The Pact

[Garbz]

@Garbz quote: Summary comments along the lines of "I like it!" or "Great job!" or "It sucks!" do no one any good and will be avoided at all costs.

well this is someone's opinion. and obviously shared by others. but i disagree that
the positive words of encouragement 'do no good'. we can say encouraging things
and also give constructive help. there seems to be defensiveness over the 'words'
of the ideology of this 'pact' and yet an intolerance of kind words used elsewhere.

No I think we are agreeing on the same thing here. Positive words are all good and fine but WITH the constructive help. That's all. If you know why someone things it's good then you learn a LOT more. Suppose you upload an image and I say "It's great". Now you can either agree smugly while learning nothing, agree and spend an hour trying to figure out why the heck I think it's great, or just completely stare blankly thinking it was rubbish. Now suppose I say "It's great, the converging lines really draw attention to the subject" You get all the praise, and learn something about why someone likes a photo, and in the case of many newbies you may also learn why you yourself really like the photo.

This is the same thing as reading through a photo book and realising something basic like the rule of thirds for the first time. When someone tells you it's great because the subject is off centre and it keeps they eye interested, it's quite a bit different from "it's great", awesome now I don't know how to repeat this greatness.

The words "Great Job" aren't bad, unless they are the only words. Otherwise it becomes a huge guessing game as to what made your picture great, which really sucks if you're learning, trust me I've been there.

 

[Josh66]

I guess I'm one of the ones that reply "It's great", "Great job", "Love it", etc...

Most of the pictures that I give this reply to are clearly so good that nothing I could say will help the photographer improve. They are already at the top of their game. They are simply showing off their work.
...And I am just telling them "Yeah, you were right - this is pretty good."

Sure, everybody has room to improve - but everybody can't tell you how.


If I feel that there is room for improvement, I say so and offer my advice.


If I think it sucks, I usually don't even reply.

 

[MBasile]

I support the pact!

 

[manaheim]

The words "Great Job" aren't bad, unless they are the only words. Otherwise it becomes a huge guessing game as to what made your picture great, which really sucks if you're learning, trust me I've been there.

Yeah, the pact says "Summary comments". I was trying to be brief and using "summary" to mean those words and only those words.

 

[manaheim]

I guess I'm one of the ones that reply "It's great", "Great job", "Love it", etc...

Most of the pictures that I give this reply to are clearly so good that nothing I could say will help the photographer improve. They are already at the top of their game. They are simply showing off their work.
...And I am just telling them "Yeah, you were right - this is pretty good."

Sure, everybody has room to improve - but everybody can't tell you how.


If I feel that there is room for improvement, I say so and offer my advice.


If I think it sucks, I usually don't even reply.

Don't worry about it, dude.

 

[Josh66]

BTW, for the most part, I like and agree with everything in the pact.

Forgive me if I don't put a link to it in my signature though...

 

[blash]

a)

One of the technical problems in this photograph is that the bush surrounding the canon is horrendously underexposed.

The critiquer could have said ... the bush .. is underexposed.
No need to accentuate with an adjective like horrendously. That is unless you are actually trying to get under someone's skin.

b)

...(do you know who Ansel Adams was?),

Not sure who this is supposed to be aimed at, but the condescending attitude demonstrated by it, really has no place in C&C.

c)

What this forum IS trying to do, is to get people to produce professional quality work.

That would be one purpose of the forum.

...others would find much of it not applicable to what they want out of photography

There isn't one brand or style of critique that's geared for all. I would think that the more experienced photographers would be able to provide a critique that's a bit more tailored to the individual. It may take a few posts to determine that. Maybe ask a few well pointed questions, based on what you can glean from the quality of the picture, which can lead an experienced person to an understanding of OP.
But the use of words like horrendously underexposed, extremely messy and chaotic, and questions like 'you do know who Ansel Adams is don't you' are not useful and will lead to contention more often than not.

Don't be brash Blash.

a)

No dude, that's definitely "horrendously" underexposed. This is "plain" underexposed (the foreground not the sky):

Source: Tim Winterburn Landscape Photography

Reposted for comparison because the original (with source link) is on page 7:

The difference is that "plain" underexposure is simply dark - it could be boosted in Photoshop to little ill effect but very little detail is actually lost. "Horrendously" underexposed, as I used it, refers to wide swaths of the photo that have been blacked out by being underexposed and cannot be helped by Photoshop. Plain underexposed might be fixable, "horrendously" underexposed should have been thrown away in-camera because it is so "horrendous" that it needs to be thrown out.

I see more and more users looking for "honest" critique. The adjective I used was accurate. If someone's work sucks then I will tell them so and not mince words - this is how people get better. Quoth bullet number 5 of section 1,

I will not hold back critique, even if feelings may be hurt.

b)

You take my words out of context. Neither I nor anyone else is going to ask any poster that question - it's an idiotic question that does not help the poster with their work. I was describing the different components of a full artistic photographical education, noting that only one of them, critique, can theoretically be fulfilled on an internet forum - the Ansel Adams remark is an example of the part of historical photography that you would be expected to know if you were taking part in a formalized photographical education, and not something that can be expected on an internet forum.

Essentially, you read my comment with the prejudice that we are trying to set up a training camp here - I wrote it as showing what we AREN'T doing here. We don't have a "boot camp" for photographers, we don't have a huge business help section, and we certainly do not offer history of photography lessons/articles. If we were such a camp, then we would have business tips, and we would have history of photography, and we would have critique and all this other knowledge available to those who seek it - but we don't. Just because people seek to properly introduce one of those components doesn't mean they want to introduce all of them.

c) Which is why some of us, in the 4,000 posts thread, asked for a separate critique forum. There are probably a good number of people on here who come on and look for nothing more than to feed their ego. They aren't really interested in their photography, in the product of their time, so long as they feel good about it. That's who the beginner section is for. It's not necessarily a bad thing but they're not people I'm going to waste my time on. Being a general photography forum, these people do have a place, for them C&C means that they want to hear people say "I love kitties, nice shot!!!" I don't have a problem with this so long as it is cordoned off.

But there are also people who want to elevate their photography to a higher level. And here's the problem - because they just bought a SLR, or just started a beginner's photography class, or they're an art student who specializes in paint or sculpture and decides to dabble in art photography - people who DO want "honest critique" get mixed in with the people who don't. This is why a separate critique section would help the forum - a "beginner's art section" of sorts to cater to this section of users. However, considering the low level of admin involvement, it's unlikely to happen.

Instead, we're trying to create this internal division so that people are more likely to be dealt with correctly. Posters need to understand that if they just want positive encouragement, they should not use a C&C tag or description, instead just titling the post "My kitty" and posting the comment underneath the photo, "What do you think of my pretty kitty?" so that they get responses like "Nice shot!" and "I love your kitties they look so precious!" However, if they do decide to use the C&C tag, then this is what it means - it means that the kind of response that they receive is accurate, honest critique - and if they get responses saying that their work isn't that good, they should understand how to take such critique with grace and understand that a) such critique isn't personal and b) such critique does not indicate a wish for elitism from the critiquer.

That's what the Pact means - it's not about getting an army of professional photographers trained from raw newbie recruits. It's about giving proper responses to each individual user, how to get users to indicate which kind of response they would like, and ensuring that follow up comments are not blown out of proportion to the point where a mod has to lock the thread. The Pact indicates an understanding for users who only want, for example, color critique or composition critique, instead of a broader critique - but if "critique" or "C&C" is asked for, then all kinds will be given because that's what "critique" and "C&C" mean to us.

I quote, 3rd from last of section 1 of the Pact,

I will respect the requestors wishes if specified (such as if they only want technical critique)

which seems very much in line with what you wrote for C.

 

[Josh66]

^^^
I ddin't read all of that...

Why does everyone compare everything to Ansel Adams?
Is that really something to strive for?

The work above does not look anything like anything Ansel Adams ever shot...I don't know why it would be compared to his work...

Yes, Ansel Adams was a great American photographer, but honestly - much of his work is rather boring to me.

One can only see so many landscapes of the Rockies or Yellowstone...

 

[blash]

^^^
I ddin't read all of that...

Why does everyone compare everything to Ansel Adams?
Is that really something to strive for?

The work above does not look anything like anything Ansel Adams ever shot...I don't know why it would be compared to his work...

Yes, Ansel Adams was a great American photographer, but honestly - much of his work is rather boring to me.

One can only see so many landscapes of the Rockies or Yellowstone...

Because if you ask someone to name a famous photographer, Ansel Adams is likely to be it (if anyone). The above images aren't supposed to represent Ansel Adams's work, not even in relative quality. I could've used Henri Cartier-Bresson as an example instead, the point is to mention a famous historical photographical figure rather than to point to their work.

The point about Ansel Adams isn't that his work is particularly good (and it is), the point is that the guy went to an extraordinary length to get just the right photo, spending a huge amount of time to scout out the location and waiting all day for just the right time when the perfect light would strike. He is brought up in formalized photographical education not to get people to emulate his work but for people to understand that great art is not simply a point-and-shoot enterprise, that thought needs to be applied instead of just mindless clicking with their Brownies.

 

[Josh66]

OK, now I'm confused... Was the bit about Ansel Adams an actual quote from TPF, or did you just make it up to prove a point? (Either way is cool with me.)


I know that your images aren't meant to be a representation of Adams' work - that should be clear to anyone who has ever seen his work. That's what I don't get though - I see all kinds of photography here compared to Ansel Adams, when it has nothing at all to do with his work.

I have to assume that people are just throwing names out there to add 'prestige' to their post... That does nothing for me. If anything, it has the opposite effect - it causes me to loose respect for the offender.

 

[manaheim]

My... precious.

Josh, the original pact says "I agree I'm not ansel adams" or something like that. It was kinda a joke, but kinda saying "I admit I'm not the god of photography", but that's kinda stupid since someone on here may well be. It was really just to be silly. I'm silly. I do that. Lots. Yeah. Stuff.

Don't mind me. I have 103 fever and can't sleep. I think I saw a forest pixie dancing on my mousepad earlier.

 

[Chris of Arabia]

I think I saw a forest pixie dancing on my mousepad earlier.

Hope you got a candid shot of it, we need something to critique round here...

 

[manaheim]

I think I saw a forest pixie dancing on my mousepad earlier.

Hope you got a candid shot of it, we need something to critique round here...

We need a critique forum first!!!!

 

[fwellers]

No dude, that's definitely "horrendously" underexposed.
The difference is that "plain" underexposure is simply dark - it could be boosted in Photoshop to little ill effect but very little detail is actually lost. "Horrendously" underexposed, as I used it, refers to wide swaths of the photo that have been blacked out by being underexposed and cannot be helped by Photoshop. Plain underexposed might be fixable, "horrendously" underexposed should have been thrown away in-camera because it is so "horrendous" that it needs to be thrown out.

I see more and more users looking for "honest" critique. The adjective I used was accurate. If someone's work sucks then I will tell them so and not mince words - this is how people get better. Quoth bullet number 5 of section 1,

I will not hold back critique, even if feelings may be hurt.

Here is a pic of mine I posted in bw section. I can tell you that the forground is extremely underexposed. I did it in pp, because I thought it made the picture look better. Now I'm not asking for your cc, because I know the picture has problems, but I still like it. It's not perfect but it is what it is. My point is that I underexposed parts of it for a reason. And you don't know that when you flat out say subjective things like "it sucks" ( see your own words above ), or "it is HORRENDOUSLY underexposed.
I think that bullet point should be removed. You should be able to give critique without hurting people's feelings, simply by giving them the benefit of the doubt, and by not using such forcefully declarative adjectives.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/black-white-gallery/169199-clouds.html

You take my words out of context. Neither I nor anyone else is going to ask any poster that question - it's an idiotic question that does not help the poster with their work. I was describing the different components of a full artistic photographical education, noting that only one of them, critique, can theoretically be fulfilled on an internet forum - the Ansel Adams remark is an example of the part of historical photography that you would be expected to know if you were taking part in a formalized photographical education, and not something that can be expected on an internet forum.

All I know is that you did ask the question in a critique of the original picture in your post. It seems logical to me that you would also ask that question to someone else asking for cc. Whatever. I'm glad your pursuit of bullet number 5 of the PACT does have limits.

Which is why some of us, in the 4,000 posts thread, asked for a separate critique forum. There are probably a good number of people on here who come on and look for nothing more than to feed their ego. They aren't really interested in their photography, in the product of their time, so long as they feel good about it. That's who the beginner section is for. It's not necessarily a bad thing but they're not people I'm going to waste my time on. Being a general photography forum, these people do have a place, for them C&C means that they want to hear people say "I love kitties, nice shot!!!" I don't have a problem with this so long as it is cordoned off.

Well that is something that makes more sense to me. Even in there however, I wouldn't say "It sucks" even if you then point out what is technically wrong with it in your opinion. Notice I said "in your opinion", because I still say that you can never be sure whether someone centered the subject on purpose, or underexposed a section for a reason, or only focused on half of a face for a reason. So if you go in there, guns blaring, saying 'horrendously underexposed', 'face way out of focus', 'very poor composition because of no use of rot', etc... you will then be creating contention for no reason. People see different things and want to do different things in pictures. Maybe it doesn't work for you. You can get to the bottom of these things and provide some real critique if you don't dispense with politeness.

To the rest of your post, which seems to say the same thing, that a subforum would be best, I tend to agree with the premise. A CC subforum with the guts of the pact as the first sticky. But I can see that may lead to a lot more reorg of the forum. ( beginners cc, intermediate cc etc... ). We already have sections that separate beginners and intermediate.

 

[Chris of Arabia]

It's worth saying here that a specific "Critique" forum isn't going to make an appearance here any time soon. It has been tried and it wasn't a comfortable ride for the forum Mods who were in place at that time - from recollection, it seemed to be a place jam packed with hot and cold running egos.

What I can though say is that we already have 5 forums where part of the raison d'etre is clearly stated as "Post for discussion & feedback, including general critique" (not overly enamoured of the notion implied in the last 2 words, but it's what we have now). Those forums are:

1. The Black & White Gallery
2. Landscape & Cityscape
3. Nature & Wildlife
4. People Photography
5. Photojournalism & Sports Gallery

We also have 'The Professional Gallery' where it should be expected that criticism would be a component of any feedback you get.

Note that the Beginners forum isn't one of those mentioned above, where it's not so much critique that's required as tuition in the main functions of a camera and photographic technique as a whole. Personally I'd see that task as rather different to critique.

So aside from having a good working description for how critique should be structured and presented, I'm not sure what else would be needed.

Your thoughts?