Utopia of Critique Forum

[Chris of Arabia]

With reference back to the OU course I just did, this was the set of guidelines provided as to how the panel (of 10) images would be assessed. Don't think I'm giving too many secrets away here. They didn't really get into the 'purpose' or 'intent' side of things, but this may be useful.

+++++++++++
(i) Seeing (visual awareness) (30 marks)
Here the assessors will assess the panel of ten images as a whole, using the following criteria:

• Composition and cropping – Do the images demonstrate skills and knowledge of composition (using form, pattern, texture, colour, lighting, cropping, cloning)?
• Visual creativity – Do the images show some imagination and creativity with good use of light and colour in sympathy with the subject?
• View point – Have suitable or interesting view points been chosen?
• Decisive moment – If the images include live action or photojournalism-type grab shots, do the images reveal skilled choice of shutter release moment?
• Variety in use of camera/image editing - Do the images communicate different moods, ideas, narratives (for example different lighting conditions or digital darkroom techniques)? Repetition of similar images should be avoided.
• Overall impact – Is the editing, selection and sequencing of the material well considered to display the material to its best advantage? Repetition should be avoided. Do the images/panel communicate with impact?

(ii) Technical quality (30 marks)
Here the assessors will assess the panel of ten images as a whole, using the following criteria:

• Exposure - Is the exposure appropriate (are highlights burnt out or do shadows lack detail?)
• Colour and tone – Do images display appropriate control of colours or colour casts?
• Focus and sharpness – Is the main subject sufficiently or correctly in focus? If there is movement in the frame is this handled correctly for the intent? Does the image suffer from camera shake?
• Depth of field – Is the control of depth of field appropriate for the subject or intention?
• Digital artefacts - Is there evidence of over-sharpening or poor cloning or any other digital artefact?
• Technical creativity – Is there creativity in the use of basic photographic techniques taught in the course, and has this been handled well?

+++++++++++

 

[abraxas]

...
The Mod will then tell him/her to shape up and if they don't (or give a damn good reason why they haven't) they will be asked to step down. If they don't the Mod can remove them ...

Wasn't this (or lack thereof) the core problem with the last two attempts at a critique section?

 

[(Ghastly) Krueger]

I have some comments:

Regarding the anonymity of the posts I see advantages to both sides, so maybe it can be optional? Those who fear their identity could affect the outcome may be anon, those who don't care or prefere the more personal approach can give their name.

Regarding choosing some entries and rejecting others: I don't like the idea. I also understand the reasons behind it, but I think the potential damage to a novice poster outweights them. I would personally hate to submit an image (that to me, has been a lot of work and seems good enough) and just get a "it's not even worthy of a crit" in response.

I don't like the idea of the panel having final word. Maybe it's just my nature... I prefer a bit more dialog.

I am a bit worried about the panel, because there is no way to guarantee a response. If only 3 persons are able to respond to a request for crit, some may go unfinished due to time restrictions / people leaving. This is just a concern.

I love the idea of giving the level of the photographer and taking that in account.

A new suggestion: a rating system. I've seen it in other places and seems to work there. There are (IIRC) 3 areas (technical / originality / whatever) to be rated and there is an agreed scale, say 1 to 5. This sumarizes the result in a measurable way. Downside: can lead to competition among he members, instead of using it to measure one's own progress.

 

[smcaskil]

I have some comments:

Regarding choosing some entries and rejecting others: I don't like the idea. I also understand the reasons behind it, but I think the potential damage to a novice poster outweights them. I would personally hate to submit an image (that to me, has been a lot of work and seems good enough) and just get a "it's not even worthy of a crit" in response.

I think that this will be something that can be addressed in the submission guidelines and overview of the new forum, once it gets off the ground. Letting folks know that not having your photo selected does not mean it was not "good enough", just that there is a finite number of critiques that can be handled.

As far as submissions that don't fit the guidelines (ie did not include the required information), hopefully something can be communicated to the submitter to make sure they don't continue to make the same mistakes.

I don't like the idea of the panel having final word. Maybe it's just my nature... I prefer a bit more dialog.

One of the problems inherent to having lots of dialog is that it creates workload and delays. At some point someone has to be "in charge" and has to make a decision. That's why the Moderator position will be so important, as KvR said earlier. They will be the one that directs the photos that are critiqued and directs traffic for the entire system.

That's not to say that there has to be no dialog. But I think it would make the system really hard to manage if there were tons of email and private messages to handle to answer questions about why this picture was chosen over that one, why this post did not go through, etc.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Wasn't this (or lack thereof) the core problem with the last two attempts at a critique section?

