NEST OF WORMS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Messages
7,901
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
Nest of Worms.

I really must apologise for stirring up a nest of worms in the Film sub forum yesterday.

Film Photography is not under attack by me, nor anyone else. It as as legitimate a field of interest as any other photographic pursuit.
I had no idea at all, that it had become supersensitive to debate or perceived criticism.

What I had also not realised, was that for a number of people, that interest had now become centred on the process, materials techniques and equipment rather than on the creation of images. That concept was alien to my way of thinking about photography.

I grew up alongside much of the development of Film photograph as we know it today.
I progressed from using glass plates, to cut film, to roll film and 35mm. From the availability of lantern slides, Ordinary, Ortho and panchromatic films. And a vast array of printing papers in numerous base colours, image tints, and surfaces and weights, grades and later variable contrast, and an equally wide range of printing techniques. Including Colour printing from Dye transfer. Ciba colour, to mainstream neg positive.

To me these things were never more than tools to be mastered. They never became important in them selves. It was simply a matter of using the best tool available for the purpose in hand. New developments became new tools in that toolbox.

When Digital came on the scene it was difficult to take it seriously. It demonstrated great potential. but almost no practical purpose. From my point of view it did not become a practical proposition till the advent of the Canon 40D and the Nikon D300. at that point It could match in many ways, the film photography of that time, and added the massive advantages of speed of processing and cost per frame. From that moment I have not touched film again.

From all the above it is easy to see that the process itself was never the be all and end all of Photography for me. It was never more than a necessary step in producing an image. I have no more affection or loyalty for Digital Photography, than I will have for what ever comes next.

On reflection, While I have always understood the attraction of collecting photographic equipment . The same can not be said for continuing to use obsolescent technologies. I had not realised film Photography had passed the hurdle of becoming, like even more ancient processes. An interest and hobby in its own right.

Like Bromoil, collotypes, and dozens of other unique processes, it is being kept alive, and some of the knowledge and skills passed on by loyal practitioners.

Unfortunately so much has been lost of this knowledge base, and in such a short time. That people are having to rely on the web for their information. And like all other fields of interest, much of that information is badly corrupted and passed on as being factual, and in the way only the web knows how.

It would be nice to think that a data base of all such knowledge would be built up and substantiated before it it lost for ever. But I fear that is already a lost cause.

It is certain that analogue Photography will continue to be practised, in some form, even after factory made materials are no longer available.

I do not expect people to necessarily agree with these views. they come with the perspective of my own life and experience. and little to no loyalty to the past.
New young Photographers are coming to Film Photography with new eyes and new expectations.
Older traditionalists are perhaps feeling under siege from the inevitable change Digital photography has brought to their lives.

Change is inevitable whether welcomed or not.
 
Change is inevitable whether welcomed or not.
Very true. My photography goes back to 1967 and by 1968 I was making an extra income by selling photography to anyone who would pay me. At the same time I was a trainee on a newspaper, remaining in that area, on and off, until the mid 1980s. As a consequence, I've always thought of photography as a tool to achieve an aim. That said, I've always been a keen "camera changer" (I once estimated that I've owned and used around 150 different models) but the process was simply something that got the image into a usable form.

That's why it doesn't matter to me whether someone used a 10x8 plate camera or a pocket digital camera. What the image shows is my real interest in looking at a picture.
 
Were there fisticuffs and I missed them???? Damn!

No fisticuffs but sadly the leaving of a valued TP member!

Still time yet for fisticuufs as I await a response to my last posting in the "offending" thread:naughty:
 
Change is inevitable whether welcomed or not.

Agreed, but it doesn't mean to say that the change is in someway superior to previous methods, and indeed methods that some people prefer to continue with.

Fair enough much of the content of your post appears to accept your "ignorance" to how analogue processess are now viewed by certain folk and your appology is quite honourable, nontheless it comes across to me like you are simply trying to worm your way out of the nest of worms that you produced.

It doesn't bring back the valued TP member!

Too little, too late and all that
 
What I had also not realised, was that for a number of people, that interest had now become centred on the process, materials techniques and equipment rather than on the creation of images.

JTWRTJRW.GIF

That's not a film thing, that's a photography thing... And if you compare the Talk Equipment section to the various genre subforums it's even more clear that gear is the most popular discussion area on this forum...

