Should members with no photos cretique

I am beginning to have a problem with people that look at the photos

and critique them, but have no photos themselves. I do not think this

is a fair practice. Some people are looking for a critique from

FELLOW MEMBERS THAT HAVE PHOTOS ON DISPLAY AND THAT HAVE EXPIRIENCE.

I am junior Memeber and by far do not have enough experience here and

with my photography to critique some photos. But, i do have Images

posted to show what little experience i do have. Therefore, the

images that i do not understand or that I'm not able to inturpt, do

not get a critique from me. I feel that the critique should be left

to memebers that have enough experience and knowledge with their

Camera. I hope that Iam not the only one that feels this way!!

I really do like hearing what non photographers think of my photos, as well as anybody else. What does it matter if a critiquer has photos posted or not. The main thing to me is listen to what they have to say...learn something. Also,

you know what you like or not...share that as a critique! (Hope I changed your mind!), Good shootin', Ray

I enjoy photography as a hobby but I do not have the time needed to become a good photographer at this time, I do not have any photos on photo.net because, one, I�m not a good photographer, and two; I do not have a scanner. I visit photo.net daily to learn. I do leave critiques because I feel that I can express what I like and don�t like as a person even if I am a poor photographer.

I don't think people should have to be an experienced photographer, a good photographer, or even a photographer at all, to give a valid critique of an image.

 

A non-photographer will probably critique an image in a slightly different manner to a photographer, but that doesn't make his or her critique any less valid, unless your "intended audience" for the image(s) in question is only experienced photographers.

 

People who critique art, films, sports matches, furniture design, cars, etc. don't have to have 'created one themself' to be able to give a valid opinion - and as critiques are mostly about opinion (except things which are just factual like "out of focus" and "horizon not level" (but even that's subject to, "well, should it be?" arguments)) - I don't see how we can effectively say to anyone, "You're not allowed to express your opinion on my work." Because everyone will *have* an opinion in his or her mind anyway, so why forbid him or her from writing it down, to be agreed or disagreed with?

since many people who ask for comment are doing so to raise there art to a place of appealing to the general puplic for commercial possibilties, it only makes sense to get opinion from all who will take the time to do so....it don't take a rocket scientist to tell us a good fire works display...the fact that not everyone is set up to load pics is also very valid.....and what the heck, my grand daughter can spot most of my mistakes and she don't know f-stop from bus stop.

Rod, I think that RM L. has given you one of the most comprehensive replies to your question. I had a look at two of your folders and checked out your contributions @ PN in general. You're definitely doing the right thing by getting involved in this online community, but don't get excited about the "0" uploads factor...<br>I once thought that it was a problem myself, but given enough time, you'll come to understand why some (many) members have no uploaded images of themselves. It is important that you look at their overall contributions and I am not afraid to stick up for one of the most maligned photo.net contributor - <a href="http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member.tcl?user_id=116858"> A Z </a><br>Apart from General Comments, the number of Forum Postings are always a good indicator of how much <i>value</i> you might like to attach to anyone's feedback on your images. Give it time! <p>Also, never lose sight of the fact that you are <i>competing</i> for attention, with around 1300/1400 other uploaded images <b>each day!</b>

Right. And further, no one who hasn't harpooned a whale by hand should say anything about Moby Dick. Also, because I haven't written a best-selling novel, I haven't noticed that Tom Clancy has fallen victim to the tendency of established writers to give lectures instead of telling stories.

Every few weeks someone says almost this exact thing in a post and I think it's ludicrous and flawed. Practically all of the best book and movie critics have never written a book nor made a movie and probably never will---does this mean they do not have enough experience and knowledge about the medium they critique? No, so how does actually posting images make one a better critic or give them the ability to comment better?

the only people who complain about this are the ones that get a bad critique :-)

the ones who get a 7/7 from members that show no pictures themselves dont usually complain? or am i wrong?

I could be a crack photographer, one of the best, for all anyone knows. Fact is, I don't have a scanner. Buying a scanner right now would let me upload photos, but that's about all I'd use it for. So it's a low photographic priority.

 

This is the internet. Any of us could be anybody. And a skilled street photographer, with or without uploaded photos, isn't necessarily the right person to critique an experimental nude.

People with no photos posted rate the same way as those who do, on the average. Many of them are experienced photographers who choose not to post their work. Even if they aren't, there is no reason to believe that their taste or vision are deficient. The problem is not the people who don't have photos, but rather trolls who rate uniformly low and whose ratings would be deleted if called to the attention of the moderators. Even including the undetected trolls, the ratings of people with no photos are in fact a little higher on average.

