Since I was banned by DP Reviews for announcing my switch from Canon to PENTAX, it has created quite a hurricane of controversy at DP Reviews..

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&thread=22568682&page=1

Ben,

I wouldn't worry too much. Phil is a little.......eccentric. Everyone knows it, and makes allowances.

I think it's funny. I've really never used any other photography forum except this one and that's one of the reasons. In the 2 years I've been on this site, the only people I've known of that have been banned were blatant "spammers"!
Ben, you don't come anywhere close to that, from what I've seen on anyother forum.
Yes, you, deservedly, blow your own horn, AND you do speak up your equipment, but then, so do we all!!! Isn't that what art is all about????
I really appreciate you and I know everyone here does as well. I hope you continue with us for a long time!!!
Ken

I think it's funny. I've really never used any other photography forum except this one and that's one of the reasons. In the 2 years I've been on this site, the only people I've known of that have been banned were blatant "spammers"!
Ben, you don't come anywhere close to that, from what I've seen on anyother forum.
Yes, you, deservedly, blow your own horn, AND you do speak up your equipment, but then, so do we all!!! Isn't that what art is all about????
I really appreciate you and I know everyone here does as well. I hope you continue with us for a long time!!!
Ken

Being that you and Photo John are such wonderful human beings, I don't see any reason I would wish to leave this very fine and balanced forum...

Sincerely
Ben

I used to read DPreview all the time, but I find myself there less and less. The amount of stupid posts & arguments that are started over there is just getting ridiculous.

Plus, Photographyreview is much more civilized and has great info which is much easier to find

Since I was banned by DP Reviews for announcing my switch from Canon to PENTAX, it has created quite a hurricane of controversy at DP Reviews..

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&thread=22568682&page=1

Although I did not see the actual postings that got you banned (they were deleted by Phil), they allegedly violated the clearly stated non-commericial advertising policy of DP Review:

"Commercial advertising - Commercial website linking or advertising is not allowed, if you wish to advertise on the site contact us. This rule includes webmasters of other digital photography websites promoting themselves on the forum. You will be banned and have all of your messages removed."

It was not your announcment of any switch. DPR make their money to run the free site by having commercial advertisers pay for the privilage. Having posters doing the same thing for free destroys the business model and the site itself. How would P-J react if I started posting ads here for a business of mine? I'd be labeled a spammer and removed as well.

I used to read DPreview all the time, but I find myself there less and less. The amount of stupid posts & arguments that are started over there is just getting ridiculous.

Plus, Photographyreview is much more civilized and has great info which is much easier to find

I think that DPReview is hilarious. There are some people who know what they're talking about, a lot of people who think they know what they're talking about but don't, and lots and lots of passion - people who are in love with their camera or their manufacturer.

I never contribute to DPReview. It's too - uncivilised. I stick to PhotographyReview and I try to stick to stuff that I'm actually sure of.

Charles

Although I did not see the actual postings that got you banned (they were deleted by Phil), they allegedly violated the clearly stated non-commericial advertising policy of DP Review:

"Commercial advertising - Commercial website linking or advertising is not allowed, if you wish to advertise on the site contact us. This rule includes webmasters of other digital photography websites promoting themselves on the forum. You will be banned and have all of your messages removed."

It was not your announcment of any switch. DPR make their money to run the free site by having commercial advertisers pay for the privilage. Having posters doing the same thing for free destroys the business model and the site itself. How would P-J react if I started posting ads here for a business of mine? I'd be labeled a spammer and removed as well.

What I did was announce the fact that after 18 years of using Canon and being a Canon sponsor here in France, I had decided to change to Pentax. What got me banned I think, was making that announcement on the Canon forum. I figured...Hey, I still own Canon gear, in fact I have more Canon gear than Pentax, so...Ok...Poor Logic Huh?

Anyhow, let's get back to talking about and doing our craft, as this is what we are here for.

Ben

No great loss. DP Review seems to be a lot of pixel peepers who don't actually use their cameras much.

I hung around there for a while, but it got kind of repetitive. How many threads on the supposed vertical banding do we need (I've never seen it in properly exposed photograph).

Now they're onto horizontal banding. Gimme a break.

Like I said, Phil is a bit, well, eccentric. Great place for techno-geeks but I got bored eventually.

Although I did not see the actual postings that got you banned (they were deleted by Phil), they allegedly violated the clearly stated non-commericial advertising policy of DP Review:

"Commercial advertising - Commercial website linking or advertising is not allowed, if you wish to advertise on the site contact us. This rule includes webmasters of other digital photography websites promoting themselves on the forum. You will be banned and have all of your messages removed."

It was not your announcment of any switch. DPR make their money to run the free site by having commercial advertisers pay for the privilage. Having posters doing the same thing for free destroys the business model and the site itself. How would P-J react if I started posting ads here for a business of mine? I'd be labeled a spammer and removed as well.

