Last attempt at getting on with this site :)

I'd be ridiculously happy to have taken any of these. Number 5 is amazing. <3
 
I like your pictures :)
But if I was you, I would of let them do my talking
 
Not my field of photography,but i can appreciate what youv'e acheived in these shots,
particularly the shot of the two girls the lighting looks very pleasing to me,

Just my 2peneth.....
 
I think your photos are great....keep up the good work..looking forward to seeing more(y)
 
Southdowns said:
It's not self pity to complain about unreasonable/rude treatment if that treatment was genuinely unreasonable or rude, and a good proportion of it on here is.
Click to expand...

:agree:

BTW Kris. along with others here that have said so, I too like your pictures. Nice work :clap:

Dave
 
Southdowns said:
If you've never seen the previous posts, how can you comment? It's not self pity to complain about unreasonable/rude treatment if that treatment was genuinely unreasonable or rude, and a good proportion of it on here is.

The reason the sharks get away with it is because of comments like that, which basically reads "if you don't like people treating you like ****, either keep quiet or go away". The fault is with the people being negative, not with those who decide not to tolerate it.
Click to expand...

There's actually very little treatment of anyone on here that is genuinely unreasonable or rude, and the mods won't tolerate that that there is - what happened in Kris's case is that he posted some shots of a model with fairly extreme piercings , a number of people commented that the picture would be better without the piercings and he took umbrage at that citing that 'comments about the model weren't allowed' (personally ive always thought that that rule was more not about saying things like "nice tits" but never mind) - the mods took a look and eventually decided that said comments had gone a bit too far and asked people to tone it down.. which they did.

after continuing to post for three months , Kris then took a 6 month break for reasons unknown (if it was because of what the 'nasty men' had said about his picture than the 3 months it took to cause his departure is a bit odd) last October he came back and has been posting monthly ever since , principally in the classifieds.

The bottom line of this is while you are correct that its not self pity to complain about unreasonable treatment - starting threads to complain about it (justified or not) is not the way forward - that's what the RTM button is for. Also starting threads like this (and the previous one) is tantamount to stomping into a bar looking for a fight... if you go looking for trouble you are far more likely to find it than the average punter

Also while there are a few posters who are sometimes a little bit too blunt (and a fair share of trolls who could argue in an empty room) there are also a fair number of sensitive little flowers who get offended if anyone says anything at all negative about their photography and brand anyone who dares to say anything other than "of that's so great" as a 'shark'.

Kris's photography is bloody good , but its not completely perfect (whose is ?) so there's room for constructive crit , and people should be able to give it without being branded as sharks or trouble makers
 
Pete, constructive criticism is something that should be valued, but plain negative criticism, is about as much use as a 'chocolate fireguard'. As is meaningless mutual 'back patting', so often seen on forums.

As you say, there are a few on here that have very little idea how to speak to people, and come across as plain bloody rude. Something that is very easy to do when hiding behind a keyboard in 'cyber space'.

When an offended party dares to react, there are then those that will respond with petty, and childish comments.

In the forces, there were (and probably still are) individuals who were 'self professed experts', who in reality knew a lot about nothing, and were known as 'Barrack Room' lawyers'. Forums seem to breed their own variety of these.

Conversely, there is a wealth of expertise within this forum, and much of it shared in a friendly and helpful manner, just as it should be.

Yes, some people are easily offended, but if others applied their criticism in a friendly and constructive manner, then they are far less likely to be offended. Unfortunately, there are those that don't seem to know how to be anything but overly blunt, arrogant, and rude.

Why some people seem to go out of their way to be antagonistic, is something that only they will know.

Dave
 
I would just go with post the pics for critique and comment and leave the old behind.
 
This is true - but the people kris has developed an issue with - such as for example Hugh (BFD) , don't fall into that category, I don't always agree with what he says bit ive never had cause to doubt his credibility, his professionalism or his knowledge, nor have I ever seen him post crit other than constructively.

For Kris to brand him as a shark because he has the temerity to suggest that Kris isn't the Mary Poppins of the photography world (ie practically perfect in every way) is just plain silly, and speaks far more to the issue with "getting on with this forum" stemming from Kris's own attitude rather than anything anyone else has said or done.
 
Hi Pete, you're right in some respects, but:

- Kris didn't mention Hugh (or any individual).

- This thread wasn't started to complain, it was started with mention of some history he stated he hoped wouldn't repeat. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

- Members can't know the history or previous contributions of all others. If someone acts like an idiot, they should be called out on that regardless of their previous behaviour.

- Saying fewer piercings would be better IS unhelpful and in fact potentially insulting, and so IS behaviour to be objected to. Commenters don't know the relationship between the photographer and the model (or for that matter, whether the model is reading the comments). How would you feel if I commented negatively on your daughter's looks or dress sense, for example? But more than that, the looks or whatever of the model are relevant ONLY in as far as the photographer has made the best of them/captured their character/flattered them/even caricatured them. So "your model has too many piercings" is of no help to the photographer, whereas "with that many piercings, you could have treated the shot this way..." would be.
 
Pete, my comments were of a general nature, with regards to what is, at times seen on the forum, and not aimed specifically at Kris' original issue. To be honest, I have no knowledge of the facts surrounding that particular incident.

What prompted me to comment in the first place, was 'southdowns' comment "It's not self pity to complain about unreasonable/rude treatment if that treatment was genuinely unreasonable or rude, and a good proportion of it on here is", which he made in response to the petty and uncalled for comment, of the type that I described in my last post. The type of comment that serves no purpose, other than to perhaps to 'pour oil on troubled waters'.

As I said, there is a wealth of expertise resident here, of a level that certainly exceeds my ability and knowledge, and I have learnt from it.

Unfortunately, there are always some 'bad apples' in every barrel.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Southdowns said:
Hi Pete, you're right in some respects, but:

- Kris didn't mention Hugh (or any individual).

- This thread wasn't started to complain, it was started with mention of some history he stated he hoped wouldn't repeat. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

- Members can't know the history or previous contributions of all others. If someone acts like an idiot, they should be called out on that regardless of their previous behaviour.

- Saying fewer piercings would be better IS unhelpful and in fact potentially insulting, and so IS behaviour to be objected to. Commenters don't know the relationship between the photographer and the model (or for that matter, whether the model is reading the comments). How would you feel if I commented negatively on your daughter's looks or dress sense, for example? But more than that, the looks or whatever of the model are relevant ONLY in as far as the photographer has made the best of them/captured their character/flattered them/even caricatured them. So "your model has too many piercings" is of no help to the photographer, whereas "with that many piercings, you could have treated the shot this way..." would be.
Click to expand...

He may not have mentioned Hugh by name - but he kicked off this thread complaining about the "usual suspects" on his last thread , and the only person he'd had an issue with on that one was Hugh (oddly that thread was entitled "haven't posted here for a year or more" which was factually incorrect he posted that thread on Jun 7, but he was on line and posting the day before (and pretty regularly before that)

This thread and the previous one both kicked off with complaints about the forum - I mean FFS the title of this one is an implicit complaint itself. And as I said that kind of attitude isn't helpful - if you go tromping into a bar ranting about trouble you've had before, you've a far higher chance of finding it again if you only go in for a quiet drink. If he hoped not to repeat the history not mentioning it at all on either thread would have been the way to go

And with regard to the model I disagree , which model a photographer selects is totally within their control - so if you select one with lots of piercing and people feel that this detracts from the photo then "this would have worked better with a different model because x, y, z" is perfectly valid critique as I said the spirit of the "no comments on the model" rule was to keep things focussed on the photography and avoid the 'hot or not' style comments ... nice tits/ phwoar I'd hit that / what a munter / wouldn't touch it with yours.... type thing that pervades in some other photography forums
 
Last edited:
Hiya not seen any of your other posts so can't comment. What I would say is these are very pro looking images the type you see in many magazines you obviously know your game and most likely make an income from your talent. So I would take the higher ground and just take on board the genuine comments and ignore the one's you know are gonna be negative without even reding them.
For me well____I'm in awe these are way way above what I could take and am surprised you need feedback at all :)


Gaz
 
big soft moose said:
..........And with regard to the model I disagree , which model a photographer selects is totally within their control - so if you select one with lots of piercing and people feel that this detracts from the photo then "this would have worked better with a different model because x, y, z" is perfectly valid critique as I said the spirit of the "no comments on the model" rule was to keep things focussed on the photography and avoid the 'hot or not' style comments ... nice tits/ phwoar I'd hit that / what a munter / wouldn't touch it with yours.... type thing that pervades in some other photography forums
Click to expand...

As far as I know, you didn't devise the rule, so aren't in a position to declare what it's purpose is. Regardless, common courtesy dictates that you don't criticise someone you don't know for the way they look, especially when the purpose of your comments is meant to be to help the person photographing them, not to advise the model.

Yes, "a different model would work better for that type of shot" is OK, but "a different type of shot for that model" is even better, because the photographer can choose the type of shot, but not necessarily the model. What is not acceptable, as must have been agreed by the mods because they removed the comments, is "your model has too many piercings".

If you criticise a photographer's choice of model, even accepting that it's within their control (but see below), except in regard to their suitability for the style of shot taken, you are basically saying that that model should not be working as a model. The criticism should be aimed at the photographer's treatment of the model, not at the model's looks/style/clothes sense etc.

And no, even professional photographers are limited in their choice of model by budget. Mere mortals are most likely limited by "who they know". Most of us do NOT have the selection totally within our control. For example, if I wanted to try some kind of grungy portrait well suited to lots of piercings, I'd have to shoot someone with none because I don't know anyone heavily pierced. Would you criticise my model for not having enough body jewellery, or would you criticise my photography to help me improve? Would you tell me my wife is too fat or old if I shot her in a glamor pose, or would you help me improve my technique so that one day I might be good enough to justify hiring a 19 year old stunner? If I produced a landscape of Snowdon, would you tell me I should have gone to Yosemite?

I agree with you that it might have been better to start this thread with no mention of previous problems, but the fact that Kris did may just be a measure of how much it upset him, rather than, as you appear to suggest, an attempt to cause further trouble. Whether or not Kris dealt with it in the ideal way though, HE didn't start it, and isn't the perpetrator; those who offered unhelpful and insensitive criticism are. In fact your attempts to defend the perpetrators and instead accuse Kris of "an attitude" (it's not an attitude, it's a reaction), could be seen as a deliberate attempt to antagonise. Why not tell Kris he was right to be upset, but that maybe now's the time to move on, instead of trying to paint him as the bad guy?

Picking holes in the detail of whether this is actually his first post in a while, and the stated timescale, is irrelevant and petty. Whether it's really a year, or is in fact just a few months, the point is that Kris has been nervous about posting for crit because of previous comments, and so hasn't done as frequently as he'd have liked. Either he exaggerated to get his point across, or was simply mistaken, but either way what's important is that he's been upset, not precisely how long ago that happened.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top