Shall we ban...
- Thread starter swingoutsister
- Start date
- Status
I'm slow.. just saw this thread. Anyway.. just some comments.
have their own favourite brands, models etc. A little enthusiasm in the tools of the trade goes a long way.
In the spirit of your original post, if everyone did an 'ignore it and move on if you don't like it', who would post any comments except for "nice picture"?
Not necessarily a bad thing wouldn't you say? Even good photographers should be technically sound and many mayswingoutsister said:
have their own favourite brands, models etc. A little enthusiasm in the tools of the trade goes a long way.
That would be the nature of an open forum and why there are moderators here, to try and maintain the peace (so to speak). Pseudo-intellectual? Well, that would depend on whose reading right?swingoutsister said:
How do you categorise lady photographers who also do glamour/fashion? Chikopeks also? Granted there are some who may be of that mind, but overall, I think it's a pretty sweeping statement.swingoutsister said:
Does this mean you have to go on a safari to be a true nature photographer? I don't think so. That would be the equivalent of a "location geek" (see point 1) as opposed to a true photographer wouldn't it? Besides, where would you practise if not close to home?swingoutsister said:
It's definately useful (imho).swingoutsister said:
Yes. Thats true. The opposite also holds true, you can't stop someone from ignoring your 'ignore it and move on' statement and commenting (as I have).swingoutsister said:
In the spirit of your original post, if everyone did an 'ignore it and move on if you don't like it', who would post any comments except for "nice picture"?
swingoutsister
New Member
to wantunn, i repeat again for your benefit, quote myself "my impression of the general population of clubsnap (based on the posts and comments i've read in the forums)"
that means, from what i have read in a lot of the posts and comments here, those are the impressions i tend to get. and yes, of course, that means it is a sweeping generalisation. and yes, that means, shouldn't we be taking more notice of the current general quality of the forums here, instead of 'moving on' and sweeping everything under the mat?
no, one does not have to go on a safari. but no, too, one does not automatically become a 'nature' photographer just because he/she happen to "shoot" insects,lizards,pests,bugs. that is my point.
let me give you another example, one does not become a portrait photographer just because he/she took a headshot of a friend. is it clearer now?
a nature photographer not only (pun) naturally has to be a lover of nature, but also has a keen and genuine interest in the subject in front of the camera. not just take a picture of it using an elaborate, intricate macro set up and then file under "nature photography" folder.
and no, i'm not saying those people who does the above are ALL like that. i'm sure there are serious nature lovers out there somewhere in the forums (thats why i said , general impressions). its just that, it gets very tiring to hear people commenting about how sharp the picture is, what set up did you use, instead of generating a true excitment about knowing more about the subject in the pictures.
and no, its not a crime to share your macro set up (in case some of you decide to pick on that)
and yes, i hope this will be the last time i will be dissecting my own statements just because some of you like to read tru a microscope.
lets get the bigger picture and yes, move on .. in the right direction. please.
we have a line of discussion going on, however small it is.
that means, from what i have read in a lot of the posts and comments here, those are the impressions i tend to get. and yes, of course, that means it is a sweeping generalisation. and yes, that means, shouldn't we be taking more notice of the current general quality of the forums here, instead of 'moving on' and sweeping everything under the mat?
wantunn said:
no, one does not have to go on a safari. but no, too, one does not automatically become a 'nature' photographer just because he/she happen to "shoot" insects,lizards,pests,bugs. that is my point.
let me give you another example, one does not become a portrait photographer just because he/she took a headshot of a friend. is it clearer now?
a nature photographer not only (pun) naturally has to be a lover of nature, but also has a keen and genuine interest in the subject in front of the camera. not just take a picture of it using an elaborate, intricate macro set up and then file under "nature photography" folder.
and no, i'm not saying those people who does the above are ALL like that. i'm sure there are serious nature lovers out there somewhere in the forums (thats why i said , general impressions). its just that, it gets very tiring to hear people commenting about how sharp the picture is, what set up did you use, instead of generating a true excitment about knowing more about the subject in the pictures.
and no, its not a crime to share your macro set up (in case some of you decide to pick on that)
and yes, i hope this will be the last time i will be dissecting my own statements just because some of you like to read tru a microscope.
lets get the bigger picture and yes, move on .. in the right direction. please.
we have a line of discussion going on, however small it is.
Hommie
Senior Member
swingoutsister said:
Perhaps it the way you phase your comments. Can't blame people reacting that way when your 'general impressions' sweep almost all in here.
And perhaps in general most of the photographer are here because they are photographers(or like taking photos) first and foremost before a specialisation into different sectors of it(nature, portrait or macro). We learn along the way using our common hobby, that is taking pictures. If we are nature lover or a expert of portrait taking, that would be even better. If not, there is nothing wrong with just being a photographer first and then the subject we are into. A nature lover might not be a good photographer(lack of talent) but a good photogragher can easily be one(nature lover).
There's so much technical knowledge to be understood before a good picture could be achieve(eg: macro/insect photography), so how could you blame those who comment 'how sharp your picture' or 'what's your setup'? If they do not generate a interest in a subject first, it could be that they consider themselves a general photographer first before a subject of interest. So be it. Nothing wrong with it.
swingoutsister
New Member
swingoutsister said:
thank you
swingoutsister
New Member
Hommie said:
whatever it was, i thank you for contributing to this thread.
I'm afraid it's murkier. Why not? It may be a bad portrait but it'll be a portrait all the same. You seem to have deviated from your original intention of comment with content to lets get rid of the so-so photographers.swingoutsister said:
Just a side note, I think that you put your points through in a rather aggressive/provocative/inflammatory (hmm..I'm not sure if those are the terms I'm looking for) manner. Of course you're free to do that but that also means other people are free to take it up with you but it could be better phrased if your objective is to get your message through to more people.
In the spirit of your first post, I'd say good idea, delivery leaves something to be desired. (Also in the spirit of your first post, I hope you can accept this as constructive criticism)
V
vince123123
Guest
I think now you can start another certification system, only those which pass swingoutsister 9999 is allowed to be called a nature photographer, or a portrait photographer!! 
does my avatar pass as level 1? It's a Zizula hylax pygmaea common name: Pygmy Grass Blue, Chinese name in the family of 灰蝶 but no specific spieces name to it; specialty being the smallest butterfly in Singapore, JB and :dunno: some say Batam?
Commonly mistaken with the Lesser Grass blue
Commonly mistaken with the Lesser Grass blue
- Status
Similar threads
