Good Photographer/Bad Photographer

Valentia

KarmaGarda wrote: »

Not quite true. It only becomes arrogance when they treat others as inferior. Admitting you're pretty damn good at something is completely different to knowing your good at something and looking down on others because of it

OK I can think of the very very rare occasion when that can be true.;) In my experience all one has to do is turn on the telly to see that as a general rule it isn't.

Valentia

smelltheglove wrote: »

I suppose it may be based on achievements, i.e. relative with huge business and assets, proof of a great businessman right there, hubbie with numerous offers and demos being sent to the door, respect in area of expertice, a parent with respectable, well mannered children, delivery man who is always on time, solicitor with a high success rate, there are so many examples that can proove greatness in specific fields, photography may be a bit harder, say a photographer with large booking volumes based upon portfolio or basic simple proof of a great portfolio coinciding with respect from peers.

I give up..........................................

outspann

Valentia wrote: »

Confidence is no measure of talent whatsoever. Humility is the hallmark of true talent.

Nope, not following you there. Not sure how one personality trait (confidence) has nothing to do with talent. And yet a different personality trait (humility) seems to have a hotline to talent central. I can name a half-dozen photographers and artists that I believe make incredible images, and yet humility wouldn't be the first word that comes to mind to describe any of them.

I can't tell you how many photographers, actors, even singers I have met who think they are God's gift to their profession and are actually totally crap at what they do but nobody ever tells them because they don't want to hurt their feelings

That doesn't make me a bad photographer (there are a lot worse)

And to think that when you joined this thread, it was to scold somebody for saying they thought their photos were better than somebody elses. Still feel the same about criticizing others?

KarmaGarda

Valentia wrote: »

I give up..........................................

Now repeat after me:

"I am great"

sineadw

smelltheglove wrote: »

well mannered children

Wait till yours hit 14!

Valentia wrote: »

I give up..........................................

A wise move I think. We could be here all year.

Dodgykeeper

AnCatDubh wrote: »

In terms of the question asked by Dodgykeeper in the opening post - of course its ok to criticise someone's work on the forum. Sure only recently didn't this forum knock the corners off Annie Leibovitz over her advertising campaign works for that brand of coffee - and i'm sure she feels all the better for it :rolleyes:

For recognisable forum members/posters it's slightly different as the general ethos of the forum is that you don't give C&C if you haven't been asked for it (which is why the random thread is a safe harbour for images).

From the running the forum perspective (boards.ie big picture stuff) just don't libel or slander anyone. Other than that published works are fair game as is provided for within the general guidance of the forums charter. Obviously be sensible.

So why did you advise STG not to post a link to the photographer she was talikng about in the original thread?

thebaz

what some may view as great, an other may view as rubbish - I loved the ramones , but many prominent musicians hated them at the time -- Andy Warhols photography may have been viewed as rubbish , but he was a creative visual genius to me

AnCatDubh

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

So why did you advise STG not to post a link to the photographer she was talikng about in the original thread?

as that was my opinion at the time as to how it should be handled given the context of the thread

Covey

I feel an Eamon Dunphy moment coming on ... STG I think you maybe a good photographer, but not a great photographer .. :D

eas

sineadw wrote: »

SEO yourself. It helps.

SEOing yourself is not how you manage your online reputation, which I think is what STG is refering to...?

I think STG brings up a valid point. These days we google everything. We take guidance by peoples opinions and comments whom we've never met. Someone who has a very good reputation can be knocked for 6 in no time if a few people go off on one for whatever reason.

sineadw

eas wrote: »

SEOing yourself is not how you manage your online reputation, which I think is what STG is refering to...?

...erm... that's *exactly* how you manage your online reputation. Or at least how you manage it in searches. Hence the term.

Valentia

outspann wrote: »

Nope, not following you there. Not sure how one personality trait (confidence) has nothing to do with talent. And yet a different personality trait (humility) seems to have a hotline to talent central.

Hallmark: An outstanding or distinguishing feature. Does that help?

