The Pact

[Steve5D]

Looks like I missed this thread the first few times it came and went, so I'll opine now. And, the only reason I'm responding is because the OP is still an active member here.

"Critique" has always been a pet peeve of mine. Honestly, I believe a majority of people don't know how to give it.

With that in mind, some thoughts on some of what's been proposed:

Honest feedback is a great and wonderful thing, but it's rare. You say you will critique the work, and not the person. Later on you state that you'll offer critique even if it hurts someone's feelings. Well, if you hurt someone's feelings, whether you're aware of this or not, you're no longer critiquing the work. If there's a chance that a critique is going to be construed as personal rather than technical, it should be avoided, regardless of the intent. This is where arguments start, and it takes only a matter of nanoseconds for any value that might have been present in your critique to vanish.

There used to be a guy in the HDR forum who offered "direct" critique". He was viscious and vile, and his critiques often included idiotic nuggests like "This is horrible" or "learn your camera before trying to do this" and often ended with "if you can't do it right, you shouldn't do it at all". Not once did I read a post by him in which he actually tried to help someone. If memory serves, he no longer enjoys a membership here. As a result, the HDR forum is a much nicer place to be.

Some more random thoughts:

- Sometimes "I like it" is sufficient. It conveys to the photographer that, whatever he did to create the image, it's appreciated. This would further suggest that the photographer should continue on that path. These are very different from the "It sucks" comments, which offer nothing in the way of assistance to correct a perceived deficiency. Basically, "I like it" is fine. "It sucks" is not.

- Understand that not everyone who posts pictures is going to be as advanced as you, and that those who may excel in some areas may be complete neophytes in others.

- Understand that people who ask for critique are doing it so they can improve. Anything said which does not serve that end is unnecessary and will be avoided.

- This is the big one: If you're going to offer a critique of an image, you should be required to offer suggestions to correct what you see as deficiencies. Period. It's far too easy to be critical of something when you don't have to offer any thoughts on how to fix it. Don't just say "This picture is too dark". That would be meaningless and, in all honesty, probably obvious. Say something like "This picture is too dark. You could correct that by _____________". Such critique could be quite helpful when there's more than one way to correct something. I believe that people who fail to do this should, for the good of the forum, be put on a six month hiatus from the forum. Those who come back and do it again get a change of address. Period.

I don't believe that I would agree to adhere to any pact which didn't include the above.

After all, if we're going to do this, let's man up and do it right...

 

[manaheim]

Oh god...

 

[Steve5D]

Or, I could just critique the original idea in its entirety and say that it's stupid...

 

[AgentDrex]

I still stand behind the idea. Perhaps it needs to be fleshed out a little, added to here, subtracted from there but the general idea is there and is one I find compelling. If one is just going to say, "nice picture," without any explanation to why it is liked, how does that help anyone? It is no more useful to say something vague but positive than it would be to say, "that photo doesn't work for me" and not say anything else. Neither way promotes what TPF is here for, to help each other grow.
I understand where you're coming from though. At least the person knows that someone likes their photo (or doesn't like it) and they may be on the right path (or the wrong path). Of course my friends say the same nice things about my photos but most of them have no interest and/or usable knowledge in photography. I would expect more from a forum tailored to photographers of all levels (from the beginning enthusiast to the professional) than to just dollop gravy on mashed potatoes without caring whether the potatoes are cooked well or at all.

Everyone benefits from full-fledged critiques. The ones asking for such learn a little bit and the ones critiquing learn a little bit. Someone new to photography may keep their opinions meek (a simple I like it and a simple why, the colors are beautiful, etc.) and the elder photographers can give more detailed critiques (while stating that whichever the critiquee wants to work on first is fine).

I see nothing stupid behind the idea of people calling attention to the fact that they play by certain rules. There are so many groups out there in the world that do this same thing (jaycees, MADD, church groups, etc.) that to say that some people getting together here is akin to a cult is plain silly. No one is asking for anyone to give up all their worldly possessions, follow around a guy with a white robe and chant mantras while flailing themselves to sleep with a cat-o-nine.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Talk less about how to critique, and go out and give more critique.

What a De Ja Vu moment. Haven't we been down this road before?

 

[Derrel]

What a great walk down memory lane....lol

Oh yeah. I still laugh every time I see "I support the pact" in someone's sig. :roll:


The pact. LOL. :chatty:

Especially if one knows the circumstances surrounding it...

Pot. Kettle. Absence of reflected light.

