New Guidelines...

Printable View

  • 03-29-2006, 02:30 PM
    mtbbrian
    New Guidelines...
    Just letting you know that John and I have come up with some new guidelines for the Critique Forum.
    If you have any feedback please comment here.
    I'll stick this for a month or so for comment.
    Brian
  • 03-29-2006, 06:11 PM
    walterick
    Re: New Guidelines...
    It all sounds great to me.

    A little confused about this one though:
    "Please post recent work - avoid posting photos more than two years old."

    Care to expand on the rationale?
  • 03-29-2006, 10:02 PM
    GB1
    Re: New Guidelines...
    I actually prefer that someone does attach multiple shots in one posting if they're part of a series, but I don't think that has to mean they have to be the same subject shot from a different angle or whatever.

    For example, if someone uploaded a posting called 'Walking a Trai'l, I think it could have four different shots; flowers, wildlife, a stream, and the group at the end. Not the same subject or "photograph", but still related to each other. This tells a story and to me it's better to see them all in context rather than each in a separate posting.

    -GB
  • 03-30-2006, 12:55 AM
    gahspidy
    Re: New Guidelines...
    I am good with these guide lines. However, i really feel that one should critique three photos for every one posted. For me, having a photo critiqued by the members of this forum( greatest critique forum on the web) has been an invaluable tool for my photography and is easily worth three for every one I post. Besides, critiqueing other photographers work has also lent itself to further analyzation of my own work and thus has been a help to me as well.
    As for not posting multiple images in one thread, I agree. It gets somewhat tedious tackling multiple images and also , I think, tends to dilute the thought process involved with each picture. But, I think it is OK when asking the forum about their advice on multiple images related to a specific theme ,for example, srobbs thread titled "Could these work for my series?"
    These are good guide lines and will make the forum an even better one than the great one it is now.
  • 03-30-2006, 09:16 AM
    mtbbrian
    Re: New Guidelines...
    To answer your question first Rick.
    I kind of see that particular guidline as a way to get feedback on your current work, work that shows where your photography is right now. A lot of "photo clubs" have a similiar "rule" for their competitions. It's not that work older than two years isn't worth while. I think that showing current work will help you grow better as a photographer.
    I think that showing older work should be done elsewhere, like Viewfinder. Like that, "Post a Photo From The 90's" thread I started a while ago.
    I know there is a lot to be gained by looking at older work, it's just that I don't think it works here.
    Make sense?

    I can see what you are talking about GB, I guess I didn't think about series stuff. I was thinking of posts that contain multiple random photographs.

    I hear you Gary, critiquing anothers photographs is also about creating a relationship with the other photographer. So the more photographs you comment on, the more likely you are to have your own photographs commented on too.

    Brian
  • 03-30-2006, 09:42 AM
    OldSchool
    Re: New Guidelines...
    Hi guys,

    I think new guidelines is an excellent idea. However, I would go further by adding additional guidance in addition to just criteria.

    A good critique takes time to write. Likewise, one should take appropriate time to digest a critique they have received. Critiques are valuable and should not be asked for willy-nilly.

    I think we need stronger words that suggests submitted images should be works in progress or something one is sincerely pondering. When people dig through their archives and post here just for the sake of it… well it kind of defeats the purpose of this board (and burns me out). Also when people post a whole bunch of images, I wonder if they are really interested in improving their work – or just sharing what they shot. If one is just sharing, share on the other boards.

    I also think it would be good to add words suggesting that those critiquing should evaluate things like exposure, focus, depth of field, lighting, white balance (or color cast), balance, space, depth (foreground, middle, and background), color, leading lines, emotion, story, etc. as well as over all impact (“I would hang that on my wall!”).

    I also agree with Gary that a 3 critiques to single post ratio would serve us better.

    Also, for me, what would really improve this board is the addition of an image thumbnail for each post. But, that is a board suggestion and not a guideline thing.

    Just my 0.02,
    Tim
  • 03-30-2006, 09:45 AM
    GB1
    Re: New Guidelines...
    Brian,

    Also, I understand that many people do not want their images manipulated. I personally don't mind it, feeling that this site is a 'workshop', and if someone has an idea on a crop or can show me something by doing some digital manipulation on my photo and showing it in a reply, that would make me a better photographer.