 

The only reason I can think of to disallow people with no photos from rating is that it would slow down trolls by about thirty seconds, while they uploaded a "photo" to qualify. Then we would not only have their cruddy ratings to remove but also their "photos".

 

On the other hand, disallowing people with no photos from rating would disqualify many people who help the site by rating photos. Rating photos is not primarily a service to the photographers, at least not directly. Rating photos is a service to the site, and to the hundreds of thousands of visitors to the site who need somewhere to start looking in the huge photo database. Most photographers don't see things that way, at least not at first, and many of them are not particularly interested in being "ranked". But if all the site was interested in was feedback for the photographers, we would eliminate the ratings and just have comments. About 40,000 people have uploaded photos to photo.net, and the ratings are the mechanism for selecting the few thousand of those whose photos will be presented.

 

In summary, the real problem is malicious low ratings from trolls, not whether people have photos posted, and the site policy is to deal with trolls by simply deleting their accounts, once their activity is reported and verified by a moderator.

I can also tell you this. Those without photos, or without any real photographic experience...(or even interest in photography for that matter) bring a much more accurate reading as to what the buying public might be interested in. Photographers as a whole, are an interesting bunch of people. I continue to pick up new ideas and pointers from many with experience behind the camera. But, their tastes often DO NOT reflect what the buying public is looking for. Those who could care less what shutter speed or even type of camera was used are very often the ones with the barometer that matters the most when it comes to putting food on the table. For me it's the rare ones where both the experienced photographer AND the ones just looking around at the site seem to agree on, that you often find the real winners!

Whose opinions do you value? As Vincenet suggests, it could

be the general public that interests you, or it could be those

whose tastes are more, uh, specialized or sophisticated. Does

the general public like the images in fine art photography

magazines or are they interested in popular photography? The

reason uploaders like to see images from raters is to help them

understand where their tastes lie because the vast majority of

these 'no image' raters don't comment either. Given the number

of images that get high aesthetic marks for poor photographs of

pretty subjects, the question is not a trivial one.

 

The real question, besides who you want your images to appeal

to, is what credentials, if any, do you think raters should have. It

is clear that different uploaders have very different target

audiences.

The real question is whether the photo.net gallery is a professional tool where aspiring photographers can get accurate feedback on their images from knowledgable critics, or whether it's a popularity contest where images are judged on their aesthetic appeal to the "great unwashed masses".

<p>

The answer is that it is both, or at least it is seen as either depending on the hat you are wearing. That's why there will never be an end to debates and complaints about the rating scheme, who should be allowed to rate, whether raters shoudl have to comment etc. Different users see the whole scheme as a different animal.

<p>

Far be it from me to quote poetry here, but....

<pre>

The Parable of the

Blind Men and the Elephant

 

It was six men of Indostan

To learning much inclined,

Who went to see the Elephant

Though all of them were blind,

That each by observation

Might satisfy his mind.

 

The First approached the Elephant

And, happening to fall

Against his broad and sturdy side,

At once began to bawl:

"God bless me, but the Elephant

Is very like a wall!"

 

The Second, feeling the tusk,

Cried, "Ho! what have we here

So very round and smooth and sharp?

To me 'tis very clear

This wonder of an Elephant

Is very like a spear!"

 

The Third approached the animal

And, happening to take

The squirming trunk within his hands,

Thus boldly up he spake:

"I see," quoth he, "The Elephant

Is very like a snake!"

 

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,

And felt about the knee:

"What most the wondrous beast is like

Is very plain," quoth he;

"Tis clear enough the Elephant

Is very like a tree!"

 

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,

Said, "Even the blindest man

Can tell what this resembles most;

Deny the fact who can:

This marvel of an elephant

Is very like a fan!"

 

The Sixth no sooner had begun

About the beast to grope

Than, seizing on the swinging tail

That fell within his scope,

"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant

Is very like a rope!"

 

And so these men of Indostan

Disputed loud and long,

Each in his own opinion

Exceeding stiff and strong.

Though each was partly in the right,

They all were in the wrong!

 

-- John Godfrey Saxe

</pre>

In an attempt to do both, it heavily favors popular tastes. Look at

the images that are uploaded and listen to the comments from

experienced photographers who don't upload images or keep

their uploads essentially hidden by not placing them in the

critique mill.

That's because the vast majority of those submitting images and rating them have popular tastes. That's pretty much true by definition, as the taste of the majority is the popular taste. It's that damn democratic thing again...

