Is there a way to prevent others from altering my images posted for critique?

<p>There is one, (well intentioned I'm sure), member that frequently takes images I've posted in the Critique Forum and applies his "fixes" or "suggestions" to them, then reposts them in the image critique thread. </p>

<p>While I'm certainly open to being critiqued, (I wouldn't post images if I weren't), and have been through my share of rough ones in the 30+ years I've been doing this, modifying another persons images to fit one's own ideals is going a bit far, even if it's to demonstrate the suggestions being made. After all, I do understand what 'adding more light' and 'more focus' mean. </p>

<p>Is there a way to upload an image so the image cannot be altered, or as he calls it, "fixed"?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance -</p>

<p>No. You agreed that others could modify your images when you signed up. You did read the Terms of Use didn't you...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>...You grant to other photo.net members permission to download a copy of images contained in your User Content, to make such alterations and markups for the purpose of commentary as they see fit, and to attach the modified images to their comments on your User Content. You also grant other Site users the right to quote your User Content in their own postings on the Site....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah, you are correct...of course, however, that was 10 years ago...age-memory!</p>

<p>Thanks for the prompt reply.</p>

As bob says, it is part of the site and has been for many years. Photography being a visual medium, it is one of the

biggest advantages of an online critique system that someone can show you their suggestion rather than just talk about it.

 

However, a polite email to the user in question would be my suggestion.

<p>Excellent idea -</p>

<p>Bill, FWIW, I personally prefer having people demonstrate visually exactly how they would process a given image compared to having them try to describe what they want to see in words. I think that many photographers learn and can communicate faster and more accurately this way.</p>

<p>To use your example of "adding more light", I can imagine many ways of doing this, e.g., locally, to specific areas of an image; globally by a simple gamma change; globally by moving the right end point of the histogram in; targeted to specific tonal or color ranges of the image, etc. There are just too many variables and alternative approaches to try to unambiguously describe one's suggestions for changes in words.</p>

<p>For this reason, I strongly support Josh's comment and incorporation of this possibility into photo.net. However, I agree that whomever is describing their changes of your images as "fixes" is being a bit insensitive. Whenever I suggest some changes to an image in a forum thread by posting a modified image, I try to be self-effacing and call my changes a "tweak" or a "possible modification", etc.</p>

<p>As you said, I'm sure this person has absolutely no idea that his/her approach and words might come across as a bit pushy, and I would also bet that he/she really likes your images and that is the precise reason he/she is taking the time to tweak them and not work on other images on photo.net. </p>

<p>Don't worry, many of the "tweaks" that I've seen have been quite horrible when compared to the original, and most photo.netters won't hesitate to let the tweaker know which version they prefer. ;-)</p>

<p>Just my $0.02,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>Tom,</p>

<p>Thank you for your reply.</p>

<p>I fully understand that having suggestions demonstrated can be helpful. And you are also correct to point out that comments as vague as "adding more light", (which I personally don't see or take as a criticism), can have endless intrepretations, and such demonstrations of what the commenter actually has in mind can be tremendously helpful.</p>

<p>Still, it's frustrating. Ah well. Onwards and upwards!</p>

<p>Best -</p>

Bill B, in your posts you could add a request to kindly refrain from manipulation of your images. Do keep in mind, though, the site usage contract as mentioned above.

<p>Try to have patience with those well meaning folks who offer suggested tweaks. In some cases they're learning more from the experience than you may be as the recipient of the critique. Patience with inept but well meaning critiques will help to cultivate another generation of better informed critics and photographers.</p>

<p>I hear you Lex. I've considered those very points myself.</p>

<p>I long ago presumed this particular individual was new to photography. In truth, his 'tweaks' have only been a little annoying; sometimes even humorous. I recently posted a low-key studio shot and his critique was "Nice shot, but it's dark. More light would help" and voila, there's the link with his suggested adjustments!</p>

<p>As I said, onward and upward - </p>

<p>Bill,<br>

Think of it as flattering. Few would bother altering the images of someone whose work they thought was hopeless, or continue doing so for a long time, if there was no apparent change for the bettter (or if the images weren't already pretty good).<br>

Not only are nudes difficult to master, but they're also difficult for some people to view without chiming in (or rating), for some reason that seems essentially immutable.<br>

I think it just goes with the territory, and you can just imagine you have a groupie . . . . of sorts. Even if you do find it annoying consider others who view your images, then consider proposed 'tweaks' maybe reject them, and consider then how you'll look afterwards in viewers' eyes. If there's a 'contrast' you write of, it may actually make you look better.<br>

Just because you disagree with the volume and the quality of the proposed 'tweaks' and do not really benefit from them, does not mean other members do not benefit, even if it's only to highlight your work by comparison . . . . have you considered that?<br>

If that person reads your post, your message will be clear, (and that critic's 'right' to do so now also will be 'fixed' in mind).<br>

I hope you get your wish, but as always, be careful what you wish for.<br>

I had a very nettlesome critic, who I believed also violated some rules, but some correspondence and long patience has yielded a member I now consider a friend who also now contributes some able critiques that have helped my work (sometimes even if only by helping me clarify my reasons for making choices I did).<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

<p>John, et all...</p>

<p>I didn't intend to sound negative, as if there was nothing good about the critiques and suggested adjustments. I do agree that others may benefit from them while I may not, and I'll be honest and say I didn't stop to consider that when I started the thread. I hold no animosity towards this individual.</p>

<p>John, you are absolutely right about nudes in photography. Nudes touch a nerve, and people respond sometimes in uniquely dofferent ways towards them.</p>

<p>Best regards to all -</p>

<p>BILL there is one thing about this site that really erks me. nobody wants to really be critiqued on this site unless its all positive then everyone is happy. if you dare state anything negative about a photo egos seem to be so easily bruised. most of the photographers are men on this site, i am not getting a true sense of testoserone here whatsoever. can we be honest without having our feelings hurt!</p>

<p>samme,</p>

<p>I could not agree more. But this is also due to a generalised lack of capability to critique. In my view this is due to:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>the lack of <em>capability to observe</em> .</li>

<li>the lack of some kind of <em>aesthetic value framework</em> .</li>

<li>the lack of a <em>descriptive capacity</em> .</li>

</ol>

<p>Critiquing does not mean <em>describing</em> . Photos are a visual medium, which strike, or should strike, the visual perception.<br>

Praises are not critiques.<br>

The first critique should be the photographer him/herself, considering all emotional, visual and technical (not <em><strong>technological</strong> </em> ) aspects of their photographs.<br>

This is seldom done.</p>