|
um excuse me posted:I don't disagree with the sentiment, but that's a very complicated problem that requires tremendous socioeconomic pressure to resolve, nothing that can really be applied to any single individual. That’s incredibility reductive and removes all agency from a given individual to critically think about what they’re doing and make a change, let alone using it as a way to shut down discussions on an important topic in photography.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
um excuse me posted:I know the forum of discussion isn't commercial, but the context in which a photo is taken matters if you're going to tie motive back to the photographer. It's absurd to assume that just because you're a commercial male-gaze photographer that the other poster must be too. The OP didn't give us any additional context aside from mentioning some vague "scene," so yes, this forum is the context in which we're discussing the photos. um excuse me posted:I don't disagree with the sentiment, but that's a very complicated problem that requires tremendous socioeconomic pressure to resolve, nothing that can really be applied to any single individual. So you're saying that because you alone can't solve a problem, you should contribute to making it worse instead?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
No, I'm not saying that at all. I could try to think of an analogy but then you guys would go down into nit picking the analogy and how it doesn't perfectly match the situation, even though that's the point of an analogy. I'm not saying one person can't contribute to a solution, just than one person can't be expected to be the solution. There are opportunities to contribute to a larger cause, but that's exactly what it is, an opportunity. Not everyone has the resources to make a meaningful impact for change.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 20:43
|
|
|
so you're saying their camera can't take pictures of men. got it
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:If you're going to argue from authority, you'll need to back it up with more than snarky one-liners. You have no other posts in this thread so why don't you kindly gently caress off with that poo poo. um excuse me posted:No, I'm not saying that at all. I could try to think of an analogy but then you guys would go down into nit picking the analogy and how it doesn't perfectly match the situation, even though that's the point of an analogy. I don't think any of the people here are as nit picky as you might think. If you give a bad analogy it's a bad analogy and that's not really anyone's fault but your own. That said, it's not a topic so complicated and undecipherable that an analogy is really required here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
God drat, this thread turned into a Facebook group. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
Interesting, I didn't realize that model portraiture was weird at all. A few points, since this seemed to stir a little discussion:ansel autisms posted:does your camera not photograph men? My male friends are all vain as hell and also camera shy, apparently. I started by shooting a few portraits of my female friends (like, my car detailer and my barber, who were wanting portraits done). Then I started getting hit up by other instagram models and semi-models to do some portraiture. If you ever see my instagram you'll see a few Suicide Girls and SG Hopefuls, which is a pretty big scene in Phoenix. They talk to each other, so if you do something they like, then you'll get hit up and invited to photography events and the like. Awkward Davies posted:Congratulations on your well executed male gaze. You can call the portraits "male gazy" I guess, but I suspect if you feel that way, you've probably not spent much time shooting models. I mean, I am absolutely not an expert, but after maybe 30 or so shoots this year I've been around enough to know that perving out in any way does not produce good photos. You are there to help the model bring a look to the lens, and the moment you try to cross any kind of line that becomes impossible. RangerScum posted:why don't we discuss why people (especially male photographers) generally focus on taking pretty pictures of women vs men? that seems like an interesting discussion to me I've never had a male model or male friends reach out to me for work, and when I talk to my guy friends about doing a shoot, they always are agreeable but never actually want to meet up and, well, shoot. So this is what I'm left with. I actually prefer automotive portraiture, but I've struggled to get guys to want to let a no-talent jerk like me to shoot their cars, understandably. There's a lot of demand for model portraiture, both starting and seasoned, to have a photographer that isn't going to be weird on a shoot and also process and get photographs back on time. So that's the kind of work that came down the pipe for me. Which is fine, I enjoy it. The feedback is always good and encouraging. Awkward Davies posted:True, not the whole portfolio, but a group of images selected by the photographer as representative of their year of shooting portraiture. Benefit of the doubt, they shot some pictures of a man at some point, but they also didn't feel any of those pictures were important enough to share in that post. These are my portraits so it's what I've shown here in the portrait thread and to celebrate/discuss moving into this kind of work. It's been genuinely interesting seeing what the scene is like, and how quick the right kind of exposure can help you grow. I've also shot automotive, drone landscapes, macro, etc. But this year was definitely all about portraiture, and primarily model portraiture, for me. torgeaux posted:Look, the "does the camera photograph men" line is, without