YJYJWYWJ.GIF
Talk about the equipment/process is *far* more popular here than talk about the photography. It's also not unusual to presume that filmies are *more* talkative about the process because it's inherently trickier and requires the opinion/help of experts. Just like the...

fewe.GIF

There are more threads in the electronic section just talking about what to do *after* you've taken the image...

Actually, I've just realised that if these sections have different archive properties, my argument could be dead in the water. However my perception of the discussions here on TP is that the gear is more important. I don't think it's a film-only thing.
 
Agreed, but it doesn't mean to say that the change is in someway superior to previous methods, and indeed methods that some people prefer to continue with.

Fair enough much of the content of your post appears to accept your "ignorance" to how analogue processess are now viewed by certain folk and your appology is quite honourable, nontheless it comes across to me like you are simply trying to worm your way out of the nest of worms that you produced.

It doesn't bring back the valued TP member!

Too little, too late and all that


I am sure lots of people view lots of things in lots of different ways, and in ways that I have not even considerd to be possible.

I am certain that that applies to "Certain Folk" as well.

There are so many possible ways to view almost any thing, And that every conceivable way is likely to represent a minority view.

It is not a matter of concern to me that my own views are also one of those minorities.

To me Analogue Processes have passed in to the realm of Heritage interests.

I do not feel it necessary to worm my way out of anything, I still hold such views as I have expressed. However I did not expect them to be received in the way that they were.
I was surprised and saddened that anyone felt the need to resign the forum over any of them. as none of them were a personal attack in any way.
Indeed is suspect it was a combination of these posts and other events, about which I know nothing, that led to this unfortunate exit,
 
Nest of Worms.

I really must apologise for stirring up a nest of worms in the Film sub forum yesterday.

Film Photography is not under attack by me, nor anyone else. It as as legitimate a field of interest as any other photographic pursuit.
I had no idea at all, that it had become supersensitive to debate or perceived criticism.

What I had also not realised, was that for a number of people, that interest had now become centred on the process, materials techniques and equipment rather than on the creation of images. That concept was alien to my way of thinking about photography.

I grew up alongside much of the development of Film photograph as we know it today.
I progressed from using glass plates, to cut film, to roll film and 35mm. From the availability of lantern slides, Ordinary, Ortho and panchromatic films. And a vast array of printing papers in numerous base colours, image tints, and surfaces and weights, grades and later variable contrast, and an equally wide range of printing techniques. Including Colour printing from Dye transfer. Ciba colour, to mainstream neg positive.

To me these things were never more than tools to be mastered. They never became important in them selves. It was simply a matter of using the best tool available for the purpose in hand. New developments became new tools in that toolbox.

When Digital came on the scene it was difficult to take it seriously. It demonstrated great potential. but almost no practical purpose. From my point of view it did not become a practical proposition till the advent of the Canon 40D and the Nikon D300. at that point It could match in many ways, the film photography of that time, and added the massive advantages of speed of processing and cost per frame. From that moment I have not touched film again.

From all the above it is easy to see that the process itself was never the be all and end all of Photography for me. It was never more than a necessary step in producing an image. I have no more affection or loyalty for Digital Photography, than I will have for what ever comes next.

On reflection, While I have always understood the attraction of collecting photographic equipment . The same can not be said for continuing to use obsolescent technologies. I had not realised film Photography had passed the hurdle of becoming, like even more ancient processes. An interest and hobby in its own right.

Like Bromoil, collotypes, and dozens of other unique processes, it is being kept alive, and some of the knowledge and skills passed on by loyal practitioners.

Unfortunately so much has been lost of this knowledge base, and in such a short time. That people are having to rely on the web for their information. And like all other fields of interest, much of that information is badly corrupted and passed on as being factual, and in the way only the web knows how.

It would be nice to think that a data base of all such knowledge would be built up and substantiated before it it lost for ever. But I fear that is already a lost cause.

It is certain that analogue Photography will continue to be practised, in some form, even after factory made materials are no longer available.

I do not expect people to necessarily agree with these views. they come with the perspective of my own life and experience. and little to no loyalty to the past.
New young Photographers are coming to Film Photography with new eyes and new expectations.
Older traditionalists are perhaps feeling under siege from the inevitable change Digital photography has brought to their lives.

Change is inevitable whether welcomed or not.

Whilst the apology is an attempt to appease the sub-forum, your post bears no relevance to the reason for Gareth’s choice to leave the forum entirely.

His post had nothing to do with one medium being better than another, or any specific criticism of other people’s choices, only your posts did that. Gareth was merely sharing a newly found viewing method (for him) that he found enjoyment in.

