New Guidelines...

[Chunk]

I think there should be some requirement that those doing the critiques should post some of their own work periodically. One can know whether to heed another's advice or discount it based on seeing that other person's work.
There are people on here who make frequent critiques (some of them harsh and opinionated) who have very little work on the PR forums or gallery which could be used to determine the validity of the critique.
For example, if someone states that a shot need more color saturation, it would be nice to be able to be somewhat familiar with his work to see if he might be one of those folks who habitually over saturates his work. Or if I pontificate about some point of composition on a critique, the photographer ought to be able to reference my work both to see if this is something I do in my own work or to see examples of the point I'm making.

[walterick]

Chunk, I agree somewhat. I appreciate it when I can see a critiquer's photography to see if their word has any merit. When McMadcow or Gahsidy post a critique I know the point of view they're coming from because they post work. I post some strong criticisms some times but I know there is always a link to my gallery in my posts so that people can "check up" on me to see if I'm full of it or not. Hopefully they'll decide I'm not

I don't think requiring people to post shots will work, but certainly encouraging them to post more or at least including a link to a gallery will do a lot of good imo.

[Ronnoco]

I think there should be some requirement that those doing the critiques should post some of their own work periodically. One can know whether to heed another's advice or discount it based on seeing that other person's work.
There are people on here who make frequent critiques (some of them harsh and opinionated) who have very little work on the PR forums or gallery which could be used to determine the validity of the critique.
For example, if someone states that a shot need more color saturation, it would be nice to be able to be somewhat familiar with his work to see if he might be one of those folks who habitually over saturates his work. Or if I pontificate about some point of composition on a critique, the photographer ought to be able to reference my work both to see if this is something I do in my own work or to see examples of the point I'm making.

Harsh and opinionated is your spin and interpretation but attention to detail is not being harsh, it is what every photographer is judged on by major critics of importance, particularly those with a good eye, who happen to be paying the bills. Ignore details at your peril, in terms of your pay check or your reputation. As for opinionated, it depends on your experience. I am sure that I have considerably more experience in listening to evaluations of photos than you do. It is easy to gain a consensus level of judgement with a lot of experience. Nothing becomes a personal opinion in terms of critique. As a matter of fact, comments on technique or composition are not personal, as anyone who has thoroughly studied the area knows full well.

"Pontificating" is also your characterization and meaningless, if you cannot specifically and objectively disagreee with a comment based on guidelines and rules of technique and composition. Reacting emotionally is definitely the wrong approach.

I have pointed out some technical issues that I have with posting images on this site and my reluctance to do so, although I have posted a couple. Irrespective of that, you don't need to see my work. The point is not my work but the image that is being evaluated.

Anyone knows that looking at the person doing the critique rather than the image is just an excuse for the acceptance of mediocrity. Shoot the messenger and ignore the message...to put the same thing in different terms.

Ronnoco

[gahspidy]

"Anyone knows that looking at the person doing the critique rather than the image is just an excuse for the acceptance of mediocrity. Shoot the messenger and ignore the message...to put the same thing in different terms."
Ronnoco

Ronnoco, I think your off base here. In essence your implying that the message is fact, and that the messenger or person making the critique has no connection to it other than just delivering these facts. Nonsense. First off, the "message" is but one persons opinion and the opinion belongs to the "messenger". The photographer whose picture is being critqued would benefit from knowing the credentials ( such as photographs) of the person offering the critique. Some of us offering critique are not very experienced or professional photographers, but our opinions on whether we like a photograph or not, and why, are just as important and valid as any professional offering technical advice for improvement. I believe photography is art, and art is passion. Sometimes, lots of times, the rules have to fly and the heart must decide if something works. In this forum we must merely explain why. btw, you remind me of a few members we had here from a while back named JoeD, and Elysian. Both from Canada and both offered fiery comments but never posted any of their own work. Any relation?

[Ronnoco]

[QUOTE=gahspidy btw, you remind me of a few members we had here from a while back named JoeD, and Elysian. Both from Canada and both offered fiery comments but never posted any of their own work. Any relation?[/QUOTE]

Well, of course, since Canada is such a "small" country and needless to say we all live in igloos, and according to one American politician we are all a bunch of sex-crazed liberals, it therefore follows logically that we all must be related to each other.

I think your "credentials" and level of logic are showing as well as your shoot the messenger attitude.

Ronnoco

[mtbbrian]

Well, of course, since Canada is such a "small" country and needless to say we all live in igloos, and according to one American politician we are all a bunch of sex-crazed liberals, it therefore follows logically that we all must be related to each other.

I think your "credentials" and level of logic are showing as well as your shoot the messenger attitude.

Ronnoco

We don't need to get personal here. All Gary was doing was pointing out a couple of things that have happened here in the past.
Brian

[payn817]

Brian, the issue was not with the guidelines, but with some suggestions. The guidelines look good. As stated before, I would limit the daily submissions to even less.

Again, if you are going to critique you should post some work too. However, you shouldn't necessarily dismiss a critique because you are not a "fan" of another.