    Perhaps the guidelines could say that other's work should not be manipulated *unless* they give their permission. A person who doesn't mind could then either include a note saying that in the photo desc, or put a note in their 'signature' so that it appears on every posting?

    GB
  • 03-30-2006, 08:25 PM
    Photo-John
    Re: New Guidelines...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by OldSchool
    Also, for me, what would really improve this board is the addition of an image thumbnail for each post. But, that is a board suggestion and not a guideline thing.

    We have a Photo Critique section in the gallery, too. There are thumbnails there. There's not much point in trying to morph this message board into a gallery when we already have one.
  • 03-30-2006, 08:27 PM
    Photo-John
    Version III
    Looking at some of feedback, I think Brian and I can do another version, incorporating some of the new ideas. Maybe we can do a new version in a week or so.

    Thanks for the comments there are some good ideas here.
  • 03-30-2006, 09:03 PM
    Ronnoco
    Re: New Guidelines...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by OldSchool
    Hi guys,

    I also think it would be good to add words suggesting that those critiquing should evaluate things like exposure, focus, depth of field, lighting, white balance (or color cast), balance, space, depth (foreground, middle, and background), color, leading lines, emotion, story, etc. as well as over all impact (“I would hang that on my wall!”).

    Tim

    Tim is certainly correct in assessing that there is much too little in terms of comment on technique and composition and that is what the critique forum should be all about.

    Ronnoco
  • 03-30-2006, 09:05 PM
    JSPhoto
    Re: New Guidelines...
    Umm, well one thing I think though is the 2 year old limit - for two reasons:

    1: posters such as OT are now scanning photos they took 30 years ago to get an idea of what people think about them.

    2: Photos I take that are used in the paper or were "run" by the AP I can't do anything with for 2 years after first publication - this keeps those photos unavailable for critique if I wanted to have it.

    JS
  • 03-30-2006, 09:15 PM
    Ronnoco
    Re: New Guidelines...
    Those posting should be looking for an honest evaluation and suggestions for improvement, rather than praise for less than top quality work and those in the role of doing the critique should be providing less encouragement with false praise and more ideas for improving technique and composition. Otherwise learning cannot take place and no one benefits.

    Ronnoco
  • 03-31-2006, 05:36 AM
    Chunk
    Re: New Guidelines...
    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.
  • 03-31-2006, 05:47 AM
    Chunk
    Re: New Guidelines...
    Another thing that could be in there is asking that the posting photographer at least acknowledge the critiques they receive. It helps if the people doing the critiquing know that their time and opinion is appreciated. One can also learn more in a dialog than a monolog.
  • 03-31-2006, 08:03 AM
    walterick
    Re: New Guidelines...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mtbbrian
    To answer your question first Rick.
    I kind of see that particular guidline as a way to get feedback on your current work, work that shows where your photography is right now. A lot of "photo clubs" have a similiar "rule" for their competitions. It's not that work older than two years isn't worth while. I think that showing current work will help you grow better as a photographer.
    I think that showing older work should be done elsewhere, like Viewfinder. Like that, "Post a Photo From The 90's" thread I started a while ago.
    I know there is a lot to be gained by looking at older work, it's just that I don't think it works here.
    Make sense?Brian

    I see your point. I think that we can grow as photographers by having our older work critiqued as well. It doesn't matter when we took the picture, just that we learn what could have been done better. I could still learn how to frame landscapes better if my picture is a week old or a decade old. You know? What's important is that it changes the way we shoot now, even if the photo wasn't taken now.

    It sounds to me like you guys are trying to "toughen up" the critique section? Maybe I'm off there. But we do see a lot of newbies posting their first shots here, probably without a conceptualization of what a "critique" is, even after reading the guidelines. I'd hate to turn some kid off to photography because he got thrown to the wolves unknowningly. A few "great shot!" comments can mean a lot sometimes, too.