I can name a half-dozen photographers and artists that I believe make incredible images, and yet humility wouldn't be the first word that comes to mind to describe any of them.

Ah yes indeedy. But I could name a hundred for your each one of yours who just think they are.

And to think that when you joined this thread, it was to scold somebody for saying they thought their photos were better than somebody elses. Still feel the same about criticizing others?

I know this must sound like the height of arrogance but I do have some critiqueing faculties. In fact everyone on the planet (apart from two people obviously) could safely say that there are better and worse photographers than themselves. But sure fire ahead and play your word games if that keeps you happy.

This thread has been interesting though. It has clarified a few things

eas

sineadw wrote: »

...erm... that's *exactly* how you manage your online reputation. Or at least how you manage it in searches. Hence the term.

Good SEO does nothing to stop people from reading comments about you on other websites,blogs, community forum ect.

What people are saying about you online is *IS* you online reputation, not how well your site ranks in Google.

Covey

Great and good are bandied around here like confetti and there appears to be total confusion between successful and good/great.

Personally, no one that I've seen post here has come within an asses roar of being great. Wake up lads and smell the coffee!!

Covey

eas wrote: »

Good SEO does nothing to stop people from reading comments about you on other websites,blogs, community forum ect.

What people are saying about you online is *IS* you online reputation, not how well your site ranks in Google.

So. You can't stop it, so why concern yourself with it?

sineadw

How well your site ranks in google is as much about links from other sites to yours as it is about SEO management on your own site. SEO is NOT just about your own site. SEO encompasses *exactly* what you're talking about, and what the original sentiment of this thread was - online PR and social media management. Managing web 2.0 and social media apps are FAR more important than keywords or alt tags or metadata. That's what I mean by SEO.

sineadw

Covey wrote: »

Personally, no one that I've seen post here has come within an asses roar of being great.

Speak for yourself

Covey

sineadw wrote: »

Speak for yourself

I am ... and .. ah no you won't tempt me into that one .. :p

KarmaGarda

Covey wrote: »

Personally, no one that I've seen post here has come within an asses roar of being great. Wake up lads and smell the coffee!!

I have no problem admitting my photography varies between crap and kinda crap :pac:. Then again, I'm only 6 months at this lark. What's your excuse?











(Disclaimer: By no means is any of the above thread serious apart from the bit about the poster, namely me, being a bit crap at photography.)

Covey

KarmaGarda wrote: »

I have no problem admitting my photography varies between crap and kinda crap :pac:. Then again, I'm only 6 months at this lark. What's your excuse?











(Disclaimer: By no means is any of the above thread serious apart from the bit about the poster, namely me, being a bit crap at photography.)

Too much time listening to ****e on here and not enough concentrating on photography

eas

sineadw wrote: »

How well your site ranks in google is as much about links from other sites to yours as it is about SEO management on your own site. SEO is NOT just about your own site. SEO encompasses *exactly* what you're talking about, and what the original sentiment of this thread was - online PR and social media management. Managing web 2.0 and social media apps are FAR more important than keywords or alt tags or metadata. That's what I mean by SEO.

I'm not saying your wrong, but if you search for "managing your online reputation" you'll find many expert opinions on the issue and I don't believe any of them will mention SEO.

I'm not sure if the original sentiment for this thread was about online PR and social media management, I was just agreeing with STGs reservations about naming the photographer in question on this forum

sineadw

I think we've moved on from that particular thread. And SEO has a few different definitions, most of the up-to-date ones being exactly what I'm talking about. One-way business-card communication sites are dead. And (not calling myself great here :pac:, but) I qualify as an expert on the subject.

Anyway, OT. And I'm going to sleep

Buzz Lightyear

Covey wrote: »

Personally, no one that I've seen post here has come within an asses roar of being great.