context, useless criticism. I thought it was a funny line. I've been on these forums a while, so it's not like I'm going to get worked up over it  I will say this, working with other photographers in the modeling scene has easily been the most positive and chill experience ever. It's often a good mix of folks, probably about 60% female / 40% male photographers at the meetups and events. Yes, there's often a lot of nudity and models walking around undressed, but the photographers are usually trading lenses or softboxes or talking about gear and such. You'd think that there's a lot of machismo surrounding this kind of work (as I see a lot with 'car guys'), but nothing could be further from the truth. Nor is bad behavior tolerated, like, at all. Thankfully. Nothing is better than when a subject is stoked to see your work, and then you see them post it to their feed and get a bunch of comments on it. Or they change their IG photo to something that you helped them create. A lot of these starting-out models do this kind of work as a way to cope with insecurity or their introverted nature, so the goal as a photographer is 100% to help them do just that. It's the kind of feedback that can fend off the depression that sometimes kills the motivation to get out there and shoot. That type of positive feedback from the model is the juice. Blame Pyrrhus fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Dec 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:Not everyone has the resources to make a meaningful impact for change. But this person, the photographer, does. I mean sure there might be jobs they have to take in order to put food on the table, but they're literally in charge of creating the images. They're at the source. They're the ones who decide what the image will be. In some cases there might be art directors and other external influences, but they still have a lot of choice in terms of the jobs they take and they types of images they choose to create.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
Linux Nazi posted:Interesting, I didn't realize that model portraiture was weird at all. A few points, since this seemed to stir a little discussion: I appreciate how reasonable and thought out this response is. I also think it's awesome that you're stoked to make the people you shoot feel good. That's great. I think that we're talking about a broader concept of the "male gaze". We're not talking about photographers getting boners, or trying to assault models. We're talking about a broader conception of how society thinks women should be displayed. You and the models you're working with can perpetuate this. I think there's a larger conversation (that we're having) about photography in general, and about how the subjects we shoot are presented. Also, for the record and as I've said previously: I do think the photos are well executed, and I'm not pretending that I have your skill in this area. I think it's awesome you've progressed so much in a year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
XBenedict posted:God drat, this thread turned into a Facebook group. Shut up and go away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
The discussion was based on a bunch of mights and ifs, but Linux Nazi more or less confirms my suspicions that the industry is what it is. Call it male gazey if you wish but it seems like everyone is on the same page. The models want it this way, the agency/customer/client/company/or person wants it this way and the photographer doesn't mind. Doesn't seem like villainy in this instance and has been a similar experience for me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:I appreciate how reasonable and thought out this response is. I also think it's awesome that you're stoked to make the people you shoot feel good. That's great. FWIW I'm not ever been paid for any kind of work. And usually I'm helping the subject shoot what they want to shoot. Outfit, scene, etc. I'm contributing by helping with half of the creative side and the technical aspect of things like lighting and post-work. Personally, I find the artifice of happiness in social media far more toxic than any perceived beauty "norms" that may seem alarming. But that's me, and I'm no expert.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
Linux Nazi posted:A lot of these starting-out models do this kind of work as a way to cope with insecurity or their introverted nature, so the goal as a photographer is 100% to help them do just that. Thanks for being willing to engage us in this discussion! The "male gaze" isn't just people taking photos to jerk off to later, though those guys absolutely still exist. I won't pretend to be able to state the problem as clearly and as completely as other people have, but as I see it, the male gaze and the resulting photography directly cause the insecurity you're talking about - there's constant societal pressure to conform to the standards set by idealized and unrealistic images, which historically have been shaped by men. Linux Nazi posted:FWIW I'm not ever been paid for any kind of work. And usually I'm helping the subject shoot what they want to shoot. Outfit, scene, etc. I'm contributing by helping with half of the creative side and the technical aspect of things like lighting and post-work. Personally, I find the artifice of happiness in social media far more toxic than any perceived beauty "norms" that may seem alarming. But that's me, and I'm no expert. I'd like to agree with Awkward Davies here - from a technical standpoint, you're doing great, especially for a year's worth of effort. My concern is more philosophical. I think beauty norms and the artifice of happiness are related in that there's an ideal image to which there's pressure to conform, whether it's related to one's body or one's lifestyle. um