Discussion in 'Photographic Discussions' started by manaheim, Jun 23, 2009.
100000000% agree to this, the way we should all be
Well, I am a newbie here and I must say to see the pact adds a great deal of comfort to me. I like the idea very much.
One thing that has always bothered me about forums and this would include Christian forums etc is that people tend to forget there are ''real'' people on the other end of the key board. People with real feelings. Ask yourself if you would talk this way with little to no respect if you where face to face with another member, a stranger or even a friend.
I think that's important to keep in mind.
It's easy to become an asshole online. I try to type as if I were actually speaking to the other person, but I'm sure there are times when I type things I would never say...
Actually, in the case of that specific photo, from a composition standpoint (so ignoring stuff like it being unfocused on anything), I'd merely suggest that you crop out the bottom 20% of the photo or so in order to follow the Rule of Thirds.
Remember how I pointed out what Jerry did with a snoot? Deliberate underexposure is different from accidental underexposure. He used a snoot to do his deliberate underexposure, and you used Photoshop. What's the difference unless you want to make a poster print? /rhetorical: there is no difference.
No, I'm saying to leave the "guns blaring" for the dedicated C&C forum. For the beginners' ego forum, there would be a rule: "If you have nothing nice to say about a photo then don't say anything at all," because in such a forum either people's feelings matter more than their work or they deliberately weren't trying to apply any thought process at all.
"People... want to do different things in pictures." Well, again one of the points of the pact is to try and create clear divisions so that it's clear who wants what in regards to their photos.
Just made it up to prove a point about how TPF isn't about getting people to understand the historical foundations of photography since TPF isn't a place to get a formalized photographical education.
Really, folks, all you have to do is omit heavily loaded words like "horrendous". This, however, has NOTHING to do with TPF and everything to do with how not to piss people off in written communication.
Here, I wrote an article about it once... (please ignore the horrific picture)
I mean, really... replace "It's horrendously overexposed" with "It seems a bit overexposed" and you strip the emotion out of it and everyone can chill out and move on with their lives.
Pact or no pact, you have to make some effort to not be a jerk to people online, you know?
That's just kinda "the net", though, isn't it?
Regardless, I understand. I think the request has been formally made, and this is a formal "no, it's not going to happen". Good enough. It is what it is.
Well, sounds like the powers that be may be open to some modifications to the FAQ (earlier comment) and to some sort of guidelines on how critiques should be structured, etc.
What, specifically, do we need to do? I'm open to volunteering to write something up, but I'd like to know a bit more of the boundries... I just don't want to waste time on something totally out of bounds.
Is some version of the pact appropriate? Perhaps written to apply more to the gallery areas and less as a personal credo? (we can still keep the credo for those who want to follow it universally, of course)
Give me a bit more detail and I'll try to do something useful. (obviously anyone else would be welcome to do so as well)
I completely agree. IMO, there are already enough sub forums to confuse most members at one time or another. A long long time ago, this discussion came up and the consensus was that it didn't fit the laid back nature of TPF for which set the TPF apart from other photography discussion groups.
What should we do then, use a number system to indicate just how far from ideal a certain aspect of the photo is in order to strip out all emotion? Because you can start to go up the chain of "well, it's just barely underexposed... slightly overexposed... underexposed... a bit underexposed... really underexposed... very underexposed...." How far up this ladder can you go without pissing someone off with a word? Does "extremely" have an offensive effect? What about "poorly"? "Overdone"? "Unsatisfying"? How about "dry" or "boring"? "Uninteresting"?
How many words do I have to cross out of my vocabulary? Should we restrict ourselves to a small set of pre-determined words that can in no way offend anybody on the planet? Because our problem is no longer giving politically correct critique but original critique. Hell, I'm not even sure if numbers would work because someone could say, "On a scale of 1-100 of how much this photo needs to work on its composition in a reshoot, I rate it 110".
I personally do not find the word "horrendous" to be offensive when used in appropriate critique. What matters is to critique the work, not the person (see: the Pact, page 1). If someone came into a post I made of a photo and said that my photo was so horribly overexposed, it would cause world peace because all the terrorists in the world would think they were seeing the light at the end of the dark tunnel, I'd take that to mean I need to put a little more hellfire in the photo. But if someone came into the thread and shamed me for creating a photo that could possibly reinforce a terrorist's idea that there ARE 72 virgins waiting for him, I'd hit that report button faster than how quick it took Ahmadinejad to declare victory a couple weeks ago.
And then, if I can take that kind of critique and improve on it, how do I know that the guy on the other end isn't the same way? How do I know if the guy on the other end is a sensitive fellow or a direct kind of guy who appreciates honesty over euphemisms?
People have got to realize that critique cannot be taken personally. People have got to learn to take rationalized critique gracefully and ignore it if they find it offensive. If I wanted to piss you off, I'd be more direct about it (and yes manaheim, I read the article you posted... doesn't apply to where I come from, sorry about that )
Ummm, well... hey. You do whatever you like.
Next time someone balks at you for saying something is (insert loaded phrase here), you might ask yourself what would have happened if you chose your words a bit differently.
I'm not suggesting you cross words off your vocabulary... I'm suggesting you dig a bit more deeply into the toolbox to find the right words for the job.
But seriously... no skin off my back. Do whatever works for you.
Great post. I agree 100% I'm fully aware that I look at my pictures differently than everyone else does. I dont see things that are wrong because I'm not viewing them with an experienced eye and quite honestly, I probably dont want to see them. My photgraphy is coming along nicely and I'm happy about that. When I ask for a C&C I dont need my hand held because I really want to know what I can do to make it better, but at the same time the person giving me the C&C doesnt have to be a dick. Post count, experience, forum status are all great and they have their place in a forum but they never justify someone being a prick.
Give it to them strait but be nice. It isn't that hard.
Separate names with a comma.