Kristen

[Al_Nowak]

Originally Posted by RobArtLyn

Actually, your signature says "I don't put pictures in a G1 portfolio", which is not the same thing as posting them here. The can be hosted elsewhere and posted here.

Yeah, but OMP and MM won't let me link images, and my favorite image host has gone eBay. Besides, it used to cost me 25 cents to host an image for a month... times are getting tight.

Originally Posted by RobArtLyn

In that case, the polite thing to do is to mention:

The Effective Image - OMP #4252 / MM #58903

instead of making everyone deal with the lousy search functions (particularly at MM).

Hey, Thanks for the free publicity. Maybe, I'll hit a hundred views on an image at MM. That's where you can leave the comments...

[RobArtLyn]

Originally Posted by Al_Nowak

Hey, Thanks for the free publicity.

Huh? If it mattered to you, and you wanted people to see your work, you would have put your OMP and MM #'s in your signature a long time ago, instead of, or at least along side of, your announcement that you don't have images in your portfolio here.

[Al_Nowak]

Originally Posted by RobArtLyn

Huh? If it mattered to you, and you wanted people to see your work, you would have put your OMP and MM #'s in your signature a long time ago, instead of, or at least along side of, your announcement that you don't have images in your portfolio here.

Actually, I don't really want the publicity... I don't care about page visits from photographers, and there aren't likely to be any models following a link on G1...

Also, if memory serves me, there used to be a rule about linking to other sites, but like most of the rules, it seems to have mostly slipped by the boards.

Oh, what the heck... let's see how long this (see below) lasts.

[lsc1]

Originally Posted by Al_Nowak

By your thinking only movie directors could write reviews of movies, and stage directors review plays. TV show reviews would be a thing of the past, and there'd be damn few book reviews...

What possible difference could it make what my pictures look like if my comments are valid? There is this great myth that you have to take pictures to critique pictures. Bull...

Maybe if I said he should have used a 200 mm lens at F5.6 and 1/30 second exposure with a red filter there would be at least some connection. But I didn't... I talked about her stance, her shirt, and her necklace. Anybody should be able to comment on those without the slightest knowledge of photography.

Please re-read my first statement. I clearly state that someone who can not take a good picture themselves can still have valid comments. What's more, your critque may not have included technical shooting data but it did include posing suggestions. Why do you think someone would not want to see your work to judge the depth of knowledge and skill you have in posing a model? Isn't that a valid reason for viewing your work in the context of your critique?

Whoa, now I'm a hypocrit because I don't post pictures on this site, but do write in the forums. Well, at least I have a lot of company. Besides, I do have a lifetime membership, which is a lot more than most of my hypocritical companions have invested in the site.

Again, I did not call you a hypocrite, I don't make a habit of calling names - seems childish. What I said was that your strong stand on not posting images but sitting back and passing out critiques could appear to be hypocritical to many others. I'm sure RG appreciates your Lifetime Membership as he did mine. But the issue here is helping each other grow photographically by sharing images and critiques to improve. You choose to share only the critiques. That was simply an observation grounded in fact.

As for Rule 10 and posting images... get real. Take a look at any thread with image comments. I'd guess the commenter image posting is 10-20% at MOST. Heck, even this thread has a couple of non-image poster comments besides mine.

I still believe most people do follow rule 10 most of the time but not all the time.

The thing is if you are serious about showing or - GASP - selling your work, you sure better get used to comments good and bad from people who don't take pictures.

Totally agree.

Unfortunately, this site has turned into a "you pat my back, I'll pat yours" free for all, and if you dare to say anything other than how wonderful a mediocre image is, you are the clone of the Resident Evil. (BTW, where is Christian when we need him?)

I partially disagree. I think there is a lot of the "patting of the back" going on here but many times, I can look at an image and critique I totally disagree with, and after seeing the critiquer's work, I can see why they might think what they do. Many times they can be new and the image looks great to them but the more experienced eye sees the issues. The shame is that the more experienced shooters are leaving/have left the site so more mediocrity abounds. And as to Christian...one of the reasons his critiques carry some weight is that he posts images. Imagine his comments in the context of not being able to see his work andit would certainly be different.

Heck, I can take the flak. Remember, I'm only a dilletante... and I can always just walk away from the site as so many others have already done.

Nobody's trying to get you to walk away, heck you're a Lifetime member. Just trying to discuss your thoery that you are catching flak because you're honest critiques are not welcomed. I think honest critiques are the only worthwhile critiques but again your honesty isn't in question. Your willingness to be a full participant in the process of sharing and growing photographically is when you provide only half of the equation.

Maybe, just maybe... if there were more honest opinions expressed, the images showing up on display would get better.

Totally agree.

[Al_Nowak]

Originally Posted by lsc1

You choose to share only the critiques.

And very few of those anymore. I doubt I'll be doing it again..
.

Originally Posted by lsc1

Your willingness to be a full participant in the process of sharing and growing photographically is when you provide only half of the equation.

That's your definition of participation. Mine doesn't require image sharing. In other circumstances it might, but not here, not now.

Anyway, it's been interesting and I'm sure we've given Artforms' image a lot of exposure by keeping the thread active, but enough.

[DaveB]

She's just smack dead in the middle of the image, and she seems about as interested in being there as the image itself. I like the exposure and location; thats about it. I know you could have done some much better images there.