The Ultimate Unified "Find Your Tips and Tangents Here" Thread

[Cameraderie Mod Team]

Okay, folks. We tried.

We told everyone, especially those concerned, repeatedly that image threads are meant for images - and basically nothing else. They are not discussion threads. They are not gear threads. They are not, and certainly least of all, chat threads, spaces to place whatever goes through your mind.

The only type of legitimate comment would be posters adding context or information to their images. And of course, you can ask questions about an image. But unless a post contains an invitation for feedback or discussion, that's pretty much it.

However, there's lots of unsolicited commentary and additional talk in image threads, often only loosely related or not at all related to the images. This is, at best, distracting, at worst it can derail a thread and lead to conflict. Even little things like answering a question (e.g. about gear) can cause lengthy interludes that clog up image threads. This has to stop.

From now on, any posts that take the focus away from the images will be moved into this thread: Unwanted or loose commentary, bragging or patronising, unnecessary gear talk, tangents of any kind, like unrelated information, uncalled-for opinions and so on - such posts will end up in here. And actually, you can count yourselves lucky if they do - because that means we didn't delete anything and you didn't end up collecting warning points.

They'll turn up in here in loose order; no attempt will be made to maintain context. This will turn this thread into a mess - but at least it's meant to be one.

The less we have to use this, the better.

 

[IanE]

Might want to up the shutter speed a bit?

 

[will focus]

Might want to up the shutter speed a bit?

The lens was wide open and I was shooting@1600. I knew this was going to be a pretty fair crop, so I really didn't want to bump the iso much more and end up with a chiseled mess.

But I do want to thank you. You have re-enforced my arguement as to why I need a 1200mm 2.8 lens.

 

[IanE]

The lens was wide open and I was shooting@1600. I knew this was going to be a pretty fair crop, so I really didn't want to bump the iso much more and end up with a chiseled mess.

But I do want to thank you. You have re-enforced my arguement as to why I need a 1200mm 2.8 lens.

OM-1 works well at higher ISOs

 

[MoonMind]

OM-1 works well at higher ISOs

Wrong argument; his A7R IV will do that as well, of course, but he wanted the best possible result. Valid. This isn't in any way a gear-related issue.

On this board, the "my gear is better than yours" attitude is frowned upon. Please refrain from exhibiting it.

M.

 

[John King]

Mute argument; his X-T5 will do that as well, of course, but he wanted the best possible result. Valid. This isn't in any way a gear-related issue.

On this board, the "my gear is better than yours" attitude is frowned upon. Please refrain from exhibiting it.

M.

Come on, Matt.

A Hasselblad X2D does very well too.
I certainly didn't read anything more than that into Ian's post.

 

[IanE]

Mute argument; his X-T5 will do that as well, of course, but he wanted the best possible result. Valid. This isn't in any way a gear-related issue.

On this board, the "my gear is better than yours" attitude is frowned upon. Please refrain from exhibiting it.

M.

Just a 'tongue in cheek ' comment. EXIF shows he was using his Sony, not the XT5

 

[MoonMind]

I certainly didn't read anything more than that into Ian's post.

We shall see.

M.

 

[MoonMind]

Just a 'tongue in cheek ' comment. EXIF shows he was using his Sony, not the XT5

Okay, let's leave it at that. If I was wrong, I'll be happy to apologise in due time.

N.B. I was wrong about the camera - I was looking at the wrong post for that part of the info. But actually, that's definitely not the point.

EDIT: Original error corrected.

M.

 

[Brian]

Theme Threads are for displaying works on a theme. It is not a thread for getting feedback on photos, or for giving unsolicited technical advice on how a member would have done it differently. Members may create and post a thread asking for feedback and critique. Save advice for those threads. Do not ruin the flow of the imagery.

 

[agentlossing]

The less we have to use this, the better.