    Just my .02. I trust you guys at the helm :)
  • 03-31-2006, 08:10 AM
    walterick
    Re: New Guidelines...
    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.
  • 03-31-2006, 08:14 AM
    walterick
    Re: New Guidelines...
    I agree that having multiple shots in one thread is helpful. To me, it is helpful because the critique forum is always getting bombarded with work and if I can see three shots in one thread it makes it easier to get through it all.
  • 03-31-2006, 08:33 AM
    mtbbrian
    Re: New Guidelines...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by walterick
    I agree that having multiple shots in one thread is helpful. To me, it is helpful because the critique forum is always getting bombarded with work and if I can see three shots in one thread it makes it easier to get through it all.

    Rick,
    My thoughts on that were to not have multiple randoms in one post. Series or "which is better a, b, or c , that is a pretty similiar version of a same photograph is one thing.
    I see what you are saying, but I see the opposite. With multiple photographs I see the potential for only being able to respond to only one photograph. Besides, I would rather give a quality comment on one photograph rather than a short, one for all of the posted photographs. I hear what you are saying, but something inspiring can be said that will keep a newbie coming back.
    Brian
  • 03-31-2006, 08:44 AM
    mtbbrian
    Re: New Guidelines...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ronnoco
    Those posting should be looking for an honest evaluation and suggestions for improvement, rather than praise for less than top quality work and those in the role of doing the critique should be providing less encouragement with false praise and more ideas for improving technique and composition. Otherwise learning cannot take place and no one benefits.

    Ronnoco

    This is just what we are wanting to accomplish.
    I have a lot of experience with in person critiques, mostly from college and some with the various photography groups I have been apart of over the years and believe you me, doing it here is both easier and harder than doing it in person.
    Here there is a fine line we have to walk between, there are a lot of new people that need that "false praise" at first, but someone like you and me need no no nonesense comments.
    Brian
  • 03-31-2006, 08:58 AM
    Loupey
    A different perspective...
    The two year limit is not constructive in my opinion. Look at it from my (new member) perspective: you veterans of PR with 2/3/4/5 years of posting have already cycled through your older photos so posting those photos now doesn’t make sense to you. However, a new member may be just as proud of a ten-year-old photo as one taken yesterday and eager to open up both images for review. Personally, I have taken a long break from photography have just (last year actually) started taking pictures seriously and regularly again. For me, 95+% of my best images are older than 2 years and I not “digging through” my work to post them here. My older work is indicative of how I work today so I find it valid to get critiques on them. People don’t come to my house and comment on the photographs on my wall only to say, “…oh, it’s too bad you took that photograph 10 years ago”.

    We all are attached to our own work. No matter how hard we may try, we are all biased to some degree. Having honest and constructive criticism, no matter when the photo was taken, is the key to improving one’s work. Would you rather we post photos like “… a shot I took yesterday during my stroll through the woods and I happened to have my camera along” or one we took a decade ago that took time and effort to setup and shoot?

    I think that if this becomes a hard and fast guideline, you will miss out on a vast resource of ideas out there. How many people will you be turning away once they realize that they will not be able to post some earlier work for critique? Perhaps I am in the minority here. It would be helpful to hear the opinions of other new members.

    I am not upset. I am in agreement that there needs to be more constructive criticism in this forum. Recent threads here have been off-putting to say the least. So much so that I have found myself viewing less, commenting less, and posting less. Who needs all that negativity? Has it always been like this?
  • 03-31-2006, 09:47 AM
    Chunk
    Re: New Guidelines...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mtbbrian
    Here there is a fine line we have to walk between, there are a lot of new people that need that "false praise" at first, but someone like you and me need no no nonesense comments.
    Brian

    I give a lot of people praise, I think, but I don't think any of it has been false. That said, I do think there was an upswing in critiqueless 'that's nice' kind of replies a while back after there was a complaint about not getting enough responses.

    One can mention what one likes about a shot (praise) as well as suggesting improvements. I think suggesting alternatives is a better way of doing things than posting 'that's wrong' or 'it doesn't follow the rules' comments.
  • 03-31-2006, 05:46 PM
    Ronnoco
    Re: New Guidelines...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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.