That's a bit rough on some of the talent around here. I thought that between yourself, valentia, fajitas, hughc and the baz, that ye had the place sewn up.:D

Theres a huge difference between someone saying that your great at what you do and you claiming that your great. We can all claim that we are good at things and there's no arrogance in that. However when you claim that your great, you put yourself above everybody else. Claiming on a regular basis that your work is great, that people think your great and that generally your better than anyone else because some people say so is arrogance. Modesty should prevail, othewise you can get up peoples noses and backs.

Turing yourself into a professional full time worker does not automatically indicate that your work is better that of a good hobbyist. A lot of great and very good photogs here prefer to have a full time job elsewhere and enjoy their hobby. In fact you could probably argue that some of them are better at their hobby than their full time job - however that's another days thread
Turning pro, just indicates that you want to earn a living at something, not your skill or ability to be able to do it.

outspann

Heading off topic in another direction... but maybe one of the reasons that this forum isn't as helpful as it could be is the fact that we are all so nice and polite to each other.

We don't subject our images to the kind of free-for-all crits that you'd get in art college; the unforgiving lines of questioning that force you to think about your images - to figure out how to defend them; to see their good points and bad; and to find where our photography can take the next step forward. Maybe that's the environment where an unswerving belief in ones own ability isn't an unfortunate personality trait - but forms the motivation and backbone that the talented need to keep getting better.

Valentia and I may have disagreed in this thread, but he was dead right about one thing: there are a lot of crap photographers/musicians/singers/etc out there who think they are brilliant because nobody has told them any different. Even here we hedge our bets, and tip toe around making any statements that might cause offense. I believe every single one of us would become better photographers if we were a lot less polite and a lot more truthful. The only problem is that we may not be talking at the end of it! :eek:

artyeva

as a relative newbie and a purely armchair ''member'' of this forum this thread is really uncomfortable to read tbh. reading this and the *other* thread i've found myself agreeing and disagreeing with the same peeps in successive posts but i think covey has said what i'd never have the balls to....:o

Wake up lads and smell the coffee!!

is anyone here making a living from photography? fair play to yez. it's a tough game in these financial times to get people to part with money for anything. if ye're getting paid for photos, i'll say again - fair play.:)

does that make you a good/great photographer? it does mean that other people like what you do and are willing to pay you for it....

what makes a good photographer good or a great photographer great? i don't think there is any easy or succinct answer to that..... one person's great is getting auntie mary's head not to look funny in a family shot at lickle johnny's first communion.

another person's great might be owning a rare and expensive ZX5000XL that's been handmade in a factory using the actual tools that were used to make the earlier original AX120 [and thinking that it helps you take better f--king photographs]

my great? a photograph that elicits a deeper response than any of the following..;)

''oh, so THAT'S what colour the bridesmaids dresses were''
''ok, so you have a cat and like to photograph it a LOT''
''wow, you have kids - and they smile and do cute sh-t''
''well, i never saw a sunset like THAT before. it's all like - orange and sh-t''
''oh - long arm selfie... what a new and novel way of taking a photo. of YOURSELF!!! lordy lordy, will it ever catch on?''


am i great? nope. and i would never claim to be. my creative self evaluation stems from a 4 year fine art degree - where you question, question, question your work. your work is constantly being criticised for not being conceptual enough, not being pushed far enough creatively, of just being something that anyone else could have done and not being something that ONLY YOU could have done.

should you give a f--k if i think i'm great or not??


should i give a f--k if you think i'm great or not??

outspann

artyeva wrote: »

should you give a f--k if i think i'm great or not??

should i give a f--k if you think i'm great or not??

Aw bloody hell! I had just about finished typing another salvo to launch from my side of the argument (and boy, was it a doozy! :rolleyes:), but then I read this and thought "oh, what's the point!"
This quote just about sums it all up; and lays bare the whole futility of the debate that we've been having. Damn you artyeva!

artyeva

outspann wrote: »

Aw bloody hell! I had just about finished typing another salvo to launch from my side of the argument (and boy, was it a doozy! :rolleyes:), but then I read this and thought "oh, what's the point!"
This quote just about sums it all up; and lays bare the whole futility of the debate that we've been having. Damn you artyeva!

hee hee....soz

it had to be said though.

i sometimes scream at the screen* at some of the sh-t i read on here. there's nothing wrong with sharing an achievement but on the other hand humility is a lovely trait in a person.

