robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

edited duplicate
OK, first it tells me I already posted the above answer when I hadn't and then it posts it twice. I see Murphy is the IT guy tonight.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

That would be welcome "back" to the Attic. You were one of the few people I missed when I unsubscribed from the Attic.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

With this confirmation of your personal disdain for other people here, coupled with your admitted belittling of students, and your fouling of this discussion, I am going to stop your toxic access to this thread.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

When and how?

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

[quote=artBob]Yes, this thread has taken some sad turns. Quite misguided, as I see it. Please recall the benchmarks for a good discussion I recently posted:
1. true (what we can verify) if it fits your opinion it's true
2. meaningful (what matters to you) important to Bob
3. useful (what situation we’re in). useful to Bob

I hold to that, and do not mind productive new directions. It seems, since posting those benchmarks, posters (except you) do not agree. They insist on bad outcomes. To make a point I'd made early on in this thread, it is the narrow and vindictive who too often prolong what could be a good and important discussion.
as long as they support you

I have had some experience with having disruptive people around. There are several strategies. At this point, their hateful and personal views have been refuted by looking back in the thread. Usually, I let them play out their bias and ad hominem arguments.
the thread is open, you have no choice

Meanwhile, I like open discussion. It enlivens the mind and might enlarge truth. Those who want to contribute to a real discussion can contribute as long as it interests them. I only "scold" the bad actors.
do you do that looking in a mirror a lot?

BTW, I "learned" not to talk during class in my first grade; the dear Sister swabbed out my mouth with Iodine. I did not proceed to Palmolive.[/quote

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

I guess I cannot ban you from this thread. So sad. I can only hope your shotgun nastiness and disdain for truth is ignored by any who might want to comment. You would be gone from my class, going through the proper authorities, not being insultingly called "POBRECITO" as you did to your problem student.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

If I had found myself in one of your classes I would have dropped it on my own as soon as I realized what you were like. I did it more than once.

Though with one "legend in his own mind" a group of 6 of us-all recently discharged Vietnam vets-decided to stay and we fed him back his drivel word for word and then added to and exaggerated it to the point the rest of the class was alternately shocked or choking holding back their laughter. His ego was so big he believed he had converted a bunch of psycho killer veterans to the True Way and never realized what we were doing. In the end we all got A's. We met in the university library and studied the real class material on our own with a group made up of most of the class sitting in. The campus grapevine passed the word that some other professors who didn't like him much got tired of him bragging about his conversion of our group and spilled the beans about what we did. They also alerted admin and got them to stop his attempt to go back and change our grades.

And the pobrecito thing was humor/sarcastic and the students joined in and gave it right back to me. We had a great time for a few minutes when it happened then back to the subject material. It was FUN! and got the point over. Before I retired some of the students I did that to showed as newly graduated/certificated teachers on campus and we had a few laughs in the faculty lounge remembering the incident(s).

jburlinson Loc: Austin, TX

Hi, Bob. I almost never peak into "the attic", but did so in this case because I missed you in the latest "my image, your view" (MIYV) threads and wondered what was up. Then I learned you had been banned and was directed here for the lowdown. I must say, I got more than I bargained for.

One thing that seems to be such a tender issue for you has to do with the word "edit". If I understand you correctly, you believe that an edit is something like a re-do, the type of thing that MIYV consists of. In other words, you would have "edited" Graham Smith's photo if you had offered up an alternate, corrected version of it.

My own experience of editing is somewhat different, although admittedly it's in the print-based medium. "Edited" copy is full of markings, lines and symbols added over top of the original. Rarely, if ever, does the editor re-write the entire piece, as happens in MIYV. Your illustrated correction of Mr. Smith's image fits my notion of "editing" to a tee. You called out the "strange perspective distortion of what should be slightly converging lines" by using various markings. From my perspective, the "editor" was pointing out something that needed fixing.

Please enlighten me if I'm misunderstanding you.

Regardless, hope to see you around again.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

My banning was not about editing, which was merely a discussion I had hoped to use to clarify my actions. The banning seems to be about the moderator's insistence that I follow the rules, which I had said I would. It became, I think, a personal issue, and he banned me when I posted a message calling out what I considered poor moderation.

However, you are right in what you've said about editing in print media. Even visuals there are "edited," modified with crop marks. It is not the same in publications or visual presentations ABOUT visuals, where illustration lines for composition and other marks to point out areas in the visual being shown are common practice. In such media, editing means altering the content of the visual. I hope this answers the question you put. If not, let's continue. Such questioning and comments as yours are the best of UHH.

I am around, btw, in General Discussion, Photo Gallery, and post-Processing Digital Images. I miss the "good'uns" of FYC. Carry on with them😊

mwalsh Loc: Houston

The OP started this boo-hoo-poor-me thread, and is still whining 12 pages later...

Grow up at least a little bit dude.


A strong application of Rule #6 would do you a world of good.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

To give you an idea of the sort of attitude we were up against, Bob's attitude towards seeking permission first before altering someone's image is that it's too much bother.

