Jump to content

What are some of your pet peeves?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 169 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Cinos Field said:

I have *never* witnessed furry sims that don't allow human avatars to at least visit. Like, over almost 14 years of SL I've not seen it a single time, whereas I still run into the reverse. (I keep a human in my pocket for those occasions)

Same. I have never seen a sim, that focused on any non-human avatar be against human avatars visiting. The other way is indeed awfully common, which makes me even more hesitant to go out with my avatars, because I always have that thought in the back of my head, that anything more than maybe elf ears isn't welcome. (On RP sims I can totally understand it, but those aren't the places I go to anyway)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Oh I just have one pet peeve. I really can't stand people who are annoyed by either of the following: empty profiles, 'unreadable' fonts, unmatching body parts, flexi prims, AO-less avis, jazz hands,

DJs/hosts teleport inviting their "friends"

I'm not apportioning blame for what's been going on in this forum recently, because that's one thing that appears to start a thread on its downward spiral. Like many of us here - I am absolutely

Posted Images

4 hours ago, Syo Emerald said:
8 hours ago, Cinos Field said:

I have *never* witnessed furry sims that don't allow human avatars to at least visit. Like, over almost 14 years of SL I've not seen it a single time, whereas I still run into the reverse. (I keep a human in my pocket for those occasions)

Same. I have never seen a sim, that focused on any non-human avatar be against human avatars visiting. The other way is indeed awfully common, which makes me even more hesitant to go out with my avatars, because I always have that thought in the back of my head, that anything more than maybe elf ears isn't welcome. (On RP sims I can totally understand it, but those aren't the places I go to anyway)

I like to visit fury and gay places because I'm usually ignored or, at least, I'm not constantly hit-on to drop my pants. And the local people (or fauna, if you like LOL) are (usually) amazingly friendly and upbeat.

Edited by Alyona Su
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting some thing sent out of the blue  that when you ask the merchant wth it is they claim ignorance, then claim it must be from 'an admirire' at some event you never heard from that seems to be tied to this upcoming Greeting Card Industry 'celebration'.  To say the least with all the phishing stuff going on - dumb. If not tacky - ok a bit of tacky is OK, this is SL.

Wondering if can report it as spam....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lelutka groupchat:

-why my face is white out of the box?why no skins?i see only young,oily and other settings, no skin!

some people respond that she need to add tattoo layer, because new heads are made bom.

-ok,simple quastion,why my head i white???

uuuuuuuuh

Link to post
Share on other sites

Person in a clothes gropchat asks:

-How i can redeliver my body?(maitreya)

lots of people asnwers how and there person can get hud and how to redeliver.

- But notices gives me only notecard!

another person sends gyazo with giant white arrows which shows where is redelivery hud.(under notecard notice,lol)

3 mins later....

-But i still get only notecard!

....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that annoys me, which I guess is just considered a pet peeve is when people who take raw screenshots in SL somehow think they're superior because they don't use PS on their SL pictures. That's all fine and dandy, but PS is also an art form. Just because you don't edit in game doesn't make you a better SL 'fauxtographer'. It just means you're decent with wind lights. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ashlyn Voir said:

Something that annoys me, which I guess is just considered a pet peeve is when people who take raw screenshots in SL somehow think they're superior because they don't use PS on their SL pictures. That's all fine and dandy, but PS is also an art form. Just because you don't edit in game doesn't make you a better SL 'fauxtographer'. It just means you're decent with wind lights. 

As someone who intentionally takes "near-unedited" photos, I fully agree with you. I've even got a few lines in my flickr bio on this point. Sadly I've experienced the reverse; people who think that your work is worthless unless you've edited a shot until the original is unrecognisable, or who think that "green-screen" edits are the only worthwhile photos.

A painter is not inherently better or worse than a sculptor on the basis of the tools they choose to use alone. It's what you do with those tools that counts.

Edit: but if you're too lazy to even rename your upload-from-viewer snapshot, I retain the right to judge you :P

Edited by AyelaNewLife
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AyelaNewLife said:

or who think that "green-screen" edits are the only worthwhile photos.

