Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 51 of 51

Thread: Use small aperture

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    And on that subject, how many disclaimers must Ian, CK or myself post to get it accepted that we are posting personal capacity? I even pre-empted the thing this time, and you still go on and pick up about it.

    Someone else has come out to say CK's original post didn't sound sarcastic. You've admitted my original post wasn't sarcastic either. The problem arises when you make sweeping statements about all the moderators in this thread being sarcastic, and then misinterpreting a smilie to begin with and then have the cheek to tell me that I missed a smilie? Nice.

    Like I said, I honestly, honestly, thought your post was a great post. Until your amendment.

    You really don't practise your own preaching do you? You say, don't post inflammatory and sarcastic comments, and then you go and paint all the moderators in this thread as being sarcastic. You say, don't ignore the smilies I put in my threads, and then you have to go and apologise for not interpreting CK's smiley correctly in the first place. Ask me to accept feedback, when you clearly aren't accepting my feedback. Nice.

  2. #42

    Question Book Recommendation

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian
    A good starting place is the now out of print Ilford Manual of Photography.
    Any recommendations for books on Landscape photography Ian or any one else ?

  3. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jed
    Need I say more again? Who was the first person to ignore a smiley then? How many smilies did CK need to use to indicate he was kidding then? His post is quite clearly tongue in cheek with or without smilies, yours on the other hand just seems condemning.
    First, note that not all the mod's replies had smileys. Only CK's did. The rest didn't. The message that started it all definitely didn't, so he wasn't kidding. Also note the tone of the message. It was short, sharp, and dismissive.

    If you read my post in the Nikon thread, you'll note the extremely polite, almost apologetic words that I used. Can a reader possibly construe that as being rude and tactless ? I was responding to a person who himself was saying in jest that he was silly. The context was completely different. Was clive taking in jest too when the mod replied ?


    I have no problem with accepting negative feedback if there is negative feedback to be had.
    And there is. I've said it many times:

    1. Mods should know better than to indulge in behavior that they are supposed to discourage. In this case, a very minor case of tactlessness.

    2. Mods, even in private capacity, are still held to a higher code of conduct. Just as in the real world, policemen are.


    Simple question : do you agree with 1 and 2 ? And if not, why ? Please explain.


    But I've said nothing wrong to begin with, as you yourself mention, you never intended to refer to me. But you did, as you generalised by saying the moderators in this thread were sarcastic.

    I did not refer to any mod in particular because I didn't want to emphasis a person. I prefer to refer to the action rather than the actor. If a police man commits a crime, the judge upon sentencing will almost always add that "policemen should know better" or words to that effect. Is he generalizing ? No, it's just a statement of fact. Now who's misunderstanding who ? Would you have preferred it if I mentioned names ? I tried not to unless I was forced to.



    And as for accepting feedback, you should accept some yourself. Listen to Ian, and me. But then you clearly haven't been doing the latter at all.
    you still haven't given me my feedback. You've only defended your own actions. That is not feedback. I asked you : what is my feedback ? That I should mind my own business ? That I should keep my mouth shut ? You didn't reply at all.

    I have heard Ian and CK, and I have replied to their messages. I don't believe they were at all defensive, and I took their replies as sincere and accept that they too are human and make mistakes.

  4. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jed
    And on that subject, how many disclaimers must Ian, CK or myself post to get it accepted that we are posting personal capacity? I even pre-empted the thing this time, and you still go on and pick up about it.
    1. I've already said that even in personal capacity, you are still held to a higher standard of conduct, just like a policemen, minister, or any public figure in the real world. So I've heard your personal capacity disclaimer, but it is only a mitigating factor, but does not absolve you. This is the price to pay for being a "public figure". By "you", I don't mean you as in Jed. I mean you as anyone holding any public "office".

    2. I added a small 1 paragraph remark that was factual. If you disagree with it, feel free, as I repeatedly say, to point out what was unfair or wrong with it. But did you ?

    3. Pre-emption means nothing. A very minor deed was done, and I mentioned it and suggest that it should not happen. What's wrong with that ?


    Someone else has come out to say CK's original post didn't sound sarcastic.
    Yes, but he wasn't the target of the mod's post now, was he ? Did you read Clive's reply to the mods ? He thought it was sarcastic, and I empathised with him.


    You've admitted my original post wasn't sarcastic either. The problem arises when you make sweeping statements about all the moderators in this thread being sarcastic, and then misinterpreting a smilie to begin with and then have the cheek to tell me that I missed a smilie? Nice.
    I've explained this before in the previous post. I didn't say "ALL MODS IN THIS FORUM". I just say mods to avoid having to point out a particular person. This would have made the feedback a personal attack, which I tried to avoid. Please tell me where did I say "all the moderators in this thread". And again, I say that only CK's had a smiley. Read the posts, tell me how many smilies did you see ?



    Like I said, I honestly, honestly, thought your post was a great post. Until your amendment.

    You really don't practise your own preaching do you? You say, don't post inflammatory and sarcastic comments, and then you go and paint all the moderators in this thread as being sarcastic. You say, don't ignore the smilies I put in my threads, and then you have to go and apologise for not interpreting CK's smiley correctly in the first place. Ask me to accept feedback, when you clearly aren't accepting my feedback. Nice.

