As a casual non-native-tongue outsider enjoying his popcorn at regular intervals while scanning through threads like these I would like to add my 2 cents as well. Through the years I'd had to conclude for every online shared text and sentiment alike not to be a reflection of people's live persona's in almost all cases. I enjoyed several live meetings with a number of person(a')s from some reasonably crowded (Dutch) messageboards and the people I've met were not in any way the people one would (have) thought them to be taken into account their online aliasses. Through the years I also had a good share of disagreement, flaming and blaming, with some of those folks but almost every time things 'clicked' positivitely between them and me during our meetings. Mostly meeting very nice people during those occasions only to find out for some of us to have been eachothers long time online-nemesis was pretty much laughable indeed, makes for good eyeopeners as well.
-
-
I largely agree, it would be extremely difficult to decide who's 'over the line line' and who isn't, that would vary very much based on who you asked, so I'm not really advocating action, I'm just making an observation from my own experience. As it happens, neither of those you mention who make my personal very short list of the most egregious.
-
But lots of people are, without realising it. I'm really loathe to go the route of exclusion of certain personality types. I know that from my discussions with him, @BurnImage feels that his statements are fully justified, and that my questioning of how he has conducted himself is indicative of my membership of the group of 'octogenarian scientists' (I don't qualify on either criterion). He seems to feel very strongly that 'science' and 'photography' are in some kind of opposition (though he denies it when asked directly) and that's a valid point of view, even if you and I think it's incorrect.
-
I think a things would be a lot easier if people took things a lot less seriously. After all, we're mostly talking about inanimate objects, and the world won't end if two people can't agree on what 'exposure' means.
-
It's that 'talking down' that's the real problem for me, and at least several others. Some experts are here to help and teach, which is great, only a fool is not willing to learn. But when you're here because you love the sound of your own voice and clearly think you're God's gift to the forum it will inevitably put backs up.
-
What would you count as 'talking down'? I'd be interested in some suitably anonymised examples.
-
Sorry to hear about your situation, I didn’t know.
When I was a teenager, many moons ago… I decided to never let myself get annoyed and upset about the words and actions of other people, something which I have no control of.
"Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured."
Mark Twain.Life’s far too short man.
I wish you well. -
People can say just about anything they want on the internet with no repercussions. People face to face understand that if they behaved like they did on the internet, there would be a very real chance of physical harm, so they behave more civilly. There is an old saying about seeing a person's true colors......never marry someone who is an asshole to waiters.
People who are polite on the internet are polite in person probably close to 99% of the time. It doesn't cost anything to be polite, but still many won't do it, thinking their brash "directness" is somehow unique or enlightening. We have seen it here. Most of us can do better. Most of us won't.
-
I remember donb from the old place. Actually found a lot of his posting to be informative while still confrontative. Ok with me. Danno, also pretty innocent. The other names are mostly trash it seems. But who knows if they can be anything but inflammatory. Time will tell 😇
-
So you decide to take the upper ground by joining a thread designed to try and hound some members out because they don't confirm to your world view. Your counter argument is personal and disdainful. Like I'm a piece of dog s**t on your shoe.
Nice try!
-
You seem determined to prolong discussions that amount to, by your own admission, "I ETTR By half a stop". Yet we have over a thousand posts over multiple threads turning something this simple into into a major factor.
-
Does this dislike button work both ways? Asking for a friend.......
-
Thanks for the balanced reply. I don't think science and photography are in opposition and I never have.
Nor do I misunderstand the science. I've simply learnt it enough to crack on for my needs. I'm especially interested in mastering my own cameras.
What I DO feel VERY strongly about is relating the tech back to real world results and strategies for using your cameras.
Especially if it's posted in beginners or open talk.
IMO the threads here do indeed (and I'll use the word again) become pissing contests. I use that word because I feel that strongly about it.
There's no point taking a subject as simple as maximising light on the sensor if it's not related back to real world strategies. Especially over 3 or 4 threads with perhaps over 2000 posts on this SIMPLEST of things.
If folk simply want to talk in ever more technical terms over hundreds of posts then IMO it becomes a "Science and Technology" thread. Simply because it becomes more and more divorced from real world applications (and these threads NEVER seem to relate all this tech talk back to real world application strategies)
If folk wanna help the less experienced they should explain simply:
- Why it's a good idea.
- How to do it.
- When to consider doing it.
- What the drawbacks of doing it are (live view etc).
Without any of the above it's a pointless exercise. It's still a pissing contest. Yes, that word again, used deliberately.
Some folk throw their dummy out of the pram over this.
Some say folk like me are outrageous.
Some folk are so enraged at this that they are compelled to start a whole new thread stating people like me should be ignored.
Some folk then reply to this thread with pearls of wisdom along the lines of "I agree, these folk are nasty".
If such folk are truly "holier than thou" they wouldn't have posted on this thread in the first place.
What they have actually done is latched onto a thread that literally denigrates members like me like by name, and explained why we are nasty and they are not.
Whereas, the truth is, such folk are perhaps nastier. They just think they got away with it without being noticed.
I do love irony, especially on the internet.
PS. Yes I have been grumpy in some of my posts. I've not framed all of my posts with laser precision either. I apologise for that.
