You ought to have a thick skin, but...

[LaFoto]

... sometimes you find you just don't have as thick a skin as you should have.

Well, actually, this is only about me and about a comment on a photo that got to me just a little, despite my head telling me that some people are just silly or envious or whatnot when they feel compelled to post a comment of the kind.

It is all outside TPF, so has nothing to do with this forum.

But every month, anyone can send photos on a defined subject to our local paper so they go into their monthly photo competition. In April, the subject was "clouds". All the submissions (maximum amount is 4 per person per month) get shown on that paper's internet site. So everyone with internet access can go there and look at the submissions as they arrive and get put into the gallery.

I thought by myself "Oh my! 'Clouds' ... you need not be a photographer at all in order to capture a good photo of clouds. You see them, recognise them for their photographical value, point, and shoot. I'm not going to post a pic this time."

In the end, however, when all the "usual suspects" (there's always the same people participating, this is the countryside!) had already entered their maximum amount of photos, I thought "Ah well, just one photo, just the one!" And posted my one photo on the last but one day in April.

My photo won the competition.

And this morning I get an e-mail alert that someone has commented on my photo, and there is this lady who downright says that my photo "cannot be", "must be cheap photoshopping", and shows an "illogical reflection of a tree that wasn't there to begin with". While true fact was that, indeed, said photo was nothing BUT a "snapshot" of what was there. Pointed. Shot.

Such silly comment should actually leave me totally undisturbed, shouldn't it? I know the tree is there (still is to this day), and I can even see the top part of it, while it's major part of the crown does, indeed, merge with the tree silhouettes in the background - a fact that I personally take as the biggest flaw of this photo. But somehow this comment had me search all my DVDs frantically for the original photo, the all unchanged one, and what did I find? The changes I did were totally minor. To tell you the sad truth: I don't even have the knowledge to apply such "cheap photoshopping" as to "draw" the reflection of a tree into water where in reality there WAS no tree...

Ah, if all this was too much theory for you, then here is the photo for you in the size in which every viewer gets to see it (not my choice but else the pages would not load fast enough).

Some who have been members of TPF for longer may well recognise it. I posted it about a year ago. And Jeff Canes even nominated it for POTM here, such an honour. That's why I thought, what the heck, the jury of the local paper might like it, too. Seems like they did . Only "Irmgard" doesn't.

 

[dslrchat]

Sounds like a Jealous runner up to me.
Nice photo BTW

 

[Antarctican]

It's easier said than done, but try to 'make like a duck' and let her (jealous) comment slide right off you like water off a duck's back. You know the truth. If it bothers you that Irmgard's comment is unchallenged and she might think your silence means her allegation is true, maybe write back with a simple "Irmgard/the commenter is wrong...the tree was present in the original shot and the image was not digitally altered to include it".

And it's a lovely shot, worthy of the win!! :hug::

 

[Chris of Arabia]

I'd go with that too. Can't see much wrong with the photo myself - nice spot

 

[Valethar]

Great pic, in my opinion. :thumbup:

Sounds to me like the comment was made out of jealousy and/or ignorance. She obviously has no concept of perspective, let alone how shadows, reflection and lighting work in the real world.

My suggestion is to ignore her. I understand the visceral reaction to the criticism, given that she almost literally attacked your credibility/honesty. I think quite a few people would have that same reaction if they were the target of such. Just let it go.

 

[LaFoto]

First I thought I'd just ignore her.
Now I actually think that I would be HAPPY if my Photoshop skills were such I COULD place the reflection of a tree that isn't there into rippled water.
Now I wonder if I should write a reply like that "Oh, if only my PS skills reached as far as to place a tree into a photo where originally there was none"?
But all in all I've come to the conclusion that I best simply ignore her.

But Valethar, you are quite right: it is the public attack on my credibility and honesty that got to me. Thanks for giving words to my feelings! Now I finally know what it was that niggled! :hugs: to you.

(By the way: digitally manipulated photography is allowed in that contest, just as a side note).

 

[Overread]

Happens to us all - you can have skin like steel, but one comment by a stranger can throw you at times - just got to ride it out and be confidant that you know that the comment is wrong from the start.

 

[Valethar]

But Valethar, you are quite right: it is the public attack on my credibility and honesty that got to me. Thanks for giving words to my feelings! Now I finally know what it was that niggled! :hugs: to you.

Been there before myself, unfortunately! LOL

 

[Hertz van Rental]

There are a lot of people who talk out of their bottoms.
That is because they keep what few brains they have there.
Some of these people see Photoshopping everywhere.
They don't really know what digital image manipulation is, and they certainly wouldn't recognise it even if it sat up and gave them a haircut, but they have this deep-seated conviction that any picture that wins a competition must have been 'Shopped.
They couldn't have taken the picture so they imagine no-one else can without 'trickery'.
Ignore them and they tend to crawl back under their stone.

 

[LaFoto]

Funny that you mention it, Hertz: there was an entry once (which did not win) of a water droplet. One of the kind of pictures I later made myself (started a bit of a droplet disease here on TPF again ).

Later, when the monthly winners were all invited to get a little prize, and the yearly winner (elected by public voting) got announced, I could hear the other Winners Of The Month talk about that droplet pic among each other and with the man from the newspaper. And they came to the conclusion that "no one can take such photos unless they have a fast speed camera, of course" (newspaper man's words), and that "such photos are totally pro, that's unfair to us amateurs".

I did not speak to anyone of the group during the ceremony, mind you. I just stood there and thought my own thoughts.

And kept thinking my own thoughts when the Winner of the Year was a photo of a horse with no hooves... :roll:

Now you know the quality of said contest, which accounts for the odd winning on my part ... wouldn't happen in ANY other contest!

 

[abraxas]

There is no such thing as "cheap" photoshopping. Even if you have a bootleg copy, karma will come after you.

Is "Irmgard", a name for a "hot chick"- like "Muffy" or "Buffy" is here in the states?

Just thinking out loud.

Congrats!

 

[Rick Waldroup]

I would email the editor and tell him that the image is not manipulated. Then I would tell Irmgard to bite me.

Nice shot.

 

[Garbz]

Actually the first time I saw a photo like this it tripped me up. I can see how the reflection of the tree not visible because it's hidden against the treeline behind it can trip people up. It's just a matter of perspective.

I would take comfort in replying a big lengthy reply complete with the accompanying physics of why the picture looks the way it does, and hope that the person accusing you feels like a downright idiot.

 

[Jedo_03]

Take the same picture from the same spot in DAYLIGHT
Submit it to next months photo competition
Caption it "Last Months winning photo in daylight"
It will be posted on the paper's internet site
There for everyone to see
Including Irmgard..!!
Jedo