I suspect the less you use this, the better for community, as well. Not against it as an idea, I just don't think this forum suffers much from the organic conversations which can develop. No need to turn it into an over-moderated forum (and there are plenty out there). My vote is just for egregious tangents or off-topic items.

 

[Brian]

The forum software allows you to mark threads "For Critique".
The Image Threads are not for critique. They are for images, standing on their own. We used to have W/NW threads, a legacy form from over 20 years ago from Photo.net. Critique, and feedback such as "you should have cropped, used a different shutter speed, stopped down" were unwanted in these threads.

Unsolicited critique and unsolicited advise on how someone "could have made the image better" will be moved here.

 

[MoonMind]

I think the first couple of entries show exactly what we mean: This exchange could have been avoided, didn't contribute whatsoever to the merits of the image in question and, misunderstanding or not, triggered a moderator (yours truely) to intervene. Result: Nine posts that disrupted the thread. It's one of the things that are simply breaking the flow of a thread.

We've been over this several times before: Personal decisions are personal decisions. It's not up to anyone to comment on them unless explicitly invited. Yes, you would have done it differently - you're free to take out your camera and do it differently, demonstrating the merits of your decision. Don't use words, use images in image thread. And make your image more than a demonstration - make it an image worth looking at! Easy, right?

None of us wanted this to happen. None of us has an interest in creating an "over-moderated" forum. We're all volunteers with day jobs and a life. But if we can't get people to honour basic rules by explaining them, we have to take steps to enforce them. This forum focuses on images - and we have image threads for that. They need to be protected.

You know, I think a few words won't hurt here or there (e.g., praise is almost always welcome and won't lead to lengthy exchanges) - but crossing lines always will hurt. And since critique is a high art (in giving as well as receiving) few master, it'll result in lines being crossed much more often than not: What makes you critique an image unsolicitedly will make the author defend themselves. Unpleasantness ensues. That's just how it is. We all know that. Still doing it is doing it on purpose. And besides, you simply don't know how many complaints we get about the behaviour of people. Do what this community does: Focus on the images, show your work. Gear talk in gear threads is fine. Discussion is fine. But not in image threads. And certainly not because someone just feels like throwing out something any old how.

In fact, a discussion in here that'll vanish from view soon enough is ... "fine"'s the wrong word after putting in another half hour of my life I won't get back, but let's settle for "in order".

M.

 

[MountainMan79]

I’m in agreement with 99% of what you’ve stated Matt, but “discussion is fine except for image threads” is a bit much, no? Many of us often ask the “where, what, why, how” of the story behind the photo we’re looking at. Except for W/NW threads where that’s explicitly frowned upon, I’d like to think we can still have discussion in image threads, so long as it remains on topic and isn’t unsolicited critique. Otherwise, you’ve essentially turned all image threads (which is most of this forum) and renamed them all with a new prefix of W/NW.

 

[Irene McC]

Tricky. I'm very much in favour of friendly banter - that's where the 'cameraderie' part of it lies, for me.
People express their personalities through exchanging the occasional pleasantry or responding with an anecdote sparked by an image posted by someone else.
Likeminded people with the same hobby in all corners of the globe having a meeting place to exchange some thoughts centered on their images - that's what makes it a nice place to visit (for me).
There would be a risk of this friendly forum becoming sterile and overly hygienic if all chatter were to be forcibly shut down.

Obviously being obnoxious, flexing 'my gear is better than yours' or giving unsolicited critique are to be avoided

 

[Brian]

I've split off side-conversations before, created new threads and moved a page worth of completely off-topic discussions into them. Would people really want me to post instructions for disassembling a lens in an image thread if I saw someone using a J-3? Complete with diagrams and pictures? Not the place. I've seen the equivalent of that before.

I've been on other forums where the unwanted and unsolicited advice given in image threads about how "the picture should have been taken" brought down the forum. My answer ends up being "When I want your advice, I'll ask for it." That is why we have "For Critique" threads.

If anyone is concerned about too much chatter being moved, just keep an eye on this thread.