excuse me posted:The discussion was based on a bunch of mights and ifs, but Linux Nazi more or less confirms my suspicions that the industry is what it is. Call it male gazey if you wish but it seems like everyone is on the same page. The models want it this way, the agency/customer/client/company/or person wants it this way and the photographer doesn't mind. Doesn't seem like villainy in this instance and has been a similar experience for me. Internalized misogyny is still misogyny, even if the client is the model. Nobody in this thread set out with the intention of destroying people's self image (it sounds like Linux Nazi is even hoping to build it up) but that doesn't mean the actual result isn't worth critiquing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:The discussion was based on a bunch of mights and ifs, but Linux Nazi more or less confirms my suspicions that the industry is what it is. Call it male gazey if you wish but it seems like everyone is on the same page. The models want it this way, the agency/customer/client/company/or person wants it this way and the photographer doesn't mind. Doesn't seem like villainy in this instance and has been a similar experience for me. That’s exactly the point and the problem we’re all getting at, having essentially moved passed LN’s specific photos at this point, which are essentially technically proficient and what the client wanted. Just because the client/model wants these photos, does it make it okay? What are their motivations for having these style of photos taken? Why is there a need/demand to view such photos? Etc, etc I’m not asking/expecting you to answer these questions, but its an actual, interesting discussion to have, rather than just taking specifically about a set of largely uninteresting photos of models.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Just because the client/model wants these photos, does it make it okay? What are their motivations for having these style of photos taken? Why is there a need/demand to view such photos? Etc, etc There is no singular answer to this, or cause. People like to look good. Hell, I dropped 60lbs once in an effort to look good, both for myself and so I could be taken more seriously on the dating front. Sometimes the motivation is exactly what you think it is, but often its much more internalized. Rarely is it destructive. At least in my myopic experience. Doing this kind of work changed a lot of my assumptions about the typical "IG model", I'm not even sure I could explain in a way that does any kind of justice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Just because the client/model wants these photos, does it make it okay? What are their motivations for having these style of photos taken? Why is there a need/demand to view such photos? Etc, etc If the client and model are happy, then is it really a problem? Something that hasn't been expressed clearly is what's the harm here? A lot of the critiques on these last couple of pages have been toeing the line up to puritanism, and that used to the be the domain of stuffy old conservatives. EDIT: ansel autisms posted:photographs of women gazing lustily into the camera are a dime a dozen and not particularly interesting. That's a critique worth discussing. But the moralizing around this is really tired. McMadCow fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Dec 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 02:41
|
|
|
I've done a lot of portrait photography in the past year as I had a small studio set up in my condo and I was getting a lot of attention from models on MM, as well as friends from various circles who asked me to shoot them. I haven't been sharing them here because, for the most part they've either been NSFW, or they've been fairly standard portfolio shots which don't think would interest this particular community. My experience tracks fairly closely with what Linux Nazi says. There are a lot of toruing models in this part of the world working their way around SE Asia. I've worked with a couple of really good pro-models, a lot of random amateurs, an actual pornstar, and just some people who wanted photos for whatever purpose. All but one of those people was female, and not because I was only seeking women to shoot. Almost all of my shoots came from models contacting me rather than me casting about for hot women. I've shot fat women, skinny women, clothed women, naked women, older women, Thai women, African women, European women, women in fetish scenes, and exactly one guy (who knew me as I'd previously shot his partner). They've wanted different levels of clothing and overt sexuality, but they've pretty much all been defined by a mandate to look as good as possible. For most of them that means sexually inviting, or just generically attractive. That's male-gazey I guess, but it's what people want to present in that setting. The exception is probably the set I'm the happiest about where it was a nude shoot with an American pro-model, and our concept was to do lines and shapes rather than detail. To explore the way that a stripped down human body, possibly interacting with external lines and shapes can create interesting spaces. Here are a couple of the SFW shots from that.  IMG_4634-Edit.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr  IMG_4818-Edit.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr  IMG_4649-Edit.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 08:36
