|
torgeaux posted:Where did BradIndustry go? Looked at our mods, and he's not listed. Saw that he hasn't posted since October.
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
He is in no way tied up in my basement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 23:01
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:He is in no way tied up in my basement. So chains then?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:So chains then? Hey, his choice, not mine...
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 07:00
|
|
|
Hot mod on mod action 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 07:37
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Hot mod on mod action MARTYTOOF YOU SAID YOU'D NEVER TELL 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 07:44
|
|
|
Hey SoundMonkey, now that you're actually posting in the Dorkroom these days how come you don't post more often in the photo threads such as PAD/SAD? Do you still take pictures? What is your role here besides moderator? I mean, generally you seem pretty quiet. I looked at your post history and saw that your last post in the Dorkroom before becoming mod was 4 months ago. Is this low contribution (for lack of a better phrase) due to some outside effect like traveling? Or is it because you primarily focus your energies elsewhere such as [nameless chatroom/organization]? Just curious why your presence here has died off over the years. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
Manny, dude, you should probably stop before you get in trouble. That has to be the most thinly veiled, passive-aggressive, "Why the hell did YOU get promoted" accusation I've heard in a very long time. We know you don't like SoundMonkey. Seriously man, we know. So let's stop the hate train before it gets rolling and get back to posting awesome pictures.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Hey SoundMonkey, now that you're actually posting in the Dorkroom these days how come you don't post more often in the photo threads such as PAD/SAD? Do you still take pictures? What is your role here besides moderator? I mean, generally you seem pretty quiet. I looked at your post history and saw that your last post in the Dorkroom before becoming mod was 4 months ago. Is this low contribution (for lack of a better phrase) due to some outside effect like traveling? Or is it because you primarily focus your energies elsewhere such as [nameless chatroom/organization]? Just curious why your presence here has died off over the years. I probably haven't been shooting as much as I should, but I do enjoy reading Dorkroom quite a bit even if I don't always post. There's a lot of good discussion going on usually, and hopefully PAD will continue to see more posts with the updated rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 04:33
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Manny, dude, you should probably stop before you get in trouble. That has to be the most thinly veiled, passive-aggressive, "Why the hell did YOU get promoted" accusation I've heard in a very long time. I kind of agree, but it also isn't that big a deal. edit: with Mannequin
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 04:46
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Manny, dude, you should probably stop before you get in trouble. That has to be the most thinly veiled, passive-aggressive, "Why the hell did YOU get promoted" accusation I've heard in a very long time. I like SoundMonkey. I just haven't seen him post much and wanted to ask why. I should be getting some film back from the lab this week so I expect to be posting more pictures shortly. And after that, probably a few more rolls in a couple more weeks as I took 8 this past weekend.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 04:48
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:I probably haven't been shooting as much as I should, but I do enjoy reading Dorkroom quite a bit even if I don't always post. There's a lot of good discussion going on usually, and hopefully PAD will continue to see more posts with the updated rules. Well, post more! Pictures I mean. I would like to see them (if you've got them) and your critique and feedback in the picture threads could be just as valuable as anyone else. I say this not to be bossy but from the perspective of a photographer: the more you do the better you improve. I know you don't consider yourself Strobist or anything, but it'd be neat to see what you are up to these days. But that's up to you. Edit: Out of respect for ConfusedUs, I'll shut up now! Mannequin fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Jan 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I like SoundMonkey. I just haven't seen him post much and wanted to ask why. I should be getting some film back from the lab this week so I expect to be posting more pictures shortly. And after that, probably a few more rolls in a couple more weeks as I took 8 this past weekend. I've also been quite busy with work these days  But I'm pretty much back in the saddle, I'll probably post a bunch of photos I took in NZ over the holidays (when I find my card reader  ).