 

[MoonMind]

I’m in agreement with 99% of what you’ve stated Matt, but “discussion is fine except for image threads” is a bit much, no? Many of us often ask the “where, what, why, how” of the story behind the photo we’re looking at. Except for W/NW threads where that’s explicitly frowned upon, I’d like to think we can still have discussion in image threads, so long as it remains on topic and isn’t unsolicited critique. Otherwise, you’ve essentially turned all image threads (which is most of this forum) and renamed them all with a new prefix of W/NW.

Chris, all subjects or questions you mention are basically on topic - so, no problem at all. But there's too much else happening too frequently - sometimes, the effects may only slightly distracting (causing a short frown or some head shaking), but sometimes, and way too often, they're imposing themselves onto a thread, forcing its focus off topic and, above all, away from the images. We're only talking about such posts and exchanges.

@Irene McC Strictly friendly "banter" will not be affected - in fact, you can more or less judge if things are detrimental by length and depth: If the exchange is at least vaguely topical, respectful and/or appreciative of whatever and whoever is discussed, and if it's over reasonably quickly: most probably not a problem. I for one won't look at something like that twice (I've seen a couple of such posts today - absolutely okay, related to work posted and over after a couple of posts).

However, anything that is potentially or actually irritating or designed to "put one over" someone else simply has no place here, especially not in an image thread - it leads to extended back-and-forth (as in this thread where, this being meant for discussion, it is no problem). That, and only that, is the "discussions shouldn't take place in an image thread" aspect we are talking about here. Discussions are the problem - and, by extension, posts that lead to them. Noone will mind friendly exchanges and little niceties. But if things get extensive and intense (for whatever reason - it may not even be an argument), they're getting in the way in image threads. That's it, really.

For the record, we've had actual rules violations in some threads - those get deleted. The posts we move here aren't strictly against the rules - they're just inconsiderately put in the wrong place. Maybe a simile can help: Imagine someone performing a violin recital, and some random people sounding off on stage at the same time. Rude, right (if not worse)? It's often not as bad around here, thankfully, but there's still no reason to steal awareness away from the images people post. And in said concert, someone shouting something incoherent all of a sudden wouldn't be welcome either, would it - not even if it was only a singular occurence ... Now, this is not a solo concert, it's more like a street festival, so we can live with people tap-dancing on the tables at times. But stomping on other people's feet or breaking the furniture on purpose will still be frowned upon and acted against.

M.

 

[fredlong]

This may not be appropriate here but I'll give it a shot. Before finding my way to Cameraderie I'd never heard the term words/no words and I have no idea what it means. Can someone explain?

 

[Irene McC]

This may not be appropriate here but I'll give it a shot. Before finding my way to Cameraderie I'd never heard the term words/no words and I have no idea what it means. Can someone explain?

That makes two of us and I've been around various forums before this - but there is an explanation at the top of the threads which says what it is

 

[Brian]

For those who aren't familiar with the terms "words/no words" basically it means that W/NW threads are not for critiquing of images, but rather a place of sharing. Of course it's always fine to tell someone how much you like their photographs.

Please consider using this thread to share your color landscape images if and when you don't feel the need/want to start your own individual topic thread. It's a handy way to keep up with everyone's work.

Nature - Words/No Words: Color landscapes

For those who aren't familiar with the terms "words/no words" basically it means that W/NW threads are not for critiquing of images, but rather a place of sharing. Of course it's always fine to tell someone how much you like their photographs.:cool: Please consider using this thread to share...

cameraderie.org

The W/NW format goes back to the late 90s on the Photo.net Leica forum.
Years ago- the "Show" header was introduced on one of the predecessor forums that got rolled into Cameraderie, and supplanted the "W/NW" header. The intent is the same.
With the consolidation of many equipment specific and image oriented forums into this one, "Themed" threads where many members contribute their images to a theme have superseded "W/NW" and "Show" type threads. The idea is the same as before.