I could quite happily real off reasons why a 40D is a poor system, in comparison to more modern systems, as I too have used them all. However, if you chose to post photos from your 40D that you were personally happy with, and I ignored that and instead responded by telling you that the dynamic range on the Canon sensor is poor, along with the AF speed and single card slot, and that more modern systems are considerably better, whilst also lamenting the idea that a photographer may be interested in the physical camera as much as the end result, I’d imagine you may take some umbrage to it too.

Your idea of a database of analogue knowledge is already all around us. As well as books from the last century of photography, there are also numerous forums/social media groups/podcasts and magazines available worldwide, curated by passionate photographers sharing their knowledge/experience in an educational way. As I mentioned last night, from my own experience, local camera groups may not be the best place to judge the global appeal of analogue photography, due to their often small bubbles of photographers deciding what constitutes ‘good’ work and what it means to be a ‘photographer’.

Moving forwards, it may be better to understand that we’re all different. Whilst you clearly have a wealth of valuable knowledge from a career in photography, attempting to belittle others (even indirectly) because of it doesn’t come across well in a text based forum.
 
View attachment 295186

That's not a film thing, that's a photography thing... And if you compare the Talk Equipment section to the various genre subforums it's even more clear that gear is the most popular discussion area on this forum...

View attachment 295188
Talk about the equipment/process is *far* more popular here than talk about the photography. It's also not unusual to presume that filmies are *more* talkative about the process because it's inherently trickier and requires the opinion/help of experts. Just like the...

View attachment 295191

There are more threads in the electronic section just talking about what to do *after* you've taken the image...

Actually, I've just realised that if these sections have different archive properties, my argument could be dead in the water. However my perception of the discussions here on TP is that the gear is more important. I don't think it's a film-only thing.

When discussing some thing on one thread. it is hardly necessary to refer to similarities to other sub forums so as to make a valid point.

It is often said "Follow the money" if you want to know about anything.... The money in Photography always seems to lead to kit.
 
Indeed is suspect it was a combination of these posts and other events, about which I know nothing, that led to this unfortunate exit,

You are not alone making innapropriate posts:

these types of thread are becoming a little too frequent recently



The members who frequent f&c regularly are , in comparison to the "other side" a minority ( obviously so, as digital is pretty much the prefered medium in modern times),.

Input such as yours effectively threatens that small group...... one regular member and one (newbie?) guest have gone and potentially another two could dissapear from the forum simply due to yet another thread that has turned into a " film is crap" thread


and I too, like Gareth and the OP of this thread, could quite easily opt out of the forum .

If things don't change in here very soon then Gareth will not be the only one to delete his account.


Many forums and groups globally ( the majority) only accomodate for digital photography.
What is it that folk such as yourself wish for on here? .........For TP to become 100% digital photography based?

If one cannot say something constructive or pleasing then often it's best to say nothing at all.

I pretty much follow that phrase as a guideline ( not just on forums!) , but tbh when I come across people that distress me through their behaviours towards others , I, like yourself can be very opionated and speak my mind .

If I do I will receive a lifetime ban from TP ( that could be quite short then lol ....sorry a very personal (sick) joke that one or two friends on here will understand!)

I'm at a point in life Terry where I couldn't care much about what I say nor how I say it when dealing with people with whom I feel have done an injustice to another!
 
I find the best way to deal with those that I find objectionable is the ignore system. If you can't read what they say they can't bother you in the slightest. It's probably why I miss all the arguments as I've already put many of the protagonists on ignore.

Coming into F & C saying digital is the only true way ( I'm assuming this is the gist of what started it) is akin to joining the Bimmerforums to praise front wheel drive and then wondering why folk get the hump.

Many of the reasons I stay with film are in this very forum. It's not the hellscape of digital photographers arguing about weddings. It's an oasis of relative calm. The fruit machines are all outside and not in this establishment. It's wooden skittles and dominoes in here.
 
. It's wooden skittles and dominoes in here.

Shame we don't live closer, I'd thrash ya', especially at skittles :naughty: .......There again it's 45+ years since I beat grandpa:wideyed:;)

Yes I agree with what you say about the ignore button but sometimes I feel that some of the protagonists simply dont deserve the honour of being ignored :p
 
That's a shame. He'll probably be back eventually after the dust has settled and nobody remembers what happened... so around 3 weeks from now :LOL:

Might do? But there can't be many forums around other than F&C that are interested in talking about film, shots etc ...mind you I haven't bothered to look.
 
