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

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

  1. Matt Clara

    Robert Coe 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 don't either. But don't bother to try to explain; I get called a dimwit
    ehough already.

    : I knew there'd be a dimwit like you who'd harp on that...PLONK
    Robert Coe, Apr 22, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Matt Clara

    Matt Clara Guest

    Because I feel it's detrimental to the group.
    Matt Clara, Apr 22, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Matt Clara

    Matt Clara Guest

    The cognitive dissonance between a post saying LOOK AT MY WEBSITE and a
    simple sig file that says, after what one has to say on topic, mind you,, is mind boggling to me. It's like you freaks are just
    looking for something to pick at. If I'd made the same post without the sig
    file, I doubt you would have ever even brought it up, but since I did,
    you're treating it as your only point to chew at. Ever been on a debate
    team? You've scored no points here.
    Matt Clara, Apr 22, 2007
  4. Matt Clara

    Paul Furman Guest

    I just recently started those since I compose them for a group of
    friends & associates, I though I might as well pass them on here. Mostly
    I get nice pats on the back but really what I want from these groups is
    harsh criticism or an interesting selection of 'this on is my fav'. I
    try to give a little description so folks have a clue and add commentary
    for here pointing out my struggles & failures and am careful to include
    exif data and often full pixel crops which are often not flattering but
    I think educational and realistic.

    I used to just sneak in links into discussions where relevant but more
    often those ended up more blatantly show-off-ish and the simple 'photo
    update' format is more neutral and more easily skipped.

    I'm super self critical so maybe I seek strokes & warm fuzzies but I'm
    really wanting critical comments that educate me and offering my latest
    work with some technical comments that hopefully will educate people as
    well. I don't hesitate to post my failures and the reasons why I wish I
    could have done better, hoping for suggestions on improving my
    technique. I don't limit my updates to only the most stunning perfect
    pics, but include shots I worked & struggled with even if they aren't
    Paul Furman, Apr 22, 2007
  5. Matt Clara

    Paul Furman Guest

    Matt, you need to add a space after the -- in your sig file so that it
    gets automatically trimmed off! Sorry to be an an ass but really if we
    are talking about clutter, that's a basic protocol for sig files.
    Paul Furman, Apr 22, 2007
  6. Matt Clara

    Pete D Guest

    God forbid we should have something about photography!!!
    Pete D, Apr 22, 2007
  7. LOL! You nailed it!

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Apr 22, 2007
  8. Matt Clara

    Robert Coe Guest

    Matt Clara wrote:
    : []
    : > 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.
    : Well, it's a different topic, but perhaps ones where high ISO or very long
    : exposures are required (reciprocity failure), multiple-stitched images or
    : ones with significant post-processing? I'm sure others could add to the
    : list.

    My more prosaic example admittedly blurs the distinction between "couldn't"
    and "wouldn't", but to me the revolutionary difference between the two media
    is time spent. With a digital camera and a decent photo editor, one can
    accomplish in 15 minutes what might have taken ten hours with a film camera
    and a color enlarger.

    Robert Coe, Apr 22, 2007
  9. Matt Clara

    Robert Coe Guest

    John Smith wrote:
    : > : >
    : >>Matt Clara wrote:
    : >>
    : >>>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.
    : >>
    : >>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.
    : >
    : >
    : > 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).
    : 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.

    Does the distinction really need to be so clear-cut? In a group dedicated to
    image viewing and commentary, would you rule out all discussion of the
    equipment used to produce the images? Like many who have joined this argument,
    I don't think Matt is entirely wrong; I just think he's taking too dogmatic a
    position in support of his case.

    Robert Coe, Apr 22, 2007
  10. Matt Clara

    dwight Guest

    I understand your complaint, but I was one who asked folks to have a look at
    what I was doing and invited comment, criticism, feedback. There are
    opinions here that I highly respect, and I knew that I was risking the
    expected garbage responses, as well, but I felt like I was working in a
    vacuum and wanted to know if I was on the right track.

    I know what I like in the photos I've taken, but it's nice to have feedback
    from others who enjoy this pursuit, as opposed to just family and friends.

    As to posting links in signatures, I consider that a resumé, or a
    substantiation of the merit of the opinion; credentials, if you will. When
    someone weighs in with an opinion, I like to check out that person's work to
    see if they know what they're talking about.

    Of course, having looked at many of those websites, I feel somewhat hesitant
    to use a link in my own signature.

    dwight, Apr 22, 2007
  11. Matt Clara

    John Smith Guest

    IMHO, this fella had a point (not saying I agreed with it) when he seemed to
    say his complain was that when folks asked for comment, they were knocking
    his older posts off the server.
    I can see where he may be feeling he's getting short shift (though, like I
    say, I don't agree, after all, he's putting his website out there if anyone
    was interested).

