Photography is art and art is subjective. So why argue about it. And then again why not?

<Gerry, do you think what I wrote about Tim's portrait in the other thread needed editing or deletion? Please be specific. Thanks.>

 

 

Fred, I did not notice anything unseemly/ amiss at the time and now see nothing that would have given me myself heartburn.

 

My comment on moderation goes back to the original topic of no critique and why that forum on FB chap wanted to have no hassles on his watch. Hassles being something to ruin the appetite for even lively discussion or debate if you will. Stifle disagreement and what is left, after all, but talking to one's self.....editorial thought on the whole business. It depends of course on the purpose of posting any image. We have enough show and tell stuff. And this PN certainly has or had educative goals. Developing a tougher skin is not a bad thing at all for all.

Edited January 3, 2018 by GerrySiegel

Supriyo and Gerry, thank you both for your replies. The reason I came back to the subject is that I thought Gerry's comment on moderation was, in fact, referring to our PN situation here. Thanks for clarifying what you were referring to. I think Supriyo is right and at least my part in the specific critique discussion will conclude here.

I think Internet forums by and large are tools for discussion and it's hard to have real discussions if expressing an opinion is frowned upon. I do enjoy "No Words" as well, but if that were the only type of content on PN, I'd find somewhere else to go.

 

But as Fred said, it depends on the relationship between those critiquing and those receiving the critiques. Plus context matters. Sometimes praising what is good is better than pointing out what isn't. And sometimes just the opposite is true. After 20 years of marriage, I'm still learning that the former is true more often than the latter.

Edited January 3, 2018 by tomspielman

I think Internet forums by and large are tools for discussion and it's hard to have real discussions if expressing an opinion is frowned upon. I do enjoy "No Words" as well, but if that were the only type of content on PN, I'd find somewhere else to go.

 

But as Fred said, it depends on the relationship between those critiquing and those receiving the critiques. Plus context matters. Sometimes praising what is good is better than pointing out what isn't. And sometimes just the opposite is true. After 20 years of marriage, I'm still learning that the former is true more often than the latter.

 

I agree. My point is, such subtleties in personal choices of receiving critiques do not work as well in an internet forum, as they do in a personal relationship. I think, when I am exposing myself or my work in a public forum, I have to have an awareness of what it entails, that my work will be received and reacted upon by people of different tastes, attitudes and philosophies. Additionally, I have to be aware that I may not like all of them and (this is the most important part), I have almost no control over what people write about my works. The only alternative I can think of is to not post.

The only moderators fully qualified to maintain a free and open forum are its participants.

Give and take with a measure of patience, humility, and humor.

Good conversations are worth that.

To sort of address both Gerry's topic and "the Tim & Fred feud" I can only add the following.

 

In a forum of well established intelligent individuals who come to know other member's motivations through years of posting history tend to develop expectations and understandings of intent behind each other's decision to provide an unsolicited critique. If there hasn't been one then why now? Something seems amiss.

 

I don't think much can be helped or gained critiquing member's photos with this level of personal familiarity. It's an established environment that can easily be misread if one or the other decides to change their normal routine and thus motivation behind why they posted with the understanding that person has exhibited a level of intelligence of knowing better and making smart decisions in the past on what, when and where they decide to provide an unsolicited off topic critique to another long established member.

 

Some people in social groups like this understand the other should know better and, when they do the opposite, it points to some other perceived personal issue, animosity or the possibility that person just has a bug up their arse that particular day.

 

When one of the members is usually ignored by and large while another is quite active in intelligent give and take among many members, the one primarily ignored is quite comfortable with that situation and has become used to it. So when the active give and take person who doesn't frequently offer feedback voluntarily to the ignored one does so but on a minor petty point that has nothing to do with the topic, the ignored person perceives something is up especially since the feedback is off topic, doesn't help and is from someone who isn't a proven authority on the subject (i.e. photo restoration).

 

So really how useful is a photo critique when it's given by people who know each other only in online discussions where there's really no emotional skin in the game and no proof that the critique helps or is appropriate? I haven't seen one photographer make better photos on account of a critique in my ten plus years online.

Edited January 4, 2018 by Tim_Lookingbill

So this site has quite a few retired educated doctors, lawyers, programmers, college professors, etc all "enthused" in photography as a hobby with maybe a few pursuing it professionally. Reading some of the critiques and forum discussions you'll find quite a few gravitate toward those that write in an intelligent style as if they're English Lit. majors showing them special attention like they're talking only to them with soothing speech about their photo submission. Clearly there is an expression of enthusiasm that both share and thus both feel good about the exchange. But is a photo produced that reflects an improvement as a result? I haven't seen it.

