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

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Matt Clara, Apr 20, 2007.

  1. Matt Clara

    Matt Clara Guest

    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.
    Matt Clara, Apr 20, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Matt Clara

    Photo Critic Guest

    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.

    Photo Critic, Apr 20, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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
    which is a link to your pictures??????????????
    Wolfgang Schmittenhammer, Apr 21, 2007
  4. 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).

    Jürgen Exner, Apr 21, 2007
  5. 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...
    Wolfgang Schmittenhammer, Apr 21, 2007
  6. Matt Clara

    Matt Clara Guest

    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
    Matt Clara, Apr 21, 2007
  7. Matt Clara

    Frank ess Guest

    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.
    Frank ess, Apr 21, 2007
  8. Matt Clara

    John Smith Guest

    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

    John Smith, Apr 21, 2007
  9. From YOUR site: is just my way of saying, hey, look at me, because I never
    got enough attention as a kid
    Wolfgang Schmittenhammer, Apr 21, 2007
  10. Matt Clara

    Frank ess Guest

    I have a SITE? Where?
    Frank ess, Apr 21, 2007
  11. Matt Clara

    Pete D Guest

    Don't you be disagreeing with NetCop Clara, he will be plonking you (as if
    anyone would care if he did).
    Pete D, Apr 21, 2007
  12. 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

    David J Taylor, Apr 21, 2007
  13. Matt Clara

    Matt Clara Guest

    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.
    Matt Clara, Apr 21, 2007
  14. Matt Clara

    M-M Guest

    "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
    M-M, Apr 21, 2007
  15. Matt Clara

    John Smith Guest

    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.

    John Smith, Apr 21, 2007
  16. Matt Clara

    Alan Browne Guest

    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.

    Alan Browne, Apr 21, 2007
  17. Matt Clara

    John Smith Guest

    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).

    John Smith, Apr 21, 2007
  18. achilleaslazarides, Apr 21, 2007
  19. Matt Clara

    Matt Clara Guest

    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.
    Matt Clara, Apr 21, 2007
  20. Matt Clara

    Alan Browne Guest

    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

    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.

    Alan Browne, Apr 21, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.