why "words/no words" is a good idea...

<a

href="http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html">

online critique</a>

Someone posted this earlier on PSIG, and I laughed just as much the second time I read it. I love the one about the Leica lenses.

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00H460&tag=200606260906"><b>Here</b></a>

oh man.. I thought he was serious. I love it! So funny.

What is really being brought to light in that satire is that people comment on photographs without any thought to what the intended communication on the part of the photographer was. Rampant on Photo Net. Technique serves communication, it doesn't lead it.

But that sort of thing would <i>never</i> happen here.

amen, John

Hey, as long as one or two (or just two) keep that to cyrillic types what is the big fing deal, huh?

 

Secretive mutual appreciation society tops Dan Brown's handiwork.

Did someone actually comment on those pictures like these or they are just madeups as a joke??

Sorry,folks:

 

Nadia Comanece got a perfect ten. What's wrong with you! Oh,yeah, you habitually tend to

cut off a little space on the bottom: one demerit. Bokeh could have been better: where's

the uncoated lens you bought six years ago? What? you CROPPED???

I appreciate the humor in the post. But I think it also points out some misconceptions about what an online critique is, what it ought to be, and what a "good" photo is.

 

There is an assumption that each of these photos is a great photo and could not be improved upon- and therefore any critique to the contrary is off the mark. My guess is that each of these photographers could have told you some way that their own photograph could have been improved upon. Furthermore, I suspect that if the whole group named critiqued each other's photos, they'd find similar improvements. Simply because a work is a masterpiece doesn't mean it couldn't have been improved upon.

 

Secondly, there is a common idea that Average Joe Blow is going to post some snapshot here on photo.net, and that Ansel Adams is just going to spend a few minutes telling him how to make it all right. It doesn't work that way, and as far as I can tell, it isn't intended to work that way. Most photos will get zero critique the first time through the critique forum (unless, that is, they're especially good, in which case, they'll get comments to that effect.) When you do get any kind of comments, it may be from someone that doesn't know near as much as you do about what a good picture is. The value in the critiqe isn't because it's given by an expert, the value is simply getting other (disinterested) people's comments and thoughts. Any real experts on photo.net just don't have enough time in a day to "correct" every shot that gets posted, even if they wanted to.

I love a lot of the stuff that is posted here on the wnw, but I'm not about to change

the way I see things to emulate any of them. I'm way to old and set in my ways for

that. :-) PN has taught me how to present my stuff better on the net and for that I am

thankful. Hey, I'm even happy that I have the Bailey 4's to look back on. :-)

I don't see the connection there. NW/W and critiques are both good but diifferent ideas.

Sure there are *bad* critiques out there but some can be quite good. And as great as NW/W

is...some threads are filled with endless random boring pics that are actually more painful to

look at than reading lousy critiques imo.

<p><i>There is an assumption that each of these photos is a great

photo and could not be improved upon- and therefore any critique to

the contrary is off the mark. My guess is that each of these

photographers could have told you some way that their own photograph

could have been improved upon.</i></p>

 

<p>And you Stephen make an assumption that objective improvement is

possible, without mentioning that any attempt at the so-called

improvement requires the critic to be sophisticated enough to

understand what could be the author's reasoning behind posting the

image in the first place.</p>

 

<p>By your reasoning everything can be improved upon, because for

you improvement is the same as polishing and oiling an automobile

part to reach some geometrically-defined form. The difference in

photography that there is no geometrically-defined form to which the

image can be improved upon. In photography, an improvement is always

a digression in one way or another. By polishing and oiling all you

are doing is reaching one stereotype or another.</p>

"The difference in photography that there is no geometrically-defined form to which the

image can be improved upon. In photography, an improvement is always a digression in

one way or another. By polishing and oiling all you are doing is reaching one stereotype or

another."

 

Improvements can be enhancements, as a setting can be for a jewel. But my perusal of my

own contact sheets reveal a process by which I find (sometimes grope toward), then pare

down, the visual idea. The idea may be hackneyed or brilliant but the hits and near-misses

are clearly identifiable once on film. After that, criticism may be a matter of: "I don't like

street pictures." Or: "So and so did it much better." Tell me something I don't know.<div></div>

"And as great as NW/W is...some threads are filled with endless random boring pics that are actually more painful to look at than reading lousy critiques imo."