 

And besides I don't think anyone providing this level of feedback has enough time and energy to do this for everyone and so some folks don't get the same level of attention. That might create problems. Some may feel slighted or ignored because maybe they can't write like English Lit. majors and all they want is to know how to make a better photo when in fact those kind of heavy conversations have nothing to do with photography but merely act as a back rubbing session between educated people who maybe aren't even aware that this is what's really happening.

Re Mark's comment. "

The only moderators fully qualified to maintain a free and open forum are its participants.

Give and take with a measure of patience, humility, and humor."

 

Well yes and no, Mark. Some of us have humility and humor. I myself have a lot to be humble about and my humor gets on my wife's nerves more than now and then. ( Oh gosh has it been over 50 years ? ) Patience is best after long sessions of meditation but who has time. Internet is a free fire zone. Cluster bombing from 30, 000 ft mostly. The sense that there is someone in charge who will intervene and keep dialogue from becoming tempest will in itself keep tempest under control. Now, it is oft argued that a little spirited bare knuckle stuff is kind of good sport. I find it does not help my reflux so I avoid it in web talk. Most of the time. I do not think that Tim can be mind melded with Fred for what it is worth. But we all know that. I recall how Lex Jenkins gave a frank appraisal of one fellow's general bitchiness- that he may took for cleverness- and sort of ameliorated his clever put downs. ( No Lex or Lex like moderation that I can see...low budget operation. Off shore lowest bid site who knows,- not me for sure, so much mishmash of structure so substance is for the future tense methinks. We can hope. Yet we make the content. And not moderation too. Not in real world)

 

KInd beats clever. But speaking for the male gender it is easier to be clever than kind.

So mark's spirited advice is directed to the kind and not the clever. If that makes sense. Aloha nui.

Edited January 5, 2018 by GerrySiegel

The best moderator is the browser's scroll bar. Use it next time you don't want to read something.

 

However, if someone threatens another person, you call the cops. That's when you don't scroll passed what has been said. And you certainly don't rely on site moderators to catch it.

 

I haven't seen one person threaten anyone in all the years I've been reading these forums, but then I may have missed more than I can count seeing I don't have the time to read every thread in all those years.

Good points G.S.

Kinda clever......

It looks like the site is for lighting diagrams and technique and wants to keep it restricted to that. They are concentrating on the mechanics and that is helpful, especially for beginners who don't yet know how to reverse engineer. If resulting photos are posted with diagram, it really helps learning what lighting will do or how to produce the look you prefer. That allows someone to master the mechanics then incorporate it into their artistic expression. A caustic critique could stifle newbies submitting their diagrams and photos. I think it makes sense. Thanks for the diagram program. Will have to try that. When I stumble onto a set up that is unique or cool, I take a photo of the set up. I can figure out the ratios looking at the resulting photos. When I decide to try it a few years later, I can view the set up and quickly reproduce it. Edited January 5, 2018 by bob_bill

hi gerry

 

it was a technical discussion, about lighting &c.

critiquing the images or model's choice of eye liner

would like someone going to a mechanic-classes for a technical discussion about

rebuilding a car engine and someone critiquing the style of car or the driver.

they have nothing to do with eachother.

I was going to just post two words, Namely LAST WORD. Bite my tongue :)

But I need to offer some recap. For what is a valid contrast of viewpoints. I have noticed this array of viewpoints, among others as I count them:

- Fred notes that we need to be cautious about being too hasty and judgmental when we look at photos. Some take a while to appreciate.

- We got a link to how amateurs use their pap that can even take down the most accomplished works from the canon. It is funny but we have all been there.

- I made the proposition that it has pluses and minuses. We are all sensitive and language and hidden agendas can surface. Tim has suggested that a critique can feel like more personal than generous. Hard to dismiss.

- When we shoot models it is possible, and has been seen, that people take license to make snotty comments on a model. " She is too skinny, feed the lady." Noone has yet said she should stuff her brassiere better, but that could happen if people get snarky.

- Eye liner and make up are different from light and are a model choice that should be off limits. Lighting is tough enough to grasp and that is the intent, and if not clear, one needs to be reminded.

- The word " disrespected" which is a kind of verb-noun thing that came up during the Watts riots and elsewhere has an iffy sound. We all think we know what it means, but when we use it to stop discourse, then it is problematic. I didn' care for it in the context of a makeup choice. And, Jnanian, if the shooter is not responsible for that choice, what the hell are we doing behind the camera?

- Putting a photo on on line in a photo forum implies you get to comment both positive ( what do you like) and what do you think could be improved. In a group where membership has to be individually approved so it says, the implication is that members have some competence and are screened for same. This is a big leap of faith.

