False alarms, unwarranted suspicions, blacklisting and spurning loves

Tabitha Boydell said

Are people really this petty?!

Some are, yes.

Tabitha Boydell said

I just think she must have tag approvals turned on. I don’t think anything else

I'm not sure you even view the images I am referring to. My suggestion relates to recent images only (note my 24 hour cut off). With older images tags have generally been accepted, there would be no sudden false alarms of a member's possible departure. And the image will have had its day in the sun anyway. Generally unpleasantries become less of an issue. Do you view recent images much? Your activity suggests your viewing is mainly orientated towards FPIs and other images that have been drawn to your attention by means other than the recent images gadget.

Tabitha Boydell said

I literally had no idea that this went through peoples heads when they saw the model wasn’t tagged

If you are referring to false alarms of a model's departure I'm not surprised. I suspect you have multiple platforms and contact information for many models. A departure from Purpleport probably wouldn't bother you so there is probably no reason for you to think about it. For others, like me, if a model leaves purpleport then she might as well be leaving the universe. 

Thelema said

Is this really necessary? As Tabatha said, above its easy to just a shame that Model didn’t except the tag yet!

There is one very popular model on here, who never except tags, I knew this going in when I went to shoot with her it’s of no consequence to me and even if she did leave the site I would just find her on Instagram where most Model seem to be now!

You may indeed find her that way. Others wouldn't. The "others wouldn't" is enough for my suggestion to have merit would you not agree?

Bad Dolly said

Tabitha Boydell +1

Please read my reply above to whichever comment you are plussing.

Lensworks said

Agreed.. Plenty of valid reasons. I was talking to a model that wasn't tagged in images yesterday and I asked why. She said, it was because a work colleague had joined the site and didn't want him seeing images of her that weren't SFW. Absolutely valid reason not to be tagged.

Absolutely. But in what way would my suggestion throw a spanner in the works?

Photowallah said

Why is this anybody's business other than the people concerned in making the image?

I presume by "this" you mean tagging. Is there someone who thinks otherwise? All I've suggested is that if a member tags another member then that is made clear to the viewer in circumstances where it otherwise might not. Effectively going some way towards what the tagging member presumably wants.

Barney57 said

Surely it’s a matter between the photographer and the model. Nothing to do with the rest of us, it’s entirely up to them. 

Absolutely. See also my last two comments

Sensual Art said

philsphotos said

Thelema said

Is this really necessary? As Tabitha said, above its easy to just a shame that Model didn’t accept the tag yet!

It is simple fact that people often don't assume that. And of course they are right not to assume that because it may not be a correct assumption!  

It's only a valid question to ask, though, in the minds of those who have little better to do than to find fault, rather than to appreciate all the great pictures that are on here and be supportive of the community.

Fair point perhaps. But rightly or wrongly people do ask the question. My suggestion is intended to reduce the unpleasantries that result from their doing so.

And I'll be honest I do ask the question. Its hard not to. Possibly even unrealistic not to. Especially when one of the possible answers is that the model has left the site.

Tabitha Boydell said

Are people really this petty?!

I think you are referring to people noting down serial non-taggers. 

Given that another member has answered your question with a "yes" it might be nice if you could perhaps agree that may be merit in my original suggestion.

Apologies to anyone I have not answered. This is because I probably just accept and agree what you say.....but without seeing any inherent criticism of my suggestion there. Really I don't think I am suggesting anything problematic. Just a little something that I think would make the site a little bit better for a lot of people.

I think this is one of those unfixable problems. 

I am one of those who doesn't look kindly on people who never credit another soul, not ever, on principal. You know the kind, puts their own name in as stylist, studio, photoshop wizard tutor, artist and designer, says they used this model of camera and that model of lens, but doesn't mention the studio / assistant who set up the lights, the model who posed and brought clothing and jewellery... everything is about them, and they've probably put a big logo on the picture to reinforce the point. So sometimes, when I see a photo with the model untagged I'll click back through the photographers previous shots, and either I find they often tag (but this one hasn't got a tag) or find they don't and I don't comment, love, or suggest their photos; the site doesn't forbid their behaviour, but I can choose whose work I approve of and whose I don't. 

