A request for Phillip and Chuck

Phillip and Chuck,

Like many of us, I have gained immense pleasure and knowledge from perusing the DPReview forums over the past several years. No doubt, you have each made great contributions in this particular forum.

Unfortunately, the personal negative dialogues between the two of you are polluting this forum. As the DP forums are not moderated, I am asking that you take personal responsibility for your actions and please put a stop to this. Your arguments are creating a great deal of "noise" that is quite distracting.

Thanks for your consideration.

-- Rob

They both want the title of Queen of the Forum and the constant hissy fits and bitchslapping is getting to be a bit much

It's a free country and all, goodness knows, but a little civility goes a long way (I'm still learning this myself). Theres a quote from a movie I'd like to share:

Two studly guys are stuck on the side of K2 (the "Killer Mountain", called this for a good reason) and are basically screwed...
Guy one (the Lawyer):

"I didn't make the world the way it is. I'm just trying to get through as quickly and cleanly as possible."
Guy two (the Christ figure, for those of you with a high school education):
"We all make the world the way it is."

We all make this forum what it is. I'm one of those cranky old timers that thinks it's deteriorating lately (I'm probably wrong).
-Kent

I read a few of your comments to Chuck on the White dog/Tall Man/Short lady thread and I noticed you feel compelled to throw out snide remarks such as:

"Your a riot !"
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1025&message=16148997

"Stick to writing, or writing dribble, because you couldn't make a penny shooting, because of your fixation on COI's."
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1025&message=16149898

Both of the above comments were directed to Chuck and represented the first "proverbial stone" in the discussion.

We all get that you disagree with Chuck and you think his posing/lighting advice is lacking or fails to accomodate for "real world" conditions. There is nothing wrong with with disagreeing and in fact intelligent debate on an issue is one of the reasons many of us participate in the forums.

However, your insults and snide remarks detract from whatever knowledge you can impart. They are simply not necessary.

Attack the ideas - not the person.
--
Michael Newcomb, Temecula - CA
http://www.newcombphotography.com

"Welcome to the Lighting Technique Forum, the place to discuss scene lighting be it continuous, studio flash, portable flash or hot-shoe." It says that on the top of the forum.

Some, including Phillip never bothered to read it and try to police what is on- or off-topic it based on what "I guess it should be about ... " For example tonight he used that phase to repeat his view that all discussion here should be limited to "lighting" which he seems to define as light on faces only, since he objects to my discussion other factors such as compositon, cropping, posing, or the relationship between the subject, clothing and background (i.e. how the the entire scene illuminated).

What I do is try to offer techincal advice. What he does is censor me based on his view of what photography and this forum is, which invariably leads to another round of lets jump on Chuck because he mentions Monte all the time.... He can't wrap his brain around the concept of that a photograph having a focal point or guide the eye of the viewer, so he conclues no one can and therefore it must be worthless nonsense.

How do you suggest I deal with that?

you don't. Simply continue doing what you do, offering advice and commentary. If people find value in what you have to offer they'll accept it; if not they won't. Personally, I find your commentary of interest and value (mostly). If I don't happen to agree with you, I'll not attack you.

I find value in Phillips posts as well; I find much that I like in his work, but not always. And I suppose that's the way it should be. I am, however, disappointed in Phillips' behavior where you are concerned. I find it inappropriate.

The two of you need to agree to disagree and let it go. The rest of us can make up our own minds what it is that has value and use to us.

Regards to you both, and

Happy Holidays

George Law

would be to ignore him.

I don't think many people are impressed by the low flying insults. We don't need your words to form an opinion on the value of anyone using insults to communicate.

Chuck Gardner said:

"Welcome to the Lighting Technique Forum, the place to discuss
scene lighting be it continuous, studio flash, portable flash or
hot-shoe." It says that on the top of the forum.

Some, including Phillip never bothered to read it and try to police
what is on- or off-topic it based on what "I guess it should be
about ... " For example tonight he used that phase to repeat his
view that all discussion here should be limited to "lighting"
which he seems to define as light on faces only, since he objects
to my discussion other factors such as compositon, cropping,
posing, or the relationship between the subject, clothing and
background (i.e. how the the entire scene illuminated).