 

[AgentDrex]

I understand your sentiment Bitter, however have I not been doing so? I only critique on that which I feel comfortable about my ability to critique. It may not be as much as the next guy but its not like I spend one hundred percent of my time coming up with ways of critiquing instead of just doing so.

Thanks for the chuckle Derrel...I'm remembering the pot kettle thing...hilarious...

 

[manaheim]

Or, I could just critique the original idea in its entirety and say that it's stupid...

Therein lies the crux of the problem. It was a very well-intended idea and a lot of people saw nothing but blood. I've never seen such impassioned hatred over a thing here. The idea that people would spout such vitriol over an idea intended exclusively to create a volunteer membership in a certain basic set of ideologies totally baffles me to this day.

I still stand behind the idea. Perhaps it needs to be fleshed out a little, added to here, subtracted from there but the general idea is there and is one I find compelling. If one is just going to say, "nice picture," without any explanation to why it is liked, how does that help anyone? It is no more useful to say something vague but positive than it would be to say, "that photo doesn't work for me" and not say anything else. Neither way promotes what TPF is here for, to help each other grow.
I understand where you're coming from though. At least the person knows that someone likes their photo (or doesn't like it) and they may be on the right path (or the wrong path). Of course my friends say the same nice things about my photos but most of them have no interest and/or usable knowledge in photography. I would expect more from a forum tailored to photographers of all levels (from the beginning enthusiast to the professional) than to just dollop gravy on mashed potatoes without caring whether the potatoes are cooked well or at all.

Everyone benefits from full-fledged critiques. The ones asking for such learn a little bit and the ones critiquing learn a little bit. Someone new to photography may keep their opinions meek (a simple I like it and a simple why, the colors are beautiful, etc.) and the elder photographers can give more detailed critiques (while stating that whichever the critiquee wants to work on first is fine).

I see nothing stupid behind the idea of people calling attention to the fact that they play by certain rules. There are so many groups out there in the world that do this same thing (jaycees, MADD, church groups, etc.) that to say that some people getting together here is akin to a cult is plain silly. No one is asking for anyone to give up all their worldly possessions, follow around a guy with a white robe and chant mantras while flailing themselves to sleep with a cat-o-nine.

I gotta say that none of the the nasty comments and hatred back further in this thread have done more to discredit the original idea in my mind.., than your support of it.

Oh the irony. You could cut it with a knife.

 

[manaheim]

I just re-read the first 10 pages or so... It's interesting.

First, I find I'm a way less defensive person than I was when I suggested this. It's interesting to see how defensive I was being and what a negative impact it had on some folks who I very much respect and their support (or lack thereof). I swear TPF is like the mirror I never wanted to look at. Lol

Second, a lot of the vitriol was mostly from people who were just being um... Grouchy. Not really anything substantive. Were I taking my own advice I would have just ignored it.

Good intentions, but clearly put forth by someone not really qualified to be the spokesperson of the idea. It really needed someone like Overread or Corinna... People who are GENUINELY a 100% positive force for TPF would have been a better choice.

Ah well.

 

[rexbobcat]

I can never think of the word pact again without thinking of that pregnancy pact between those high school girls a few years back. That whole debacle ruined the word for me.

 

[AgentDrex]

I gotta say that none of the the nasty comments and hatred back further in this thread have done more to discredit the original idea in my mind.., than your support of it.

Oh the irony. You could cut it with a knife.

That's fine, I see nothing that I said that would lead to the original idea being discredited more from my support than the non-support of others, but so-be-it. It was still a good idea on your part no matter how you slice it. I'll stand behind it regardless.

 

[thetrue]

I'd be in but I'm too new, I mean it's not even been two whole months yet, who the hell do I think I am?

 

[Mully]

"All for one and one for all"

 

[Steve5D]

Or, I could just critique the original idea in its entirety and say that it's stupid...

Therein lies the crux of the problem. It was a very well-intended idea and a lot of people saw nothing but blood. I've never seen such impassioned hatred over a thing here. The idea that people would spout such vitriol over an idea intended exclusively to create a volunteer membership in a certain basic set of ideologies totally baffles me to this day.

Well, when you consider that your "idea" would allow people to spout vitriol when giving critiques, instead of just having them give critiques, it really shouldn't surprise you...

 

[manaheim]

No it wouldn't. My idea neither enabled or limited anyone from spouting negativity. They can do that perfectly well either way.

Your inexplicable interpretation, however, was not uncommon.