   Chromakey images done by people who do not understand lighting, shadows or resolution, ugh. And besides, unless you're doing something very specific, there's rarely any actual point in doing an actual chromakey, especially if you can't actually be bothered to do it properly (i.e. leave a green halo around your cut-out because you're a sloppy editor).

   Much easier to just pose in front of a prim and upload a locally saved texture to it, but a 2D backdrop and shadows are seldom going to work.

   "Look at me posing in front of the Eiffel Tower - and casting a shadow on the whole thing, and the sky around it, and half of Paris!".

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ashlyn Voir said:

Something that annoys me, which I guess is just considered a pet peeve is when people who take raw screenshots in SL somehow think they're superior because they don't use PS on their SL pictures. That's all fine and dandy, but PS is also an art form. Just because you don't edit in game doesn't make you a better SL 'fauxtographer'. It just means you're decent with wind lights. 

1 hour ago, AyelaNewLife said:

As someone who intentionally takes "near-unedited" photos, I fully agree with you. I've even got a few lines in my flickr bio on this point. Sadly I've experienced the reverse; people who think that your work is worthless unless you've edited a shot until the original is unrecognisable, or who think that "green-screen" edits are the only worthwhile photos.

A painter is not inherently better or worse than a sculptor on the basis of the tools they choose to use alone. It's what you do with those tools that counts.

Edit: but if you're too lazy to even rename your upload-from-viewer snapshot, I retain the right to judge you :P

I highly disagree.

I see post editing as covering up your inability to work skillfully with the tools and find solutions to problems at hand. I could name you a million metaphors but one is enough:

In a game, that is meant to be hard, reaching a certain point, beating a boss or finishing the game is an achievement, it is something you can be proud of, something of value, something you can show to someone else and say "look i managed to beat this boss i'm not that bad after all". Post editing is like modding the game to be easier, be it with cheats that simply skip levels, mechanics or make you invulnerable or give you everything or outright changing the game to be easier.

Taking pictures in Second Life is exactly the same. A picture you edited afterwards to cover up all the mistakes you didn't see or fix or couldn't fix because you don't know how for whatever reason is like cheating. Each and every picture has its story, its own character. How someone takes a picture and what mistakes they make tells you a lot about the person in question. By editing pictures you basically "fancy" up your job application, you say you can do all these things, but you actually cant and you are too lazy to learn them. Each and every mistake you make in a picture is a unique little trait of your picture and of Second Life. I say this because i can usually tell pictures apart which Viewer is used because my Viewer for instance has a very distinct way of rendering certain things and this shows in pictures, the colors, the way shadows look, how lighting interacts with things, a lot of little details, they all make up the final image which tells a whole story. Pictures can be much more than simple still images, edited pictures on the other hand don't have this charme, these characteristics that the original picture would have.

Everytime someone choses to "just edit in post in PS" for whatever reason a tiny part of me dies, it makes me sad that people have to take these drastic measures instead of simply staying true to their original picture and learning to make it better without touching them up.

I always keep saying "anyone can just edit the picture, only skilled people can do right without editing" what i mean by that isn't that photoshopping isn't skillfull, you obviously need some knowledge and skills to work with Photoshop too, i for instance can't work with Photoshop at all (i use GIMP and found Photoshop way too complicated for even the simplest things like recoloring) but then again i don't want to. Knowing photoshop editing and knowing Second Life photography are 2 completely different worlds however. One is just knowing how to use the photoshop toolset and clicking filters, the other is knowing the ins and outs of Second Life. Second Life photography is more than photoshopping will ever be simply because the picture you take in Second Life isn't immediately done and all you are doing is playing with sliders to get the colors right, wrong. Positioning your avatar, possibly posing it, finding the right camera angle, setting up a scene, setting up the lighting, tuning all the many little details of rendering, knowing how and where to position your camera, creating a Second Life snapshot is so much more than selecting a windlight (unless of course that's all you do). It takes me up to an hour to create just one single good picture (most of that time is spent on Posing but that's part of photography too, the rest is fiddling a lot with render settings, making changes to camera, trying to find ways to implement a feature i want in the picture, like reflections maybe and "bugfixing", getting rid of faulty alpha states, masking them to make them look proper, de-fullbrighting things that shouldn't be fullbright like plants and generally a lot of scene cleanup to make everything as perfect as possible). Taking pictures is easy, taking a good picture is harder, taking THE picture is a skill compared to photoshopping, just like being a real-life photographer is a skill compared to being a Second Life photographer.