This would save me clicking back through pictures. 

There are good reasons for the absence of a tag. The model needs to approve the tag, and hasn't yet; the model did approve or untagged herself; it was a kind of work she asked the photographer not to tag her in; she's left or never joined PP. Those - plus good old human error - account for many more missing tags than "nasty" photographers.  If the photographer worries about what conclusions others might jump to they can put something in the description if they can't tag, especially if a lot of pictures can't be tagged. It often puzzles me that a photographer will have a folder "Photos of Jane Doe" where "Jane Doe" really is someone's PP name - but the pictures aren't tagged. Did Jane not want to be identified and is she quietly seething that the folder name does identify here? The photographer doesn't mind us knowing the ID of the model otherwise they would have used a different name for the folder...  

But putting "Model de-tagged" isn't good, those who read something into these things might start thinking things about the model and/or her view of the photographer. "Tag waiting for model approval" indefinitely - meaning the model didn't approve (same problem) or is really bad at admin jobs (a different bad impression) - isn't good either.  A short term flag for the 24/48 hours when a picture gets most of its views... might save a few photographers from people who leap to conclusions without checking, and might save a few people like me who do check from looking at a photographers other pictures. But if I look back at a couple and find the photographer usually credits people, I might love more than one of their pictures - so they actually they gain from the the occasional model causing me to check. 

CalmNudes said

I think this is one of those unfixable problems. 

I am one of those who doesn't look kindly on people who never credit another soul, not ever, on principal. You know the kind, puts their own name in as stylist, studio, photoshop wizard tutor, artist and designer, says they used this model of camera and that model of lens, but doesn't mention the studio / assistant who set up the lights, the model who posed and brought clothing and jewellery... everything is about them, and they've probably put a big logo on the picture to reinforce the point. So sometimes, when I see a photo with the model untagged I'll click back through the photographers previous shots, and either I find they often tag (but this one hasn't got a tag) or find they don't and I don't comment, love, or suggest their photos; the site doesn't forbid their behaviour, but I can choose whose work I approve of and whose I don't. 

This would save me clicking back through pictures. 

There are good reasons for the absence of a tag. The model needs to approve the tag, and hasn't yet; the model did approve or untagged herself; it was a kind of work she asked the photographer not to tag her in; she's left or never joined PP. Those - plus good old human error - account for many more missing tags than "nasty" photographers.  If the photographer worries about what conclusions others might jump to they can put something in the description if they can't tag, especially if a lot of pictures can't be tagged. It often puzzles me that a photographer will have a folder "Photos of Jane Doe" where "Jane Doe" really is someone's PP name - but the pictures aren't tagged. Did Jane not want to be identified and is she quietly seething that the folder name does identify here? The photographer doesn't mind us knowing the ID of the model otherwise they would have used a different name for the folder...  

But putting "Model de-tagged" isn't good, those who read something into these things might start thinking things about the model and/or her view of the photographer. "Tag waiting for model approval" indefinitely - meaning the model didn't approve (same problem) or is really bad at admin jobs (a different bad impression) - isn't good either.  A short term flag for the 24/48 hours when a picture gets most of its views... might save a few photographers from people who leap to conclusions without checking, and might save a few people like me who do check from looking at a photographers other pictures. But if I look back at a couple and find the photographer usually credits people, I might love more than one of their pictures - so they actually they gain from the the occasional model causing me to check. 

I think it’s simpler than that. If someone hasn’t tagged another person, then that information simply isn’t part of the image, and it shouldn’t be overanalyzed. Look at the image—like it or don’t—and read the info provided. What isn’t included is irrelevant because it doesn’t exist in the context of that image, It's a Schrödinger's cat scenario, isn't it.

It's just an image, any additional information added is optional and a bonus, not compulsory. No one is required to name everyone involved if they don't want to or have reasons not to. Remember, 'not wanting to' is a valid reason as far as the viewer is concerned. Only those directly involved in the shoot can say otherwise.

