The Pact

[UUilliam]

100000000% agree to this, the way we should all be

 

[javier]

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.

 

[Josh66]

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...

 

[blash]

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[blash]

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.)

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.

 

[leighthal]

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.

If all the 4000 posts members paid for a subscription, including the "serious" newbs you could use the members only forum to hold cc. It is cobwebby dead in there. This way you could avoid all those who you consider a pesty problem.
When I paid for a subscription (because I was here every day and I always support what I use) I expected the members forum to be a more social/instructive/serious place to hang out. I think it is an undeveloped area worth consideration.

 

[manaheim]

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)

http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/2002-02/pdfs/russo.pdf

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?

 

[manaheim]

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.

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.

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?

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)

 

[usayit]

Your thoughts?

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.

 

[blash]

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)

http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/2002-02/pdfs/russo.pdf

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?

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 )

 

[manaheim]

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.

 

[tnvol]

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)

http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/2002-02/pdfs/russo.pdf

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?

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.

 

[skieur]

I posted this link [or one like it] a while back, but I can't find the thread now. Perhaps it will take some of the question out of "what" critque is and "how" it is given.

Basic Strategies in Reading Photographs

Formal analysis provides a basic common language in the visual arts. However, a description of a photograph based only on formal analysis would be incomplete. Photographers make decisions both about composition (arrangement of visual elements) as well as content (meaning) when taking photographs. Consequently, it is important to consider the artist's intentions for making a photograph of a particular subject. Finally, the historical and social context in which a photograph was made must also be carefully considered.

This is the section that I totally disagree with, and I probably have more and broader photographic and visual arts experience than he has.

skieur

 

[skieur]

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?

I don't know why you do not use the structure for critique that I was introduced to at age 11 and was still being used by corporations and photographic associations after my 50 years of further experience in the field.

The basis of critique is that a photo MUST stand on its own, irrespective of the intent of the photographer. What the photographer succeeded at in his efforts is more important than his intentions. Every technique: technical or aesthetic MUST contribute to the impact and the effectiveness of the photo in order to be considered a strength rather than a weakness.

Most of critique is objective. Dead black space with no detail does NOT contribute to photographic impact. Portraits that are extremely unflattering of a bride will not build the reputation of a photographer who wants to do a few weddings. Landscapes that are flat and dull with no centre of interest, will not get a second look from any viewer.

Critique involves 2 elements. The technical side. This is an analysis of whether the photo could be improved at the camera level through for example the use of filters, lenses, flash, reflectors, tripod, shutter speed, aperture, depth of field, camera angle, framing, etc., as well as at the postprocessing level trough selective brightening, cloning, use of software filters, sharpening, etc.

The second area is the elements of design or compostion, which involve the use of thirds, direction of paths, roads, rivers, angles, shapes, lines,
curves, use of colour and contrast, isolating elements, texture, design, symbolism, juxtaposition, etc.

In terms of objectivity and consensus, no one has disagreed with me that looking up a bride's nose is not terribly flattering, nor that a distant flat shot of water, the horizon, and a washed out sky is a great sunset.

Those who object share some characteristics. They have no background in art. They have seen very few quality photographs. They have tunnel vision, in that they do not see the small details that make a difference in the quality of a photo. They cannot tell the difference between a snapshot and a photograph.

skieur

 

[skieur]

http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/2002-02/pdfs/russo.pdfI 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.

I think you went too far in the other direction. "horrendously" overexposed would be more in line with " extremely overexposed" or "very overexposed" rather than simply "a bit overexposed".

skieur