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
Wow this got real wanky real fast. I'm almost sad I spoke up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 04:56
|
|
|
To bring it back to PAD: I don't have an formal photo background. I suspect many share that with me. I've always found the critique in PAD to be fairly worthless, and the photos less compelling than what gets posted in SAD. Point being: I'd love it if someone with an actual background could give a 101 on how to critique a photo. Things to look for, ways to speak about photography, some sort of way to evaluate the quality of a photo (I've realized that this is highly subjective for me, but that's an entirely different discussion). So, anyone?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 05:02
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:To bring it back to PAD: I don't have an formal photo background. I suspect many share that with me. I've always found the critique in PAD to be fairly worthless, and the photos less compelling than what gets posted in SAD. The most banal and common of critique will be the "rules" critique. Rule of thirds! Don't chop off hands! You missed the focus! Overexposed! Underexposed! A subset of this are the "distracting" people. That white collar is distracting! That red flower, in the background, out of focus, 3px high...it's distracting! That shadow of a bird on the field? DISTRACTING The best critique starts with "What is this photo's purpose?" and goes from there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:The most banal and common of critique will be the "rules" critique. Rule of thirds! Don't chop off hands! You missed the focus! Overexposed! Underexposed! These are actually all excellent points, it does get a bit tiresome to see the same often-inaccurate critiques used over and over (not that I'm saying this is the case, but it does pop up sometimes).
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 05:09
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:These are actually all excellent points, it does get a bit tiresome to see the same often-inaccurate critiques used over and over (not that I'm saying this is the case, but it does pop up sometimes). I've actually toyed with the idea of a High Level Critique and Style Development thread, but that's more or less what PAD was trying to be before your benevolent reign, and it tanked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 05:11
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:I've actually toyed with the idea of a High Level Critique and Style Development thread, but that's more or less what PAD was trying to be before your benevolent reign, and it tanked. I guess someone could make that thread if they really wanted to, but yeah, when there WAS a thread for that, almost nobody posted in it. EDIT: Which probably led to it having the highest average posting quality in dorkroom
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:To bring it back to PAD: I don't have an formal photo background. I suspect many share that with me. I've always found the critique in PAD to be fairly worthless, and the photos less compelling than what gets posted in SAD. I plan to add a segment on both composition and critiquing to the OP, but I haven't had time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 05:15
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:The most banal and common of critique will be the "rules" critique. Rule of thirds! Don't chop off hands! You missed the focus! Overexposed! Underexposed! I would agree that there is a lot of this in PAD, and that it is a product of 2 different things: 1. The people who most often post photos in PAD are beginners and a lot of the time miss things like focus, over/under exposure, chopping off limbs awkwardly, etc. They are very basic rules, but to a beginner, they are invaluable (speaking as a recent beginner) 2. Again, because the people posting are new, they don't feel comfortable critiquing anything except basic rules. It's easy to say "I think this is underexposed" than to say "What was the purpose of this photo? The intent behind the photo isn't clear" because they most likely feel like the person posting the picture is way above their level. You see it time and time again people post "I'm new at this, so take it as you will" or "I don't really know much about photography, but..." Just as I would be intimidated to critique one of the really experienced, shooting for 10 years type photographers we see in SAD, I think most beginners are just intimidated to really dig in deep with their critiques. That and there have been a few people who aren't very receptive to critiques (not in PAD), which may add to the feeling of not wanting any backlash or starting an argument about "what is art" or something. It's safe, and it's easy for beginners to give. The reason why SAD gets higher quality photos is because the people who post there don't "need" critique - there's a ton of highly accomplished, talented photographers who don't need a newbie photographer telling them basic things to change. There are some very generous and awesome photographers who post critiques in PAD without posting their own photos (because they are awesome photographers), and I am super grateful for them, as their knowledge and time is so helpful to beginners. I know it takes time and effort to form a crit and that people are busy, so I really appreciate those that take the time to give their experience and talent to PAD. I wish more people would. I try and be active and give critiques past the basic rules, but I also look for critiques on my work, so it's a 2 way deal for me. I like to think that when I get to the level of other photographers here, I will continue to post in PAD. I don't think enforcing PAD the way we used to will change anything - we'll get less traffic than now, and it was a dying thread. I think it's fine as is, even though it's not ideal. Sometimes you don't get what you're looking for (a really in depth, well thought out crit), and sometimes you do, everyone just needs to deal with it. I also think that self critique is a very helpful tool, and even if the only critique you got was your own, at least you took the time to really put some thought into what you liked, and what you can change next time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 05:54