It saddens me to see that so many people favor edited pictures over unedited pictures just because they changed the colors slightly and added a blinding lens flare on top that doesn't add anything to the picture but making it unbearable to look at. It shows me that people don't want unedited pictures for some reason i can only assume must be something along the lines of "too boring", maybe because they have never actually seen good pictures being taken.

 

TL:DR

Good unedited pictures are an art, they are work and they tell stories.

Photoshop is cheating, doesn't have any character and doesn't tell the user anything.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NiranV Dean said:

TL:DR

Good unedited pictures are an art, they are work and they tell stories.

Photoshop is cheating, doesn't have any character and doesn't tell the user anything.

I concur, with this caveat: post-editing is useful if done in a skillful way and I don't mean filters a la Instagram. The best post-editing, no matter your editor of choice, is when it doesn't look like it has been edited in post; less is more. Far too many are overdone. The best edits are when they cannot been see by anyone other than the one who did it and only because they know where to look. Sometimes only a LUT change or vignettes is the answer (which requires post editing if not using Black Dragon viewer). If it can be done in-viewer then I'll do it in-viewer. But when it cannot... Because I rarely shoot on a whim, I also like to see my end result in my head before I take the first step in preparing the scene.

Among the best cameras in the world is Leica. Smartphones have more features and cost a lot less and Leica can run you thousands of dollar, even more than a good Nikon or Canon in the States. But a Leica photograph when compared to anything else? Yeah, that's the point.

The issue is that too many people use Photoshop like a sledge-hammer when they really need a jeweler's chisel.

10 hours ago, Ashlyn Voir said:

Something that annoys me, which I guess is just considered a pet peeve is when people who take raw screenshots in SL somehow think they're superior because they don't use PS on their SL pictures. That's all fine and dandy, but PS is also an art form. Just because you don't edit in game doesn't make you a better SL 'fauxtographer'. It just means you're decent with wind lights. 

Perhaps, but is that a reason to actually judge the photographer, rather than the merits of the image itself? I see a lot of eye-rolling pictures all the time (I create them myself ~facepalm~) but I never judge the person creating them for it. In the case you example: it is simply that they do not know what they do not know (the reason to change F.O.V. for example.)

4 hours ago, AyelaNewLife said:

As someone who intentionally takes "near-unedited" photos, I fully agree with you. I've even got a few lines in my flickr bio on this point. Sadly I've experienced the reverse; people who think that your work is worthless unless you've edited a shot until the original is unrecognisable, or who think that "green-screen" edits are the only worthwhile photos.

This also, and I concur completely.

*****

Here's the thing, folks: the reason they say "a picture is worth a thousand words" isn't that those thousand words will come from you. It's that a thousand people could come up with a different word.

On this general subject, I suppose my pet peeve: people who judge the creator based on the quality of the creation, rather than the creation itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

The best post-editing, no matter your editor of choice, is when it doesn't look like it has been edited in post; less is more. Far too many are overdone. The best edits are when they cannot been see by anyone other than the one who did it and only because they know where to look. 

And here you delivered the ultimate reason why post editing in SL is not good.

You simply cannot create a picture that is impossible to decipher as edited, someone will always be able to tell that your picture has been edited if it is simply because of the reasons i named. Second Life and how it looks, with all its quirks and bugs is unique, if you change anything in the picture post you are changing and/or removing these quirks thus you make it visible that you edited the picture. The only picture that would be impossible to tell apart is a picture that simply wasn't edited at all and if you want to make a "less-is-more" picture that doesn't reveal that it is edited then you simply not edit it at all. Further, if you were to create a picture that is edited that is impossible to tell that it was indeed edited, it would raise the question why you edited it at all since you cannot see the edit, thus the edit not being important thus making the edit obsolete in the first place. Just like adding graphic effects that you don't see. You don't add projector shadows if there aren't any projectors to cast a shadow, it would raise the question whether using projectors was necessary (which it wasn't since you don't see them).