    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
  • 04-01-2006, 02:09 AM
    gahspidy
    Re: New Guidelines...
    "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?
  • 04-01-2006, 08:45 AM
    payn817
    Re: New Guidelines...
    One or two photos per day, with the exception of varations ( in the same thread) seems like it would be better. It would allow more time to critique photos, and ensure posts get an adequate time on the first page of the thread index for all to see. As it is, sometimes people's posts move down so quickly that many never see them. If I go out for a day and then login there's like a ton new posts, sometimes multiples by one person. I realize I was once guilty of that myself.

    I agree to a degree on the more useful critique. However, let's say you see something and think it is good, and others have already critiqued it and pointed out everything you like and you cannot find anything wrong with it, you should just not post at all? Sometimes, there is nothing left to say. For me it is still difficult to explain with exact technical detail why I like something, so therefore, I should not offer my opinion?

    As for representing yourself, that can be weird. There are a few people around that only post what they aren't sure of. If you look at their work, it may seem they don't know anything. Further complicating the matter is the level of experience, or specialization in an area of work. For example, someone posts a portrait, and I say I don't like it for X reason. They look me up and say to themselves, he is not worthy to critique me because he doesn't do portraits. Likewise, I say it is excellent, and the exact same can happen. I have had little time with any one system (slowing learning), and under a year experience, so I don't have massive galleries with excellent work, so I am irrelevant? There are many people around in these positions.

    Guess we all need to go take a course so we can be technically specific, prolific, and perhaps develop some talent. Anyone got some spare funds to loan??

    Sounds to me like the little guys and enthusiasts are trying to be pushed aside.
  • 04-01-2006, 10:36 AM
    AnthonyB
    Re: New Guidelines...
    Let me start by saying that I have not read every comment in this thread so I apologize if this is redundant and repetitive:) For me (as a newbie with photography and this site) it is great to get the feedback, negative or otherwise; however, I am fairly new with photography so I tend to think I (or folks like me) may bring an imbalance to the site because I am truly and sincerely looking for some direction and I understand the comments and suggestions being made which helps me learn as I go...... What I am not new at is giving my opinion in matters that I am well versed in, photography not being one of them, which makes it impossible for me to give an educated opinion about someone else's work. Sure I can tell you if I like it or not but that doesn't necessarily add value to this sort of forum.......
  • 04-01-2006, 10:56 AM
    Chunk
    Re: New Guidelines...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AnthonyB
    What I am not new at is giving my opinion in matters that I am well versed in, photography not being one of them, which makes it impossible for me to give an educated opinion about someone else's work. Sure I can tell you if I like it or not but that doesn't necessarily add value to this sort of forum.......

    Don't worry about that 'educated' opinion. What is important is an HONEST opinion. I want that from you because it is hard to get that from family and friends around home. If you tell me that you like or dislike a shot and try to figure out why and explain that, we will both be learning. Since you are posting pictures, asking and comunnicating with us, we'll understand that you may not have as much experience as some others. I can usually see an amazing amout of improvement over the first few months of active participation and since the new person knows what advice has helped him/her the most, he/she can pass that along to others, even to old fogeys who might need to be reminded of basic stuff once in a while.
    There are only a few people who think that only an 'educated' opinion is worth while and even fewer who would be rude enough to mention it. Keep posting and joining in.
  • 04-01-2006, 11:17 AM
    Chunk
    Re: New Guidelines...
    Payn, I hope that my comments weren't what you think are trying to push you aside.

    You bring up some good points for discussion. I don't usually critique something if the point I would make has already been made. Sometimes I will though, if there are opposing opinions on some aspect so that the poster may get some idea of which my be more widely held.

    I withhold comments on portraits often because I am not a good shooter of people although sometimes I see something about some aspect of the shot that hasn't been remarked upon by someone else and then jump in.