He's been trying to argue his position by saying that his additions to people's images (overlays etc) fall outside of his preferred definition of "editing". Several times I've referred to his additions as "alterations" and he hasn't queried that description. I've also tried to get him to acknowledge how unwelcome these alterations are in some cases and he didn't. I've tried in various ways to get some sort of reassurance that he wasn't going to continue to be a problem and each time the sought-for reassurance wasn't forthcoming.

To give you a clearer idea of the sort of attitude that we've had to deal with, when the person that Bob annoyed (Graham Smith) said

"Bob all I want is for you to desist from altering my pictures. You can write whatever critique you fancy but stick to writing and we will get along famously ",

Bob said (amongst other things)

"...you seem to be out of order....."

and then persisted in using his definition of editing to argue that his additions weren't editing. So rather than acknowledging that his diagrams were causing annoyance and apologising for it he continued to argue that he wasn't to blame for the resulting hostilities.

(That is just a quick condensation of the sort of argumentativeness and annoyance that Bob has been guilty of).

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Thank you for your excellent advice. Your profiling is a total aberration, though. Perhaps to you it would be "whining." For me, it's sticking up for the truth and for freedom.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

So providing critique by visual analysis via lines to show and discuss composition is editing. That's interesting.

Bill_de Loc: US

This forum and apparently the administrator support you freedom --- to whine.

They don't support your perceived freedom to repost another's image whether you call it editing or not.

Whine on!

--

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Your side.

Here's mine, replying to your opinions:
Your words:
"To give you an idea of the sort of attitude we were up against, Bob's attitude towards seeking permission first before altering someone's image is that it's too much bother.
"He's been trying to argue his position by saying that his additions to people's images (overlays etc) fall outside of his preferred definition of "editing". Several times I've referred to his additions as "alterations" and he hasn't queried that description. I've also tried to get him to acknowledge how unwelcome these alterations are in some cases and he didn't. I've tried in various ways to get some sort of reassurance that he wasn't going to continue to be a problem and each time the sought-for reassurance wasn't forthcoming."

My reply:
TOTAL FABRICATION. Read through the first pages of the thread. "Refusal to ask permission" is a red herring. I had previously agreed not to edit without permission. This time, I did not edit in the standard sense (see the definitions for visual editing), but used overlying lines to illustrate points. The offended photographer, Graham Smith, himself acknowledged the distinction, as he had in his personal info in small print at the bottom of his posts: "Do not Edit or mark." "OR."
I did mark, not having read Graham's words. Another poster, jaymatt, pointed out my mistake. I admitted the mistake and wrote I would not do that, either, while pointing out that such illustrative lines are common practice, and I though the prohibitions lowered the efficacy of the section.
"jaymatt (a regular here)
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."


You, R.G., continued to flail away at my "editing" against the rules, which by then I had already agreed to:
"artBob (a regular here)
With all due respect, you are beating that poor, dead horse of mine, the one where I agreed to follow the rules. I continue to speak out from my experience as conductor of critiques and member of several Art/Photo groups, because the truth is important, and as much as I like UHH, it is not impervious to improvement."

For those reading this, read the original thread. I do not know what compelled R.G.


You write:
"To give you a clearer idea of the sort of attitude that we've had to deal with, when the person that Bob annoyed (Graham Smith) said

"Bob all I want is for you to desist from altering my pictures. You can write whatever critique you fancy but stick to writing and we will get along famously ",

Bob said (amongst other things)

"...you seem to be out of order....."

My reply:
Cherry-picking, out of context remarks. Put them, all, in context. I had already agreed not to mark Smith's prints, in fact, not to comment at all, prior to his post. You leave out the key thing. I wrote back that "getting along" was not my main goal. Improving our knowledge of photography was my main goal.

Below is my reply in full. At this t
"I did not edit the photo. Here's the first definition of "edit" found in Google (Merriam-Webster) (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/edit):
": to prepare (something written) to be published or used : to make changes, correct mistakes, etc., in (something written)
": to prepare (a film, recording, photo, etc.) to be seen or heard : to change, move, or remove parts of (a film, recording, photo, etc.)
": to be in charge of the publication of (something)"

"I do not "change, move, or remove" anything. I ILLUSTRATE, as one finds in books on composition and in Art & Photography History books.

"So, you seem to be out of order, and actually blocking learning. It appears you have done some service on UHH, and are much liked. Nice, but to "get along famously" as you request is not the goal of any good photographer, especially if someone dictates and does not have answers.."

To be clear:
1. I did not intentionally ignore the "editing" (dictionary definition) rule that I had previous agreed to, while disputing it as a good rule.
2. I did use illustrative lines, in the field of visual media a common practice, not considered editing.
3. I was wrong, since the OP did have in his small print personal information "Do not /edit or mark."
4. I admitted my mistake, and, while arguing the point about whether marking was editing, agreed not to do it.
5. R.G. kept insisting I abide by the rules, which I had already agreed to.
6. I wrote R.G. that I thought he was doing a poor job of moderating, by seeing narrowly and not creating peace.
7. He did not post that, instead banning me.