Anonymous gallery

[markc]

I kind of doubt that. If you are talking about people who only post in threads started by people they know, I doubt that they would post in an annonymous thread, unless they somehow recognized the work as being from someone they knew. For those that post only when they feel they have something useful to say about the work, their pattern won't change, as the work is the same.

It sounds like the goal is to force a change in people's behaviour, but I don't think that will work unless you remove the other outlet. You'd have to get rid of the named critique forum, which I don't think is a good idea.

 

[Dweller]

I certainly did not suggest this forum as an alternative to what we already have, just as an addition.

 

[mrsid99]

It sounds like the goal is to force a change in people's behaviour, but I don't think that will work unless you remove the other outlet. You'd have to get rid of the named critique forum, which I don't think is a good idea.

That's your interpretation and not what was proposed at all.
The goal was as stated; honest critique without bias or prejudice.

 

[Alison]

Thank you all for the suggestions, we will discuss it and if possible implement the idea. If we need more input we will contact you.

 

[markc]

That's your interpretation and not what was proposed at all.
The goal was as stated; honest critique without bias or prejudice.

Sorry if that didn't come across well. I guess from my view, if someone wants to change people from posting biased and prejudiced critiques to unbiased and unprejudiced critiques, that a change in behavior. I'm not saying that it isn't a worthwhile goal. It's a great goal! Personally I haven't seen much bias, but I'm kind of clueless when it comes to some of this social clique type stuff.

I understand what the proponents are getting at, and I agree to some degree, but I don't think it will pan out like people expect. Those of us who already post without regard to the poster will continue to do so, and those that care who the poster is probably just won't post in that forum. It could help for those with an unconscious bias, but my guess is that the impact would be marginal.

Just saying my view. I'm not screaming "Don't do it!"

 

[Hertz van Rental]

The problem here is that every one is missing the main point.
It's not a question of whether we need a new Gallery or Forum.
The question is - why do people want their pictures critiqued?
Most people have only a vague idea of what a critique entails - both in the giving and receiving - and so it becomes largely just a 'show and tell' session.
An 'anonymous' Critique Gallery would suffer from exactly the same kinds of problems that the current one does - and would be open to the same kind of abuses. In fact, it would be worse because it could devolve into the tawdriest of television games shows ('and now it's time to reveal the identity of our mystery poster...').
Far more can be gained by people sitting down and having a proper think about why they want a critique, and what they hope to gain from one. Then post in the existing Forum along with this information.
If anyone is not happy with the feedback they get from this process then they have an open invitation to PM me requesting a critique and I will give their image my full and undivided attention.
Just be aware that I don't give refunds.

 

[markc]

I agree. I think I've mentioned before about what I consider the difference between wanting a critique and wanting encouragement. A lot depends on your comfort level with your work and how you take feedback. Many people who ask for critiques really are looking for encouragement. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this and it's normal, especially when you don't think you have the firmest footing. But that's what I think the General form is for.

I think you are talking about something a little deeper than that though. Even those that really want a critique will tend to get a lot more out of a posting if they have an idea of what they want to get out of it. Instead of just posting an image and asking for people to post their impressions, you are probably more likely to get responses if you talk a bit about your own thoughts on the image. There's something to be said about looking at an image cold, so even if you don't post your intent until a bit after the original post, you could still post specific questions regarding it.

One of the biggest stumbling blocks I have to giving a critique is having an image posted that I have no idea why the person took it. Sometimes I can see what I think was that grabbed their eye, and so I try to make an image from it that speaks to me. But if I can't get that from the image, and the poster doesn't say, I don't feel like I can be much help.

I tend to lump images into three different categories:

The first are the ones that I can't read any intent from and don't see any that I would use. I can't critique these and they tend to have the feel of snapshots. The taker probably saw something cool, or maybe has an emotional attachment to the subject, but I don't know what it is.

The second one doesn't have a strong intent to it. I'm not directed to think anything specific, but I do see something in the image that can be focused on in that way. These I edit (if I have permission) to give my own view usinging the limited compostion ability of cropping and other edits. It may or may not be what the photographer inteded, but I feel that it has a stronger viewpoint than the original.

The third category is a bit more rare, and that's one that has a strong vision. I do know what the photographer intended, and any critique I give tries to further that vision and not change it to something of my view. I think Emma-Lee's self portrait is a good example of this. It doesn't have to be a staged concept like this one, but the compositional elements need to be strong to start with so that I know what the image is trying to say to me. And she talks about what her version was in the text, in case we don't get that from the image.

I know these can seem like high falootin' ideas when all you care about is if the image looks cool, but that's what photography and a critique means to me. I think that's why both thinking about and talking about intent is so important.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

This is why I always preface a crit discussion with 'first you must tell me what you were trying to do'.
Your first category (the 'snapshot') is what I have always called 'so what?' pictures.
"It's a picture of an 'X'. So what?"