Re: New Rules for Critique

[Hertz van Rental]

Meanwhile we've ejected the thread titled "Later Afternoon Light..." by elsapo where a critical discussion of the work posted had already started. What is the sense of that?

I am afraid you are in error here.
I moved elsapo's post to the Photo Gallery, and I moved it because it did not follow the guidelines. The image was posted without any information.
At the time of moving, no-one had posted anything in the thread so a 'critical discussion of the work' had not started.
All the replies it has recieved have been made whilst it was in the Photo Gallery.
This would indicate that you are also in error in your complaint about the Photo Gallery:

Anyways, I am forced to post in the General gallery where everyone seems to comment only on what they like and there is very little constructive criticism.

Obviously you can receive constructive criticism in there.

 

[elsapo]

I'll post some thoughts on this topic...

I'm not sure how much technical information is necessary. I don't really care if someone shot at f/5.6 or f/22 ... that doesn't change my assessment of "shoot at a lower f-stop to bring more focus," or "stop down to give a little more detail to the background." I can make those comments without knowing the kind of film or exposure details.

I think the important details you want are intent -- what is the photographer trying to accomplish? These are the kinds of questions I think are really important. The gap between vision and product needs to be examined, because focusing on the difference between the two and the process involved in getting from one place to the otehr is really the way to improve your art.

Obviously, that's not the case for all images. Sometimes, someone does want an opinion on technical issues or tonality or what have you. Personally, I generally find the technical side of this stuff pretty dull.

I think the biggest suggestion I would make to moderators is this -- moderate with restraint (not that you don't already). I hate seeing my posts altered or moved (I'm not talking about the recent one, ignore that). I post on another art forum where my posts have been merged or moved or deleted, and frankly I find this offensive.

I'm speaking really generally - I have zero complaints with TPF, and I'm too new here anyways to really have any. But in general, a more hands-off approach is what I'd suggest. If people are continuously posting things which don't conform, a PM or email may be more effective than just moving the post. Let them know what was wrong.

Anyways....

Robert

 

[deb]

As I view a picture, I'm always interested in seeing the technical data. However, to require it for a critique seems to imply that the photographer seeking to have his work critiqued isn't advanced enough to first look at the technical settings as part of his own quality control. Most of us can say, I should have used a smaller aperture so that the ears would be in focus or I should have used a faster shutter speed to stop the motion. That's pretty elementary.

When you seek a critique, I think you want to make sure the picture is communicating an intended message to the audience. Does the low contrast add to the mystery, does the oversaturation of color emphasize the fantasy, does the position of the subject express the isolation the photographer picked up on............

If its a real issue, why not have a technical critique board for those wanting to learn more about the basics of photography, and an interpretive critique board for those wanting to know how others react to the message of a photo.

 

[danalec99]

I don't really care if someone shot at f/5.6 or f/22 ... that doesn't change my assessment of "shoot at a lower f-stop to bring more focus," or "stop down to give a little more detail to the background." I can make those comments without knowing the kind of film or exposure details.

I agree, but this forum also have a ton of beginners who are not well versed with the photo jargon.

The best thing that I liked about Bambi Cantrell's wedding photography book was the tech details with each photograph. That was last year when I discovered photography. To a beginner, the tech details serves as a rough guideline when they start the journey. It helped me a lot.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

I'll post some thoughts on this topic...

I'm not sure how much technical information is necessary. I don't really care if someone shot at f/5.6 or f/22 ... that doesn't change my assessment of "shoot at a lower f-stop to bring more focus," or "stop down to give a little more detail to the background." I can make those comments without knowing the kind of film or exposure details.

I think the important details you want are intent -- what is the photographer trying to accomplish? These are the kinds of questions I think are really important. The gap between vision and product needs to be examined, because focusing on the difference between the two and the process involved in getting from one place to the otehr is really the way to improve your art.