You want a free-for-all, you got it. It could be a classroom - and I

think many really would prefer it that way - but instead you have

students speaking with authority and professors told to butt out.

Yeah, I know it's not always easy to decide who is a student and

who is a professor, but there is a difference between democracy

and anarchy. Your poem is a poor analogy because it implies

that members with opinions on the subject are blind to other

ways of looking at the issue and are only interested in their own

agenda. That's what you intended to say, right?

Most people see image critique as entirely subjective. With no background in art appreciation and no formal training in criticism, I don't think you can do much but judge subjectively. If you equate that with "having your own adgenda", then, yes I'd agree. Everyone sees their own version of what it is and has their own opinion on what it should be. Some people like images of kittens, some think they are trite. Some people love photoshop consructed Tuscany landscapes, some people hate them.

 

The gallery is a populist "contest". Though some might wish it was an erudiate, academic discussion, it isn't. Nor is it intended to be. Nor will it ever be. Complaining that it's not is like complaining that a cow isn't a horse.

. . . so a discussion of light and composition is entirely

subjective?

For me, as a new community member here, it's about how to improve my photography. I have very few hours to dedicate it to, nor can I stop my life to go to workshops. It is my hobby, and becoming a passion, but for like the majority here,......life is too short! I attempt to take great shots when I see them, and if I ask for critiques, I expect to get them from people who are more experienced than I am. I also don't understand the rating system, as photographers with a lifetime of experience sometimes rank way too low in my opinion, yet who am I to judge? My main purpose for coming to this forum was to improve my pics, and I've gotten some very good suggestions , now have to find the time to try them! I actually like the comments by the people who creatique my pics who don't have photos of their own posted... makes me think they are retired teachers, or something, yet thought my work had some merit.

<i>Though some might wish it was an erudiate, academic discussion, it isn't. Nor is it

intended to be. Nor will it ever be.</i><p>

 

Turn that into a macro. I have a feeling you'll be needing it again. [sigh]

WOW.......

 

First of all, i would like to say that I'm not one one to post bad feedback on a photo because i got a bad rating. I'm NOT LIKE THAT!!!!

I will use my photo as examples here. I have asked for specific critique on my " El Puerto" but all i got has below average rating. I can live with that....really i can...if, my picture sucks. I never got one comment on how i could improve the shot.....why did no one commment?? no time? couldn't bothered to help a new member?? which one is it? Yes it does bother me when this happens...why? Because i asked for specific critique and never got it. I have recieve help for members too, so don't think that i'm writing this because no one has helped me. I have email serveral Members and recieved Valuable info. I think you guys are right thou....I guess its not fair to ask for critique strictly from members that have photos posted. I will try to be more objective. I will continue not to rate photos that I cannot understand or find wrong. I guess we each have a unique perspective on each others photos. Thanks for the input guys!!!

 

Rod

<i>"Turn that into a macro. I have a feeling you'll be needing it again. [sigh]"</i><p>There is no doubt about that!<br>Just a few weeks ago I set up a <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=226836"> new account </a> (Picture These) for the <a href="http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=617763"> Picture This </a> group.<br>It really made me think that it is far too easy to create a photo.net account - took less than 5 minutes...<br>I'm using this as an example, because I think there is a lot of merit in Bob's comment in another recent thread, i.e.:<br> <i>"We really do need a page which is easy to find details all the rules, regulations and modes of operation of the gallery and critique forum."</i><br>I know this has come up so many times before in the past, but in many ways, this is <b>not</b> a user friendly site for newbies. While there are most likely many more important tasks on the things to do list, a photo.net new members' guideline page would be very useful. However, having said that, you can lead a new member to water, but can't make them drink, I suppose...<br>Thus, tiresome questions will pop up over and over again in this forum (no disrespect meant to you, Rod R.).

"Though some might wish it was an erudiate, academic

discussion, it isn't. Nor is it intended to be. Nor will it ever be.

 

Turn that into a macro. I have a feeling you'll be needing it again.

[sigh]"

 

What nonsense. Of course there's erudite discussion here, just

not very often. If you can't learn anything from POW discussions,

for example, then you don't belong here. The fact that these

discussions are littered with smug or vacuous remarks does not

negative their value.

 

Rod, please read the guidelines for uploading images. Your

jpeg is way too big.

<i>Of course there's erudite discussion here, just not very often</i><p>

 

If you thought that Bob meant that there's <u>never</u> erudite discussion, then

you didn't comprehend what he was saying. That Peter and I understood what Bob

meant suggests that you should re-visit Bob's post. <p>

 

And Bob ought to get that macro-key handy.