Comments: 315
Mavik [2007-01-25 16:16:05 +0000 UTC]
it's bollocks
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
meihua In reply to dheks [2007-01-24 00:41:07 +0000 UTC]
well, you certainly could have chosen a less insulting name.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
CountryGurl [2007-01-19 07:43:39 +0000 UTC]
Nice fan. And that pose looks good on you.
x.lIZ.x
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
j0ch52 [2007-01-19 07:29:43 +0000 UTC]
it's difficult for me to understand why people lash out at others who simply don't like a photo. i've personally been in a similar situation, and i'd love nothing more than to pat ~moomoocowsly on the back for standing up for himself. for those who "critique" the critique, don't. when some people don't like what they see, they'll express that opinion. it's not fair to gang up on one person. the world is not all beautiful; crap art does exist. let us be.
p.s. i think this stock is crap, too, for the same reasons.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Olivedrab In reply to j0ch52 [2007-01-20 22:02:02 +0000 UTC]
Here, here. Well said. I agree completely.
If people have the right to say how much they love a photo. It should be the same for when someone does -not- love a photo. But most of the time you get people ganging up on you. Pretty silly. Pretty fucking childish, really.
I'm not big on this photo. At all. Next..
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Pairastocks In reply to dheks [2007-01-21 19:54:44 +0000 UTC]
You are very welcome!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Cinnamoncandy [2007-01-19 04:00:03 +0000 UTC]
Congratulations on your DD, dear.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Chak101 [2007-01-19 03:26:28 +0000 UTC]
lol, a little late for me to comment but i love ur pose
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
moomoocowsly In reply to Casperium [2007-01-19 02:27:41 +0000 UTC]
So I take it you read them all, right? Including my explainations as to how my critique was taken out of context and how I never intended to offend anyone?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
moomoocowsly In reply to Casperium [2007-01-19 02:51:30 +0000 UTC]
So, can I ask why you still believe they were horrible and rude, and need to be hidden?
After all, it was my good constructive criticism taken out of context by one gallery director which caused all this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
moomoocowsly In reply to PhoeebStock [2007-01-19 02:38:09 +0000 UTC]
So I take it you didn't bother to read anything either? Just go away.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
PhoeebStock In reply to moomoocowsly [2007-01-19 03:04:43 +0000 UTC]
let's see where you went wrong.. hmm.. i'm not against you giving a really harsh critique and not being nice about it at all, heaven forbid put it lightly! (even though it would be of the same usefullness)
if you take out "I can tell you that if you ever want people to use your stock seriously, you should throw it in the trash."
and
"If you think all I'm doing is trolling, try submitting this to a real stock agency, or even something like istockphoto. I guarantee it'll get rejected faster than you can say "DAILY DEVIATION"."
it would be good. end of story. but with that in there it goes away from just being a critique. don't you think she would be arguing about the good points of the photo had you not said that bit? you had to have known that only is offensive to the artist, and it is mocking it as a DD, which you are not allowed to do.
should i suggest that maybe you note oibryd about it next time? she may get defensive, but she did not attack you personally or say anything wrong. maybe a little emotional, but she's human. she was trying to give an award to someone and you messed it up for the girl who received it. she can never get it back. if you had just said what i suggest up there nothing would have come of it besides a few people saying "but no i like it." i don't see how this can be blamed on her, when you started it with something you shouldn't have said.
i know people agree with you because you said what you wanted to say. good for you. say it and live up to the consequences. i think we have all wanted to say "this sucks" but the ones of us who don't want to get, uhm, BANNED, don't say it. so good for you. i hope you get a lot of pageviews and get exactly what you should out of it.
there.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
moomoocowsly In reply to PhoeebStock [2007-01-19 03:45:04 +0000 UTC]
"I can tell you that if you ever want people to use your stock seriously, you should throw [sic: (your camera)] in the trash."
""If you think all I'm doing is trolling, try submitting this to a real stock agency, or even something like istockphoto. I guarantee it'll get rejected faster than you can say "DAILY DEVIATION".""
I've explained those comments many times. The first was because her camera doesn't take high enough resolution photos to really shoot stock, there's too much detail missing which is the fault of the camera.
The 2nd was because it would be rejected. Not because of composition or subject, but because of my previous point. Her camera doesn't take high enough resolution photos to do stock.
"should i suggest that maybe you note oibryd about it next time?"
Why didn't she note ME in the first place about my critique on :devdhek:'s photo?
"i think we have all wanted to say "this sucks" but the ones of us who don't want to get, uhm, BANNED, don't say it."
I didn't say "this sucks" which exactly why I WON'T get banned for this. I gave a negative critique in a perfectly acceptable way, and for me to be banned just because some people took it out of context would be stupid. Deviantart is an art site, if giving serious negative critique got people banned I think comments would be disabled completely, and instead a 1-10 rating system would probably be in place.
I didn't do this for pageviews... I did it to give a fellow photographer some direction with their art.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PhoeebStock In reply to moomoocowsly [2007-01-19 03:49:22 +0000 UTC]
then you should have said, "there's too much detail missing which is the fault of the camera"
the way you put it is unacceptable.
the second point has no place in the comment. it is RUDE
it wasn't taken out of context. maybe you should have worded the first point differently, but what was said was said.
lol. what direction was that? get a better camera? i think she probably knows that already
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
moomoocowsly In reply to PhoeebStock [2007-01-19 04:08:05 +0000 UTC]
I did give her direction... I said on-camera flash is boring and doesn't work well for most manipulations, from that she can decide if she wants to use a 2nd light or not.
I said her background cloth was distracting because it was folded and gets mixed up with her skirt... and from that she can iron the cloth next time, or hold it straight with something.
My critique did have advice in it, just because it's not laid out right in front of you doesn't mean it isn't there.
I don't really think saying her camera isn't good enough for stock is rude... unless her camera is reading this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PhoeebStock In reply to moomoocowsly [2007-01-19 06:16:44 +0000 UTC]
i have said all along that your comment had some actual critique in it, so giving me examples does nothing.
it was pretty right in front of me, and so were the other comments in it.
what if she can't afford another camera? don't you think someone who has a less-than-perfect camera knows this? it is just stating the obvious
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
PhoeebStock In reply to moomoocowsly [2007-01-19 02:52:17 +0000 UTC]
of course i did. it all started from your comment. good job
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PhoeebStock In reply to moomoocowsly [2007-01-19 03:42:22 +0000 UTC]
good reply to everything i said. okay so it wasn't.
also, i agree with her first comment. telling her to throw her camera away doesn't help.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
spacecowboy14 [2007-01-19 00:30:52 +0000 UTC]
I think your stock if cool and you are beautiful, but your work don't have the quality to have the "daily deviation" oibyrd check your desicion. Exist better works in deviantart to have this prize.
The photography have some problems, i repeat, the girl is beautiful but the work not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>