Obviously, that's not the case for all images. Sometimes, someone does want an opinion on technical issues or tonality or what have you. Personally, I generally find the technical side of this stuff pretty dull.

I think the biggest suggestion I would make to moderators is this -- moderate with restraint (not that you don't already). I hate seeing my posts altered or moved (I'm not talking about the recent one, ignore that). I post on another art forum where my posts have been merged or moved or deleted, and frankly I find this offensive.

I'm speaking really generally - I have zero complaints with TPF, and I'm too new here anyways to really have any. But in general, a more hands-off approach is what I'd suggest. If people are continuously posting things which don't conform, a PM or email may be more effective than just moving the post. Let them know what was wrong.

Anyways....

Robert

Thank you. That is all we are asking for - a little information relevant to what you want critiqued. You can provide as much information as you want, just so long as you provide some. Otherwise people do not know where to start with offering help. A picture just sitting there with no info of any kind can be very intimidating to someone who has little experience of giving a crit, but who nevertheless has something useful to say.
And if people could get into the habit of doing this as a matter of routine then Jon and I wouldn't have to sit in here shouting at you - we could go off down the pub and leave you to it ;-)

 

[danalec99]

Some people have mentioned how posting in the critique forum is likened to posting in a museum. I disagree for several reasons. A museum is a "gallery" of photos, where individuals can come and admire (or dismiss) a piece of art. The artist does not expect critique, nor cares what others may think. They have already been established and they have no intention in modifying their work because someone doesn't like it. Museums are for display only - very similar to the idea of our "photo gallery" section. The critique gallery is for "work in progress" photographs. These photos are out there for ideas to improve the image the photographer is trying to portray. It's purpose is not admiration or attacks but simply a learning tool for both the photographer and the observers. Thus, the more information behind the scenes provided, the more everyone will learn.

Obviously there is a lot of confusion of the purposes of the sections in this forum. In conclusion, let me clarify: Photo gallery is for displays (like a museum) and the critique section is educational (a help session for everyone involved).

:thumbup: Couldn't have explained it better!

 

[Chase]

Let me attempt to go a step further towards simplicity...(which will probably backfire on me! )

When we are trying to require info on the photo, I'm not looking for major explanations unless the photographer wants to include them. Instead, I'm looking for some really basic info. Please give me your thoughts on the following:

When posting in the critique forum, you are looking for feedback on your photo and generally for ways it could be improved. If you are not looking for this kind of feedback, the photo would generally just be for display purposes and would be better suited for the general gallery where the responses would be more general.

If you are looking for this specific level of feedback, I'll ask that you answer a simple question. Why are you posting this photo in the critique area and what are you looking to improve? If every post addressed that simple question, I believe it would more than meet the goal we're striving for and I believe the quality of critique in the forum will continue to improve. Obviously, the more information, the better things can be, but nothing beyond that is required.

More thoughts please.

 

[Christie Photo]

Wow! I just saw this thread.

I too am somewhat new here, and am impressed that anyone would put so much of themself into a project that serves others. Truly the mark of a good leader.

Honestly, I was troubled by the Critique section right from the start. In a community as large as this, there are folks on so many different levels of development. As a result, photos made by accomplished photographers are sometimes "graded" by others who have yet to develop their own skills. This is going to happen. It bothered me a bit at first, but I find I sometimes learn a lot from some of the most surprising sources.

My personal feelings are any element of an image is "controlled" by the maker... be it technical or aesthetic. When I see an image offered up for critique, I presume that the maker did everything deliberately.

If it is not evident why a photograph was made, then it's a week image.

Technical info is not needed to critique a photograph. Any intent can be expressed in a title.

Most of the folks who frequent this place have proven to be sincere in their desire to share knowledge. Some actually lie in wait to hit you over the head with it, not to mention any names. (Hertz) But seriously, it's truely amazing how little posturing goes on.

Thanks, Chase. It's your house. I happy to be a guest here and will respect any wishes you express.

-Pete Christie

 

[elsapo]

When I see an image offered up for critique, I presume that the maker did everything deliberately.