    I hope you read my answer to AnthonyB. I think much of that speaks to your post. My opinion is that you are contributing strongly to the forum and I hope you continue to do so.
  • 04-01-2006, 12:34 PM
    payn817
    Re: New Guidelines...
    I just think some of the ideas here are really not well suited for newer photogs. That response should have been worded differently, certainly there are other newer people who will feel the same. It wasn't really all about me, but some issues I see could make others feel uncomfortable.
  • 04-01-2006, 10:30 PM
    gahspidy
    Re: New Guidelines...
    Payn, I am a bit puzzled by your feelings. I think Chunk said it well when he responded to AnthonyB. An honest feedback as to whether something works for you or not, and back it up with why, is very helpful to all parties concerned. This forum is very newbie friendly. I started here, like you, about two years ago and having no formal training or background in photography whatsoever, i have found myself improving alot since then all from the help and feedback from this board. I have seen your work improve at an impressive pace since I remember you first joining here, and lately I have been quite impressed with what you have been doing. I also value your critique and feedback because I respect what i have seen you do yourself behind the camera. Nuff said. . .I hope you continue to stick around, you are a valuable contributor to this forum.
  • 04-02-2006, 12:20 AM
    payn817
    Re: New Guidelines...
    Gary, I think this frum is very newbie friendly. However, this thread seemed some were suggesting it not stay that way. As in my reply to Chunk, most of my reply was a general statement, and the use of *I* was certainly a mistake.

    For the record, I am very satisfied with my progression, and it is ALL due to the people on this forum.

    My original response has been edited, it should make more sense now. I was tired when that was posted. It wasn't supposed to be a pity party thing. LOL :p
  • 04-02-2006, 06:52 AM
    Ronnoco
    Re: New Guidelines...
    [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. :rolleyes:

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

    Ronnoco
  • 04-02-2006, 08:13 AM
    mtbbrian
    Re: New Guidelines...
    I want it to be known that no one is going to be pushed aside here. One thing John and I strive for here, is the belief that everyone, regardless of experience, has something to say and that everyone is or at least has potential to be a good photographer.

    The hard part is getting the more experienced people to comment on the newer people and to get the newer people to comment on other people's work and for them not to take comments on their work too personally.

    I really think that in order to have some credibility here, you need to post work of your own and then comment on others. This whole "critique thing" is a relationship. There a lot of you out there, whose opinion matters a lot to me, and I hope that some of you feel the same about me. It is because we have a relationship through photography..

    These guidelines that John and I have presented are a combination of where we feel the community is and where we'd like to see it go. We are very much open to changing them if they are not consistent with where the community is.
    Brian
  • 04-02-2006, 08:16 AM
    mtbbrian
    Re: New Guidelines...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ronnoco
    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. :rolleyes:

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

    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
  • 04-02-2006, 10:15 AM
    payn817
    Re: New Guidelines...
    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.
  • 04-02-2006, 11:05 AM
    walterick
    Re: New Guidelines...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mtbbrian

    These guidelines that John and I have presented are a combination of where we feel the community is and where we'd like to see it go. We are very much open to changing them if they are not consistent with where the community is.
    Brian

    Brian, could you comment further on where you and John would like to see the critique forum go? Perhaps then we can dialogue as a group on how best to get there.

    ...

    I am a bit torn on the topic of critiquers posting their own work. There is a member of this board that does not post his own stuff very often (or at all) but his critique is valuable to me because it is experienced, honest and direct. Maybe I would be disgusted if I saw his work. But in the meantime he really makes direct points about my work and I appreciate that. I find the well-thought-out critiques here sometimes lacking, so I truly appreciate them when they do come along.

    I also am the type of photographer who still needs to have sunshine blown up my a__. So the "oh, how beautiful!" comments really mean a lot to me too. It means that someone finds this picture very appealing and maybe they can't explain why. But that emotional "!" is very important to me. So if there are photographers out there who are afraid to comment because they don't have anything "real" to say, I want your comments too! I'd rather have 5 simple responses than none at all. At least then I know where I stand!

    Let me also say that I really appreciate what Brian and John and all the other mods here do. I don't want this to thread to become a member-bashing thread. I love you guys and this site. I hope that we all remember that's why we're having this thread, is to help improve our home :)
  • 04-02-2006, 08:50 PM
    Lava Lamp
    Re: New Guidelines...
    Guidelines are great and I don't mean to sound rebellious here, but this board works because of the many regulars who have adopted a culture of tolerance and helpful criticism. I would expect that to continue whatever the "rules."

