Do we really need "look at my pictures" updates here?

I don't believe such activity belongs here, and while I think an occasional,
look at this one, or this gallery, is fine, particularly when it's tied to a
specific discussion on dSLR equipment, I don't appreciate those folks who
seem to feel that we're all waiting eagerly to share in their images again
and again. That's nothing but ego tripping, it doesn't help the group, nor
is it what 99% of us come here for. Sorry if that steps on some toes.

 

I agree 100%. There are forums for showing off your photos. Pbase is the
first that comes to mind but there are so many as to question why anyone
bothers to post their links here.

One 'opinion' is that people seek recognition from their peers as a sort of
justification they have a clue. This is totally unnecessary as anyone who
has a 'clue' will quickly stand out from those who don't.

Julian

 

Is this irony or a joke?? You say your opinion is one shouldn't post
links/pictures here, but at the bottom of your post is www.mattclara.com
which is a link to your pictures??????????????

 

You may want to educate yourself about the meaning and purpose of a
signature in Usenet (although I think it was improperly separated by
dash-dash instead of dash-dash-blank).

jue

 

Don't waste your time on a fool as me, I am sure I would be unable to
understand the profound and esoteric meaning (and purpose) of a
signature/ego, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

 

Well consider this. I, along with many other usenet posters, include a link
to our websites. I do not, however, start threads which say, LOOK AT MY
WEBSITE. See the difference...? I thought not.

I knew there'd be a dimwit like you who'd harp on that...PLONK

 

I'm delighted that you perceptive and articlate gentlemen have
tunnelled your way through the bloviation and arrived at the meat of
the OP's concern.

For my part, I /like/ people to post their "look at (me) my updates".
With few exceptions it's a reliable signal that time would be
a-wastin' were I to visit their works.

 

IMHO, you're using a different approach, but you have the same end in mind.
You want your pictures to get some attention.

And I don't see anything wrong with that. Your beef against these folks just
doesn't make any sense.

Just as you are seeking an audience for your work via this group so are
they...nothing wrong with that.

Just my opinion

DP

 

From YOUR site:
MattClara.com is just my way of saying, hey, look at me, because I never
got enough attention as a kid

 

I have a SITE? Where?

 

Don't you be disagreeing with NetCop Clara, he will be plonking you (as if
anyone would care if he did).

 

I am quite happy to see the occasional post of this nature, perhaps more
so where it shows pictures which could not be obtained without using a
DSLR.

David

 

Fair enough, David, that's rather what I was getting at, I think, in terms
of being ontopic.
Hey, while we're on the topic, I'm unaware of any image that couldn't have
been captured with film, go ahead and educate me.

 

"David J Taylor"

What kind of pictures would that be? Just off the top of my head, I
cannot think of any digital photo which could not have been captured on
film.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm a film fan, largely due to the great equipment range
that we can't seem to get in digital (affordable rangefinder gear, for
example), but I'd say one are where capturing a picture on film vs. digital
is when it comes to low light photography...

Those (relatively) clean images at 1600 would have been difficult if not
impossible with film for many people.

DP

 

The desired point always lies somewhere 'tween the extremes. Not
posting anything would be a bit dry; posting every damned thing is
indeed too much.

I agree with Matt: folks, as this is a "system" aka "equipment" group,
posts should be related to discussing aspects of equipment and not
simply "Look what I shot with my Nicanonolta 423XP-2 Mk VII."

In particular, some posts are obviously meant to drive up site traffic
and that is really a form of spamming ... really not welcome.

There are many newsgroups and online forums that are more appropriate to
posting images for image sake.

Cheers,
Alan.

 

I don't have a dog in this race but isn't including a web site in all your
posts designed to drum up traffic? It clearly sez 'look at me look at me"
(not that I see anything wrong with that).

DP

 

The one here
http://www.digitalartform.com/archives/2006/01/nikon_d200_band.html
would have been tricky with film

 

Don't get me wrong, Roger, I don't mind an occasional, look at these! But
when that's followed by another such post a week later, followed by another
three days later, and then they just keep coming, that does nothing for the
group except pollute it.

Interesting, thank you.

 

If you're referring to the links in my sigs they are related to the
newsgroups proper (this and 35mm and the shootin) as a guide to these
NG's.

Further, links in sigs are tolerated as they are not the primary reason
for the posting but a volluntary (for the reader) offramp. The primary
reason for the post should be topical.

This NG is about digital.slr-systems and is not, per se, a photo image
group, but an equipment group.

Cheers,
Alan