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:If the client and model are happy, then is it really a problem? Something that hasn't been expressed clearly is what's the harm here? A lot of the critiques on these last couple of pages have been toeing the line up to puritanism, and that used to the be the domain of stuffy old conservatives. It's funny you mention Puritanism, because one of their core beliefs was that women and their needs were secondary and subservient to the men's. I don't see too much different about the kind of male gaze we're discussing and how the resulting images are controlled by men - asymmetry of power manifests itself in objectification. It might be as much symptom as cause, but I'm really tired of photography that treats people as objects. Photography doesn't exist in a vacuum, and reinforcement of image-based norms does have an effect. I'm surprised to see you so dismissive of this conversation, because I've always thought of you as committed to and effective at making photographs of women that weren't centered on the male gaze.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 08:52
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:I'm surprised to see you so dismissive of this conversation, because I've always thought of you as committed to and effective at making photographs of women that weren't centered on the male gaze. I appreciate that you say that and you're right that I do try very hard to treat my subjects as people and not objects. It's actually very important to me. But in my experience, there are people out there (not many, but more and more) who complain about the male gaze and my work to them is no different than a babe in a thong bent over the hood of a car. Because to them, ANY depiction of a woman by a male is exploitative. I feel like a bit of a canary in the coal mine and I don't trust in the common sense of people to distinguish porn from art so I defend all of it even if I'm not personally into it. Because if I don't, then I'm next.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 09:12
|
|
|
 Halloween by roland luijken, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 11:30
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I appreciate that you say that and you're right that I do try very hard to treat my subjects as people and not objects. It's actually very important to me. Any depiction of anybody by anybody else (i.e. not self-portraits) is exploitative in some way; the photographer fundamentally has more power to shape their subject's depiction. I think anybody making or viewing photography of people has to accept this, though, so you can safely dismiss the opinions of anyone who's not willing to admit this to themselves. Anybody who's willing to write off "babe in a thong bent over the hood of a car" type photos as just "what the client wants," though, also isn't thinking about how they're using their power as a photographer and is correspondingly more likely to be making dime-a-dozen photography. Since you're clearly more intentional about your work and in a different space than the people who have answered this more obliquely, I'd like to ask you directly how you think about it: why are your photos of men always fully clothed and so much fewer in number than those of not-completely-dressed women?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Since you're clearly more intentional about your work and in a different space than the people who have answered this more obliquely, I'd like to ask you directly how you think about it: why are your photos of men always fully clothed and so much fewer in number than those of not-completely-dressed women? The answer is the same for both questions: Women volunteer to sit for me all the time. From regular models to insurance actuaries, I have a pretty steady stream of interest. I've even had a local gallery owner who likes my work send her own daughter my way. I tend to only actually ASK women who are models, and leave my female friends alone unless they volunteer, which they often do. Men on the other hand NEVER volunteer. I've asked many guys from my friend group and periphery, and the answer is usually no or a noncommittal yes which never pans out. I obviously shoot guys, but it's much rarer as you've noted. Literally never once had a man volunteer IRL.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:The answer is the same for both questions: Women volunteer to sit for me all the time. From regular models to insurance actuaries, I have a pretty steady stream of interest. I've even had a local gallery owner who likes my work send her own daughter my way. I tend to only actually ASK women who are models, and leave my female friends alone unless they volunteer, which they often do. So what drives you to make portraits of all of your volunteers?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:So what drives you to make portraits of all of your volunteers? It depends on the project, but it's ultimately a desire to make an interesting and multi-layered photo that implies a story. I don't particularly care to make a moral statement beyond that, because as I said, there are some that see my work on the "good" side of a line, and some who don't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
to speak to no one in particular i'd like to say that a lot of portraits end up feeling like someone checking off the "Portrait Photography" box on their "photographer resume", taking pictures of people in ways they've seen before to try to justify to themselves (or others) that they're a competent photographer. i have little interest in photographs taken for the sake of being taken, photographs created purely to fit inside of some sort of preexisting mold of what is "portrait photography", etc. - my issue with the male gaze is mostly that it's been so thoroughly explored in art, for better or for worse, that anything so firmly utilizing (or existing because of?) it is just boring as poo poo. it's like "concert photography". they exist to justify the existence of the photographer
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 23:36
|
|
|
