Hi there, question for photographers..

15dash10

Yeah, I've got to say, I was really enjoying the banter for the first couple of pages, but now it's beginning to feel a bit wrong...

Mountainsandh

Yes I did Tallon, and I rarely ever have reported posts on boards.

The guy never came on here saying "hey I've a picture of an alien ship, yes, yes, I assure you I am convinced it's an alien ship, I'm 100% sure it's an alien ship, and the photo is real", and yet the replies he got were in that perspective.

He came on here asking for technical explanations, that may seem totally obvious and silly to anyone who's into photography, but that didn't give anyone the go ahead to claim he was crazy or trolling, again imo.

Again if you re-read the thread, for every person that has given some technical explanation he has had a courteous thanks.

At no stage has he claimed the spaceship or photograph was real.

He has mentioned he thought the car was real, is that hilarious or grounds for calling him crazy ? It's been pointed out that it looked like a toy car, and that technically a toy car placed to the forefront would totally fit in to the scenario in pic, that's fair enough. No need for escalating that into "crazy ufo guy thinks it's a real car ah ah"

Mountainsandh

I feel like Zorro now

DaireQuinlan

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Yes I did Tallon, and I rarely ever have reported posts on boards.

The guy never came on here saying "hey I've a picture of an alien ship, yes, yes, I assure you I am convinced it's an alien ship, I'm 100% sure it's an alien ship, and the photo is real", and yet the replies he got were in that perspective.

He came on here asking for technical explanations, that may seem totally obvious and silly to anyone who's into photography, but that didn't give anyone the go ahead to claim he was crazy or trolling, again imo.

Again if you re-read the thread, for every person that has given some technical explanation he has had a courteous thanks.

At no stage has he claimed the spaceship or photograph was real.

He has mentioned he thought the car was real, is that hilarious or grounds for calling him crazy ? It's been pointed out that it looked like a toy car, and that technically a toy car placed to the forefront would totally fit in to the scenario in pic, that's fair enough. No need for escalating that into "crazy ufo guy thinks it's a real car ah ah"

No, people are reacting like this because the OP came here to proselytise, not because he was particularly interested in the outcome of the discussion. He REPEATEDLY claimed that there was evidence that the car was real, full sized, in a car park ,and any assertions otherwise were initially met with defensive hostility and subsequently ignored. Then he proceeded to post a whole pile more nonsense pictures and got all up tight when their ridiculousness was jocularly pointed out. He also rather grandiosely gives out to other posters for 'talking nonsense' :rolleyes:

tonybodhran

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

No, people are reacting like this because the OP came here to proselytise, not because he was particularly interested in the outcome of the discussion. He REPEATEDLY claimed that there was evidence that the car was real, full sized, in a car park ,and any assertions otherwise were initially met with defensive hostility and subsequently ignored. Then he proceeded to post a whole pile more nonsense pictures and got all up tight when their ridiculousness was jocularly pointed out. He also rather grandiosely gives out to other posters for 'talking nonsense' :rolleyes:

No i did not, if you actually read through the posts when someone who actually knew what they were talking about actually commented on the technical aspects of the photo and stated that it was impossible for a full size car to be out of focus like that in the picture I took their word for it and had no argument, the rest of the posts by everyone else have been nothing to do with my topic or questions asked by myself. As I said in the beginning I on't know anything about photography, I came here looking for a few answers and all I've gotten except for one or two posts is smart arse remarks. I have problems with these photo's myself that's why I was asking. So please keep you opinions on me to yourself as you have absolutely no idea what my motives are. Whether I believe in ufo's or not has nothing to do with the question I was asking.

Mountainsandh

No I'm sorry Daire, I don't think he came on and repeatedly hammered on that the car was real, and tried to hammer on his point.

He did repeatedly ask for a technical explanation, that was the OP.

He took on board the fact that some people thought it was a model car :
post 22

If there are any photographers who have experience of photographing small models I would appreciate straight answers to a few questions about some other photographs without being condescending..