*but don't tell my shrink.... she thinks i've already worked through that :P

Calina

It's all too much.

1) Constructive criticism does not have to be delivered in a blunt rude and impolite manner. It is more likely to be taken on board if it is positively delivered rather than nastily delivered. For examples, find some of AnCatDubh's C&C, it has typically been the best considered and well thought feedback you could hope for.

2) As a general note, if you're interested in improving yourself as a photographer, you concentrate on learning from the work of photographers better than yourself rather bashing the work of photographers you consider to be your inferior. This thread and its brother suggest not everyone does this effectively.

Thoie

sineadw wrote: »

As for being negative about another's photography, I'm not going to go out of my way to badmouth another's work. Of course not. Equally though - nor am I going to be ultra careful not to.

Coming back to this point - I think that posting someone else's site here for the purpose of saying it's crap, or saying "I think this is crap, what do you guys think?" is going out of your* way to badmouth someone.

To my mind it's the difference between posting a dreadful pic of your own and taking the lumps that come with it, and you finding one of Bob's pics and posting it up for ridicule.


*generic "you" - not specifically sineadw

Chorcai

I have some idea what started off the topic, but infairness from reading through the pages it has been a great discussion. My 2cents are nobody likes their work to be bashed, as does nobody likes a smart arse who thinks he/she is all that n a bag of chips. Some times people get their lace panties in a right twist mainly on the interwebs, had this come issuse up where everyone was face to face it would have been very differant. The internet for all it's good can be bad, discussions/comments on forums are sometimes taken out of context.

I would also like to second what Calina said about AnCatDubh.

Anouilh

I'm too busy wandering round Flickr and trying to learn how to make better photos to get too involved in debates.

However, the fears raised that negative posts could reduce the number of people willing to employ any given photographer are valid and worth taking seriously. SEO is a very important aspect of the professional photographers online persona and anybody who wishes to learn more could join the Irish Webmaster Forum

http://www.irishwebmasterforum.com/

Fortunately, photography is such an easily viewable medium.
Sensible customers will look at work and choose to employ photographers whose photos please them.

The discussion here is useful, but it does not solve the problem that some criticism can be hurtful. However, when posting on the internet, a certain robustness of spirit is called for.

KarmaGarda

outspann wrote: »

I believe every single one of us would become better photographers if we were a lot less polite and a lot more truthful. The only problem is that we may not be talking at the end of it! :eek:

There's a helluva lot of truth in that! I find the same thing happens on Flickr. It's one of the reasons I don't post pictures to groups that state "Post 1. Comment to 4 hundred million XXX other photographs". All you end up getting are a load of cotton wooled up drivel that aren't at all constructive. Looking back I've put some rubbish photos up and have got comments like "well done" or "great photo". They weren't, they were rubbish, you were just fulfilling your comment quota . I like people to tell me truthfully about my photos. To be completely honest, I highly recommend people to post their photos in multiple places and just read the negative/criticism/advice comments on them. (I must start posting more for CC here actually). It doesn't mean you have to agree with all the replies, but if your open to another point of view it might put a light on in your head. This makes you better.

Getting back to the good website/bad website topic. I agree with what posters are saying in regards to picking random websites and bashing them not being a good idea. But, if you look where this stemmed from, that was a situation where the photographer being indirectly discussed probably deserved a bit of a review by us so we could offer a more constructive reply to the OP.

amcinroy

Andy Mcinroy here !!!!

I just discovered this thread after my referrer logs went through the roof. I am the photographer that the OP refers to.

I'm finding this thread a bit hard to fathom and I guess there must be some past history that I've missed. I am a fairly regular poster to this forum and most people are probably aware of my project to photograph the caves of North Antrim, many of which have been very well received on here.