 

So that leaves a field of some disagreement on how we treat on line evaluation. My comment once to Bob Atkins on the Photo of the Week was that a panel of pros should begin the evaluation. Bob replied with sense that my statement was a form of elitism. Well it is. I reaffirm that to comment at all is a compliment and a service to anyone who looks at the world and photographs it. We have a choice to scroll as Tim said. To moderate our language so that we do not offend is not easy sometimes. But worth the effort. Worst case is that we begin not a dialogue for all viewers but a row. And why come here to tussle, we can do that with the kids :) Fred talks about thick skin. I think that few have grown that skin, so maybe we are going to be left with the No Words and the specific critique calls, which do not get much critique from what I see.

 

Any more general observations? I got no skin in the game- thin or thick... Really. Honest.

Edited January 5, 2018 by GerrySiegel

When we shoot models it is possible, and has been seen, that people take license to make snotty comments on a model. " She is too skinny, feed the lady."

I think one can comment on a model or a subject's looks without being snotty. It's a photo. If I see a photo of a dilapidated house, I may comment on the condition of the house, especially if it seems an important part of the photo. I should be able to comment on the physical traits of a human subject as well. It might require more delicacy and discernment, but should not be off limits.

 

Critics often use snideness and sarcasm to make points. Very few criticisms of art that you'll read in The New Yorker or other places twill be free of snide comments. I'm neither advocating nor for prohibiting the use of snideness in critique. I'm just pointing out how prevalent it is.

 

Interestingly, photographers tend to tell you comments on the physical appearance of models is forbidden only when the comments are negative or perceived as negative. How often have you heard that comments about the physical look of a model are off limits when the comments are positive? I've seen countless "your model is beautiful," "what a sexy model" without the reaction of the same photographer who will tell someone that says their model looks thin to shut up because her looks are off limits.

 

A photo shows physicality. It should be fair game for discussion.

Eye liner and make up are different from light and are a model choice that should be off limits.

I disagree. Eyeliner and makeup are an important part of many photos, especially fashion photos. A photographer should be aware of how the model's makeup is coming across. It's important. It should not be beyond comment or critique.

I would then add another bullet point on differing views as presented in the discussion --- that there should be no taboo words and very limited restriction in an open society on viewer's speech ( comments being part of the market place of ideas) unless there are extreme foul or nasty expressions. ( inciting abuse and so on) Just adding another summary of the progressive-/open public square approach to the net. I overstate but probably not too much. And then, who owns the tent set up in the public square? Ambivalence for me again.

The problem is, people often associate negative comments with negative intent, even if that intent is not there. As if, saying something critical about a work always has to be to tarnish the reputation of the artist. Also, some people prefer to stay in their cocoon surrounded by admirers. They don't care about frank evaluation of their works (and as a matter of fact, any comment from people outside their circle of comfort), and like to keep it that way. We have seen this happen in the heydays of PN as well.

 

My own philosophy is to look at the facts stated in the critique first before delving into more speculative intents. It has to be above a very wide threshold, before I become suspicious of a viewer's intent, and even then, rebuking that person in public may discourage other honest viewers from commenting on my work, which I want to avoid. This is of course assuming that I want frank assessment of my works (and alternate viewpoints) in the first place, and not remain in my comfort zone.

Supriyo, you and I and Fred and many others too many to call out by name are part of the thinking class. Nuanced minds, not necessarily full of highfalutin words so much as the ability to say things that are un offensive. Not hard. Just write it out and read it. And be not afraid to just erase it if it feels like it could be hurtful. It is true, that on some days I am testy. But that is what I save for other venues. -------0-----------

 

Now, I wanted to add another episode of comment and riposte that cut into my paper thick skin some. I was on a forum for users of Olympus Four Thirds and commented some suggestion to improve a shot of a seaside beach array of folded umbrellas and table. I can't remember the specifics but the crop seemed obviously out of whack so I said do this or do that...Anyway, the lady said something like " Come on Gerry, this was just a snap shot!" How does one respond that baby? Pretty good in its own daft way I say. Is there a reply that is sane even? So much of what I do and still do are essentially what I call snap shots. ( Now we start to grade levels of photography in a lax and generous way. Don't be so critical, it was just a ( fill in the blank)and had no purpose but to test the camera? It was the film leader that got a double image all by itself that I call abstract art today..) Well you get the picture.

 

Hoo babe, some of my most enjoyable stuff are thus snap shots! Casual. Could have been on the cutting room floor but Fred said hold on to it Gerry you may appreciate it at a later time ( just kidding Fred no offense meant) Ok, what I am saying is that the shot, however casual, and however lighthearted, is one I own. Or you own. If dark energy somehow made it. without a human agent we can address all bets off and this discussion will soon destruct. To say do not comment or be so serious is to not own it. And to not own it says it should not be shown. Should it? Except on cel phones to paramours :) What do you think, Supriyo?....I know this gets kind of philosophical and squeezed the meaning of words. Yet words matter and they do apply to any discussion of photos. ( I do not know, does Annie Liebovitz get around using words to her followers and assistants-- Do they all know where she is coming from all the time or does she use pantomime and gestures. rhetorical Q..)