Not really.
The first crit forum had Mods but most of the critting was done by the other members. It fell into anarchy when the Mods left it (for reasons we need not go into).
In the last version the few people doing the crits were also in charge of it and quite clearly disagreed as to what a crit was (see another thread).
In this version we have a Mod whose sole function is to manage the forum, quite a few people who do the crits but have no control over what they crit, and they have clear guidelines to follow for giving a crit.
If you have guidelines then these act as performance indicators. Is the panel member following guideline A, yes or no? If the answer is no then he is not doing his 'job' and the Mod can say 'you need to start doing A' or 'stop doing B'. He/she then either does A or stops B or doesn't, or gives a good argument as to why they aren't/are doing it. This may result in the changing of the guidelines - or it may result in their removal from the panel.
The sub-forum that is open for people to post questions, get answers and discuss the crits gives people a say. They can also flag up if they think a panel member is not observing a guideline. Panel members can respond via the Mod if they wish, to keep their anonymity. They may have a very good reason (see above) and it can be discussed.
Members who have submitted a number of pictures over a number of weeks but through chance have not been selected can point this out. The Mod can easily keep a record of submitted and critted. If the complaint is valid the Mod can bend the rules and specifically select one of their pictures. The beauty is no-one (except the Mod) will know if this is done. It could just have been the member's lucky week.
It is just a very simple system of checks and balances where the quality and value of the crit is paramount and everything else is a compromise.
The guidelines should not be exhaustive or constrictive - panel members should should be able to have their own style and say what they want but within general limits.
The guidelines will be things like: no personal attacks; no insults; faults must be explained (why are they faults?); at least one suggestion for improvement with an explanation as to why this improves things. That sort of thing.
Simple, clear and basic.
The idea is not to put everyone in straight-jackets but to just keep things focussed, civil and useful.
I don't think that is unreasonable

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Addendum:

The success or failure of a forum on these lines will depend to a large extent on having the right Mod. But I can think of at least half-a-dozen people here who are up to the task and would play fair.

I've also been asked if certain people (naming no names) would, in view of their 'record', be considerd as panel members.
The answer must be yes. As long as a volunteer fulfills the requirements and they work within the guidelines then everybody should be eligible.

 

[ThomThomsk]

I am excited at the prospect of seeing informed and considered critique. I don't post photos here because, well, there isn't a great deal to be gained from doing so, but it sounds like I may be able to change that policy soon.

The panel system will avoid the problems we have seen here recently and my only concern is whether demand will be overwhelming, but the formality of the submission system should help to avoid that.

It would be great if the approach being suggested were to influence the way in which critique is offered elsewhere in TPF. Those who are so minded would adopt the methodology and language of the crit forum and take it to the galleries, where it might slowly begin to change the culture.

On a couple of occasions recently I started writing what I considered to be proper critiques in the b&w gallery, and it takes a lot of time and effort. I spent almost an hour in one case, and then decided not to post it because there were already so many of the usual TPF style of judgmental responses, and I also feared my reply would receive the same kind of negativity from the mob. Should have had the courage of my convictions of course, but having examples of the process being done properly will help me with that.

Thom

 

[elsaspet]

Wow! I love the way this whole thing is firming up! You guys rock!

 

[Helen B]

Here's an alternative framework for critiques. I think of it as being Henry James' method.

What is the perceived intent? (This needs to be answered before proceeding)

Has the intent been realised?

Was it worth it?

This gets the technical stuff into the background and reduces the influence of the reviewers' personal preferences. It does, however, assume intentionalism. This may or may not be a valid assumption. I think that it is preferable to starting by assuming that you already know the photographer's intent. That's my main criticism with most of the critiques I read on the web, and why I think that the web can often be stultifying and homogenising.

Best,
Helen

 

[Hertz van Rental]

What is the perceived intent? (This needs to be answered before proceeding)

Has the intent been realised?

Was it worth it?

This is why I have suggested that people submitting pictures for crits should explain what they were trying to do and what the purpose of the picture was.
This aids the people giving the crit and hopefully will help the photographer think more about their images.
Of course such a guideline is only of use if the person asking for the crit wants that aspect looking at. If it's a technical aspect then it becomes irrelevant.
To give people more than they ask for is a sure road to confusion.

Also bear in mind that the forum as currently outlined is aimed at 'beginner' level. If it ever comes into being then the same structure can be used for an intermediate and possibly an advanced forum. In which case giving a crit on all aspects would become obligatory and James' method would certainly be relevant. That is, if we have the people of the required calibre capable of giving such crits on here

 

[ThomThomsk]

Here's an alternative framework for critiques. I think of it as being Henry James' method.

What is the perceived intent? (This needs to be answered before proceeding)

Has the intent been realised?

Was it worth it?

This gets the technical stuff into the background and reduces the influence of the reviewers' personal preferences. It does, however, assume intentionalism. This may or may not be a valid assumption. I think that it is preferable to starting by assuming that you already know the photographer's intent. That's my main criticism with most of the critiques I read on the web, and why I think that the web can often be stultifying and homogenising.

Best,
Helen

This is an interesting point. Could you expand on what you mean by intentionalism? Would your approach be workable for images submitted by photographers at all levels of skill?