    It makes me a little uneasy to put guidelines on what should be offered in terms of critique. Just like we have many levels of experience and talent in photographers, so do we have many levels of experience and talent in offering up critiques. While Photo John can (and does) offer long and insightful critiques, others may be limtied at times to saying: "it rocks!" which can sometimes be a very helpful comment.

    By the same token, people will occasionally say something that seems pretty rude to me, but is also very helpful in getting the point across. What's rude? It's hard to define, but it brings me back to the culture thing. As long as we have people like gahspidy, chink, walterrick, liz, oldtimer, liz, and many others critiquing and setting a standard, the bad seed/troll types seem to go away after a while or reform. (Although we kind seem to have one now. :D Perhaps its too early to tell.)
  • 04-02-2006, 09:02 PM
    molaselake
    Re: New Guidelines...
    Does anyone actually listen to someone whom they don't agree with? I don't care how much experience you have, sometimes the people with the least can give you some highly insightful critiques. My brother-in-law (who is a dentist) looked at some of my pictures awhile back and pointed out that maybe I should crop one of my photos in a certain way. After I had done so, I was very pleased with the outcome. In contrast, I've gotten some critiques from people purporting to be experts and I've totally disagreed with them. I certainly wouldn't blindly take any criticism to heart or do what I think wouldn't benefit my work in the long run. It basically just boils down to personal taste. Of course we don't all think the same and like the same photographs! Do we all like the same movies, the same foods and the same art? Why should our photography be any different? The fact that Roger Ebert gave some movie I hated two thumbs up, doesn't make that movie any better for me. With or without your work up, I think I can make a decision on your critique, as I'm sure anyone can who actually thinks for themselves. However, arrogance certainly doesn't endear me toward your point of view and tends to butt heads with my stubborn nature. I'm always wary of a person who calls themselves an expert. Perfect technique does not automatically equal a perfect result.

    Why would you want to force people to respond a certain way to pictures that are posted? Can't you write in your message line that you would like in-depth critiques? Or maybe there should be a separate area (Or is there one already? I don't know) for people who want a hardcore response? Somehow, i think the more rules you have, the less people you're going to attract. And, some of those people could be beneficial.
  • 04-03-2006, 06:06 AM
    Chunk
    Re: New Guidelines...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lava Lamp
    Guidelines are great and I don't mean to sound rebellious here, but this board works because of the many regulars who have adopted a culture of tolerance and helpful criticism. I would expect that to continue whatever the "rules."

    It makes me a little uneasy to put guidelines on what should be offered in terms of critique. Just like we have many levels of experience and talent in photographers, so do we have many levels of experience and talent in offering up critiques. While Photo John can (and does) offer long and insightful critiques, others may be limtied at times to saying: "it rocks!" which can sometimes be a very helpful comment.

    By the same token, people will occasionally say something that seems pretty rude to me, but is also very helpful in getting the point across. What's rude? It's hard to define, but it brings me back to the culture thing. As long as we have people like gahspidy, chink, walterrick, liz, oldtimer, liz, and many others critiquing and setting a standard, the bad seed/troll types seem to go away after a while or reform. (Although we kind seem to have one now. :D Perhaps its too early to tell.)

    I knew I should have been more careful in that last critique I made of Lava Lamp's work :D Chink, indeed!!

    Along with different levels of photographic experience we also have different levels of communication skills. Problems with that are why I flunked out of high school and continue to plague me so many years later, although a few usenet groups for software that I used at work and PR forums have given me a lot more practice in my later years.
    Some people take a little time before they get up to speed critiquing photos. I know that mine are often more superficial than some of the insightful critiques I've received.
    Let's all also make sure that the insightful critiques are not inciteful as well. :)
  • 04-03-2006, 06:20 AM
    Chunk
    Re: New Guidelines...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ronnoco
    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. :rolleyes:

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

    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.
  • 04-03-2006, 10:17 AM
    srobb
    Re: New Guidelines...
    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! :D 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. ;) :D 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.