Pete - I have an entire rant on just this thought, and how it pertains to criticism in general. This isn't the place (thread) for it, but I just wanted to say that this quote concisely nails a lot of my thoughts.

Robert

 

[Tuna]

Hertz, being wrong makes me even more right - it goes directly to the heart of my contention that the image alone can elicit critical discussion (wherever it may be and especially if it has been submitted to the CRITIQUE forum and left there).

But I, for one, am done. I believe there is an attempt at finding a middle point and, Chase, I give up. I will take what you have offered and will run with it - whenever I post in Critique I will attempt to make some comments to either set the stage for a critique or try and explain why I don't want to do so. And I will attempt to say what equipment and medium was used for the "novices" and technophiles.

But the real reason I'm giving up is that my eyes are bleeding from all of this reading.

Tuna

 

[Calliope]

I admit I've read this thread completely and came back several times to get the new "scoop." It has been most entertaining to say the least

I guess I don't understand why everyone is so worked up about all this. If a person wants a photo to "speak for itself", then place it in a gallery. If someone wants a discussion about a piece of art (I looked up the definition of critique: A critical review or commentary, especially one dealing with works of art or literature; A critical discussion of a specified topic), then they need to start the discussion by answering a few preliminary questions (like why do you want to improve this particular photo). Seems simple: a photo that speaks for itself goes in a gallery, a photo that needs improvement/discussion goes in critique.

I also would like to give Chase a :thumbup: for having a forum where people can voice their opinions so openly. This particular thread is not a "critique" of a photo but of a critique of a small section of the forum. My critique is this: I like that the critique gallery has rules, I like that the rules are enforced. I like the forum in all becomes of the variety, the people and the openness. I've only just started a real interest in photography and I can say that I'm learning a lot from TPF. Thanks!

 

[the_dust]

suppose you forget to write your information about the shot down and now because of that you cant get a little constructive critisism. get your heads out of your ass.

 

[MDowdey]

get your heads out of your ass.

im sorry, who are you again?

 

[kilifila66]

Ladies and Gentlemen,
As an objective outsider to this debate, I have absoultely no knowledge of which members of this forum run, moderate, and change the site itself and which ones are simply members. I am strictly speaking on the opinions stated above. Here is my take on this subject.
I agree with Hertz and also with Tuna on this matter, even though their ideas and views are opposing.
I think that Tuna makes a very valid point in saying that the person posting should be able to just let the picture speak for itself. That is completely reasonable IMO and if I had the ability to post I would want the option to do that. I also think that shows how well your intent reaches your audience without spoon feeding it to them.
However I also agree with Hertz in that it is also completely reasonable to have guidlines for posting. I think that if your intent is to let the work speak for itself, it is totally legitimate to ask you to simply post along with your photo "My intent is to let this picture to speak for itself." I think that this is a small concession to make and if you have the time to post, one line of text should not be too much to ask.
I furthermore feel that adding technical data like f stop and shutter speeds should be left up to the photographer. From a beginners standpoint I really like when people post that information because it allows me to understand how they created that image. However in some cases the photographer may consider it his/her "trade secret." In my case I just plain cannot remember what settings I shot the photo at so I would not be able to post that. As I have not scoured the guidelines I am not 100% sure if the technical data is required, but if it is, I would rethink that portion of the rules.
I appologize if I stepped on any toes in this post, I only wanted to express my opinion on the matter. Please try not to get angry with me over my opinion, I am not asking anyone to share it but simply to think about it. I really hope that everyone on both sides can employ a little give and take, I really love seeing work from everyone on here and I would hate for something like simple guidelines stop people from sharing their art and expression.

Love is all you need
-John Lennon-

 

[voodoocat]

GO HUSKERS!

I don't see how anyone can take your opinion seriously with a location like that

stuff

I think you bring up a very fair compromise.

get your heads out of your ass.

Lurk longer stupid.