What I do is try to offer techincal advice. What he does is censor
me based on his view of what photography and this forum is, which
invariably leads to another round of lets jump on Chuck because he
mentions Monte all the time.... He can't wrap his brain around the
concept of that a photograph having a focal point or guide the eye
of the viewer, so he conclues no one can and therefore it must be
worthless nonsense.

How do you suggest I deal with that?

Click to expand...

Just ignore each other for a while.
Let your images speak.

Having used the forum for a couple of years i have a much better solution. I read Chucks threads with interest as they usually contain some useful information, i look at Phillips work as there is a lot i can learn from it.

Now if i could have Chucks technical writing with Phillips images, i would have something i could really learn from. Stop the mud slinging and show us what you could do if you collaborate.

Mike

TangoMan said:

Just ignore each other for a while.
Let your images speak.

Click to expand...

Hacked me off.. I don't post much, but I'm here to DEFEND.... I think what Phillip Pfiltz has offered in this forum is PRICELESS.... He has given me more inspiration, and knowledge thru "Photos and SETUP" than I could ever learn from CG..

CG... Have you EVER POSTED a photo of your own? I would love to see some of your work, and the SETUP.... We don't need "tut's" we need photos, and how you "Lit" it up.

I learn more from threads like this

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1025&message=16081006

then any manual that he could write... The point being, "SHOW" us your results, in the form of "show and tell"......, and describe your method of "Lighting your subject"
Don't sit back and and make us feel like a 2nd grader in a Algeabra II class.
The proof is in the pudding,

I have nothing against CG... Nothing... but "SEEING" and understanding is much better than a 2k essay without seeing an example

I've learned more from Phillip, in the past year, and to that... Thanks!

CG... Well.. if this wuz all the forum was about, I'm afraid, I would have to ebay my equipment... because I would be lost!

And to the rest of the FORUM... If you don't like what pfiltz writes THEN MOVE ON, No body's forcing ya to read his post!

I'm a member of PhotoSig (Here's the link if you're interested http://www.photosig.com/go/main ) One of the rules is "critique the photo not the photographer,” I think everyone here is intelligent enough to see what I'm getting at. Remember pre computer days when everyone had to learn from books or face-to-face workshops? AAHH! Them were the days! Respect people!

Granted, I have not posted pictures for feedback and critique yet but I have learned quite a bit from Chuck.

We all often make the generalization that if it does not work for me it is of no value...

Ooops there I go making a generalization...

You have if you are a tennis fan. Two of the world's top players, Venus and Serina were taught and coached by their father who couldn't win a single point from either one of them. Yet he made the girls into the world's best.

You don't have to demonstrate a craft to be an effective teacher. Keep that in mind.
--
The right to free speech in no way implies any right to be taken seriously!
Joe

I have been a reader of this forum for months and have gleaned a lot of helpful information. I think Chuck and Phillip have both contributed a tremendous amount to this forum and I have learned a lot from both of them. I would sincerely like to thank both of them (not to imply that there aren't other people here who contribute just as much to making this a knowledgeable and helpful forum). However, I have to agree that all of the negativity and personal attacks have been a detriment to this forum. I used to come here for insight now I come here only when I want a good laugh. I don't understand why BOTH of you guys can't just state your own viewpoint instead of criticizing the other one's advice. By attacking each other you are just making yourselves look bad and alienating people. Which is truly a shame because you both have a lot of great insight to share.

I never, as you imply, criticize any advice Phillip or anyone else gives to the originator of a thread I participate in.

Dating back to compuserve and usenet my personal code of conduct on forums has always been to not to comment unless I think I can add something constructive to the thread and then to comment only on the topic raised by the person originating the thread and direct my comments towards them alone unless:

1) someone asks me a question relating to the topic in the original thread based on my comment to the originator of the thread.

2) someone has posted information which is factually incorrect, with correct facts which can be verified, not just my personal opinion is different.

