in the illustration.. I do wonder, however, what caused the strange perspective distortion of what should be slightly converging lines, as in the illustration.


Here we go again. Let's call it lens distortion and be done with it.

I will add that if you edit, draw your lines on or in any way mark my pictures I will cease posting in here.

It is against the section rules.

Nov 7, 2019 16:15:21 #
artBob (a regular here) (online) Joined: May 5, 2012 Posts: 4188 Loc: Near Chicago

Graham Smith wrote:
Here we go again. Let's call it lens distortion and be done with it.

I will add that if you edit, draw your lines on or in any way mark my pictures I will cease posting in here.

It is against the section rules.

Tot which I replied:
"So sorry you feel that way. Threatening others over what you perceive as my indiscretions seems unfair. I will not respond anymore to your photos. I mistakenly thought that you, like me, were a teacher, and would like to pass on knowledge, ascribing to Fair Use, understanding the difference between it and editing. Too bad you cannot answer the questions, as I would think others would find them helpful, you being so respected."

Defend yourself from your defamation of me.