Might do? But there can't be many forums around other than F&C that are interested in talking about film, shots etc ...mind you I haven't bothered to look.

You’d be surprised Brian. There’s a big wide world outside this sub-forum [emoji1303]

On Facebook, the Negative Positive Podcast Group has over 4000 members, Large Format Photography Podcast group has over 1100, Collodian Bas***ds has over 7000 members, Everything 4x5 Group has over 4600 members, Large Format Photography Group has over 7700 members, Worldwide Instax Shooters has over 4800 members.

On Instagram, JapanCameraHunter has 147,000 followers and Emulsive Film has 25,000 followers.

They’re just the first groups/accounts I’ve checked. For anyone that thinks film is a dead medium, because some people who grew up with it feel that they’ve personally outgrown it, they would be surprised.
 
What I had also not realised, was that for a number of people, that interest had now become centred on the process, materials techniques and equipment rather than on the creation of images.
Why can't it be both? Most musicians are interested in both their instrument, it's qualities, caring for it, etc. and creating music. I would argue that for photography, materials, techniques, equipment and the creation of images are all part of the process.

As enthusiasts we do this for fun and for me and probably for many others who use film the process is very much part of the enjoyment. There are so many high quality photos now available that arguments about absolute quality are simply becoming irrelevant. If I wanted the best quality photos I would just buy them, someone has already taken a better shot that I could.
 
It can be both. Gaz was a bit sensitive and had a very particular take on the kind of tools for the job that were acceptable to him while intensely disliking digital. He'd already just had a ragged argument with another film user who disagreed about instant film, and I think this was the final straw on a load he'd carried for years.
 
It can be both. Gaz was a bit sensitive and had a very particular take on the kind of tools for the job that were acceptable to him while intensely disliking digital. He'd already just had a ragged argument with another film user who disagreed about instant film, and I think this was the final straw on a load he'd carried for years.

To be fair to Gareth, he was literally posting about the only available ‘tool’ for the job of projecting slide film (eg slide film). His previous issue had been with a post dedicated to instant photography being commented on by another poster saying how they don’t understand why anyone uses instant film because 35mm film or digital are much better quality...I don’t think Gareth was in the wrong with either thread.
 
He'd already just had a ragged argument with another film user who disagreed about instant film,

It was me, and a puzzle as he decided to take up the possible replies of a 8X10 stranger (not here) using instant film in a studio and the puzzle for me was... I have never criticised Gaz or his photos and my view was at the time:- why set up a 8X10 camera in a studio (or even up a mountain) and not get better quality shots with B\W (or colour) neg\pos film, but there you go what ever turns you on.
 
It was me, and a puzzle as he decided to take up the possible replies of a 8X10 stranger (not here) using instant film in a studio and the puzzle for me was... I have never criticised Gaz or his photos and my view was at the time:- why set up a 8X10 camera in a studio (or even up a mountain) and not get better quality shots with B\W (or colour) neg\pos film, but there you go what ever turns you on.

Because surely the answer would be, “why not?”. Why does any of us choose to use any of the gear we do?

For example, you choose to use the largest flash gun you can possibly find, on top of your Canon T body for meets, when there are clearly better systems/flashguns available, but it’s your choice [emoji1303]
 
Because surely the answer would be, “why not?”. Why does any of us choose to use any of the gear we do?

For example, you choose to use the largest flash gun you can possibly find, on top of your Canon T body for meets, when there are clearly better systems/flashguns available, but it’s your choice [emoji1303]

Hey I don't do digi :)
 
In many ways, I'd prefer to keep out of this, but that last (edit: for last read penultimate. I tap too slowly to keep up. Being slow is a LF thing) post from Brian reminded me of something.

The first thing to cross my mind was that the pure technical quality you can get from a 10x8 negative exceeds anything digital can offer. But when people use the word "quality" what do they mean? Quality as in a high quality X, or quality as in quality of light?

To my eyes, a black and white image from digital has different qualities to those of one from large format film. I prefer the "look" of a film derived image, whether wet or inkjet printed. I'll admit to not having used the latest and greatest digital cameras, and my observations are based on a lowly 42 megapixel Sony a7rii. It's a matter of aesthetics. Brett Weston (I think; it was one of Edward's sons) photographed New York with an 11x14 camera, stating that that was the only way to realise his aesthetic - enlargements from smaller formats could not give the same end result.