I see all these photographers—and it’s always photographers—constantly complaining about not tagging others. They remind me of that one kid we all knew in school who refused to let anyone play with their football unless they kissed their arse. where does it say anywhere in site rules - must tag all creatives no matter what ? 

This thing of expecting others to do what you want on a photography site comes off as passive aggressive or manipulative.

Also reading some of the text written it just sounds like people who over think and want their wants catered to by any means hence the manipulative reasoning they come up with.

How can I make this photographer feel bad about themselves and do what I want them to ? Oh let me put it to them that there must be a horrible reason they don't tag models!

Let me put an assumption on top of the previous false assumption and offer it as the reason the models not tagged. It couldn't just be that the photographer does not want to tag.

Edited by Lenswonder

Ever notice how all the loudest photographers go on and on about 'serial non-taggers,' like it’s the crime of the century? But they only seem to care when it’s photographers who don’t tag models. They even say publicly all the time,(and ive seen it couple times this week alone) 'I won’t like images by serial non-taggers.' Yet, that rule only ever seems to affect photographers. Models who don’t tag get likes, loves, and comments all day long… No complaints there, huh? So, it’s got nothing to do with the ethics of it—it’s simply because you want to know who the models are, and that’s all it is, a tantrum. "if you dont do everything i say im not gonna like your picture"-...... Good :-)  

ANDY00 said

CalmNudes said 

stuff

I think it’s simpler than that. If someone hasn’t tagged another person, then that information simply isn’t part of the image, and it shouldn’t be overanalyzed. Look at the image—like it or don’t—and read the info provided. What isn’t included is irrelevant because it doesn’t exist in the context of that image, It's a Schrödinger's cat scenario, isn't it.

It's just an image, any additional information added is optional and a bonus, not compulsory. No one is required to name everyone involved if they don't want to or have reasons not to. Remember, 'not wanting to' is a valid reason as far as the viewer is concerned. Only those directly involved in the shoot can say otherwise.

I see all these photographers—and it’s always photographers—constantly complaining about not tagging others. They remind me of that one kid we all knew in school who refused to let anyone play with their football unless they kissed their arse. where does it say anywhere in site rules - must tag all creatives no matter what ? 

There's another thread going about art made by bad people. Maybe you would suggest something for the front page if you knew the photographer abused models, maybe you wouldn't. At what point do you say that you don't like the person therefore you won't say nice things about their work however good? Outside of competitions on PP the image is displayed with the names added by whoever uploaded it, so whether there is a tag or there isn't is part of a picture's life on PP. Nothing to do with the famous cat thought experiment, a picture has the fields filled in whether the fields are observed or not. 

The site does not demand that every person in the picture is identified, and there are - as I said - valid reasons for the absence of a tag. However don't tell people what reasons they should take as valid.  "I didn't want to" is rarely a valid excuse. "Why didn't you put your litter in the bin"  'I didn't want to ',  "Why don't you say please and thank you" , 'Don't want to'; "Why don't you cover you mouth when you cough" 'I don't want to'.  It's simply good manners to acknowledge the people you worked with and it makes the site work better.   

People are free to be rude, selfish and unhelpful but acting that way has consequences in how others see them. The rude and selfish don't normally care what others think, unless it is about them when they demand people think more highly of them than they deserve. 

Lenswonder said

This thing of expecting others to do what you want on a photography site comes off as passive aggressive or manipulative.

 

Oh let me put it to them that there must be a horrible reason they don't tag models!

 

It's like any kind of request for "proper" but non compulsory behaviour a.k.a. good manners, those who lack manners make all sorts of complaints about those requesting them.  

I've set the challenge before, complete the sentence "I never acknowledge anyone else's contribution to my pictures on PP because..." in a way that doesn't look like the manifestation of a negative character trait.  Try also "At work, I always claim all the credit for things I am involved in because..." 

CalmNudes The fact is, 'didn’t want to' is a valid excuse because, whether you like it or not, it’s not compulsory to tag anyone in any work on this site—that’s the rules.