I also apply common sense: Personal opinions should be expressed and directed only to the originator of the thread, for obvious reasons. You might be able to convince someone your opinion is valid if you and make a stong logical case for it or back it up with facts (e.g., correct way to use a meter is the way outlined in the user guide) but you will never convince someone to change their opinion of something based on your unsupported opinion alone. Why do you think I spend so much time writting tutorials?

I try not to cross paths with him unless he speciifically addresses a comment to me. 100% of the time lately we only interact because he jumps onto my comments directed to the originator of the thread to harrass me. I never do that to him.

In my critiques and tutorials I try to offer food for thought for people who approach photography with both the visual and analytical sides of their brains. It's up to each reader to decide whether to chew and swallow my advice or spit it out on the ground as worthless to them. I don't expect everyone to find it useful to them. I just prefer they don't spit it in my face or cheerlead a sptting contest at my expense.

Lately he's gotten so mean and spiteful that I go out of my way to avoid him, never commenting on one of his photos except to praise it or hold it up as an example of excellent technique. I've given up on that too since he can't take a compliment either. If he'd just stop jumping on the coat tails of the critques an tutorials I offer with his no constructive, uncivil comments there would be no problem.

But from this point on I'll just turn the other cheek and ignore him...

obliquely....

using my best side...

placing on a thirds node....

with short lighting on it...

on a non-distracting background....

CG

--

Feel it - Shoot it - Understand it: Shoot with feeling always, then ask, 'How did I do
that? How can I make it better?'. See: http://super.nova.org/DPR

After reading your post I realize I misspoke and owe you an apology. I briefly looked back over your postings. I realize you are correct, you do not criticize his or anyone else's "actual" advice. I sincerely apologize for my erroneous words that you criticize Phillips' advice. I should have said instead "negativity towards Phillip (which is sometimes overt but usually more covert)." In all fairness I think it is usually in defense of yourself. Like others have suggested I think the best way to handle it is to just ignore it which you already clearly stated you plan to do in the future.

ill certainly agree with chuck on this
his manners are impeccable and his behavior mature and classy.

i also thinks he has a great understanding of a few of the vast principles of photography, and is highly capable of teaching those principles and their application

i also understand how philip is so irritated by chucks fanaticism and religiosity regarding these few limited principles. that's chucks problem though. he never said these principles encompass all of photographic creativity. they are just the few he has learned and lives by.

it's a shame for chuck that he has such limited vision, but nevertheless his principles can be very useful and it's certainly worthwhile learning them. after youve learned them, then when you see chuck apply and misapply them over and over, well, you can have a chuckle and move on

PS

give chuck a break!

his detractors demand him for his credentials for his comprehensive critiques.

then when he mentions (among other things) his having worked with a master (recognized as such by many pros and avid amateurs) chuck is accused of self aggrandizement

with your mix of personal attack and "praise", you certainly don't help anyone.

picklesmith said:

ill certainly agree with chuck on this
his manners are impeccable and his behavior mature and classy.
i also thinks he has a great understanding of a few of the vast
principles of photography, and is highly capable of teaching those
principles and their application
i also understand how philip is so irritated by chucks fanaticism
and religiosity regarding these few limited principles. that's
chucks problem though. he never said these principles encompass
all of photographic creativity. they are just the few he has
learned and lives by.
it's a shame for chuck that he has such limited vision, but
nevertheless his principles can be very useful and it's certainly
worthwhile learning them. after youve learned them, then when you
see chuck apply and misapply them over and over, well, you can have
a chuckle and move on

PS

Click to expand...

TangoMan said:

with your mix of personal attack and "praise", you certainly don't
help anyone.

Click to expand...

i suppose no one was helped
my intent was not, however, to help anyone.

nor was my intent to attack, nor was it to praise. any such interpretation would be within the reader of my comments.

my intent was simply to express my perception of what has entertainingly been going on between these two strong local personalities. i would like it to be considered in the vein of an op ed commentary or letter to the editor, with some insight and humor. you of course may consider my comments whatever you like

PS