Why Post? (Page 5): Exactly!

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

birdpix wrote:

If seems to become a contest to see who can rack up the most pages of posts. 7-8-9 pages of posts of which 50% are thank you posts!
The special sections don't get the attention they should.

Exactly!

D-Train Loc: Bend, Oregon

Nikonian72,
I'm interested in learning more about HDR, so I went and searched out the HDR forum. There is a topic there, posted by you, titled "The Ultimate Guide to HDR Photography" and you have a link there. The link doesn't work. Since it is locked and I cannot post this there I thought I'd come back here and let you know. YRMV! :wink:

SteveR Loc: Michigan

D-Train wrote:

Nikonian72,
I'm interested in learning more about HDR, so I went and searched out the HDR forum. There is a topic there, posted by you, titled "The Ultimate Guide to HDR Photography" and you have a link there. The link doesn't work. Since it is locked and I cannot post this there I thought I'd come back here and let you know. YRMV! :wink:

Speaking of that, Nikonian, why couldn't you get your pest suspended for awhile since he was hijacking your thread on HDR, or was it layering? Members shouldn't be able to disrupt honest threads iinvolved in teaching photo techniques.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

D-Train wrote:

Nikonian72,
I'm interested in learning more about HDR, so I went and searched out the HDR forum. There is a topic there, posted by you, titled "The Ultimate Guide to HDR Photography" and you have a link there. The link doesn't work. Since it is locked and I cannot post this there I thought I'd come back here and let you know.

Thanks for the heads-up. Unfortunately, only the HDR Forum Manager can unlock & edit threads, so I cannot correct or remove that post.
In the meantime, try here:
FAQ: Beginners Guide to HDR & Pseudo-HDR
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-26491-1.html

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

SteveR wrote:

Speaking of that, Nikonian, why couldn't you get your pest suspended for awhile since he was hijacking your thread on HDR, or was it layering? Members shouldn't be able to disrupt honest threads involved in teaching photo techniques.

We have an exuberant, new member that wanted to discuss 3-D imaging on more than one macro thread. I think he finally got the message.

Searcher Loc: Kent, England

How about a compromise:

A new thread in the Gallery, entitled something like "Fine Art Photographs" where Hoggers can upload photographs they consider to be really good. A brief description (or none) and no comments allowed, (No Oohs and Aahs, no criticism, just a display of good photos). The topic is "sticky" for one month and fixed at the top of the Gallery, and there is a new Fine Art Thread opened each month.

Administration of the thread is confined to making it sticky and unsticking once a month so not too onerous a task with no programming required.

At the end of the month the thread is unstuck and simply drops down the gallery list. If someone posts regularly images not considered fine art, or keeps adding unrequired comments I am sure a discreetly worded PM would suffice.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

The real problem with any of these suggestions is that you will not stop people thinking that their ordinary snapshots are high quality images.
People will always post junk to any of these "high quality" boards suggested, and they will be deeply, and loudly visibly offended, if anyone dare tell them that their images aren't up to scratch.

Searcher Loc: Kent, England

lighthouse wrote:

The real problem with any of these suggestions is that you will not stop people thinking that their ordinary snapshots are high quality images.
People will always post junk to any of these "high quality" boards suggested, and they will be deeply, and loudly visibly offended, if anyone dare tell them that their images aren't up to scratch.

An easy way to test this is to ask St3v3M to organise one of his competitions and call it "Fine Art Photography" and see what develops.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

I don't think that high quality and fine art have the same definition.
And it is high quality we are talking about here isn't it?

Searcher Loc: Kent, England

lighthouse wrote:

I don't think that high quality and fine art have the same definition.
And it is high quality we are talking about here isn't it?

So call it "High Quality Images" I'm not being pedantic over names.

My point is, this is the second thread on this subject in a short space of time, much debate and no conclusions. There are obviously strong feelings on the subject from both sides so surely it must be worth testing the waters somehow in perhaps a simplified way.

My own feelings are that though I'm not happy about elitism etc. if handled correctly and diplomatically, the concept might even work. I have been swayed this morning by looking at PalePictures' website, his photographs are some of the best I have ever seen. I would like to see more from different people with that kind of quality and imagination behind them.

I have over 5000 images in my files, none of which would count as being very high quality or fine art or whatever label anyone would put on high quality photos, so I could easily be biased against the whole idea. I'm not, it just has to be thought through carefully and handled "nicely".

Dadyassa Loc: Spain

lighthouse wrote:

I don't think that high quality and fine art have the same definition.
And it is high quality we are talking about here isn't it?

Hard to define "High Quality"
To some it`s crap, but to us lowly mortals, its "High Quality" cos we don`t have the ability, equipment or luck that the almighty have. :D
It would be far better to reply and say, good try but you really need to use blah blah and try blah blah.
Everyone has to learn. :wink:

Searcher Loc: Kent, England

Dadyassa wrote:

Hard to define "High Quality"
To some it`s crap, but to us lowly mortals, its "High Quality" cos we don`t have the ability, equipment or luck that the almighty have. :D
It would be far better to reply and say, good try but you really need to use blah blah and try blah blah.
Everyone has to learn. :wink:

That's diplomacy!

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

SteveR wrote:

I'm beginning to wonder why bother posting photos to the photo gallery anymore. I take care not to post junk, and when I do post what I think are decent photos, they disappear from page one within about 30 minutes. I guess there are so many members posting now that we all get bumped off. Everybody's posting and few are looking. So, again I ask, why post?

We all have different skill levels and opinions on what constitutes a "Good Photo". Nothing you can do about that.

Keep in mind that this is a free site but someone is paying for it. See the advertisement. Advertisers want volume.

I think most photo websites have deteriorated as the volume increased.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

I would say that 90% of us here have adequate equipment to produce high quality images. Most p&s, most bridge and all DSLR plus other cameras are adequate.
Luck is hardly ever a requirement. Usually it is knowledge and time that is more important.
We all have the ability, even those with physical difficulties. Physical difficulties can be worked around if you have the will.

Dadyassa wrote:

Hard to define "High Quality"
To some it`s crap, but to us lowly mortals, its "High Quality" cos we don`t have the ability, equipment or luck that the almighty have. :D
It would be far better to reply and say, good try but you really need to use blah blah and try blah blah.
Everyone has to learn. :wink:

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Searcher wrote:

An easy way to test this is to ask St3v3M to organise one of his competitions and call it "Fine Art Photography" and see what develops.

Work out the details and I will run it, but it needs to be defined.