(admittedly starting to get a bit grumpy here)

And went back to his original question. It just seems to me that he just required the technical aspect, so he could make up his own mind on the veracity of everything in the picture. He wasn't asking people to tell him their opinion on real or not real, rather that the people would say : "yes, technically it's possible" or "nope, not a chance technically you could achieve that out of focus/focus range here with that camera".

post 35

Again all I want to know is it possible to take a picture with a full size car out of focus and a distant large object in focus like that with this particular camera, if not then there is some other kind of camera trickery involved.

I don't think that's proselytising.

Tallon

So it's okay that he called us pricks then?

Mountainsandh

No it's not ok, but that's a pretty good patience threshold considering comments like these
#72

Tallon wrote: »

They're all daft, they're all stupid, it's pathetic and childish that people still believe this crap in 2012!

And I don't believe he is a troll as his other posts are just as daft and ignorant of common sense

... the arrogant pricks is #93, that's after another bunch of mocking/passive agressive posts.

Anyway I've made my point, I don't fancy re-reading and quoting posts ad infinitum. I find it surprising the thread went that way, I usually like the banter and find that people on here are honest and make their points well without agression.

Tallon

Okay, so it's okay to call someone a prick because they've lost their patience?

And as long as it happens within a certain amount of posts?

Good to know

Splinters

tonybodhran wrote: »

Whether I believe in ufo's or not has nothing to do with the question I was asking.

I think you'll find most people here couldnt care less about whether or not you believe in such things. However I do think you'd find it very difficult to find any photography forum, board, community etc where posting an image with that type of subject matter would not become a talking point.

If I were to post the McAreavey crime scene photos here (legal issues aside) depicting her dead body and ask about some aspect of the technicality of the photography, yet asked people to ignore the subject matter, just tell me what aperture or focal lenght was used in the image what do you think would happen?

Mountainsandh

Tallon wrote: »

Okay, so it's okay to call someone a prick because they've lost their patience?

No it's not ok

is it ok to call someone daft and ignorant, along with adjectives like stupid, pathetic and childish to qualify something they're interested in ?

tororosso

Mountainsandh wrote: »

in OP.



this forum is full of people I respect but I really don't get how this thread has become a ganging up/picking on the ufo guy thread.
no harm in a bit of fun about funny looking pics, but really what's with the narky attitude ?

I'm a bit shocked I have to say.

I have to say some of the aggression and passive aggression towards the OP is unacceptable. The OP's views on the subject of aliens or ufos are one thing but the thread was to ask a question about a technical aspect of photography. Firstly the OP has been trolled by at least one poster on here. Secondly he has been ganged up on as well which is not cool at all. So yeah I fully agree with your quote above Mountainsandh.

frozenfrozen

I think the moral of the story is that the photography forum is a place for only extremely serious debate about serious topics such as UFOs and copyright. Anyone who attempts to enjoy themselves while posting on this forum will be informed that their behavior is unacceptable.

How dare you people gang up on some poor man just trying to find out if the wedding cake was in front or behind the toy car >:[



All people commenting from their high horses should be ashamed of themselves as their actions are unacceptable. You are the reason of the photography forums demise.

Tallon

Mountainsandh

frozenfrozen wrote: »

I think the moral of the story is that the photography forum is a place for only extremely serious debate about serious topics such as UFOs and copyright. Anyone who attempts to enjoy themselves while posting on this forum will be informed that their behavior is unacceptable.

How dare you people gang up on some poor man just trying to find out if the wedding cake was in front or behind the toy car >:[



All people commenting from their high horses should be ashamed of themselves as their actions are unacceptable. You are the reason of the photography forums demise.

It's easy to have fun with someone as opposed to making fun of someone, or having fun at their expense, are you saying that all fun places are places were people make fun of each other ?
I'm all for the bit of slagging, I enjoy little bouts of harmless sarcasm, and I get the humour on here no bother, but I think it can all be done nicely, iykwim.
I've seen plenty of banter and fun threads on here without the narkiness.

ooohh I can see my house from here...