Example


When the user is a regular poster to the forum, like me, then I don't really see why we new threads to decide whether I am a good photographer or not. It seems a bit bizarre to be talked about when I've not initiated the thread or requested critique. Anyway, my website is simply a catalogue. To tell whether I am a good photographer or not you will have to visit one of my exhibitions or see some of my prints

Anyway, thanks Dodgykeeper for your support and for spreading the word. I was not aware that a forum member here had bought one of my prints. I think you'll agree that you get a far better idea of the photographer by seeing a proper print.

Also, I notice that some people are making an opinion based on a single image on my homepage. I would suggest that you should dip your toes into the sea cave project before making a decision. I have spent the last 3 years photographing highly hazardous sea caves, some of which have never been photographed before. This work has appeared 4 times in the Irish News and I have been interviewed on BBC Radio 4 and Radio ulster on several occassions.

It is work like this that will, hopefully, help to decide if I am a good photographer 50 years down the line. Not a single image currently on my homepage.

KarmaGarda

Hi Andy!

About to run out the door to over indulge in beer, but thought I'd drop a quick line in here. Just in case my last post was misinterpreted (a lot of that going on at the moment ) I'll clarify that you're not the photographer I was referring to. It was a photographer in a previous thread that seemed to have kicked this one off.

I'm very interested to see how this thread will develop now though!

KG.

P.S. I actually was quite impressed with the site. I do think you should use a different image on your front page, I found some cracking photos in there after delving further into your site that are head and shoulders above that one. Just personal opinion though

amcinroy

Not at all KG. I'm not offended by anything in this thread. Most of the comments have veered off into more general debate anyway. I've just had a better read and I'll give you some more of my thoughts this evening after I've had a better read of some of the other threads.

However it is worth bearing in mind that if anyone refers to a photographer in a forum post (either positive or negative), there is probably 95% chance that they will soon hear about it through their referrer logs or google search. That's why I personally don't start threads about other photographers. However, I don't have a problem with people who do. There is a strong arguement that anyone who creates an online exhibition must be prepared to accept criticism that might come out of the blue on the chatter of the web. In my own case this is usually positive, but landscape is not everyone's cup of tea and I'm thick enough skinned to enjoy and learn from the more critical chatter that I hear myself mentioned in.

sineadw

Thanks Andy I have absolutely NO idea why you were involved in this discussion TBH! See - random webness

smelltheglove

I know this is constantly going off topic, Andy I am sure I have stated before I think your cave work is amazing. The thread started as a result of a thread I started. I wondered what other photographers would do re school portraits, my daughter was due to get one and I wasnt too pleased with the samples online from the given photographer, however I was not, nor did I ever say I was, looking for any comment on that photographer, which is why I never stated name or web, I was merely looking to see what the opinion of other photographers would be, to send the kid in and pay money for photographs you will never use or not to and go take some photographs yourself.

The issue that has crossed over here is that many people seem to think I should have named the photographer, although I never sook out any criticism of the photographer only the opinions with regard to the situation. Again I am still quite amazed at the diversity of the discussions from such a small question and the constant misinterpretations.

Would you happen to be so kind as to say though, since you are here, do you think you are a good or a great photographer?

Covey

smelltheglove wrote: »

Would you happen to be so kind as to say though, since you are here, do you think you are a good or a great photographer?

Jaysus are you for real (not a comment on your work, Andy)

amcinroy

STG, thanks for summarising the debate for me. It's an interesting one. It seems to me that the decision to name or not is entirely up to you and I don't really think that others should be critical of you for that. It is your freedom to decide. You are probably aware (like myself) that mentioning another photographer will nearly always result in that photographer finding the comment. Most photographers on the web will google their own name from time to time. There is potential to get in legal hot water, especially where the photographer is commercial and has a reputation to manage. If the comments could affect the reputation of the photographer then damages might ensue. Sounds like you were sensible in my opinion.

As for whether I am average, good or great. That is not for me to say. I would love to follow in the footsteps of pioneers like Robert John Welch and be remebered like that, but only time will tell. I do hope that in 100 years time, photographers are still turning to my cave images and seeking out these places to continue the story.

Morrisseeee

do you think you are a good or a great photographer?

I think he'll claim the 5th on that one

Buzz Lightyear

smelltheglove wrote: »

Would you happen to be so kind as to say though, since you are here, do you think you are a good or a great photographer?

Andy in the opinion of some is a very good photographer. Although this will not be everyones opinion as his subject and project will not be to everyones taste.

I for one think his work on this project has been excellent and he deserves all the praise he gets. However I don't think its fair to ask someone if they are good or great, especially not in this thread given all the crap that has been pouted over certain over-inflated ego's !

Calina

smelltheglove wrote: »

I know this is constantly going off topic, Andy I am sure I have stated before I think your cave work is amazing. The thread started as a result of a thread I started. I wondered what other photographers would do re school portraits, my daughter was due to get one and I wasnt too pleased with the samples online from the given photographer, however I was not, nor did I ever say I was, looking for any comment on that photographer, which is why I never stated name or web, I was merely looking to see what the opinion of other photographers would be, to send the kid in and pay money for photographs you will never use or not to and go take some photographs yourself.

Firstly I don't have children but as a general rule, if I thought I could do better than someone, I would go and do it. End of discussion. I certainly wouldn't be asking other people about the situation.

smelltheglove wrote: »

The issue that has crossed over here is that many people seem to think I should have named the photographer, although I never sook out any criticism of the photographer only the opinions with regard to the situation. Again I am still quite amazed at the diversity of the discussions from such a small question and the constant misinterpretations.

I have pointed out that you are contributing to those misinterpretations owing to a lack of clarity in your output. You really need to take more responsibility for this.

With respect to the diversity of discussions, this is a message board. This is what happens and so long as the contributions are loosely on topic...I don't see an issue.

smelltheglove wrote: »

Would you happen to be so kind as to say though, since you are here, do you think you are a good or a great photographer?

I think you are really missing the point of where this discussion has wound up. In fact, some of it is leaving me rather speechless.

However, I have to say that it is not for any photographer to decide whether they are great or merely good. I know a lot of photographers. They don't consider this. They don't agonise over this. They agonise over the photographs they take and whether they got the shot they wanted. What matters to them are the photographs they create and not whether they themselves are perceived to be great or merely good.

Anything else is pure vanity in my opinion. Photographers who have time to decide they are great aren't taking enough photographs in my view and in my limited experience, they're not the ones taking great photographs either.

Covey

Buzz Lightyear wrote: »

I for one think his work on this project has been excellent and he deserves all the praise he gets. However I don't think its fair to ask someone if they are good or great, especially not in this thread given all the crap that has been pouted over certain over-inflated ego's !

Ditto, re. Andys photography and especially the fabulous projects he has undertaken.

The question though is rather silly imo.

Valentia

smelltheglove wrote: »

I was merely looking to see what the opinion of other photographers would be, to send the kid in and pay money for photographs you will never use or not to and go take some photographs yourself.

I think you will find that your exact phrase was "great pics"! As in "I may actually take the kids to a studio one day soon and take loads of great pics myself. " So you see how someone might get the impression you mentioned? You might also understand why this thread went off in the direction that it did.

As for asking Andy if he thinks he is a great photographer. I think that absolutely absurd.I think the hole has gone as deep as it is going to go at this stage.

BTW I think Andy is a legeand!!

smelltheglove

Calina wrote: »

I have pointed out that you are contributing to those misinterpretations owing to a lack of clarity in your output. You really need to take more responsibility for this.

However, I have to say that it is not for any photographer to decide whether they are great or merely good. I know a lot of photographers. They don't consider this. They don't agonise over this. They agonise over the photographs they take and whether they got the shot they wanted. What matters to them are the photographs they create and not whether they themselves are perceived to be great or merely good.

I think you will find I already addressed that in this thread Calina, also to be answered by some who did not think a need to go into too much detail either, we are all entitled to our opinions but look back and you will see that it has been adressed, maybe my apology wasn't heartfelt enough for you but I will not apologise again.

