>>3803478I'm not defending people who are just kicking up fuss and I can agree with you if we talk about such.
>If you're the one who told me my photos are horrible and I need to stop postingI'm not. I'd both never tell someone to stop, but also not take it seriously if it was directed at me. Also
>>3803508 is not me.
>Do you see the difference between someone who actively shares their photos and someone who holds theirs back while sniping at others?Nothing substantial, I see benefits and drawbacks. I enjoy that we can be direct. I hate how that also guards problems that are beyond a bit banter.
>You could even link to your posts where you shared photos from the archive but I know you won't. Because you're a nophoto and you don't want to weaken your position by having some of your own work to criticise.Suppose I had posted really great (street?) photos in past. Then suppose I didn't. What difference does it make?
Now think that someone who has a successful photo that would fit into the Street category here wants to argue this point with you.
As an aside, as I chimed in, I said above:
>>3803454>Yes, I don't photograph street and I wouldn't be good at it.Let me tell you that this representation of me is just as one-sided as if I were to link the somewhat successful shot.
In both cases, I don't know what we gain, except that more photos will be (re)posted and the identifiable me has to be more glossed over and less direct so no one will hold anything against me.
>There's never too much "mass" of photos on this boardI have to answer that differently in the one respect when someone is supposed to sit down in effort and explain more than 10 photos posted, resulting in 2 posts and a following discussion, in other words easily 2 hours spent. I remember Alex threads where several posters intensively pursued such feedback in posts without attached photos, unfortunately the last time was a few years ago.
Meanwhile even the yes/no feedback becomes little.