And what does anything have to do with whether I like an image, other than if it’s a good or bad image? I trust that if it’s a bad photographer or bad model who’s done something hideously wrong, the site would have removed them, and therefore that image wouldn’t be there. But it is, so my choice is: do I like the image, not what has the artist done for me to warrant a like. That’s narcissistic at the very least."

I’m not in this mindset of people need to earn a like, if you only like an image because the photographer or artist did something to make you happy then your not really liking the image - your paying the artist and I don’t need paid, I only want people to like my work if my work is likeable.

Your trying to justify forcing people to do something that’s not part of the rules by insisting it’s ethical when in fact it’s not and it’s absolutely nobodies business why people omit certain info from any image, if it’s not there it’s none of your business why unless you were part of that shoot, let it go….

Unethical is insisting that people do everything you want in order for you to like their work, with the other side of the coin being, 'If you don’t please me in some way, I will not like your work.' I don’t want that—I want people to like my work only if they genuinely like it. That’s how I know I can improve it and if I need to pay for you to like my image then I don’t want it but thanks anyway 🙂

The “bad creatives” mentioned more often than not manifest as people who have something others want and hold that over them ie you can only work with me if you do this etc - professionalism starts with behaviour….

If you like an image like it, if you don’t - don’t . Stop putting a price on your vote because it’s not worth the cost…

Edited by ANDY00

It's a sign of an unstable personality to be walking around fuming because everything is not exactly as you want it, especially things that have nothing to do with you.

Edited by Lenswonder

There are site rules, and then there are opinions. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that doesn’t make it a site rule. I shouldn’t be penalized or charged a fee just to get someone to like my work—I already pay a site subscription; I’m not paying every member as well.

I tag people involved because they’re on this site and want to be included, unless there’s a reason not to. That reason is nobody’s business, and in that scenario, the information doesn’t exist. If a model never tags, does that stop you from working with them or liking their work? No, of course not—because that would affect you.

Show me the site rule that says I must tag all creatives, and I will follow the rules. But you can’t—because it’s not a rule, and it wouldn’t even be ethical to make it one.

Lenswonder said

It's a sign of an unstable personality to be walking around fuming because everything is not exactly as you want it, especially things that have nothing to do with you.

Who's walking round fuming? I see selfish people here and there and just get on with life.  When someone says on forums that people have every right to be selfish and not judged for the their selfishness, I do tend say "tosh". And isn't how everyone on PP behaves is as matter for everyone on PP? The photographer who posts "I paid the bitch, why should I leave her a reference" is, the kind of person  whose ego some of us don't want to massage. 

ANDY00 said

CalmNudes The fact is, 'didn’t want to' is a valid excuse because, whether you like it or not, it’s not compulsory to tag anyone in any work on this site—that’s the rules.

And what does anything have to do with whether I like an image, other than if it’s a good or bad image? I trust that if it’s a bad photographer or bad model who’s done something hideously wrong, the site would have removed them, and therefore that image wouldn’t be there. But it is, so my choice is: do I like the image, not what has the artist done for me to warrant a like. That’s narcissistic at the very least."

I’m not in this mindset of people need to earn a like, if you only like an image because the photographer or artist did something to make you happy then your not really liking the image - your paying the artist and I don’t need paid, I only want people to like my work if my work is likeable.

Your trying to justify forcing people to do something that’s not part of the rules by insisting it’s ethical when in fact it’s not and it’s absolutely nobodies business why people omit certain info from any image, if it’s not there it’s none of your business why unless you were part of that shoot, let it go….

It's not compulsory to say please and thank you, or tidy up after yourself or hold a door for someone; the site can't force people to be courteous.  "
Validity is really for the person hearing the excuse to judge, "I'm not courteous because I don't want to be" is a statement of fact, almost a tautology, but it is not a justification. 

Just like I don't praise the art of Eric Gill (good as it may be) or point to Jimmy Saville's charity work, I don't give a my little crumbs of PP approval to someone who doesn't use PP as I think it should be used. Every now and then people suggest that only photos which tag others should get FPIs (which isn't practical). 