 

[New England Moments]

I'm just totally lost , and perhaps to simple minded... A critique room , is just that, open game for a poster.. ANY CRITIQUE given in a disrespectful way, should be HANDLED BY A MOD... or why have a mod in a room.. select a mod who is open minded/ fair/ and HAS COMMON SENSE....

When one has an Exhibit of his/her work, they usually don't send out Pvt. invitations to certain people/photographers/ or Critics .. an Exhibit is SIMPLY PUBLIC OPINION... One certainly learns from public opinion..
You don't need to be on any level, on the photography ladder to have an opinion.. The orig. poster also should after time learn from opinion, who's opinion they value, through viewing the work , of those who critique his/her work...

When someone want to paint your house, you don't sit in your living room , and listen to the painter describe how his job will look,,,, NO, you ask for his/her Address, Drive by , and see First Hand What His/Her House Looks Like !

I think everyone here is going way overboard on this subject... I do however , feel without a Critique Room, this forum will suffer...

No One expects their work to be gone over with a fine tooth comb as many are suggesting...
Unless you can get together a panel of Top Grade Professionals, who more or less wouldn't work for free, you better think about what you had, and live with it..

CRITIQUE IS SIMPLY A MATTER OF PUBLIC OPINION, nothing more , nothing less.. Very seldom are photos flawless, no matter what rung of the ladder you choose to place yourself...
butttttt, without a critique forum, where one can speak their opinion on a shot, then you should all be prepared to start hearing, Nice Shot...

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh so boring, and unconstructive...

Just a 2 cent view, think I will return, after this is resolved.... I refuse to post, to simply hear, nice job ??

Wish you all luck, will check back later..

I left this Forum before because of HARSH CRITIQUE, and I blame that kind of disrespect on the Mods of the Critique Forum who Allowed it... Again, if there is a disrespect in the critique room towards a posters work, A MOD SHOULD HANDLE IT.... How Simple? if not, why have a mod ?

Later Folks... again, wish you luck..

 

[Helen B]

This is an interesting point. Could you expand on what you mean by intentionalism? Would your approach be workable for images submitted by photographers at all levels of skill?

Here's a quote that explains what I understand as intentionalism from this essay:

"the notion that authorial intention can provide a guide to interpretation, a criterion of textual meaning, or a standard for the validation of criticism."

I believe that James' approach (it's not mine) is valid for all levels of skill, if the intent is appropriate. For some the intent is going to be simple, for others it may be burdened with purpose or difficult to communicate verbally. As Herz points out, the photographer submitting work will be asked to attempt to explain their intent.

In response to New England Moments' comments, I think that there is a place for both structured critique and simple response. Don't the general galleries provide an opportunity for the latter?

Best,
Helen

 

[Chiller]

The one thing we still dont know is if all these plans can be implimented. If for some reason we do get shot down with this. Maybe there is a simplified plan, a critique gallery like before, but with sticker rules. I know we have talked about this before, but no offence do the people who tried, but I just felt the people left in charge were not there when the fights started.

I thought of something simple while watching the Toronto Maple Leafs lose another hockey game, so Im really lacking in brain cells right now, so this might just be a wasted post.

The new critique would be like this.

The poster put his photo up, with the following.
Exif data, or if using film, whatever info is required.
His/Her intentions. What were they striving for, did they achieve it, and do they feel they could improve. (I have always liked Hertzys idea, as it makes a good base for the critique)
The overall environment..was it sunny, what was the light source, was a tripod used(those are just examples for now)
There would be 2 "new" mods hired to maintain this gallery. In two different time zones...say, on the other side of the pond, and one on this side of the pond. That way, somebody is around to stop anything that happens right away before it gets out of hand.
As for behaviour. There is a little blurb at the beginning, that says...this is how you act, you give critique in a sensible manner. You step out of line, you are banned from the critique gallery. Not the forum just the gallery. Say...a 3 strike rule. After the third you are gonzo. If you continue your idiot behaviour in the regular galleries..the same rule applies. Maybe it is a little soft...but can be tweaked.
Sorry...just wanted to toss that out there. Maybe it is something we can get going asap, as I have noticed 4 or 5 threads asking where the critique went.
If ya think this is a brain cramp...just ignore this post.

 

[Battou]

Sorry! Guess I'm just used to Cindy and think everyone else is the same :lmao:

Now that I look at it I see where the confution started, In my list of suggestions suggestion one was seperate from the rest, from the second one down they're geared toward the full vertion wilt the first is the hold over, but anywho......

I like it for its simplicity.

Quick question: There will be 12-15 critiquers at the outset. Are they 'appointed for life' (unless they withdraw or are replaced for having missed deadlines)? Any other proposed method for getting some occasional 'new blood' on the panel?

I made a suggestion on this concept but I haven't seen any mention to it further but...

Two:
Once this does get up and running I would like to see a subforum strictly for introduction to critiquing. A Q&A section for all users to learn how to properly give critiques. There is more to critiques than analyzing imagery, knowledge of gear or skills in post processing, we all know this. We need a place to teach users how to deliver true form critiques in full in stead of relying on a small group of people to do them all.