Your images, where?

[Warren_L]

This is a suggestion.

I think that if someone spouts loads of stuff about photography they should be required to produce some of their own work, if asked to, so that people can decide for themselves if they are worth listening to or not.

Kind of like the new controlled DIR environment where folks are required to demonstrate that they know what they're talking about.

It cuts down on trolls.

I'm not talking about anything like an opt-in.....just if anyone starts making claims that another has problems with, they can be asked to provide examples of their stuff so that
a) people can see they actually take pictures to start with, and
b)they can judge for themselves the possible worth of what they are being told.

How say you?

(feel free to add your thoughts if you like.....or not....whatever...)

edit: To be very clear..... I'm not asking that they post images here, or upload them to a gallery here.....it can be anywhere: Photobucket, Flikr, other website, own website, it doesn't matter where - just that it can be seen.

This is an interesting concept. Those of us who are regulars pretty well know who's who around here when it comes to u/w photography. However, I can see how those who are new to u/w photography or to the forum could potentially be mislead, though I do believe that this probably doesn't happen all that much due to the breadth of talent and experience that is present, despite perhaps a few "posers" (for the lack of a better term, and is not a jab at anyone).

If you're honestly interested in sharing your love of u/w photography with others, you've likely already posted a lot of your work for people to see. You also are likely to respond to other people's postings/problems/questions. And you're not going to have any issue when it comes to people knowing your background and achievements. Most photogs that fall under this category don't need to be asked - chances are, a lot of that information is already readily available and has been for quite some time.

 

[Thalassamania]

I have mixed feelings. I'm an old timey photographer, haven't been doing a lot of it recently and I'm just getting into digital. All of my work was on emulsion. I've had pictures in textbooks (e.g., Marine Microbiology by John Sieburth) and contributed to a couple of spreads in the old Sport Diver (they did a great job with their printing), but I can't just pop a URL up and say "lookie here." I sure that there are others like me out there. I mean if Doug Falkner wanted to say something would you hold it against him that he gave up taking underwater photographs when they stopped manufacturing Press-25s and thus has no digital links?

 

[Ber Rabbit]

However - in that thread it's pretty easy to see every single person in there disagreeing with f3nikon, including some of the forum moderators who post beautiful pictures even I am familiar with (alcina).

If someone reading that thread isn't able to deduce credibilty from the litany of people disagreeing with f3nikon then I think it would be pretty easy to fool them with a few purloined photos too.

I stand by my opinion that a requirement to post photographs to back up your opinion is pointless at best and counterproductive at worst.

I have no clue what thread you're talking about and have never heard of a member called f3nikon. I have to get back to doing reports for work so will continue to be an innocent bystander who looks at pictures taken by others to decide whose advice I want to follow. I respect your opinion, it just doesn't fit my dive photo lifestyle
Ber :lilbunny:

 

[jonix]

if we seriously wanna help newbies to underwater photography then we could start by aiding people make the informed decisions. personally, a lot of advice from veterans here helped me a lot when i started out. expecting nothing in return they gave their advice. in my part (and i guess a from lot more on this board) i'm just paying it forward. my pics (underwater and above water) are in the galleries and on flickr for anyone to see...i've spent on gear/training and worked hard to get them there. if i can help a guy out then that's good enough for me...i dislike misleading information. i just love photography.

just my 2 cents

 

[Geoff_H]

I have no clue what thread you're talking about and have never heard of a member called f3nikon.

You would understand the context of the poll better if you looked ;-)

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/underwater-photography/205643-recommendation-reflex-camera.html

 

[Kim]

I have mixed feelings. I'm an old timey photographer, haven't been doing a lot of it recently and I'm just getting into digital. All of my work was on emulsion. I've had pictures in textbooks (e.g., Marine Microbiology by John Sieburth) and contributed to a couple of spreads in the old Sport Diver (they did a great job with their printing), but I can't just pop a URL up and say "lookie here." I sure that there are others like me out there. I mean if Doug Falkner wanted to say something would you hold it against him that he gave up taking underwater photographs when they stopped manufacturing Press-25s and thus has no digital links?

To be frank Thal...you already provided the kind of sources I'm talking about in this one post!
No-one is demanding that you have current stuff posted somewhere.

On the other hand, if you make a really big deal about knowing all about something - as is the case in the thread that Geoff just pointed the link to (as an example only....there are actually MANY others!), and when you maintain in the face of EVERYONE who actually does it, that YOU know best, and YOU are right....then why shouldn't people be allowed to call for proof, reference, credential...whatever.

In photography that's the pictures. It's really simple.

Why should anyone be allowed to continually take up space, derail threads, post totally disproven ideas by everyone who has ever tried it - and not be asked to show where their view is coming from? In short....why should anyone be allowed to screw up something that is a very valuable resource to so many........with no burden of proof....no accountability?

This is simply disruptive and really unfair IMO. I could have suggested much more drastic solutions, but I only suggested they be required to provide examples......some.....any......

People can judge for themselves at that point whether someone is worth listening to or not. Sure, they might also do it by following the posts and thoughts of the other posters, but why should they? Why can't it be more direct than that? Most people know a crappy picture when they see one, do they really need Alcina or Mike V to tell them that it's crappy before they believe it?

It's really simple. If you tell me "a" is better than "b" that's fine. Let me see what evidence that's based on, and I'll let you know if I agree with you!
Who knows? I might.....

No-one is saying prove yourself before you post....or asking which photo college you went to....or what your qualifications are.

Just show me your stuff and let ME be the judge of which orifice you're probably talking out of.

And if you won't do that.....please shut up.

 

[Thalassamania]

Okay, two, three, four

 

[Darnold9999]

How would you possibly police such a thing????

As a bit of a lurker around the photography forum I find that someone with an agenda is fairly easily identified and ignored - or read with incredulity. If someone is offering opinions on everything - with a particular slant - then if there are no pictures to back it up I tend to discount their opinion. Particularly if others who do post pictures I like and post with some degree of impartiality, or at least acknowlege their bias, disagree.

F3nikon does come quickly to mind. However I have learned quite a bit from his posts - or should I say the reactions of others to his posts.

 

[Charlie99]

When assessing the credibiilty of anyone online you draw clues from a number of sources:

* what they write
* how they write it
* how they evidence their claims
* how other people react to their postings
* if they posting confirms or contradicts your own thoughts
* how they react when challenged

To me, the above is easily enough to establish someone's credibilty.

Agreed.

For some things, particularly subjective ones such as composition, looking at a poster's photos helps to see how much weight should be given to the comments, but in other areas seeing photos adds little or no info.

For example, I don't care what someones photos look like when I'm reading his post on what strobes work with what cameras.

 

[Kim]

For example, I don't care what someones photos look like when I'm reading his post on what strobes work with what cameras.

Sorry....that really made me laugh.

Personally....before I listened to anyone pontificate on which strobe works with which camera I'd want one of two things:
A link to where the provable information actually came from....or:
Real world examples from someone who told me that the shots were from (therefore examples of) the setup under discussion.

Maybe that's just me!