[Ronnoco]

We don't need to get personal here. All Gary was doing was pointing out a couple of things that have happened here in the past.
Brian

Actually Brian you are putting a positive spin on his parting shot, so you are getting personal in an equally negative manner to Garry. Please follow your own advice.

Ronnoco

[Chunk]

Well, of course, since Canada is such a "small" country and needless to say we all live in igloos, and according to one American politician we are all a bunch of sex-crazed liberals, it therefore follows logically that we all must be related to each other.

I think your "credentials" and level of logic are showing as well as your shoot the messenger attitude.

Ronnoco

The body of work (photos as well as insightful critiques) that Gary has shown here over the past couple years are the best kind of credentials for this kind of forum. In this age of inflated resumes, bloated titles, and anonymous claims on the internet a person's visible work is the best gauge of his ability and knowledge. I am very glad that he has shared this knowledge with me on many occasions, sometimes reinforcing what I already thought and other times pointing me in directions I have missed. His style of communication on the forum is one that should be emulated, not put down.
Thanks Gary, for your help over the years.

You, on the other hand, give us no visible credentials. You have given some helpful posts over the past year although your manner of delivery lately has probably limited their effectiveness. The few photos we find among your posts give little chance of seeing whether your 'credentials' are real or virtual.

[srobb]

Not sure what I can add, but I will try. First off, i like the guidelines that have been put forth by Brian and John. I, too, sort of question the two year limit, but also can see posting them in Viewfinder. I know I have some old slides I would love to get cleaned up and scanned sometime and then find out what everyone thought of them. I sometimes think that it would be interesting to see what other people could do.

I am by no means an expert at photography. Do I want to get there? You bet your sweet bippy! And I know that I need the critique of those that have a little knowledge about the subject. I find friends and family to be rather biased. ;) I know my talent level is not near some of those who post on PR, but I also know that my talent level can become better by listening to what some of these people have to say. My problem is getting past a lifetime of feeling nothing I do is worht anything.

As far as someone shooting a messenger, I didn't do it. I can tell you this, though. That messenger could have the most book learning of anyone out there, but that does not mean they are an expert. If I can't look at someone's work to see if they truly know what they are talking about, then nothing they can say is any good to me.

[GB1]

Gentlemen, Gentlemen... do we have a little dissension in the ranks?!? Some of this sounds pretty childish. Maybe the winter's been too long, for all of us.

I've read here that there isn't enough focus on things like composition and color saturation. While this is important technical stuff that every photographer absolutely must master, having that knowledge and skill will not make you a good photographer. I find myself commenting on the tecnical stuff all the time and perhaps ignoring other factors: in essense, I am providing canned critiques, and I'm now trying to break out of that rut.

What I really like about the critiques here is their variety. Some folks don't comment on the technical aspects at all, but instead on the human aspects. I personally find this the most beneficial.

Regarding great work vs. stuff that didn't work out and we want to know why -

This is a tough one because, hasn't everyone felt at one time or another that about 99 percent of the postings that day or two just aren't that good and gotten slightly depressed about it? Sometimes a really nice shot that's an OBVIOUS really nice shot is refreshing.. to me, anyhow. But at the same time, has anyone visited photo.net's forums???? It's all excellant work. If you comment on it, 95 percent of the time the poster never replies or acknowledges, and if they do they don't seem too happy about any critisism. I've asked myself why they even bother posting, and have finally concluded it is just to either drum up some business, or show off. It's totally different than PR's forums. I'll take PRs any day too - we give and receive honest critiques here.

GB

[jar_e]

I've read here that there isn't enough focus on things like composition and color saturation. While this is important technical stuff that every photographer absolutely must master, having that knowledge and skill will not make you a good photographer. I find myself commenting on the tecnical stuff all the time and perhaps ignoring other factors: in essense, I am providing canned critiques, and I'm now trying to break out of that rut.

What I really like about the critiques here is their variety. Some folks don't comment on the technical aspects at all, but instead on the human aspects. I personally find this the most beneficial.

GB,

Couldn't agree with you more. And I hope the guidelines never become so strict and solid that we all have to follow a general way to do a critique. As I'm sure many of you know, I try to critique every photo that comes onto the photo critique forums. Until last week, I hadn't put photos on for a few months...so my post count is largely based on giving critiques and repsonding to the photographer' questions about my critiques.

I know some posters (I won't name names) have become a little complacement and wishy-washy with my critiques, as they don't seem to be constructive, but I assure you all you had to do is ask and I will explain what I mean more.

Regarding great work vs. stuff that didn't work out and we want to know why -

Well, this is a tough issue, but my thoughts on the subject are this. Only my best and favourite shots end up in this forum. Out of say...100 pictures I take, maybe 5 will end up on this critique forum. This is two folded...first, I already know the photo is a dud and it has no place or purpose after I download it off my camera. And secondly, I only want to show off my "good" work....stuff that would actually make it to the public's eye. As with any photographer, the pile of that end up in the trash is large compared to the ones that you let others see. If I plan on printing a picture or making it available to others via online or other sources, it comes through this forum first. This is pretty much an additional step to my post processing before it ends up on paper. I appreciate the comments for all of them.

Well, taht's my rant and totally off topic jibbering