Edited January 6, 2018 by GerrySiegel

Just wish thinking people would figure out the difference between a request for a critique on a posted photo vs a posted photo intended to be a demonstration to support a point about a subject unrelated to critique requests where both person and his point were pretty much disregarded, dismissed and ignored for an opportunity to provide an unsolicited critique that benefited no one.

 

Even non-thinking people can spot that difference and respect it.

Too late to erase my last comments. I got a little too 'up in the clouds' with my thoughts- over the rainbow or too much left over egg nog with spirits... I like to think I have a multiplex mind, when it is more of a torrent of half baked sentences. Meaning, I need to re read my own stream of consciousness, take own advice be more of an editor to my own blather. I still pay respect to snap shots. No excuses for them is all. And Tim, I think we do get your message and reflections in case you wondered.

Gerry, a couple of years ago I saw a great exhibit at the Met. A guy had collected old snapshots at flea markets and antique shops and put them together in various series based on similar “flaws.” So, for instance, there was a headless series. A face in shadow series. A crooked horizon series. There was a series with severe highlight burnout. One with trees or other objects seeming to grow out of bodies. Creativity born of mistakes.

 

As far as responding to the snapshot woman, probably just leave it in the wind. She might still absorb what you said. If not, it means it really didn’t matter to her.

 

I think of snapshots as featuring the subject with little concern for technique, composition, lighting, etc. More serious photos tend to integrate those things. But, there’s nothing wrong with improving one’s snapshots! She may really have not cared. Or she said what she said defensively to get you to back off. Also nothing wrong with emulating snapshots in more serious photos. A lot of snapshots go straight to the heart. Harvesting that can be good.

 

No snapshot excuses necessary. No egg nog excuses either! All you wrote is fine.

Quality of snapshots will follow quality of the serious stuff.

Deliberate thoughtful practice creates skilled mindfulness which translates to good habits.

 

Easier said than done.

As they say, similar to posterior orifaces, everone has an opinion, and most of them stink:

Why You Shouldn't Give Too Much Weight to Anonymous Online Critics

A useful goal, Michael. It could top the New Years Resolution list as well. One gent, to showcase what bites hard and even now comes to mind, is the community member who reacted strongly to a comment I made about one of his portraits, a casual one. It was about the background being messy and obvious. So stating the obvious may have been out of bounds when the shooter was clearly a semi professional. He replied using my biography and sort of sticking it to me with some of my personal history. Yes, I guess we all want to know like who is this critter who thinks they know better. Do we then use confirmation bias when looking at his or her work? Clearly yes. Now the larger and more vexing question. How do we clear the mind of personal bias when looking at someone's work if they have quote got under our skin? ( On today's newscast I heard Rep Sanford decry oil rigs off the SC coast. How and when can I get out of my mind the escapades in Latin America. Sorry, politics just clouds everything lately and this PN should be a free zone.) I guess I say that we can use our prejudices if we are not so enthralled by them that they own us. Funny image. In the movie On the Town, one of the swabbies rushes through a modern art museum in a quick cut that shows their pursuit of Miss Turnstiles. One sailor just grabs a Picasso or whatever and swings it upside down on the wall.... Funny in a way and hit me so. Sometimes it does good to stand on your head once and a while looking at stuff. Or stand back. Or try this or that. Maybe someone out there can help us look at art in a different way. Who says that the Mondrian should be hung that way, --you know? Edited January 6, 2018 by GerrySiegel

As they say, similar to posterior orifaces, everone has an opinion, and most of them stink:

Even our own sometimes. ;)

Why You Shouldn't Give Too Much Weight to Anonymous Online Critics

I’m waiting for the sequel: Why You Shouldn’t Let One Cute Online Anecdote Influence Your Opinion About Critiques.

 

______________________________________________

 

When I get a critique, the first thing I do is not to look at the person's work (to see if I can internally malign it and therefore dismiss the critique). The first thing I do is sit with the critique a minute and see if any of it rings true. Some of the best critiques are ones that stick in the pit of my stomach a little, that I may want to run away from, but that push me to grow.

 

Oh, and some of the most helpful critiques have come from non-photographers, just regular people who have eyesight and feelings and can be honest about them. That's good, because it frees me from having to assess their portfolio to see if their comment is worthy and instead assess the comment for what it is.

 

Also, some very helpful words don't come in the form of actual criticism but rather in the form of genuine responses. I may hear similar emotional responses to one of my photos that I thought was going in another direction. It may cause me to take a second look and make some modifications to point the photo in the direction I had in mind . . . or at least be grist for a future mill next time I'm out shooting.

 

A helpful comment doesn't have to be in the form of "I suggest you do this" or "I like this and don't like that." It can simply be in the form of "this is what I see" and maybe going a step further, "this is how it's making me feel."

...... Edited January 6, 2018 by michael_darnton|2