    When I make a mistake, I am man enough to admit it. I apologised for misreading CK's post. Where's yours ? Not only did you misread my post, you tell others to "forget" me. What kind of attitude is that for a mod ? I have read Ian's and CK's reponses, and they were balanced and calm, and I accept that. I have temendous respect for people who admit their mistake, explain their rational, and go on with life. Why are you so defensive ?

    So what is your feedback, once again ?

    I've already explained the rational of my choice of words. You have misunderstood my intention when I said "mods", and I can see that being a mod yourself, you saw the word "mods" as a a reference to you as well, which I explained was not my intention.

    Now perhaps you tell me how would you have handled it ? What would you have said ? Would you have said "Joe (or whoever mod you were referring to), please stop being so tactless" ? Well, if I did, Joe would take it as a personal attack. What is the proper choice of words when referring to a mod's behavior ?

    And please respond to my questions instead of starting another new message.
    Last edited by chriszzz; 10th January 2004 at 12:50 PM.

  5. #45
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default

    Come on chriszzz, they are moderators in position to take charge over their respective sub-forums and also are members of the forum. They are entitled to their own view and comments as well.

    You mean to say they cannot make comments, criticsims and/or remarks just because they have this MODERATOR word stuck below their nicks? Now I know why one of the Admins chose not to have his displayed.

    If you'd noticed, they'll sign off as Moderator if they're exercising their authority when the need arises, arpart from that, they're just normal CS members who can talk, crap make remarks anything.

    Give them a break and stop the MODERATOR crap. I get quite pissed off as this just goes to show how Singaporeans are when it comes to such authority/personal thingie gets way out of hands.

    Can I suggest to the mods, if this is the way most people feel, just remove the word moderator from the bottom of the nicks, at least these "HI MODERATOR" kind of replies won't appear anymore and no more arguments.

  6. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by espn
    Come on chriszzz, they are moderators in position to take charge over their respective sub-forums and also are members of the forum. They are entitled to their own view and comments as well.

    You mean to say they cannot make comments, criticsims and/or remarks just because they have this MODERATOR word stuck below their nicks? Now I know why one of the Admins chose not to have his displayed.

    If you'd noticed, they'll sign off as Moderator if they're exercising their authority when the need arises, arpart from that, they're just normal CS members who can talk, crap make remarks anything.

    Give them a break and stop the MODERATOR crap. I get quite pissed off as this just goes to show how Singaporeans are when it comes to such authority/personal thingie gets way out of hands.

    Can I suggest to the mods, if this is the way most people feel, just remove the word moderator from the bottom of the nicks, at least these "HI MODERATOR" kind of replies won't appear anymore and no more arguments.
    Hi ESPN

    You have a point. In fact, after reading Ian's and CK's responses, I've understood this more and I am not holding them to anything.

    However, what i take issue with is the kind of response I am getting to a small feedback. Instead of a "OK, we'll look into it" response, I get defensive replies which not only drags in my posts from OTHER THREADS, accuses me of various antics, and asks other mods to "forget" me. It's the attitude to the feedback that I am now taking issue with. I am extremely disappointed that when a member of the public brings up a small issue, it is met with so much derision. This "let the one without sin cast the first stone" tone is disappointing.

  7. #47

    Default

    agreed, i have the same feelings!

    Quote Originally Posted by chriszzz
    Hi ESPN

    You have a point. In fact, after reading Ian's and CK's responses, I've understood this more and I am not holding them to anything.

    However, what i take issue with is the kind of response I am getting to a small feedback. Instead of a "OK, we'll look into it" response, I get defensive replies which not only drags in my posts from OTHER THREADS, accuses me of various antics, and asks other mods to "forget" me. It's the attitude to the feedback that I am now taking issue with. I am extremely disappointed that when a member of the public brings up a small issue, it is met with so much derision. This "let the one without sin cast the first stone" tone is disappointing.

  8. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    1,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by james m
    Any recommendations for books on Landscape photography Ian or any one else ?
    erm to get back on topic, I have John Shaw's' Nature Photography Field Guide' and I find it extremely helpful and interesting (to me at least...and since I'm a rank amateur, I'm not sure how helpful it is to you...). The book is divided into sections on exposure, equipment and film, lenses, composition, closeup, and field techniques. There's also quite a bit of gear discussion in the book, which some people might not like.

    Hope that helps!

  9. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justarius
    erm to get back on topic, I have John Shaw's' Nature Photography Field Guide' and I find it extremely helpful and interesting (to me at least...and since I'm a rank amateur, I'm not sure how helpful it is to you...). The book is divided into sections on exposure, equipment and film, lenses, composition, closeup, and field techniques. There's also quite a bit of gear discussion in the book, which some people might not like.

    Hope that helps!
    How much is it ? Can it be found at Times / MPH or did you buy it from Amazon.com ?

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Perth Australia
    Posts
    2,548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by james m
    Any recommendations for books on Landscape photography Ian or any one else ?
    James, books on landscape photography with a few exceptions tend to be 'pot boilers' put out to extract money from those who aren't prepared to do the hard yards themselves and blow some film / HDD space and experiment etc.

    John Shaw writes pretty well and there's Ansel Adams if you really want to get serious about landscape work with large format cameras.

    However the best way to learn good landscape photographic techniques is to learn about composition, exposure theory and the use of filters and while doing that study and learn from landscape photographs that you like.

    Ian
    The Ang Moh from Hell
    Professional Photography - many are called, few are chosen!

  11. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    I am locking this thread as half of it is not serving its purpose.

    Regards
    CK
    Moderator,
    General, Reviews, Tech Talk

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •