DPReview has a very long-running “cafe” thread that has been very popular, almost 2 million (!) posts during its tenure. It is full of the kind of posts you object to here. Some posters are prolific, others hardly ever take the time to do more than one or two. But, so what? People must like it since they keep posting in it.
I agree several participants have brought some wonderful information and stories to this forum. And I have gained a nugget or more of ideas from the help that’s been offered here. But, as you point out, there are lots of “photo cafe” threads on the internet. That is fine and good. Most are sponsored by websites or users’ groups that want that traffic. They also provide useful forums for photo challenges and sharing. This is all good too. I peruse some myself.
DxO did not set up a “cafe” forum. Nor did they set up forums for photo challenges or general help on photography. They set up forums intended specifically for users to help each other with DxO products. I want to honor DxO’s intent and expense for running this site by keeping close to that intent. I also hope that by keeping the forum DxO product focused we can encourage DxO specialists to re-engage.
Mark, let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that everything you have written is true, that I barely understand PhotoLab, and I am creating photos that you feel are worthless. Further, let’s accept the reality that there is a huge amount of PhotoLab that I don’t yet know - heck, until Joanna’s post, I didn’t realize my use of saturation was so wrong. As to “missing your points”, I don’t think so - it’s more that I don’t agree with them.
Let’s accept that our goals with PhotoLab are so different - that while I pay the most attention to the image captured by/in my camera, while you perhaps think of that as only a rough starting point, with the beauty to be brought out by PhotoLab editing.
Each of us has our own “styles”, objectives, goals, and so on. We use different cameras, and we each have our own way of editing. I gave you a “thumbs up” as I understand there is nothing wrong with your way of thinking, your “style” if I call it that. It’s not what I prefer though.
As for me, I will certainly change how I use PhotoLab based on facts, which Joanna pointed out so clearly in the recent discussion of saturation. But the kind of photos I want to capture, and share, rightly or wrongly, will remain my own. Of course you are free to tell me how much you dislike them.
I don’t know why we are still discussing this, but I think I’ve said what I mean, and have nothing more to add. I’ll gladly answer any questions you, or anyone else, wishes to ask.
Regarding other software - like I already wrote, I’ve probably got a dozen image editing programs on my computers, and I intend to stick with PhotoLab as my favorite. I also plan to get DarkTable up and running. I watched one video last night, and found it much better than what I remember from years ago. This is in addition to PhotoLab, not instead of.
You sort of went around the central point I was trying to make.
A cafe forum would in no way interfere with DxO’s intents to offer content helpful to its users. People that post pictures in this form either to show off their efforts or to show a place they enjoyed visiting will invariably elicit comments and advice from other users about how to improve what they did, photographically. So this forum would be educational as well as entertaining, just as the “traditional” forums, just in a different form. It goes without saying that the advice given would be how to use PL to do the work.
I mentioned that the participants in the DxO forums are sort of a family. Having a free-for-all discussion area where they can interact would, IMHO, strengthen the personal bonds and maybe make everyone more willing to help others.
If anybody wants to create such a space, it is easy to set up their own forum, and at no cost (other than time). Do a search on ‘free forum’.
I have no argument with what you just wrote.
What word would you like me to use, instead of “reality”?
I assume you understand what I am trying to say - how would YOU say it?
Obviously, a two dimensional image can not show “reality”, which is three dimensional.
Have you ever seen the famous photo of “a chair”, that looks perfectly normal, until you see another photo taken from the side, where there is nothing that remotely looks like a chair? It is shown in many art books - if you’ve never seen it, I’ll post it here.
“Reality” - I guess that word has many definitions, based on not only the image, but how and where it was taken. Maybe we all have our own personal definitions of “reality”.
You have got to be joking!!! Your link is to episode 140??? Wow! I’ll stick with PhotoLab thank you. Somebody gave a demonstration at our club and my head was reeling after half an hour. Apparently there’s all these modules that you can choose from and he had ended up with palettes so long I didn’t know where to start looking especially since some of them do similar things but differently.
If you really want to stick your head into a hornet’s nest, then DarkTable sure is the way to go.
And you are really planning on using that as well as PhotoLab?
Just do us all a favour and make that link the last reference you make to DarkTable in these forums. I had to clean the coffee I spat over the keyboard when I saw your mention of it.
Well, regarding this “tread”, I’ve read about people who were reprimanded for nasty behavior, and every so often they don’t “publish” a post until it has been reviewed by a moderator.
DxO has specifically said what kinds of information these forums are intended for, but individuals here have apparently never noticed that - such as users posting their images that have been processed in DxO software.
To my way of thinking, what better way to get helpful feedback than posting our finished images, along with the .dop file and the original image. I think that is what DxO had in mind.
If you can find a way to posting a 46Mpx image file, maybe but, even then, do you really think I am going to post original images so that anyone can steal them?
In a way, these “off-topic” threads almost turned into a “cafe” thread, but many people discouraged others from posting their images, which is sad. Apparently posting our images (processed in PhotoLab) is one of DxO’s objectives in creating these forums. To me, that is one of the best features of a “cafe” style thread, but I guess everyone will have their own ideas.
I’ll be writing DxO staff later today, asking about this.
No, I don’t. But the images you have been posting are more than adequate.
From my point of view, that someone might “steal” the images I post here not nearly as important to me as the feedback I get from you and others. From your perspective, knowing that you sell images, posting your originals here wouldn’t make sense - but what you have been doing in the past has been more than adequate.
Hmm, does the forum even allow for a 46 meg image to be uploaded??
What is your advice?
Until/unless PhotoLab accepts images from my Leica M8.2, I’ll likely do again what I originally did, edit them in DarkTable, or change the EXIF data in the image so DxO thinks the image came from a supported camera. As for using DarkTable, I need to learn it well enough to show others how to use it. I tried a couple of years ago, but my old version of DarkTable no longer worked. I love the idea of the software being “Open Source”. But that’s another discussion. Sorry about your coffee mess. Probably similar to my reaction to Luminar.
Mike, as I have been saying you just don’t get it. None of us here have anything against you starting any thread you want, The issue is that your multi thousand post threads have little to do with a general use of PhotoLab and is almost entirely about your specific needs and ongoing lack of understanding about using PhotoLab effectively.
These two threads, are dedicated specifically to you with the overwhelming number of posts either by you or in response to you. These threads are very much yours even though you try to suggest otherwise. There is very little participation by anybody else seeking assistance other than you.
You have used these two threads to suck the life out of a number of people here who are been attempting to help you for years, and you continue to have absolutely no clue about that.
You have this misguided notion that your threads are helping users. There are hundreds of users on this site. Of them only a bit over 20 have ever responded in your threads. The overwhelming number of those responses were an attempt to assist you with your personal questions.
As I pointed out earlier, very few other people have come to this thread looking for assistance for themselves. Those very few posters that have recently defended these threads have obviously not read through all 4,500 and don’t know that these two threads are not generalized help threads but very specifically the Mike Myers show.
That is the only reason that I and others here are starting to get fed up with what you’re doing here. If this was truly a generalized thread intended to help everyone develop a better understanding of PhotoLab, I would be first in line to support it. But unfortunately it is not. This entire thread and the previous one is all about you. And as such, it is selfish and self-centered.
I am certain if DXO ever responds to you they would have no problem, as I have no problem, having you start any thread you want. It is not the creation of a this thread that is at issue here. It is how you have used it.
I fully expect that you still won’t get it.
Mark
Addendum: I hope @Joanna won’t be upset that I mention this.
You have indicated several times how much you respect and enjoy her responses and that she is the one person in your threads you have indicated you would even be willing to subscribe and pay to read her comments.
Have you not noticed that she has agreed with a heart or a thumbs up for virtually all of my recent threads about your behavior here? Does the realization that a person whom you respect so much, and who has been agreeing with my comments not cause you to have at least some reflection? Are you that obtuse?
1 Like
OK, guilty as charged, I didn’t get it, don’t get it, and likely won’t get it. I enjoy forum discussions. If someone doesn’t like threads like this, they don’t have to post, or even read them. I don’t agree with what you wrote, but that’s irrelevant. You and I have totally different concepts of a lot of things. Heck, we can’t even agree on “what is a photograph”. From my point of view, you don’t get “it”.
Do we need to continue this silly discussion of what “it” is?
Maybe it will end if I simply stop replying to you. Post as you wish, but I’ve got better, and more important/enjoyable things to think about. For example, is my access to PhotoLab on my computer going to go away, as has been suggested, if I go someplace for a few months without internet access? I assume you’ve read the threads about the new licensing plans for PhotoLab. That’s far more important to me than discussing “reality”.
I guess you attention span may be limited since you seem to have not gotten past the first sentence in my previous post as that is the only thing you just referenced. That is sad because perhaps if you had read the entire post carefully you would have understood the issues that I and others, including @Joanna have with your threads.
You seem to mistakenly continue to believe we are against the concept of a thread to help people understand PhotoLab by use of example. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The only issue is that your specific threads don’t promote that goal and are primarily dedicated to you and your specific use of PhotoLab. Unfortunately, for some reason unknown to us you are blind to it no matter how often it is brought to your attention by me and others.
Mark
Yep, limited attention span. One sentence. No reply.
If you want replies, write something about Photography, or PhotoLab.
I am not certain if you are referring to me, but if you were perhaps a reading of the 4500 posts in Mike’s latest two threads will give you an idea of the issues. Over the last few years I have received many private messages from other members here regarding Mike’s usurping of this site for his own personal purposes. Most of them don’t bother posting on his threads but some do. With 4500 posts just in these last two mega-threads that are primarily about him, someone needs to say something.
However, clearly Mike does not get it and I won’t waste any more of my time trying to help him understand.
Mark
I certainly do NOT think of you as a “troll”.
450, 4,500, or 45,000 posts means to me these were interesting discussions. Nobody has to read them, let alone post. They were all “real” discussions, that I found interesting. Again, nobody was forced to read them. As for me, yes, I enjoyed them, even when/if I didn’t agree.
@mwsilvers sorry, I actually posted the link for Mike Myers because his demeanour reminds me of the behaviour of forum trolls.
This has nothing to do with the purpose of the forum, which he himself admits by labelling it off topic.