The Pact

[Chris of Arabia]

Perhaps a standard reply we can post to someone's reply we feel is totally inappropriate. Something like a "How not to be a @#*&" thread or post.

It's called the FAQ's. Now if someone can propose a set of succinct amendments to those that deal with the concerns at hand then I (or you) can take those forward for consideration - I'm fairly certain the full text of the pact would need editing down somewhat though.

EDIT: Oh hell, I went and started Page 4 of this...

 

[JerryPH]

So should we, as members who can police the forum, be correcting the offender and letting them know that such unhelpful/rude comments are not the correct way to comment on someone's pics? I vote yes

I would love to say yes too... but thinking logically, what can you teach to someone who has no respect for your opinion and retorts with the malice of an angry 4 year old, and the situation immediately escalates?

For policing to work, there has to be respect from the offender towards the other or power to give punishment for bad behavior from the responder to the offender. This is why perhaps a more active intervention by the mods is key to this place improving in one way.

The worst thing that a non-mod can do is place someone on ignore. When I place someone on ignore, it is for my personal benefit. When someone places me on ignore, I could not care any less... so what power does that even have?

Self-policing never works. Now, users can guide and groom another but once tempers flare, all bets are out the window and self-policing goes down the crapper. An approach from day one of "here is how we do things here, can we ask that you follow these guidelines to make this place a better one" would.

The only people that can effectively police are the mods, who hold the power to delete a post, lock a thread or ban someone, and users know that.

Also, as new users become members, if they are not taught from day 1 that we do a search before posting, that we don't say "that sucks" without a full explanation of why and what the expectations should be on both sides, I would not expect very many positive changes to happen very fast.

Edit: Wow, 7 pages... this is the longest thread I have seen on TPF in a loooong time. Proof that it is an interesting and important topic to many people here.

 

[kundalini]

So should we, as members who can police the forum, be correcting the offender and letting them know that such unhelpful/rude comments are not the correct way to comment on someone's pics? I vote yes

YES. If enough members respond in such a way as to make the point that certain behaviors are not generally accepted, the correct course of action will eventually become a standard of acceptable behavior.

Yeah, I was wondering that myself. I'm thinking if we're going to turn things around a bit, we're going to have to take to the streets and at least give people a friendly reminder here and there. Maybe just even pointing them to the pact. (though maybe not with the guy I so rudely called out as an example of what NOT to do...)

As long as the Pact doesn't become a pack metallity. Taking it to the Streets should be left to The Doobies Brothers... even with Michael McDonald....

Seeing this thread develop as it has, my initial agreement in the fundamentals has now turn to a cautionary observation. The stronger one defends their position on a certain subject, the less they are to accept the validity and rationale of a different perspective. Planting ones feet firmly in the ground and daring another to cross that line in the sand is never a productive method of persuassion.

Case in point: As a young boy, I was forced to go to a Southern Baptist church. That's just the way things were. As I aged and began to discern the fundamentals from the business end of religion, the more I began to question the intent of the upper echelon. Today I detest organized religion, but in the same breath, I am grateful for the foundations of 'getting along' I was taught.

I would just dislike if something on a much lesser scale happened to the PACT.

Time will tell if this attempt to convert the current attitude is for good or for ill.

 

[Chris of Arabia]

Proof that it is an interesting and important topic to many people here.

Strictly speaking, it was important enough for 29 people to comment, though the number of views suggests a far higher figure, unless of course we all came in here 38 times each...

I still think there's some mileage in a review and update of the FAQs, as everyone signs up to abide by them when they register - they should be regarded as the touchstone reference point when any doubt creeps in. What's more they represent what TPF is about rather more than a thread written by someone who has left the forum by the time a new member signs up.

 

[SonnarSphere]

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/nature-wildlife/169402-spider-nest.html

this is what irritates me on this forum, and reinforces my doubts
that this pact can be enacted with authority and credibility.

 

[musicaleCA]

And what don't you like about that thread? You didn't ask for C&C...so this pact dealy largely doesn't apply.

 

[SonnarSphere]

1. • Critique is given to help people become better photographers, artists, and occasionally business people.
   • I will offer honest critique when it is asked for.
   • I will critique the work, not the person.
   • I will not hesitate to be direct.
   • I will not hold back critique, even if feelings may be hurt.
   • If a shot has fundamental flaws, I will not hesitate to say so.
   • I will offer both technical and artistic critique when possible.
   • I will respect the requestors wishes if specified (such as if they only want technical critique)
   • 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. Opinions must be expressed with reasons and analysis.
   • Lastly, I will make a reasonable effort not to hurt feelings, but not at the cost of sacrificing the aforementioned statements.
2. Accepting Critique
   • Critique is given to help people become better photographers, artists, and occasionally business people.
   • I will accept critique graciously.
   • I may not agree with or use all that I receive, but I will still but I will still take into consideration all critique provided.
   • I will actively and openly discuss critique so received.
   • When appropriate, I will challenge those who critique me to gain a better understanding.
   • I will not attempt to discredit or insult those who would take the time to provide any form of critique.
   • I will not discount opinions without serious consideration.
3. Know Theyself
   • I hereby acknowledge that I am not Ansel Adams.
   • I will be mindful of my own skill level when speaking with others and actively point out where I am speaking of things I am not totally certain of.
   • I acknowledge that no matter how good I am, there is always going to be someone better out there, and there is always going to be something else to learn.
4. A Committment to Community
   • I am a part of this community and therefore a stakeholder in it and will act as such.
   • Anyone who acts shoddily on this forum is a detriment to this community. I will take it upon myself to make polite comments to those people and (in extreme cases) report them to the moderators if appropriate.
   • I will actively participate in trying to redirect discussions to improve the quality of discourse.
   • I will actively suggest and promote changes to the community to make it better.
5. Response to Smarm (Antagonism/Ingratiation/etc.) (I like the word "smarm")
   • If someone rails at a response where I am adhering to this pact, I will point them to this pact and suggest that they read it.
   • If someone rails at me and I deserve it, I'll apologize and correct my behavior.
   • I will do my best not to get involved in flame wars.
   • I will give everyone at least one chance to take back what they said or correct their approach.
   • If all else fails, I will actively employ the ignore feature and move on with my life.

 

[SonnarSphere]

i'm sorry but because of the bulletpoints i couldnt preface that with my comments.
imo whats black is useful and whats red is less than useful.

 

[musicaleCA]

Okay, but you still didn't answer my question.

Saying why you don't find parts of that useful would be helpful, but I'm really confused as to why you think artistic critique isn't useful. Photography is a fine art, and has been recognized as such for many decades, even though as a relatively young artform the theory behind it has been discussed rather minimally when compared to more established artforms such as painting or music.

 

[SonnarSphere]

And what don't you like about that thread? You didn't ask for C&C...so this pact dealy largely doesn't apply.

"largely" well it either DOES or it DOES NOT. how can you be pedantic and yet vague when identifying your own rulebook as it suits. that's just silly.

affirmation number 1 - the FIRST affirmation of your pact is entirely 100% applicable to that thread situation. you are correct. i didn't ask for critique.

let me take roleplay your 'pact' here in responding to you on two points
musicaleCA

1. if you lack the awareness to recognise why that ignorant and pompous response in my thread would annoy the photographer concerned with making such nature pictures. i'm inclined to believe you also lack the people-skills/maturity needed for implementing the pact in a harmonious
way, in a team environment.

2. if you immediately reject my post here as having any relevance to your
pact, you lack the ability to absorb even the opening statements of that pact.

so, with this trial-run as a demonstration of the comptency of the
'pact-educators. i find the idea of the pact, negative and unhelpful,
anti-social even!

anyway i have better things to do with my life, than this.

 

[musicaleCA]

*Scratches his head* Oookay, so I'm incompetent, and immediately rejected your post as being relevant (what, because I asked you to elucidate what you were trying to say?)? Is huffing and puffing and walking away more constructive somehow? A comment like "Anyway, I have better things to do with my life than this" is oft a cop-out; a way to throw your opinion at someone else and then leave before they can respond.

If you think the reply that the photo was "messy" was somehow pompous, it wasn't, and in fact, I think it was right on cue. But again, you didn't ask for critique, so I didn't spend the time to point out the technical flaws of your image. And since you didn't ask for critique and no one was flaming you, this agreement largely don't apply; the first two sections concern critique and the last concerns flaming. And since no one in that thread seems to support this agreement anyway, I'm confused; do you see their responses as somehow representative of what the supporters of this pact are trying to achieve?

 

[blash]

That being said, I do personally believe you have to understand the rules in order to know how to break them effectively. I've seen a lot of evidence of this in a variety of art forms, including painting, writing and music.

Since this seems to be a point of contention: I'm going to take an image from the 1st page of the beginners forum, and show the difference:

Source (also an example of poor C&C "omg I love it type comments"): http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/.../169344-my-first-few-attempts-c-c-please.html

One of the technical problems in this photograph is that the bush surrounding the canon is horrendously underexposed. There is no detail in the shadow to the point where the viewer cannot tell where the brush ends and the beach begins. The underexposure does not lend attention to the cannon, nor does it lend a nefarious tone to the cannon's being - it does not lend anything to the shot. Should the leaves be darkened in relation to the cannon? Yes - but not to that point. [Side note: this is not the only technical problem the photo has - the barbed wire in the top left corner, for example, is out of place and doesn't lend any context - is it there because this is an old war cannon and it is the remnant of an attempt to keep invaders away from the cannon, or is it there as a decorative/framing measure in a real-life exhibit of said cannon? Is it even there as an overly hostile way of telling people, don't touch the cannon? :mrgreen:] Contrast the image above, which has at least a small amount of thought (even if incorrect and untrained) devoted to art-worthiness, to here:

Source for the following 2 photos: JerryPH's blog The Jerry Blog!: #3 - Controlling DOF With Your Flash

This image is technically well-exposed - far side of the tablecloth is a little hot but overall the exposure is fine. However, it's not an artistically pleasing photo - the items (cabinet, stuff to the right of it) in the background are distracting, no real thought is given towards subject placement in terms of composition, the bowl on the far end of the table fights for attention from the viewer, and the image is just plain flat-out boring. There is no artistic value in this photograph (Jerry - I also recognize that there wasn't meant to be, you know where I'm going with this, stay with me).

However, by using a snooted light, Jerry dramatically enhances the artistic value of the photograph. Skipping to the last photo in Jerry's series:

Here, the underexposure of the background and the bowl greatly increase the artistic value of the photograph. Can you see any details in the shadow? There are none - and the bowl can barely be seen at all. However, by making the conscious decision to technically destroy the balanced exposure of the photo, the artistic value increased substantially - there is now a clear subject, and the subject is noticeably framed by the placemats on the table. The far straight edges of the table, indicating the end of the middleground, has become curved to complement the circular design of the table cloth.

Could the poster of the first image have been able to create an image of the artistic value of the last image with little or no training? No - the poster of the first image doesn't understand flash/strobe photography. It's not merely enough to know the rule - i.e., expose your photos correctly, you have to understand the rule - i.e., what does under/overexposure do artistically to your photos and therefore why should you avoid it?, so that you can break the rule - i.e. because snooting light is a kind of underexposure that can enhance artistic value instead of reducing it, snooting light is acceptable from an artistic and therefore actually technical standpoint.

Maybe in a training school or something

In regards to the comments about TPF being a "training school" for professional or semi-professional photography, that doesn't mean that many of us are looking for guidance in how to become a photographer who sells his work for money. Such guidance is actually 90% not related to photography at all - professional photographers need much more training in how to effectively run a business rather than a comprehensive 'training program' that would teach the photographer the history of photography (do you know who Ansel Adams was?), artistic critique (what this thread is about), and film processing (which is worthless to the professionals who shoot digital and irrelevant to the professionals who drop their film off at a lab). Otherwise, we would have many more threads on tips to starting a business, proper business practices, tax code, how to advertise, incorporation procedures, etc.

For better or for worse, the economy has moved us to the point where right now in time, people are flocking to Craigslist to get a high school student who spent $600 on a consumer DSLR to shoot their special occasion for $100 either because they can't afford anything better or they haven't seen the results from an experienced professional to see that they've just hired someone who can't shoot for crap.

What this forum IS trying to do, is to get people to produce professional quality work. What matters is not if you've been put on the spot by a relative to shoot her wedding because you just spent $800 on a DSLR - what matters is that you will be able to get a photo that deserves more praise than, "what a cute little kitty!" What matters is that you will understand photography to the point where your work cannot be duplicated by the person sitting next to you in the family room because, through the understanding of art and photographic principles, you have elevated your work to be a point of personal pride - there is no pride in work when the person next to you says, "what a cute little kitty!... I can do that too," and your work has become reliant on the natural beauty of the kitty which anyone can capture with a cellphone and not reliant on how you have made the kitty beautiful through said principles.

 

[blash]

And what don't you like about that thread? You didn't ask for C&C...so this pact dealy largely doesn't apply.

"largely" well it either DOES or it DOES NOT. how can you be pedantic and yet vague...

Now you're the one arguing pedantics.

Fact: you did not ask for C&C. Period, "DOES NOT". Neither "C&C" nor "CC" nor "Comments/Critique" nor "Comments/Criticism" nor any variation thereof is found in either your title the body of the original post. It is merely a picture with a title in the subject line and technical information on what equipment was used to take the photo. Therefore, do not expect people to enter a long-winded diatribe on the merits of your photo. The most you can expect from such a post is "Nice shot," "Interesting colors," or what actually happened, "That looks like a big effing spider."

 

[manaheim]

BTW, kundalini... I was kinda joking when I said "take to the streets" largely because I really WOULDN'T want this to turn into some kind of street gang. As long as it's a list of ideals that people just try to stick to, I think it's a good thing... if it turns into some kind of protectionist racket or something... <shudder> (not literally, obviously... but I think we're on the same wavelength so I assume you know what I mean)

I have more comments to make, but I'm just up here for a sec and wanted to say HI!

 

[fwellers]

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.

...(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.

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

That would be one purpose of the forum.

It's nice to see that you have a passion about teaching photography to others. Not everybody has the same passion for the same aspects of photography as you though. Not everyone even cares to learn how to use a snoot, or is ready to spend time effort and money on the lighting aspect of photography.
I think that the critique you gave obviously took a lot of your time. But I'm quite sure many people would take offense at it and many 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.