New victim of Mako2011

[deleted]

What gender is the said is the said @MACO2011?

"he" in the OP, "she" in the above, neutral elsewhere ...

It is Mako [not Maco] and it is a Japanese woman, unless it is non-binary....

Not at all. Stop being so sensitive about discussion. Eggshells are not everywhere...just snowflakes.

Apparently the DPR forum is not a place for discussions.

Fortunately not all DPR forums are moderated by the one mentioned here.

There are quite a few discussions going on on DPR's Nikon Z forum which is moderated by Mako2011 among others moderators. And not all participants are in agreement. But nobody is insulting each other nor calling names, discussions stay civil and on topic. And some even dare to say that Sony's AF is better in some respect. BTW, that forum is very active.

I am frankly astonished that my opening post is considered to be "combative" and encouraging a punch up. I would be genuinely interested in what others think (and why). My intention had been to try to avoid arguments about the science of "correct perspective" and to try to get a discussion going with photographers who understand "correct perspective" and use it. I had been hoping to avoid attacks from those who think that there is no such thing as correct perspective. Forlorn hope as it turned out!

Here is my OP in full to save you having to click the link:

So you think that we should avoid discussing certain topics (based on sound science) in case they arouse the ire of pseudo-scientists who disagree?

No doubt you think the world should be taken over by pseudo-scientists and everyone who disagrees should be silenced.

George Orwell's predictions seem not far off.

This initial comment of yours suggests to me that you are glad that my thread on DPR was terminated and that you feel that the fault was largely mine rather than the other contributors.

Are you now saying that that is not the case?

DPR can be a cesspit. Certain subjects get cause argument and discord, as anybody who has used that site for a while can tell you. Or just post here where things a calmer and threads do nt get locked, or be prepared to have your thread blocked and maybe get a ban too.

I made a thread on the Open forum some time ago, about shooting with a shift lens. Nothing very special. A shit storm developed from those who insisted that the modern way is to do it in post, and I got a ban from you know who, for stating a contentious thread.

I hardly post on DPR anymore, I just got tired of the fact that anything sensible gets rubbished by the resident idiots.

The fact remains that DPR has a far larger active membership and there are many intelligent and knowledgeable people there as well as the idiots.

I try to live with the realities of that website. I do not wish to offend or antagonise anyone, but I am not willing to refrain from speaking the truth (as I see it) to achieve that. Some people are looking for excuses to be offended and that certainly does make life difficult!

However, I am not prepared to give up yet.

[deleted]

I do agree that the moderation on some forums is not as neutral as the moderators imagine but instead subconsciously tends to support and promote the moderators own personal viewpoint. Maybe because they think in far too absolute terms in that, "you know, the truth is obvious to all..." thinking their opinion is a global overview and not just a specific perspective based only on the information and experience that they have encountered.

And what generally happens here is that the forum becomes dominated by those of a common, defined viewpoint and the active membership reflects that smaller subset.

And I shall say it here, DPR is far from the centre of creative photography, and a long way from the font of photographic knowledge. It is mainly where people with a technical knowledge of cameras try to define photography by the metrics that they understand, the technical knowledge of cameras. Long, never ending discussions on the exact definition of exposure with the previso that "we must define a common language and understanding of the meaning of words." Which translates, not as you would think to "we can discuss with a common grounding," but rather "you must start with my exact definition, then I'll correct you."

It is not scientific discussion but some trying to impose their own nomenclature of how they rationalise their own thoughts within their own experience and knowledge. There is very little movement or progression of understanding that should follow with a discussion.

To be fair in the case of TomAxford's thread this wasn't a thread about, "lets discuss the general idea that there is a principal of correct perspective and how you achieve it (relative to centre of perspective)." Far from it, Tom did what he often does which is to try to force you to discuss through reference only to his specific viewpoint [1]. And as you can imagine trying to discuss the idea of a human viewing a photo "but only if you accept it as fact that correct perspective can only mean exactly the same perspective as was seen by the camera" is a little limiting on the discussion front.

This is a long way from a scientific or even balanced discussion, and as Tom is well aware a lot of forum members disagree with the basic proposition. But just as the discussion was generally trending towards acceptance of the general idea and resistance to being forced to accept the principal of "with exactly the same perspective" Tom came back on and again tried to force people to discuss only by first accepting, or not disputing, his specific viewpoint.

That he came back and again nearly demanded that can only respond if we agree, and was probably a little short in telling the rest to "put up and shut up" was probably the killer for the thread. But it was doomed from the opening post.

I think can be generally accepted is that this is not the way to conduct a rational or scientific discussion, and that the conclusions of the discussion may vary from fact. Regardless of your position o perspective.

[1]which is to paraphrase that how we perceive perspective in a image (human perception) can be described by the same mathematics used to define image formation by a lens. But even the definition Tom posted himself from The Manual Of Photography defines correct perspective as: when the print is viewed in such a way that the "apparent" relation between...

I think I am just a beginner at trying to force the discussion in the direction I want. 😉