It's strange that the prevailing perspective in a lot of this conversation veers towards these poor models feeling some kind of pressure to look a certain way or validate themselves with provocative portraits. Subject themselves to the male gaze because "society" or whatever. That's really not the case at all, these are people with a passion that want to create and explore their creativity with collaborators. Some people like to look a certain way for no other reason than that's how they like to be. To assume toxicity or social coercion is pretty myopic, and anybody who spent some time at a shoot with these types of models and photographers would have a lot of these assumptions dispelled. It's one thing for somebody to feel the need to apply a skin-correcting snapchat filter to your selfies and pretend you're way happier than you feel on the inside. It's a whole nother thing for a model to reach out to a photographer, set up a shoot, often weeks in advance, pick outfits, help scope locations, decide on the look, review proofs, give feed back on post-work, exchange money, etc etc. While the former may be a misguided or compulsive desire to appear "better" in some respects (a huge problem I have with social media in general), the later is a whole creative process with a desired outcome. These subjects engage in this kind of work often as a creative outlet. ansel autisms posted:to speak to no one in particular i'd like to say that a lot of portraits end up feeling like someone checking off the "Portrait Photography" box on their "photographer resume", taking pictures of people in ways they've seen before to try to justify to themselves (or others) that they're a competent photographer. i have little interest in photographs taken for the sake of being taken, photographs created purely to fit inside of some sort of preexisting mold of what is "portrait photography", etc. - my issue with the male gaze is mostly that it's been so thoroughly explored in art, for better or for worse, that anything so firmly utilizing (or existing because of?) it is just boring as poo poo. it's like "concert photography". they exist to justify the existence of the photographer I mean, you could follow that logic for almost any type of photography that isn't the most absolutely unique in some respects. Hell, I've done precisely that for things like landscape and macro work, maybe not to check it off on my resume, but to experience it and see how it felt, creatively. To explore (and to realize I suck at it). For instance, though not directed at me specifically, if I were to take this kind of critique to heart, I'd keep the camera on the shelf until I was finally inspired to do the one unique and amazing thing that has never - or has rarely - been done. Only to realize I never learned how to use my equipment out of fear of looking like a noob. It's absurd. It's okay to play power cords on open-mic night, just don't brag like you're Hendrix. I know my poo poo's pedestrian, but I celebrate it anyways. Blame Pyrrhus fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Dec 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
I'm still on your side here. I totally get what Ansel Autism is saying. My point is that photography is a demand driven thing. Canon/Nikon/Sony don't spend millions making a new camera for artists. Their advancement is built on the backs of millions of dollars of revenue generated by pushing mundane sectors of photography. Does that make everything that comes out of it bad? Nah.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
Linux Nazi posted:It's strange that the prevailing perspective in a lot of this conversation veers towards these poor models feeling some kind of pressure to look a certain way or validate themselves with provocative portraits. Subject themselves to the male gaze because "society" or whatever. That's really not the case at all, these are people with a passion that want to create and explore their creativity with collaborators. Some people like to look a certain way for no other reason than that's how they like to be. To assume toxicity or social coercion is pretty myopic, and anybody who spent some time at a shoot with these types of models and photographers would have a lot of these assumptions dispelled. This is where I have to say I think you're flat out wrong - it is absolutely the case that there is pressure to look a certain way, whether or not people are willing to admit it to themselves. There are tons of women that have issues even just being photographed because of societal pressures around how they should look. Obviously they're not women you meet on Model Mayhem. You do know women from venues other than photography, right? As for the people who are more eager to be photographed: what do you think is driving the desire to look a certain way? On that note - McMadCow posted:Men on the other hand NEVER volunteer. I've asked many guys from my friend group and periphery, and the answer is usually no or a noncommittal yes which never pans out. I obviously shoot guys, but it's much rarer as you've noted. Literally never once had a man volunteer IRL. Maybe this is partly an issue with your friend group - I will say it seems like many photographers seem uncomfortable on the other side of the camera. One aspect of the male gaze that I think drives the more ready availability of women models, though, is that just as Linux Nazi feels validated when he takes a photo of a woman that she likes, there are plenty of women who've been socialized to define (some part of?) their worth in terms of the male gaze, so they feel good in receiving it and are willing to seek out more of it. How do you think this makes women feel who have been socialized similarly but don't get seen the same way? Again, I think a power balance in photography is unavoidable, but I also think it's worth being aware enough of it to do something about it. As thoughtful as you are, you have your own way of doing this, even if it's different from what I might do. Linux Nazi posted:
We're not telling you not to post your photos, but (speaking to anybody reading this) if you know your poo poo is pedestrian, you shouldn't be afraid to be told so. If you want it to be better than pedestrian, think about why we might not be seeing any of the work you say you're putting into these collaborative portraits. I'm even going to suggest looking at and analyzing McMadCow's work as a starting point! um excuse me posted:I'm still on your side here. I totally get what Ansel Autism is saying. My point is that photography is a demand driven thing. Canon/Nikon/Sony don't spend millions making a new camera for artists. Their advancement is built on the backs of millions of dollars of revenue generated by pushing mundane sectors of photography. Does that make everything that comes out of it bad? Nah. Conversely, things aren't good just because there are people who want them. MrBlandAverage fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Dec 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 02:41
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:You do know women from venues other than photography, right? Neato assumption there. Okay, well I enjoy SA and figured the dorkroom would be interesting place to discuss the hobby, since goons generally have worthwhile insight. Thanks for personally proving this a dumb idea. You can keep our absolutist assumptions about what's best for women or whatever, and I'll just keep my mediocre work among friends. Carry on, Portrait thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 03:18
|
|
|
man some of y’all really hate actually discussing photography
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 03:27
|
|
|
Lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 04:03
|
|
|
Linux Nazi posted:I mean, you could follow that logic for almost any type of photography that isn't the most absolutely unique in some respects. Hell, I've done precisely that for things like landscape and macro work, maybe not to check it off on my resume, but to experience it and see how it felt, creatively. To explore (and to realize I suck at it). covering hendrix is boring, playing your own power chords is sick. you seem to be missing the point
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 04:04
|
|
|
Linux Nazi posted:Neato assumption there. Neato assumption that the only women relevant to this conversation are your models. Linux Nazi posted:Okay, well I enjoy SA and figured the dorkroom would be interesting place to discuss the hobby, since goons generally have worthwhile insight. Absolutist? What the gently caress are you talking about? It's pretty weird that you can't find any nuance in anything I or others have posted in the last two pages. Stay mediocre, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 04:06
|
|
|
Linux Nazi posted:Okay, well I enjoy SA and figured the dorkroom would be interesting place to discuss the hobby, since goons generally have worthwhile insight. I'm assuming you were just looking lighting/gear/processing discussion?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 04:17
|
|
|
If y'all want to keep the forum active, you probably shouldn't scare off people who enthusiastically share their work. If they don't want help from you, don't cram it down their throats. You can push people away by helping too much. If you kill their enthusiasm you kill their drive to become better and then it doesn't matter how valid your point is. It's the reason I mostly only lurk. It's been the same few people causing this issue for years and it's a shame.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 04:20
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:If y'all want to keep the forum active, you probably shouldn't scare off people who enthusiastically share their work. If they don't want help from you, don't cram it down their throats. You can push people away by helping too much. If you kill their enthusiasm you kill their drive to become better and then it doesn't matter how valid your point is. It's the reason I mostly only lurk. It's been the same few people causing this issue for years and it's a shame. Speaking for myself, this is completely untrue. It was a generation of shitposters before my time that pushed me to start thinking about why I take photographs. I, for one, enjoyed actually getting to talk about this stuff for once, and it's really too bad you're not willing to engage with it. I'm not cramming anything down your throat - if you don't like it, as I said, you're welcome to go post in a forum that's a hugbox. This ain't it and it's never been it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 04:25
|
|
|
That's exactly where everyone is going, for better or worse. I don't know if you've noticed, but there isn't a subforum dying faster than this one is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 04:27
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:That's exactly where everyone is going, for better or worse. I don't know if you've noticed, but there isn't a subforum dying faster than this one is. Quality over quantity is why I'm on SA at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 04:29
|
|
|
If you want to ride that to the bottom by all means go for it, but it doesn't work for the forum. I like SA, often for the reason you state, but you need a base population to keep quality posters around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 04:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
So we should make the dorkroom a place for people who don't want talk about the average/boring photos they post?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 04:37
|
|