New Guidelines...

[mtbbrian]

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

[walterick]

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?

[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?

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

[GB1]

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

[walterick]

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

[GB1]

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

[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.

[mtbbrian]

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

[gahspidy]

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.

[OldSchool]

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

[Photo-John]

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.

[Ronnoco]

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

[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

[mtbbrian]

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

[Loupey]

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?

[OldSchool]

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?

Hi Loupy,
Please don't take my comment as a personal attack. No attack intended. Sorry. I like your work.

I duck out of work when I visit here. So, I just don't have a whole lot of time. But, I want to help (if I can help that is.). So, if I get the feeling that my comments will be of value, I'll critique. When someone posts a lot of images, I do not know which ones I should put energy into. Does this make sense?

Cheers,
Tim

[OldSchool]

Just to follow up...

Note that I did use these words for the "strong" suggestion. Thus, I'd say old works certainly qualify....


Tim

[Chunk]

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.

[Photo-John]

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.

[JSPhoto]

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

[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