It's hard to get the balance right when under attack.........
In summary, I did consider leaving here. But that would be too easy.
I won't let the real bullies bully me out.
-
Calling other members TRASH is the new "ok" then I take it? I see our esteemed leader @bobn2 has liked your post. Interesting!
-
Yes you are right I'm sure. The correct way to conduct oneself is to jump onto a thread that literally names individual members to be ignored. That's clearly the right way to go.
Especially if they upset your world view.
It's obviously the polite way to do things........ Who knew?
I do love a bit of irony ;-)
-
Actually, I crept back into DPR with a new name. But this forum is much more fun and interesting, so I have not been bothered to visit much. Maybe just to see if Lazarus has arisen or still moribund.
The forums there on DPR are dying bit by bit. I did see one thing of interest, but I know if I share my wisdom there, I will get banned by the particularly creepy Mod on that forum..
-
Sorry if I misrepresented you. It just comes across that way from what you say. I've obviously come to an erroneous conclusion.
I've found that understanding the 'science' that you've said is too much (unless I've misunderstood again) is really helpful when it comes to mastering cameras. As I've said elsewhere, it's about learning styles. You can do a lot of trial and error and eventually learn how to 'master' the camera, or you can have an understanding about how the system operates and get there faster. I'm not saying either approach is better, it's up to everyone to choose what suits them best.
I don't feel so strongly, but it's something I try to do for myself. But I can't see there's any harm in people being interested in learning the depths of how their camera works just because they are interested in that.
We have a strategy for keeping discussions in BQ at about the right level, which is the BQD forum. We move posts and subthreads that are going too deep for beginners there. As for 'Open talk', why not. 'Open' implies just what it says, 'open'.
That's pejorative and insulting. The people are having a detailed discussion about things that interest them. Why should they not, even if they don't interest you? All you have to do is not participate in those discussions. There is no reason to go about casting insults at those people.
The '2000' posts were mostly from people like you, arguing about whether people should be posting things they didn't understand and the replies from the people having the discussion. If all the detractors simply ignored the threads they would be quite short. It's kind of like seagulls complaining that the seafront is covered in birdshit. In any case, the subject of maximising light is not simple, and certainly not the SIMPLEST of things. Speaking of no-one in particular, it's a property of the Dunning-Kruger effect (by which we're all affected, just to re-iterate that this isn't directed) that people that lack understanding about a topic often consider it simple. This is something I've discovered myself (further re-iterating that this isn't meant personally) that often when I've thought something to be simple it was because I hadn't understood it. In the case of maximising light, the concept might be simple, but the achievement isn't. I've been a big proponent of the 'exposure first' technique, whereby you set the f-number for DOF and shutter for motion blur, then set the ISO (or let auto ISO do it). That's the technique I use most of the time. But one has to realise that there are circumstances in which it fails to set the maximum exposure that you might have had, particularly at base ISO when you ight back off exposure more than you need to to avoid blowing highlights. It's also worth noting that this whole endeavour is disputed by quite a large number of people - who all contribute to all those posts - disputing it and starting arguments about it.
Or, if you want to see it another way, an opportunity for people who oppose the 'science', which generally means (again not talking about you personally) fail to understand the very basics of photographic theory, to try to shut the 'scientists' up bu sheer weight of opposing posts. It takes (at least) two sides to have an argument. Your theory that all the posts are 'scientists' having 'pissing contests' is entirely incorrect. The arguments are mainly caused by people disputing basic photographic ideas.
So you're deliberately being offensive. What a pleasant person you must be. Anyhow, there's room for all kinds of posts. They don't have to follow the pattern you suggest. If you don't like a thread, there is absolutely no rule on this forum that says you have to read it. Let me point you at a few you might like.
Nice thread where people post, compare and comment on images
Another nice thread like that.
A very pleasant thread about the history of digital cameras
Another nice thread about showing your pictures.
An interesting thread talking about approaches to photography
A thread about the future of DPReview
A jolly thread where people take photos of things and try to guess where they were taken
A thread about operating systems
there's many more if none of those fits your tastes. What you don't need to do is keep hanging around in threads that you don't like. Or even barge around shouting about how much you don't like them. There are some threads here that I don't like. I just don't participate.Actually, I agree with most of that. We cater for all personality types here, including the intolerant. But I agree, the intolerant can be a real pain when they spend all their time complaining about how other people behave instead of just getting on with doing what they want to do. I suspect that what they most like doing is complaining about what other people are doing. It takes all sorts.
Amen to that. I'm glad that you'll be on the side of the scientific pissing contestants who spend their time being bullied by people who object to finding out the limits of their own knowledge. They really did get bullied on DPReview, to the extent they just had to hide away on PST. It's really nice to see that they feel confident enough here to take a full part in the forums.
-
[quote @bobn2]
So you're deliberately being offensive. What a pleasant person you must be.
[/quote]No, deliberately being offensive would be singling members out.
I didn't do that, I said that some threads are pissing contests, which means a combination of members contributing to that inevitable outcome.
The only offensive thread I can find is this one.
You know, this one that says people like me (by name) should be ignored. Now THAT is offensive!
Especially when the only reason for a thread like this to be created is to try and hound out members like me, because we don't conform to their world view.