For an edit to be useful, it needs to be visible, otherwise its a pointless edit, if an edit is visible, it is possible to pinpoint it and tell the picture apart from non-edited pictures. This applies to many things, not just editing pictures or graphics in general, its the same with basically anything, i mean you don't put something in your food that doesn't do anything just so its there, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NiranV Dean said:

if you change anything in the picture post you are changing and/or removing these quirks thus you make it visible that you edited the picture

Perhaps, though this is the "sledge hammer" I refer to. Clipping hair? I leave it. Brushing out a neck seam? I don't do it. But in the end it's all moot, because these are synthetically-generated illustrations, not photographs, if we're splitting hairs about it.

In the end, there is the purist method (the person who uses this simplest Leica that only has a focus ring and a shutter button and nothing else) and there is the gadget-head (the person who who changes what is into something entirely different through many means) - I don't knock either method. It's the art (or lack thereof) itself that I try focus on.

The unskilled just tend to always do the same thing over and over again. The truest art form is when one pushes themselves to create something entirely new very time.

At least, that's how I see it. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, NiranV Dean said:

For an edit to be useful, it needs to be visible, otherwise its a pointless edit, if an edit is visible, it is possible to pinpoint it and tell the picture apart from non-edited pictures.

If I make an edit it’s to remove a technical flaw like a piece of avatar poking through clothing. The edit is technically visible, but you wouldn’t know it unless you were looking at the unedited photo beside it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, NiranV Dean said:

Further, if you were to create a picture that is edited that is impossible to tell that it was indeed edited, it would raise the question why you edited it at all since you cannot see the edit, thus the edit not being important thus making the edit obsolete in the first place.

You don't use neck fixes, do you? :/ 

I agree with the rest of what you say, but sometimes it's not possible to get rid that damned mismatch inworld.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

Perhaps, though this is the "sledge hammer" I refer to. Clipping hair? I leave it. Brushing out a neck seam? I don't do it. But in the end it's all moot, because these are synthetically-generated illustrations, not photographs, if we're splitting hairs about it.

In the end, there is the purist method (the person who uses this simplest Leica that only has a focus ring and a shutter button and nothing else) and there is the gadget-head (the person who who changes what is into something entirely different through many means) - I don't knock either method. It's the art (or lack thereof) itself that I try focus on.

The unskilled just tend to always do the same thing over and over again. The truest art form is when one pushes themselves to create something entirely new very time.

At least, that's how I see it. :)

Yes but i am literally a hairsplitter. I see huge differences where others don't.

11 minutes ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

If I make an edit it’s to remove a technical flaw like a piece of avatar poking through clothing. The edit is technically visible, but you wouldn’t know it unless you were looking at the unedited photo beside it. 

Haha. Tell that to the person who said that the tiling issue is only visible with SSAO on. I quickly debunked that and i assure you that if you fix clipping, it will be noticeable, everything is unless you scale down the picture so much that it becomes impossible to see such details but then again we're raising the question whether the edit was necessary because scaling it down so much that it becomes impossible to see, you'll most likely eliminate so much details in the picture that the clipping would have been fixed by that as well... which kinda brings up the question again whether the edit was necessary which it wasn't.

9 minutes ago, Garnet Psaltery said:

You don't use neck fixes, do you? :/ 

I agree with the rest of what you say, but sometimes it's not possible to get rid that damned mismatch inworld.

N...neck.. fixes? What is that? More of that human stuff you pay too much money for?

Does my neck look like it needs fixing?

unknown.png

Also, yes, sometimes its not possible to get rid of a mismatch but i do give it my best and i mean i spent 3 hours on making my sergal genital match with the body by taking the body texture and editing it in such a way that it overlaps the base body texture and fits perfectly.... at least when theres no light around because that GODDAMN light always shows all the stupid prim transitions.... we need a prim transition smoothing shader.

Edited by NiranV Dean
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

While I will rather firmly state to anyone who asks that it is far better to not edit a snapshot unless you're looking to enter a contest or looking for Flickr/Social media Brownie Points (useless things that they are), I'll also rather firmly state that if your stance is that no edits should ever be done or that an edit is always obvious ... Well you're simply wrong and haven't a singular clue.

A well made edit requires that you have access to the original image to tell that it was edited. If you - the final observer - cannot tell it is edited without being able to see the original, the edit was properly done. Beginning and end of story.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 169 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...