MW...Not speaking for PJ or PR, one of the nice things about this site is the fact that I can link to my professional site (If you can call it that), and not be considered spamming. Check out my signature. I am not trying to advertise "leavethecamera.com", but I am proud of the pics I put up their for sale. However, if I started stating prices, asking people to purchase my products for that site, listing what pics are available and/or products available, I'm sure I'd get a stiff talking to and if I didn't stop, I'm sure I would, and deservedly so, be banned from PR.

I've seen this subject breached here before and PJ has made it clear that posting a link in your signature is ok as long as it is "photography" related, and that you were not actively asking anyone to purchase anything and also that you are actively posting comments and/or reviews and/or your own photographic work.

There are many of us on here who follow that routine. We are active contributors who, hopefully, provide a valuable service to this site. I guess there is a fine line, but from what I've seen in the past few years, PJ and the other moderators have seemed to keep things well in control.

I have watched your photography and posts and you are an excellent contributor and you make a valid point. But I hope that PR never gets like DP Review. I've learned most of my skills from everyone here and their personal and professional sites.

Anyway, thank you for your point of view. I hope you don't take this as a rant against you, it's not. It's simply a response to your post. I highly respect your opinion.

Ken

No great loss. DP Review seems to be a lot of pixel peepers who don't actually use their cameras much.

I hung around there for a while, but it got kind of repetitive. How many threads on the supposed vertical banding do we need (I've never seen it in properly exposed photograph).

Now they're onto horizontal banding. Gimme a break.

Like I said, Phil is a bit, well, eccentric. Great place for techno-geeks but I got bored eventually.

I have attempted to get banding from my K10D and have not been successful. Perhaps it is more evident on the screen than in print. Perhaps my exposures are too" Correct" to produce banding. I guess if you push any Digital Camera enough you will get banding.

I have attempted to get banding from my K10D and have not been successful. Perhaps it is more evident on the screen than in print. Perhaps my exposures are too" Correct" to produce banding. I guess if you push any Digital Camera enough you will get banding.

How to obtain banding in a K10D (or probably any digital camera):

Take a careful reading of the shot.
Shoot at 1600 ISO (or whatever is highest for your camera).
Make sure you UNDEREXPOSE by at least two stops. Preferably. more
Go into either your RAW processor or Photoshop and push the dark areas to a ridiculous extreme in the Levels command.
VOILA! Vous avez la "banding" horrifique!

Of course the only reason to do so is to post on a pixel peeping forum.

If you want some really nasty results, do this with color negative film. YUCK!

Look... I admit that Phil can get a bit carried away at times. I also recognize that his rules are different than the rules here. But the cold hard fact is simple: DP Review is Phil's site and Phil makes the rules. Saying "It's OK on PR so..." is totally irrelevent. If anyone doesn't like Phil's rules, skip Phil's site.

I look in at DP Review a lot, mostly for the fun of reading the wacky complaints but also for the in-depth camera reviews and news. How many people there spend all their time "testing" their cameras instead of taking photographs? That is hilarious. Anyway... PR has much better information from users, Phil has the lock on camera testing and up-to-the-date news items. That's the way it goes.

Look... I admit that Phil can get a bit carried away at times. I also recognize that his rules are different than the rules here. But the cold hard fact is simple: DP Review is Phil's site and Phil makes the rules. Saying "It's OK on PR so..." is totally irrelevent. If anyone doesn't like Phil's rules, skip Phil's site.

I look in at DP Review a lot, mostly for the fun of reading the wacky complaints but also for the in-depth camera reviews and news. How many people there spend all their time "testing" their cameras instead of taking photographs? That is hilarious. Anyway... PR has much better information from users, Phil has the lock on camera testing and up-to-the-date news items. That's the way it goes.

Well..Let's have a look at what the word "Forum" really means. Perhaps the word "Forum" is inappropriate for Mr. P's site and it could be changed to Mr.P's Place or Mr.P's Country or perhaps Mr.P's Playhouse. Now I won't get into a major diatribe about semantics but, here is the definition of "Forum":

forum |?fôr?m| noun ( pl. forums ) 1 a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged : it will be a forum for consumers to exchange their views on medical research for example or philosophy etc.

Now, that does not seem to be the case at Mr.P's Place.

As you have stated, it is Mr.P's site. So why don't we just call it that?

Ben

Well..Let's have a look at what the word "Forum" really means. Perhaps the word "Forum" is inappropriate for Mr. P's site and it could be changed to Mr.P's Place or Mr.P's Country or perhaps Mr.P's Playhouse. Now I won't get into a major diatribe about semantics but, here is the definition of "Forum":

forum |?fôr?m| noun ( pl. forums ) 1 a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged : it will be a forum for consumers to exchange their views on medical research for example or philosophy etc.

Now, that does not seem to be the case at Mr.P's Place.

As you have stated, it is Mr.P's site. So why don't we just call it that?

Ben

Your obvious bitterness doesn't even change the meaning of "forum" as you have stated it. Exchanging views is exactly what happens regardless of how stupid those views are. What he objects to is the commercial advertising and, when its caught, non-photographic subjects. No silly rename is required. You violated the rules and got kicked. End of story, time to move on.