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:I would agree that there is a lot of this in PAD, and that it is a product of 2 different things: Once upon a time, I would bring my powers to bear, swooping down on PAD like an eagle, wings spread and claws outstretched, reaching for the low-hanging fruit of underexposure. I would snap at amputated limbs with rabid fury, and my beady eyes could catch the slightest of focus mishaps. I would scream my rage to an uncaring sky. The mice would freeze in their tracks, holding their 18-200 lenses forth like a shield, but it did no good, for I was a living ball of feathers and hatred, rending their photos limb from banal limb. But no longer. I yearn for more, for the peace of wispy skies and carefully managed color palettes. I thirst for the cool balm of style, but I fear that my thirst will go unsated, for this is the land of the common critique. Somebody fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Jan 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 06:05
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Once upon a time, I would bring my powers to bear, swooping down on PAD like an eagle, wings spread and claws outstretched, reaching for the low-hanging fruit of underexposure. I would snap at amputated limbs with rabid fury, and my beady eyes could catch the slightest of focus mishaps. I would scream my rage to an uncaring sky. The mice would freeze in their tracks, holding their 18-200 lenses forth like a shield, but it did no good, for I was a living ball of feathers and hatred, rending their photos limb from banal limb. I really, really want someone to illustrate this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 06:37
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:The most banal and common of critique will be the "rules" critique. Rule of thirds! Don't chop off hands! You missed the focus! Overexposed! Underexposed! Yeah, I agree with this. I think there's definitely a problem with a lot of armchair photographers parroting "wisdom" from entry level tutorials and such. I certainly don't post as much because getting mediocre criticism from someone who's never posted an image in that thread is basically meaningless to me. It'd be nice if we sort of had a put up or shut up rule but it would be hard to implement without coming across as too elitist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 14:41
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Yeah, I agree with this. I think there's definitely a problem with a lot of armchair photographers parroting "wisdom" from entry level tutorials and such. I certainly don't post as much because getting mediocre criticism from someone who's never posted an image in that thread is basically meaningless to me. Honestly, I think implementing a rule like that would need to have a lot of thoughts put into it and even then it would be hard to manage. Why? Because no one has the same definition of what is a bad critique and what's a good critique. Do my "critiques" consist mostly in pointing out that the horizon is crooked/limbs/composition could be better/background is too crowded or distracting? Yes. Do I think it's worth saying? Of course, because I think it's important to develop your eye and see those things right away as your taking your picture, the rest is up to post-process which is another game of its own. I can understand how senior photographers can be annoyed by those comments, especially when it's uncalled for but you have to remember that it's not everyone that are at your level. And even if those comments are uncalled for; having a senior photographer come back and explain why that comment is uncalled for makes the whole thing a whole more constructive. I personally remember once when you called me out for a comment I made and invited me to read one of your blog entries and I can say I learned a lot from it. I think it would have been a shame and very demoralizing/confusing if I'd gotten a ban/warning for that instead. Anyways, sorry about the rant. P.S: You should keep posting, rear end. :P xenilk fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Jan 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
No, I get you. I don't think it should be ban worth or anything. I was sort of just commenting on the general hive mind approach that some critiques take. I don't have any ideas on how to really change it. :/
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 17:58
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I don't have any ideas on how to really change it. :/ xenilk posted:And even if those comments are uncalled for; having a senior photographer come back and explain why that comment is uncalled for makes the whole thing a whole more constructive. This? I mean the point of the forums is to discuss things right? So if you get a critique you don't agree with for technical / artistic reasons just share why and maybe some info to help back it up. We can all learn from it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) what the hell? friendly concern and curiosity is now a bannable offense?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 20:05
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:what the hell? friendly concern and curiosity is now a bannable offense? Also kind of a shame since he was a very active member.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
IRC drama on the forums always ends badly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:what the hell? friendly concern and curiosity is now a bannable offense? You may notice that I replied nicely to his friendly concern. Also if you're looking for a place to have an issue with a ban, there's the neat little 'Requested By' field in the leper colony that lets you know who you should talk to. Additionally, new rule as of now. This thread is for chat about Dorkroom and its various threads and policies. Hell, it's even for discussion of my posting if you really want it to be. It's not for discussion of other peoples' moderation decisions or whatever opinions you might have about IRC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 21:06
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:
Is anybody going to jump on this and make a new thread for it? I would love to have my photos shamelessly ripped apart for no reason other than to vent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 21:37
|
|
NEW POLICIES
|
Sevn posted:Is anybody going to jump on this and make a new thread for it? I would love to have my photos shamelessly ripped apart for no reason other than to vent. East Lake hasn't done it and it's been a while, so if you want to be a Famous OP, feel free to make the thread (just make a decent OP at least).