Why someone omitted information which should (not must) be provided, might seem a good reason to you, me, or anyone else. As I said above complete the sentence "I never acknowledge anyone because..." in a way that doesn't show the speaker in a bad light.  The OP was obviously concerned enough about being mistaken for such a person by enough people whose opinions matter to them to start the thread.  One can't conclude anything from the absence of one tag. 

CalmNudes said

Lenswonder said

It's a sign of an unstable personality to be walking around fuming because everything is not exactly as you want it, especially things that have nothing to do with you.

Who's walking round fuming? I see selfish people here and there and just get on with life.  When someone says on forums that people have every right to be selfish and not judged for the their selfishness, I do tend say "tosh". And isn't how everyone on PP behaves is as matter for everyone on PP? The photographer who posts "I paid the bitch, why should I leave her a reference" is, the kind of person  whose ego some of us don't want to massage. 

 

ANDY00 said

CalmNudes The fact is, 'didn’t want to' is a valid excuse because, whether you like it or not, it’s not compulsory to tag anyone in any work on this site—that’s the rules.

And what does anything have to do with whether I like an image, other than if it’s a good or bad image? I trust that if it’s a bad photographer or bad model who’s done something hideously wrong, the site would have removed them, and therefore that image wouldn’t be there. But it is, so my choice is: do I like the image, not what has the artist done for me to warrant a like. That’s narcissistic at the very least."

I’m not in this mindset of people need to earn a like, if you only like an image because the photographer or artist did something to make you happy then your not really liking the image - your paying the artist and I don’t need paid, I only want people to like my work if my work is likeable.

Your trying to justify forcing people to do something that’s not part of the rules by insisting it’s ethical when in fact it’s not and it’s absolutely nobodies business why people omit certain info from any image, if it’s not there it’s none of your business why unless you were part of that shoot, let it go….

It's not compulsory to say please and thank you, or tidy up after yourself or hold a door for someone; the site can't force people to be courteous.  "
Validity is really for the person hearing the excuse to judge, "I'm not courteous because I don't want to be" is a statement of fact, almost a tautology, but it is not a justification. 

Just like I don't praise the art of Eric Gill (good as it may be) or point to Jimmy Saville's charity work, I don't give a my little crumbs of PP approval to someone who doesn't use PP as I think it should be used. Every now and then people suggest that only photos which tag others should get FPIs (which isn't practical). 

Why someone omitted information which should (not must) be provided, might seem a good reason to you, me, or anyone else. As I said above complete the sentence "I never acknowledge anyone because..." in a way that doesn't show the speaker in a bad light.  The OP was obviously concerned enough about being mistaken for such a person by enough people whose opinions matter to them to start the thread.  One can't conclude anything from the absence of one tag. 

Here’s where you're getting it wrong—you're assuming that every time someone doesn’t tag, it’s because they’re withholding something from you. It’s all 'you, you, you.'

But in reality, it’s more likely due to a non-selfish reason, like the person simply didn’t want to be tagged, or there could be any number of valid reasons that have nothing to do with you. As I’ve said before, if you weren’t part of that shoot, it’s none of your business. It’s classic narcissism to believe that everything revolves around you, even a shoot you were not involved in.

Here’s the available option when an image doesn’t contain extra information (which is not cumpulsary to add): you either like the image or you don’t. It’s that simple. What I don't get is this 'I’ll only like it if you meet my demands' attitude. and youy talk of politeness :-) 

I've disagreed with you and others on this forum, because everyone’s entitled to their opinion. But I’ve still liked images you’ve created, haven’t I? Still suggested a couple, right? Did I put a cost on that? Nope, because I like what I like. When I look at an image, I’m not judging the artist, just the art and i dont charge for it.

Keep your vote ide rather not have it, its way to expensive :-) but thankyou 

Edited by ANDY00

CalmNudes said

I don't give a my little crumbs of PP approval to someone who doesn't use PP as I think it should be used.

I've removed the context in which you said that, but does isolating it result in my misrepresenting you?  I don't believe so.

And if it is, as I believe, a fair extract of what you said, I believe it says everything I need to know.