critique gallery - woe is me


TPF Noob!
Jul 18, 2003
Reaction score
usa. soon to be a euro boy.
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
General Gallery
A gallery for sharing photos and getting feedback, including general critique.

ok, that would take care of the not so loquacious verbal feedback. this leaves the critiques. in the critique gallery i find:

3. Intent: The sole purpose of this gallery is to critique photographic material....

5. OTE: (Okay To Edit) Whilst some folks won't mind if you repost a corrected or edited version of their photograph, others will.
(If you do not mind if your images are edited, please put OTE somewhere in the post where it can be seen.)
Do not edit or modify images unless OTE appears in a post or in the posters signature.
Criticizing an image does not automatically give you the right to alter it.

i'm baffled. photography is a visual medium. the best way to critique a visual medium is by using the same, supplemented by verbal explanation. should that not read 'NOTE' (not ok to edit)? (meaning that it's ok to mark up an image in the critique gallery unless otherwise stated.)
We go round and round on this one, Will. There have been instances where members have complained about their images being altered without consent, so we've chosen to word it this way. If there is no "OTE" and a critiquer feels the need to alter along with a verbal explanation, he simply must ask the poster "I'd like to show you exactly what I mean, may I edit?" That way permission is asked, granted, and everyone is happy, with no one feeling violated.

In theory you may be perfectly correct, but you must bear with us as we choose to take the more slow and cautious path regarding editing others' images. :)

I hope this is an acceptable workaround for you, as your critiques are likely to be very worthwhile.
terri said:
..he simply must ask the poster "I'd like to show you exactly what I mean, may I edit?"

that's exactly the exchange that is to be avoided. firstly, it belies the true meaning of 'critique'. secondly, it adds just another step to what is an already time consuming process. if i'm in the mood and have the time to spend an hour on an image, but i have to ask permission, i'll not likely have either when i finally get an answer.

terri said:
In theory you may be perfectly correct

I hope this is an acceptable workaround for you, as your critiques are likely to be very worthwhile.

actually, that's what happens in the real world. critiquing means 'mocking up'. i fail to see what is wrong to have the rules read, 'mark 'NOTE' if you don't want images edited'. if someone complains, then someone can't, or isn't willing to, read.

i won't argue the point; do as you ('mods') see fit...i have plenty of critiques to do in real life. i was just hoping that there could be a beam of 'progress in art' amongst a show and tell.

all said and done, nothing but :heart: for you, terri.
I'll make sure your points get more attention, Will. I do not disagree with anything you have stated.

However, you've actually read the guidelines for that forum, and you approach it with appropriate objectivity. On both points, that makes you the exception, not the norm. ;)
and here i thought that the expected norm is to read, understand, proceed.

silly me.

also do please realize that if reading posting rules is not the norm, then there likely won't be anything posted 'ote'.
The OTE rule was put in not only because some people got uppity about having their work played with but also because of copyright issues. And we did have one or two members at one time who were rather cavalier in their attitudes to both.
It was more expedient to work on the principle that people should not have their work played with unless they gave permission, rather than to make it OK to edit any image posted unless specifically forbidden. Legally it's safer.

On a pedantic note a critique is actually a critical essay - but there we get into much more esoteric areas and I realise that the actual function of the Critique Gallery does not really extend that far. It's function was seen as being a learning and problem solving tool concerning the nuts and bolts of image production and the name does not really reflect that. Critique Gallery was inherited as a name so unless an Admin changes it we're stuck with it.
And to be honest I'm not sure what name would be more appropriate. All suggestions to a Mod or Admin, I guess.
Hertz van Rental said:
On a pedantic note a critique is actually a critical essay -

perhaps on, yes. in a photography class, it means that the essay will be accompanied by a mark up.

my last words on this.

it is legal to put in the posting rules, 'type 'note' if you wish your images to not be edited'. we both (perhaps all) know that. it would be legal for me to create a site and state, '....and all images uploaded become the property of ME.' if people don't read the rules, it's their loss. the basis of the entire legal system is contractual.

i'm going to go out on a limb here and state that legally the powers that be know it's 'ok' to do that, but the reality is that they just don't want to spend the time typing 'you should've read the rules.' which is fair enough, i suppose.

i'm done with this subject.

hrm, i'm now limited to the 'darkroom' forum and the 'alternative' forum.
I personally agree with motcon on all points, but who would expect less from me.

If you post on a critique board, you should expect critique not "atta boy charlie.."

A teacher will mark hell out a of print to show you what you did wrong. But then I think a lot of Us, and probably me included, really want the strokes more than to learn anything.

Most reactions

New Topics