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 21:38
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Manny, dude, you should probably stop before you get in trouble. That has to be the most thinly veiled, passive-aggressive, "Why the hell did YOU get promoted" accusation I've heard in a very long time. This was not helpful, and looks like what caused the ban. Hopefully, Mannequin is at least reading and will come back, since this seems to have been clearly a mistake in the banning. He's not a low content poster like some, or a drive by nighter, we need him here. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:This was not helpful, and looks like what caused the ban. Edit: I think this was a stupid decision and should be reversed. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 02:08
|
|
|
This is, as mentioned like two posts ago, not banchat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
Back to critique: I agree absolutely that there is a place for the "rules" critique. Everyone has to start somewhere, and many start here. Stating "that's underexposed" to a new photographer does, indeed, help the new photographer. Unfortunately, that help is small and gives diminishing returns. And what's more, it does nothing at all to help the person giving the critique. It's been said that you never really master something until you teach it to another, and I believe this to be true. I don't know how many times I've spoken with a new photog about things they could do to improve their photo, and then found myself committing a similar mistake later down the line. The written word is a way to express yourself, but moreover, it allows one to be somewhat introspective as that expression occurs. By simply taking the time to deconstruct someone else's photography, you might find yourself applying that same critical eye to your own work as you create it. It's easy, as someone who's been behind a lens for most of a decade, to forget that everyone starts small, and the small things matter. The banal, rules-driven critique has its place, but I would encourage each and every photographer who drops into PAD and says "OVEREXPOSED!" to stop for a minute and type a few words about something deeper. There's a truly excellent example of this over in the Portrait thread. "McMadCow (click for context) posted:As others have said, the lighting in the 1st and 3rd is effectively excluding the rest of the picture around her. Your color temperatures are obviously mixing too, and not in a successful way. Emphasis mine. At first, his critique of the photo in question is simple. Almost trite. "You screwed up the lighting, dude" is a perfectly acceptable critique, and it's true. The lighting in those pictures is messed up. Then he goes beyond and gets something conceptual into the mix. That is good critique, and that is what we should all strive for. I encourage everyone here in the Dorkroom to think of critique less in terms of rules and more in terms of what could this be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Back to critique: I agree absolutely that there is a place for the "rules" critique. Everyone has to start somewhere, and many start here. Stating "that's underexposed" to a new photographer does, indeed, help the new photographer. In a perfect world, this would be great. Unfortunately I strongly believe that if this is enforced we'll all look like elitist and will scare new people away as they won't be able to formulate the ideal critique you're looking for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 04:03
|
|
|
That's why I said encourage, not enforce.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
xenilk posted:In a perfect world, this would be great. ConfusedUs is right on the money for what qualifies, at least in my mind, as good critique. However, like he said, encourage not enforce - I don't want to become the judge of how good someone's idea of critique is, and it would probably discourage newer members from giving critique, when really, what they see is just as valid as what anyone else sees. Having said that, really truly horribly bad insulting critique is probably still not a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 04:48
|
|