    But I can't accept THIS claim. "Detrimental to the group"????

    Just my opinion.


    John Smith, Apr 22, 2007
  12. Matt Clara

    Pete D Guest

    In the last week or two there has been all of about two or three posts with
    links to photos, the complainers have created far more noise.
    Pete D, Apr 22, 2007
  13. Matt Clara

    Pete D Guest

    Yeah, knoocked his one post "to be" about two weeks ago which was not about
    equipment anyway.
    Pete D, Apr 22, 2007
  14. Matt Clara

    Alan Browne Guest

    In the various shades of grey that are the people's opinions here, I
    think that Matt is more on the side of right than wrong. For example,
    the group is more about photography.

    This NG is about slr-systems ... which is why I refer to photos being
    posted to illustrate equipment issues.

    Further, what Matt seems to be most sensitive to is not a link to a
    single photo but links to collections of photos. In this light I agree
    with him that the "look ma" posts to someones latest photos is a bit
    much. Put in the sig after a -- . refers original charter states: [On-topic]
    "- Posting links to personal photo galleries or images, as long as the
    discussion remains within the context of DSLR photography "

    To me (as the co-proponent of the NG) means in the context of equipment.
    Making a post to link to a photo collection is abusing the intent of
    the NG.

    I have no objection to single photo links, esp. where an issue about a
    DSLR is raised... even if these are of the "Look what my fantastic
    Minolta 100 f/2.8 Macro and Maxxum 7D can do in mixed studio lighting. " variety.


    Alan Browne, Apr 22, 2007
  15. I think the idiot Matt is refering to with his objection of blatant ego
    tripping by posting his "LOOK AT MY PICTURES" links without any discussion
    of photogrpahy in the message, is none other than Annika1980/Bret
    Hogan/Douglas or whoever he claimes to be this year. This is the creep who
    stole a Australian Pro Photographer's identity and set about behaving like a
    criminal, trying to hack said Pro's accounts with Fuji Visa and eBay.

    I rather enjoyed the Pro's response in setting up a web site: to expose the creep for the childish idiot he is.
    What did said Pro do to upset him? Critisized his out of focus eagle picture
    and his "example" of a wide angle shot with blown highlights.

    When someone is so jealously obsessed with the need for peer approval for
    his snapshots and he doesn't get it, the lengths this Chattanooga Tennessee
    resident went to should serve as a warning to all people with no social
    skills not to become obsessed with your past time and use your computer as a
    tool of retaliation..

    Hogan/Douglas is now the subject of investigation by the FBI and has had his
    Internet account revoked by Bell south. It didn't matter too much to him.
    There's another provider on every street corner but it does highlight that
    despite all the avenues of complaint for being unfairly and illegally
    attacked on the Internet, the simplest response is the most effective one.
    Annika fan club, Apr 23, 2007
  16. Matt Clara

    John Smith Guest

    But on the other side of the coin, at least you know these folks have
    actually hand their hands on a camera.

    "Noise" comes in many forms.

    John Smith, Apr 23, 2007
  17. *Is* film better at long esposures?
    Versus all digital sensors?
    Show me the film images that could have been shot by Viking,
    Voyager, Spirit & Opportunity, ...

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 23, 2007
  18. (stuff that is completely ignorable)
    Hi, Doug/PhotoCritic/Julian. Try to stick with one identity per

    Personally, I get pissed off with people who sockpuppet. It's
    especially sad when they are too gutless to admit their identities..
    Like who ever was that 'niceparking' guy?

    Love your work, Matt.
    mark.thomas.7, Apr 23, 2007
  19. Matt Clara

    Jim Redelfs Guest

    I agree.

    Such posts, however, are MUCH less annoying than the plethora of blatant
    off-topics and spam.

    The understated approach to modestly promoting ones' site is the best way.

    Your tagline or signature, if not perfect, is a good way to promote their dSLR
    achievements without being too obvious.

    Your tagline delimiter is not correct. It should be two hyphens followed by a
    space alone on its own line. That way, a compliant newsreader quoting
    function will NOT quote the sig.

    Also, including "http://" in front of the URL to your site will make it a MUCH
    more automatic/clickable link for the various browsers out there.

    If the reader wants to view MY work, they can figure it out from the HEADER of
    my articles/replies. It's a pretty basic site and in NO way should represent
    (anywhere near) the best that can be done using Apple's iPhoto and iWeb
    programs and their .Mac hosting service.
    Jim Redelfs, Apr 23, 2007
  20. Film is /worse/ than digital because of reciprocity failure.

    David J Taylor, Apr 23, 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.