Seriously?

[brad]

I notice another good, responsible photographer .. one who has always tried to contribute and help others .. has been chased off.

Really?

Please look inward at the posts you make on other people's threads... on their work. It is possible to give a negative critique without being negative. It is possible to express a concern without attacking.

This forum has lost too many good souls over the years to this kind of idiocy. Please, help make it stop.

[ronocnikral]

we all get to choose to come here and read everyday. most of us get to choose to contribute as well. some get to choose who gets to contribute. no one was chased away in this case, rather they elected to leave. no one was attacked. do I wish they had left? no. am I going to beg them to come back? no.

and they were most likely saved from fines from the feds.

[danchez]

I spend way too much time here and I have no idea who you are talking about.

[KJ Smith]

Originally Posted by danchez

I spend way too much time here and I have no idea who you are talking about.

Same, I had to go back and find the thread.

Totally missed it.


Wish I had seen the photo though....

I can see both sides of the discussion.

We all know areas that photogs have been thrown out, or areas banned because of other peoples action.


That is a worthwhile discussion, but not in the guys CC thread in the "showcase" area.


I will miss seeing Todd's work here.

[Jim Boyd]

Brad,

Since this is a new thread that has nothing to do with the controversial photograph, I'd like to state my opinion.

I think the photographer in question could have defused this issue a lot sooner. Some of the people on this forum questioned his use of fire in a national park.

The photographer could have acknowledged their concerns, and asked them to comment only on the merits of his photograph. He chose not to do this, and some of the posters followed suit.

In my opinion, the photographer became too defensive, and for the record, I probably would have done the same thing.

That said, he doesn't need to leave the forum because of a disagreement.

We're all photographers here. Sometimes we push the envelope and get burned, (no pun intended) and other times we're heros. We live and learn.

Jim

[danchez]

oh, that thread... it's like the railroad argument, or the trespassing issue with abandoned buildings.

[danchez]

you know what's sad, when I talk to other photographers I recommend Fred Miranda and I don't even mention this forum for just this reason. I know I haven't been here as long as others, but I have been here long enough to see many good photographers get run off or simply stop posting here. I wish I had a solution.

[Jim Victory]

I'm sorry Brad but the majority of the people in that thread commented about the poster's pic and in a positive manner. Maybe two only addressed his possible violation of the law in taking the pic and several voiced an opinion of the shot and the possible law violation.

Are we suppose to ignore possible violations of the law as exhibited by someone who has posted a picture to be critiqued? Wouldn't that encourage him to continue to ignore the laws when capturing pics in the future just to do something different?

How about someone viewing the pic? Wouldn't they think it was alright to build a fire for a better effect causing damage like another photographer did?

I think the poster chose to leave this forum for a greater reason than one or two posters out 13 or more addressing the law rather than his photo. Its called covering your tracks when you break the law and removing any incriminating evidence, which he did.

I would have preferred it if the poster would have just ignored the two posters and continued to be a member but he chose to leave. There was no reason for him to delete his photo in doing so. He should have reported it to the Mods but he didn't. When we became aware of it he had already chose to leave and delete his post.

[MHampton]

I've always enjoyed his photos and I don't know him personally. Perhaps he was just having a bad day. We're all allowed those every so often.

[auddii]

Originally Posted by ronocnikral

and they were most likely saved from fines from the feds.

I did notice the picture was also removed from FM (where there were no negative comments when I checked earlier). Maybe when he realized it came up as a #2 hit on google that prosecution could have been a real possibility.

However, he could have easily removed his photo without cancelling his account, and as he said, it stems from beyond this one post. I'm sad to see him go, he had some amazing night shots, and I think the general consensus is that he will be missed. But, it's his choice.

[rhoffart]

Todd left ... that sux

I have no idea why people choose to attack others.

A year ago or so there was a guy that took pic's of abandon buildings. He had a very creative eye, and was a good photographer but was attack from his very first post ... for breaking into buildings.

[KJ Smith]

Originally Posted by auddii

However, he could have easily removed his photo without cancelling his account,

And he could have just quit posting here, without asking for his account to be closed.......


But what if nobody noticed?

[ronocnikral]

Originally Posted by Jim Boyd

The photographer could have acknowledged their concerns, and asked them to comment only on the merits of his photograph. He chose not to do this, and some of the posters followed suit.

A couple of questions:

-I started a thread about what makes a "good" photograph. evoking emotion was a common theme in the few people who posted. so, regardless of what it is about the photograph that evokes emotion, is it not fair to comment on what it is that makes you have feel good feelings or not feel good feelings? is that a "merit" of the photograph?
-do we not commonly ask, "where was that taken?" "how did you do that?" "how did you get access to that area?" Do we not admire things which are rare or have very limited access? and why can we not dislike something for similar reasons?

my point is, there is more to the "merits" of a photograph than just the technical, and critiquing should include more than things such as exposure, DOF, etc. IMO, asking for a critique opens the door to more than just the technical aspects.

for me, what Todd did was of poor form and it evoked a negative emotion - as it is an area a few hours down the road from us and one my wife's favorite places (we have had our time up there disrupted by people doing different but equally stupid things). He had an arrogant attitude that he was in the right. I agree with Jim, I think he "saw the light" and went into his tizzy.

[rhoffart]

This is a photography site ... right? If someone post a picture of a Bald Eagle, does he have to describe the details of how the picture was captured. Was the eco system disturbed? No ... this is a photography site.

[lhdvies]

Yes this is a photography site & not one that should encourage the breaking of our NPS laws. Just because someone is very talented (as Todd definitely was) does not mean that the laws do not apply to him or her.
I spend a lot of time in Nat'l Pks, St Pks, WMAs & NWRs & frankly it irks me when anyone ignores the rules & regulations of those areas as if the rules don't apply to their special talents!!
I wish Todd wouldn't have left as his work was always interesting, but he chose to do so
& that was his right, but it was his choice as it was the choice of the people who pointed out his violation of the NPS law.