The Anti-processing brigade ... or those who claim not to PP but do

Thecageyone

dave66 wrote: »

Emm, people in glass houses .... , let he who has not sinned ...., cat calling the dog hairy ... and all that seems to apply

Point to examples ... I had a clear point in the thread, it's been swayed, dragged, kicked and pulled about because people would rather slam an opinion than simply give their own.

Thecageyone

artyeva wrote: »

i wasn't referring to your post. and i wasn't jumping in with judgement.

i get what you had said. i was actually referring to AR's post - but in hindsigt i shouldn't have fed it - off topic as it was.

*smacks forehead*




no one was asking you keep defending anything.

i joined this thread cause i was standing up for your OP, but i give up, i just f****ing give up.

*smacks forehead off wall*

Oh right , sorry in that case.

Getting too used to having to defend myself in here

Promac

Great job at killing friday though. Top marks!

Thecageyone

I must post up more threads on here

AnimalRights

Promac wrote: »

It's a real shooting match today.

Film snobbery is my biggest pet peeve in photography. I've shot more film than I have digital and I know how little difference there is. The worst are the punters who will show extra appreciation for a pic just because it was shot on film.

"These are all shot on file you know"
"Oh really! wow!"

Yep! As I said in my earlier post.

dave66

Thecageyone wrote: »

Yeah, it's getting silly the over-reading into posts in here.

Thecageyone wrote: »

Point to examples ... I had a clear point in the thread, it's been swayed, dragged, kicked and pulled about because people would rather slam an opinion than simply give their own.

I quote the one above, relax, it's Friday, have some fun

AnimalRights

I think these threads are interesting, especially on a Friday.

Chorcai

AnimalRights wrote: »

I think these threads are interesting, especially on a Friday.

With popcorn !

Thecageyone

You are all off topic! BANNNNNNNNNNN ....

Mountainsandh

Can I offer a newbie view to this ?
I agree with you TheCageyOne. I'm new to photography, just self teaching as a hobby.
Now, I don't mind PP either at all at all. In fact I quite like some heavily PP pics at times, but I do hate when I see some pic that even I, with my untrained eyes, can guess has been processed, and is claimed to be unprocessed.

How the hell am I supposed to learn with/from that ? It's totally moving the goalposts for me. So here am I, trying to get the colour right on a bunch of leaves, and feeling so proud if I do get it, and then someone posts a photograph with some mad colours/tones/light, claiming it's unprocessed, and I'm thinking : yeah right. I don't know anymore if I'm supposed to aim for achieving that straight out of camera, or if I dismiss that as BS. (to explain my naivity in this regard, my idea of PP are either Picnik or Paint.net, don't have Photoshop or anything that complicated).

People who post online are well aware that others are looking at their pics not just for pleasure, but also from a critical point of view, and that for a lot of viewers, it's a learning experience too.
By labelling their (the experienced photogs) photographs as unprocessed, they are setting a standard really, as in, that's what's possible/feasible without PP. And it seems very wrong that standards should be set on false pretences, or semantics, when people argue their pro photog definition of PP is different from other people's.

Entertaining thread for a Friday night in, glass of wine (or two), and a sprinkle of bickering, I must say I like that :).

Thecageyone

Thank you, as you've backed up my argument [although when I posted the thread there was no intention to argue] and you'll be heard I think some forget I'm a newbie too, only been into photography a year and still very much in the early learning mode.

You hit the nail firmly on head with that post. I think it's wrong to proclaim something on show to be not what it actually is.

It is annoying and it is worth the discussion

dave66

Thecageyone wrote: »

Thank you, as you've backed up my argument [although when I posted the thread there was no intention to argue] and you'll be heard I think some forget I'm a newbie too, only been into photography a year and still very much in the early learning mode.

You hit the nail firmly on head with that post. I think it's wrong to proclaim something on show to be not what it actually is.

It is annoying and it is worth the discussion

So, discussion without arguing, of you go then.

Wait is that the sound of a dead horse being whipped?

Thecageyone

And a loud yawn was heard from somewhere in the distance ...

Do you have something to actually contribute here dave? or are you really so insistent on your earlier moans that had little relevance to anything? I made all the points I needed to earlier, you made ... none. If you re-read the above post, properly, I stated I had no intention to argue. But cetain members proceeded to gang into the thread with little or no contribution, stirring things up. I responded to all, sensibly. It is pretty much done with now.

The latest poster, who says they are a newbie, backs me up. that, for me, is enough. I don't really need the opinions of those who think they know it all [do wonder why they bother with forums to begin with, since they know so much] ... but I was interested in seeing the responses. thread done job.

Promac

dave66 wrote: »

So, discussion without arguing, of you go then.

Wait is that the sound of a dead horse being whipped?

Obvious trolling. Just give it a rest.

Mountainsandh - absolutely right. I hope you're not put off by all the bickering.