Valentia wrote: »

I think you will find that your exact phrase was "great pics"! As in "I may actually take the kids to a studio one day soon and take loads of great pics myself. " As for asking Andy if he thinks he is a great photographer. I think that absolutely absurd.I think the hole has gone as deep as it is going to go at this stage.

BTW I think Andy is a legeand!!

In my opinion any pics I take of my kids are great as they react very well to their mother taking pictures of them, which I am sure is the case with most photographers children, then again I am looking through the rose tinted glasses of a mother. I think you are looking too deep into the comment.

Asking Andy whether he thought he was a great photographer was most definitely because the last time I logged onto the thread that was the stage of the discussion so this question is not out of context, I think he is a great photographer, if I recall correctly I did comment once saying I thought his work would be in history books in years to come so my perception of him is not in question, I just merely thought that a photographer of his stature, who is highly regarded around here might be able to give a little insight to the cocky/confident/arrogant side of things.

May I ask, is there anyone else around here who constantly needs to explain each post or do you guys just have a problem with each post, I mean are we not entitled to our opinions anymore without ridicule?

Buzz Lightyear

smelltheglove wrote: »

In my opinion any pics I take of my kids are great as they react very well to their mother taking pictures of them, which I am sure is the case with most photographers children ....

Not sure as what my kids think .... they just scream and go "not the camera again", then run away .....

smelltheglove

Buzz Lightyear wrote: »

Not sure as what my kids think .... they just scream and go "not the camera again", then run away .....

Lol, mine don't, pose central, no matter where we go.

Covey

smelltheglove wrote: »

May I ask, is there anyone else around here who constantly needs to explain each post or do you guys just have a problem with each post, I mean are we not entitled to our opinions anymore without ridicule?

I don't see any ridicule here, but it looks like a fair few people don't agree with you. I mean are we not entitled to our opinions ??

smelltheglove

Covey wrote: »

I don't see any ridicule here, but it looks like a fair few people don't agree with you. I mean are we not entitled to our opinions ??

And a few do, but I do not see the need to pick at every post because you do not agree with something that was initaially misinterpreted or as Calina likes to point out not explained in an appropriate manner. I mean for f sake its all about a bloody mix up, I mean lay the thing to rest guys this is getting ridiculous. I mean fight with me because I will not name a photographer whose work I didnt want to pay for, fight with me because I say I can take great pics of my kids, (of course I can, I know how they work), fight with me because I ask a question in context of the discussion, fight with me for not explaining my statements in clear enough detail for you guys not to think I am arrogant or cocky or whatever (for which I apologised) can you see a trend, I mean its kinda pathetic really, and yes that is my opinion, although I am sure you can argue every reason for each disection of each post made.

*by fight I mean argue or whatever it is you guys are doing, no need to jump down my throat and say you are not fighting or arguing or whatever you are not doing.

ThOnda

Oh, what a gem of discussion! I love it, because I am learning from it. And a lot. Thanks to all involved.

And one more from me:

smelltheglove wrote: »

...we need have respect for other peoples work...

Why? Why shall I respect something that in my opinion does not deserve respect. Yes, I will try to be polite in most cases and if needed I can explain my point of view. Or I am just not bothered at all.
Why shall I respect work of somebody? Because I met them? Because I bought their prints? Because they bought me a pint (of lemonade)? Because they make money from photography? The picture is just a picture. the picture must earn it's own respect independently from photographer and/or their other work. And every single viewer is entitled and maybe even obliged to their own opinion.

And on being great? I am ready to stand up and point my finger at people whom I consider being great, e.g. great person, great photographer, great business person. If I considered myself great in some field, I would not have the need to publish it into the World (of mass media). If people want to find me because of any reason, they could, they can and they do. Unfortunately even people I am trying to avoid.

So what was the original topic of the thread? Oh yes. If I don't like or agree with something, it is only on me to do something about it. Or just talk about it. A lesson I had to learn the hard way on my own.