 

So true. Although I can't tolerate photosig either. It's just a ratings bingo. The whole idea is counter-photography.

 

That's why sites such as ball-saal seem more and more a good idea. At least those photographers have higher artistic goals than most of photo.net.

I think that John Brownlow's forum on Street Photography has a nice slant and the

users there are very willing to give feedback that just may help a street shooter out.

"...That's why sites such as ball-saal seem more and more a good idea. At least those photographers have higher artistic goals than most of photo.net...."

 

I agree with this to a certain degree. But, as I and others constantly try to impress upon the photo net users, is that it really is more important to have the image in mind.......and not the equipment. I silently browse around Ball-Saal a lot and that is the main thing I notice over there. Hardware is seldom (if ever) mentioned, it's always the visual impression of the photograph that is mentioned in the critiques....and mind you, they aren't any more versed in critiqueing than me (which is pretty bad by "expert" critique standards). They just say what it is that they feel about the image.......good or bad....... And it's never said as the definitive rule, it's just suggested. They realize different people are experimenting with different approaches. And they leave room for that departure from the norm. Very supportive of each other....and again, that does not mean an atta boy.......but it is also never rule reciting. If they do touch on rules, it is from the reason why the rule exists....not the generalized rule. If the image has overcome the so called fault that the rule tries to combat in a different or unique manner, they seem to "get it" and either applaud it or make no mention of the rule.

 

They definitely have a more "artistic" oriented group of minds over there though. Everything is related in artist impressions.

"I agree with this to a certain degree. But, as I and others constantly try to impress upon the photo net users, is that it really is more important to have the image in mind.......and not the equipment."

 

Those that approach photography seriously learn this very early. The rest are equipment measurbators, camera collectors, and people with expensive "toys" who play a ratings game, etc. The problem is people who are serious are a miniscule minority on large sites such as this.

My stuff at Ball Saal...

 

http://www.ball-saal.com/MainPage/Gallery.php?type=Exhi&ID=17&page=1

<p><i>But my perusal of my own contact sheets reveal a process by

which I find (sometimes grope toward), then pare down, the visual

idea. The idea may be hackneyed or brilliant but the hits and

near-misses are clearly identifiable once on film.</i></p>

 

<p>Yes, but once you've gone through this process, and identified

the image that expresses exactly what you want it too, what

improvement can one talk about?</p>

"Yes, but once you've gone through this process, and identified the image that expresses

exactly what you want it too, what improvement can one talk about?"

 

There are all kinds of conversations that can start once we're done with the stage of

subjecting a picture to our obstacle course of critique, like artist's intentionality and

viewer's reading, for instance. We're now not looking for improvement but for

nourishment. Even the 'failures' on our film can be profitably studied this way.

<<At least those photographers have higher artistic goals than most of photo.net.>>

 

Too bad having "artistc goals" isn't enough to actually achieving them.

 

Nothing worse than artists who self-deludes him or herself into thinking their work is "art" simply because they call art.

 

<<The problem is people who are serious are a miniscule minority on large sites such as this.>>

 

Actually, the problem is with people who are self-appointed to tell everyone else that what they do isn't art.

<i>"Nothing worse than artists who self-deludes him or herself into thinking their work is "art" simply because they call art.

....

 

Actually, the problem is with people who are self-appointed to tell everyone else that what they do isn't art." </I>

 

<p>

You are getting a wrong impression of what I said. People are too shy to call themselves who they are. If they aspire to create art including that of photographic nature, then it's art, and they are artists. If they use a camera, then they are photographers. How serious they are is easy to judge from their work.

<p>

I am (and am sure I am not alone) interested in seeing original, inspiring work hopefully related to the theme of the forum, not lame snaps of flies on shit and such that are posted to W/NW of the Street/Doc forum.

Why is it that life drawing from a model is very erotic but not in a prurient way. I've seen

models,men and women,on breaks chatting idly away with the artists and eating donuts;

with no pants on.

 

No one thinks a thing of it. Gaping, instead of a rudeness you bear in mind to avoid, at say

a nude beach or public hot tub, isn't so much a taboo as just something that never enters

anyone's mind to begin with.