Responding to other members’ posts

[aster]

Forums are where works and thoughts are shared with community which comprises many people from different locations, historical and cultural backgrounds, education, abilities, talent, perception of life, prospects, expectations, inspirations, aspirations, climate, geography, art, art colour palette, and who also have full rights to their personal work regardless of what others may think of them.

Is Aztec art and colour palette any less to American Indians’ or to modern Pablo Picasso’s or to the African or the Japanese art and colour palette? The world owns it all, and built its current art and culture upon it. All deserves respect of the viewer equally while standing on its own with full rights for existence.
Are we allowed to take down Mona Lisa from where it’s exhibited and empose our own mind’s colours and change the curve of her smile to a smirk? Can we call Picasso crazy for taking a whole new road uphill in painting and art in general, after years of classical self-education and study? Can we be angry with all those Dutch impressionists who chose muted colours for their pursuit in their work?

Simply put: No we can’t. We respect their views reflected by their art and even protect them as they are; nothing reducted, nothing added. They have full rights to exist.

Internet forums should not be any different in regards to work of others. No other member should download any other member’s work and make changes on it without asking the owner’s full consent first. The owner may give his/her consent or not and still deserves respect for this decision.
Presenting a view on the work and offering critism for improvements should stay within limits of writing about it only. Unless the work’s owner/author asks for 'improving changes' to be demostrated on his/her work of course. But otherwise it should be left untouched.

In the light of all the above, I believe bonneville’s right to share his work was violated and many more may follow.

I find this is harming genuinely-interested people’s participation in the forum threads and setting an unfavourable climate for free and respectful sharing of thoughts, ideas and consequently works.

Hopefully bonneville and his like will find it in their hearts to visit and share their works again!

Kindly,
Yildiz

[Dr. Harout]

I'm with you Yildiz.

[pakodominguez]

I was about to say something about this (on the Boneville's thread) but, because you start this thread and the issue has been a constant, I'll say it here.

I find not really elegant to *kidnap* somebody else's thread. If I'm showing my squirrels is because I want your (by "your" I mean this community) opinion about the photograph, about the lens it's supposed to challenge and other technical and artistic qualities. I not putting my squirrels AGAINST your chipmunk. I can care about your chipmunk on your thread, not in "MINE".

Taking somebody else pic and "fix it" isn't that dramatic. The real problem, IMHO, is that some people try to impose their point of view about THE WORLD.

Regards

[aster]

Thank you for your support Dr. Harout and pakodominguez,

Hopefully we'll share many good things in the future.


Yildiz

[David Kilpatrick]

I don't intend to lock this thread but Don may wish to consider deleting a couple of his posts here.

David

[Winston]

It's called the friend or foe option...use it kiddies.

-Sonolta

Good advice. I'm taking it.
If we all take it...problem solved.

[Winston]

Ah...he's been reduced to a boring, repetitive one-liner.

[David Kilpatrick]

Don, the heading on 'Give it Your Best Shot' is pretty clear -

Show everyone the latest shots which make you feel dead chuffed with your camera choice

Now that can mean anything from beginner to expert, and it does not have to mean a fantastic image - don't they use the term 'Give it your best shot' in your language?

In Engish-English, it means 'try as well as you can' - even if the circumstances, or your skills, are against you.

"I'm sorry, I'm not really very good at playing pool".
"Well, give it your best shot then".

Maybe this meaning has been lost on you - I can realise why it would be lost on Dr Harout or Yildiz or Bossel, who are writing excellent English despite this being a foreign language forum for them. But it should not be a foreign language forum for you!

In any case, the picture which started this was not a doggie-doo snapshot. I'd love to send you on a workshop with Thomas Joshua Cooper, or point you to Faye Godwin's 'Remains of Elmet' (she was held in almost as high a regard as Ansel Adams, in the British tradition of her late 20th c era). Just because a picture does not fit your own aesthetic doesn't make it a snapshot. Technically many of your own shots are snapshots, in the original sense of the word - instantaneous exposures!

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Here is the soft and dullish PHOTO that DK and Yildiz admire so much...

Let others judge, Don. It's not soft or dullish at all. It is natural, has beautiful colours and tones, and does not look like your Disneyland concept of what the world should be like.

I've been tested as 98/100 Farnsworth-Munsell colour vision and Shirley, lucky lady, had 100/100 (it does deteriorate with age, this was now 10 years ago) and a Masters degree in Colour Science which involved testing a lot of people for their colour vision inlcuding me, all our staff, and most of our friends. It is surprising how good female colour vision is compared to male.

I would guess that if you took a Farnsworth-Munsell test, you'd be down around 85/100. Everything you post points to a need to boost both contrast and colour. Yildiz, as a young woman, probably has 98-100/100 and even on a computer monitor can appreciate a far more subtle range of colour distinctions. I know you will throw up the on-screen test but the real thing, with ceramic tablets, is very different - your local university should have a colour science department, and will welcome anyone prepared to be tested.

Photoshop CS4, in a radical departure, has proof simulation settings for typical male colourblindness!

David