It's easy enough to sit down with a calculator and show what the maximum possible resolution is with a digital camera and a large format one, making the assumption that the lenses used are perfect and only diffraction limited. If inclined, you can then sit down and calculate what the maximum size of print you can make is - always bearing in mind that studies cited by Ctein in
"Post Exposure" show that despite being beyond the capabilities of the eye to resolve the fine detail, 30 lppm looks better than 20 lppm in the print.

But that's just by the way. What matters to me is the quality of the image in the second sense above. Yes, I'll admit to being a nit picking technician. I don't see the point of producing a fuzzy image of a sharp concept if a) I can produce a sharp one and b) my intention in making the image required it.

The bottom line is that I use film not so much for the process (though I admit to finding using large format cameras Fun - capital letter intended) but because it's the only way of producing images on paper that meet my aesthetic requirements.

Which is why I'll carry a large format camera - if not up mountains, at least up small hills like Ben Nevis. :)
 
Last edited:
I find the best way to deal with those that I find objectionable is the ignore system. If you can't read what they say they can't bother you in the slightest. It's probably why I miss all the arguments as I've already put many of the protagonists on ignore.

Coming into F & C saying digital is the only true way ( I'm assuming this is the gist of what started it) is akin to joining the Bimmerforums to praise front wheel drive and then wondering why folk get the hump.

Many of the reasons I stay with film are in this very forum. It's not the hellscape of digital photographers arguing about weddings. It's an oasis of relative calm. The fruit machines are all outside and not in this establishment. It's wooden skittles and dominoes in here.
Which is why I had to view forum without logging in to find out what had happened as the wooden-top had already vanished for me.
 
Which is why I had to view forum without logging in to find out what had happened as the wooden-top had already vanished for me.

I've found that a little message pops up notifying me of ignored content, and a simple tap reveals it in that thread, one time only. No need to log out.
 
Last edited:
I find the best way to deal with those that I find objectionable is the ignore system. If you can't read what they say they can't bother you in the slightest. It's probably why I miss all the arguments as I've already put many of the protagonists on ignore.

A hundred times this. It's just not possible to police a system so that no one is offended. The only thing we can really change is ourselves. A good friend of mine once told me that resentment is the poison you take hoping someone else will die.

When I get upset by what someone says, I will often ask myself if a) they might be right :), then b) ignore it & leave the thread unless it's my OP in which case I put them on ignore.
 
Which is why I'll carry a large format camera

Well I posted a link ages back on how this guy got all the tones etc out of his B\W neg film\shot and it was a remarkable result...erm but whether you would need an expensive printer (for a print) to show all these tones...I don't know.
 
In many ways, I'd prefer to keep out of this

Me too as it does my health no good whatsoever , but I can't just sit back and say nothing when friends/ valued members are dissapearing off the forum.

the pure technical quality you can get from a 10x8 negative exceeds anything digital can offer.

Oh my, I hope Terry isn't online :exit::exit:
The bottom line is that I use film not so much for the process (though I admit to finding using large format cameras Fun - capital letter intended) but because it's the only way of producing images on paper that meet my aesthetic requirements.

Which is why I'll carry a large format camera - if not up mountains, at least up small hills like Ben Nevis. :)

(y)
 
I think this was the final straw on a load he'd carried for years.

Perhaps there is some truth there, only Gaz knows for sure.:(

It still doesn't take away the fact that for us as members to activley enter a thread and "pull it to pieces" because the medium doesn't suit , is somewhat out of order, regardless of wether that be a digi user in f&c or vice versa.

Of course you are entitled to think differently so long as you don't start another debate......cos we'll duff you up with Brians flashgun! :exit: :LOL:
 
I've found that a little message pops up notifying me of ignored content, and a simple tap reveals it in that thread, one time only. No need to log out.
Just looked. On my phone using the TP app it is in light grey on white and very small type. Now that I know it is there I can see it.
 
I have never yet put anyone on ignore anywhere.

If I do not agree, I either say so, or do not answer at all
At Photographic college in the 50's we had a criticism session every Friday afternoon. We were required to put up our latest offerings to the mercy of the entire department. Any, and every body was encouraged to say what they thought, with no account of year group or status.
We soon grew very thick hides, which have served us well, with both clients and commentators alike.

Opinions and criticism are just that, They carry only the weight you attach to them. However attention to them is probably the only sure way to make progress.
As they provide a balance to your own thoughts. And always deserve a degree of serious attention. even if that later leads to their complete dismissal.

I understand that few people these days can weather such a storm, with out personal pain, and often take all comments as a personal attack or ad hominem.
The culture, has it seems changed, to one that avoids conflict of any sort, and prefers the comfort of undeserved praise, to that of serious criticism or comment.

I prefer serious well thought out comment and take on board every one's opinions, even those I subsequently reject..

These threads are no different.
 
I have never yet put anyone on ignore anywhere.

If I do not agree, I either say so, or do not answer at all
At Photographic college in the 50's we had a criticism session every Friday afternoon. We were required to put up our latest offerings to the mercy of the entire department. Any, and every body was encouraged to say what they thought, with no account of year group or status.
We soon grew very thick hides, which have served us well, with both clients and commentators alike.

Opinions and criticism are just that, They carry only the weight you attach to them. However attention to them is probably the only sure way to make progress.
As they provide a balance to your own thoughts. And always deserve a degree of serious attention. even if that later leads to their complete dismissal.

I understand that few people these days can weather such a storm, with out personal pain, and often take all comments as a personal attack or ad hominem.
The culture, has it seems changed, to one that avoids conflict of any sort, and prefers the comfort of undeserved praise, to that of serious criticism or comment.

I prefer serious well thought out comment and take on board every one's opinions, even those I subsequently reject..

These threads are no different.

Again, for the third time, you didn’t offer criticism of the medium in the context of the thread, you stated your own facts regarding the use of analogue methods regardless of the thread.

The thread was a very simple, “I’ve just projected slide film for the first time and personally think it’s great”, yet your reply was, “slide film is rubbish, I shot it years ago and now use digital so you should too”

That’s the long and the short of the issue, nothing to do with genuine constructive criticism/feedback.
 
I have never yet put anyone on ignore anywhere.

If I do not agree, I either say so, or do not answer at all
At Photographic college in the 50's we had a criticism session every Friday afternoon. We were required to put up our latest offerings to the mercy of the entire department. Any, and every body was encouraged to say what they thought, with no account of year group or status.
We soon grew very thick hides, which have served us well, with both clients and commentators alike.

Opinions and criticism are just that, They carry only the weight you attach to them. However attention to them is probably the only sure way to make progress.
As they provide a balance to your own thoughts. And always deserve a degree of serious attention. even if that later leads to their complete dismissal.

I understand that few people these days can weather such a storm, with out personal pain, and often take all comments as a personal attack or ad hominem.
The culture, has it seems changed, to one that avoids conflict of any sort, and prefers the comfort of undeserved praise, to that of serious criticism or comment.


I prefer serious well thought out comment and take on board every one's opinions, even those I subsequently reject..

These threads are no different.

That's a generalisation Terry and exactly the sort of thing that causes people to take affront.

The way things were done sixty-something years ago at photographic college may have been acceptable at the time. That doesn't mean they would be acceptable now - in much the same way that things that were acceptable in the late 19th century wouldn't have been when you were at college. The world has moved on since then. You may not like some of the ways it's done so, but done so it has.

Not everyone develops a thick hide.
 
Again, for the third time, you didn’t offer criticism of the medium in the context of the thread, you stated your own facts regarding the use of analogue methods regardless of the thread.

The thread was a very simple, “I’ve just projected slide film for the first time and personally think it’s great”, yet your reply was, “slide film is rubbish, I shot it years ago and now use digital so you should too”

That’s the long and the short of the issue, nothing to do with genuine constructive criticism/feedback.

That is an extremely poor summary of what I said. So much so that I do not recognise it.
 
Look, Terry, this isn't a dig at you, you weren't alone in making what I consider somewhat inappropriate comments in the other thread, this a general problem in forums. The thing is it hasn't really been a problem in here until recently and I think that the majority of us are just trying to get across that when someone genuinely enjoys something, anything, then it isn't in anyone's best interests to slag it off. Just be polite, thoughtful, don't trample on people's good thoughts, if you wouldn't say it to their face then don't say it on a forum. And if you would say it their face then you are even ruder than you appear and you should consider your life choices. :)
 
That's a generalisation Terry and exactly the sort of thing that causes people to take affront.

The way things were done sixty-something years ago at photographic college may have been acceptable at the time. That doesn't mean they would be acceptable now - in much the same way that things that were acceptable in the late 19th century wouldn't have been when you were at college. The world has moved on since then. You may not like some of the ways it's done so, but done so it has.

Not everyone develops a thick hide.

If any one would take affront of that post, then something is truly on the slide.
It was anecdotal and factual.
l
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top