Why do I bother with photo.net?

[Charles_Webster]

To Jaime, I have to say that I agree that calling some one's photo a "bad snap" isn't always a good idea. But sometimes someone's got to stand up and say "Hey, the emperor is naked!" I am an outspoken person who shares his opinion. My reaction to the young lady's comment on my comment wasn't thin skin, but "straw that broke the camel's back." I've been getting this kind of reaction over and over.

 

To Darius, your portrait with diffuse glow is very nice, and far better than I could take. A portrait is a suitable subject for diffuse glow. As for your streetscape, I would call it urban landscape. When I say "Street" photography, I'm talking about candids meant to capture a fleeting moment, an expression, the momentary juxtaposition of objects that for a moment make a statement.

 

My point is, and will continue to be: If you post your pictures for critique, you have to accept what you get, kind or harsh, complimentary or critical. I put my pictures up here expecting to get critiques, sometimes they are critical not complimentary. That's why they are called critiques ;-)

 

I strongly believe that you learn much more from failure than from success.

 

Photography is a communication medium. If your picture does not say something to me, then one of us has failed. If you can point to the most banal snap and tell me what you were trying to say to me, then the failure is on my end. If you can't do that, the failure is at yours.

 

<Chas>

[niklas hallberg]

In my opinion Charles' critiques were not very helpful or informative. If you want to help someone's photo out then focus on giving specific pointers and address them in a positive way. I saw too much sarcasm in Charles' posts. It's all about the delivery. And anyhow, grow some melons. The replies from the authors are not worth getting weepy over.

[philg]

It may be that the critique system encourages ill-formed requests. Consider one of my recent photos: <a href="http://philip.greenspun.com/images/200607-nyc-eos30d-17-55-test/r44-olivia-2.tcl">Olivia</a>. If I asked you to criticize, you would say "why is this girl sitting in a helicopter with the seat belt flopping everywhere and some door frames growing out of her head and a Beechcraft in the background? What kind of portrait is that? Where did you go to photography school?"

 

<p>

 

This photo has value to me, though, because I can send it to relatives (Olivia is a cousin). I can use it on my Web site (<a href="http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/boston-helicopter-tours">http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/boston-helicopter-tours</a>). To get constructive criticism I would have to perface my request for critique with "I was trying to make a friendly welcoming photo for my Web site advertising helicopter photo tours of Boston. I chose a young girl so that people would realize that it wasn't scary. How could I make this more effective?"

[dancingdove]

Just want to toss in a big "Thanx" to you Charles. For all the helpful comments left under my images. I (for one) do value words of wisdom & worth, especially from seasoned photographers as yourself and realize their value & merit. ok? ~d.d.

[jnicholson]

Charles, thanks for the response. Just to be clear, I'm not saying you shouldn't state your opinion. Quite the contrary, you absolutely should. It's just that sometimes the message is killed when you use the hot-button word and expressions, for lack of a better term.

 

Philip, good suggestion. That's why I like the gallery layout these days. It gives the photographer a chance to add his thoughts and solicitations in a more visible way. I know I'm guilty of adding a "...thanks for your time..." type of comment in the critique request when a "...what do you think of x..." type of comment might get me more of what I'm looking for.

[Charles_Webster]

Phillip, I agree whole heartedly. As I said to Thomas Saujon (the originator of the "get a better camera" comment), photography is a one dimensional medium. The photograph must explain itself, or you must preface it with words to qualify it. Neither poster provided any explanation. Lols countered that her "bad snap" was "not Street..." but it was posted in the Street category, so I critiqued it as such.

 

Thanks for your contribution to this thread, I appreciate your contribution. Please do everything you can to facilitate meaningful dialog between posters and critics. Every helpful comment negates hundreds of 3/3 ratings.

 

<Chas>

[Charles_Webster]

Nicklas, just by looking at Lols' photograph, exactly what would say to her to improve that picture? Exactly how would _you_ frame a criticism of _that_ picture to help her improve it?

 

Without knowing her intent (not revealed until later), what specific suggestions would you make to Lols about that picture?

 

<Chas>

[root]

Phil, your "portrait" of the girl is posed and fills the frame, so it's hard to know how important the background and framing elements are in the image's purpose, especially since you've rotated the camera to give her a more formal appearance. To accomplish the purpose you've articulated, I would have backed up a bit to include the plane's controls (put her hands on them, perhaps) and also take care to place the other plane in the background to make it more readily identifiable.

 

You may or may not agree with my suggestions for improvement. You may be very attached to the way you've presented it, but if this image was shown to a small group of photographers who had signed on to help each other improve, and if they all agreed with my assessment, then it would be harder to reject my ideas, and if you did, you would soon find people reluctant to offer their input within the group. Outside the group, people don't know if a RFC image is sincere and wouldn't bother writing a paragraph based on past experience of rejection and even rudeness. (Many critiques are simply ignored . . . gee, you're welcome.)

 

Many people on photo.net do not post their images with the intention of having them critiqued or judged by others. ir images may have already been through that process elsewhere.

 

The question on the minds of many PN members is "how much effort will the site make to encourage - as opposed to merely allow - helpful constructive criticism?" Will there be any effort to sort images in the gallery by purpose of upload?

[niklas hallberg]

One must remember that you don't have to critique every photo. Thinking a photo is

terrible is perfectly fine but when it comes to critiquing then I think it's best to find some

good and then point out what you don't like or what needs improvement. It's the same as

if you were having a debate with somebody in person. If you bum-rush them with

negativity they will immediately clam up and get defensive.

 

I would go something like this. "Lols, you've captured some good tones in this photograph

and it appears you're trying to show some action in the background. The pillar is directly

in the middle of the frame and I'm assuming you were trying to use it as a frame within a

frame. Could you explain this because it seems to be blocking the action? This was

probably because you were trying to get off a fast shot and the timing was off. Could you

also describe what is going on? Place, event, etc?

 

Not that this example is perfect but it takes more effort to politely critique a poor shot.

Good shots are easy. "Great shot." "Awesome." "Wonderful." And everybody is happy.

[Charles_Webster]

Niklas, thanks for your suggestion. I recognize that is what I should have done, had I recognized the photo as a serious attempt at a picture. Which I do now. At that time, it looked like dozens of other bad photos that are posted, I don't know why, for critique. I felt it didn't particularly deserve any better, at the time.

 

As an example of my work to help photogrphers improve, look at my comments on Dancing Dove's photos. And as an example of what I'd like to see more of, look at Jaime Hall's comments on my picture here: http://www.photo.net/photo/4244455

 

BTW, I consider this a discussion, not an argument. Let's continue in that vein.

 

<Chas>

[tsaujon]

I am the guy with the diffuse glow swan picture. I just want to say that I think its funny that Charles thought that I got upset at his critique. I looked at my response again and it didn't seem like I was upset at all. As for my comment about the camera, I was just being honest, just like he was honest with me. There are affordable cameras out there with a lot better image quality. But I must say, I'm getting a real chuckle out of all the controversy this has caused. And on a last note here, a lot of Photographers don't really like what I do because what I do as a hobbie is more along the lines of being creative, and not so much "by the book" like you see in main-stream photography. I agree, the swan pic doesnt follow the traditional guidelines of photography, but thats only because I am more of an artsy personality. I'm focused on making something interesting and beautiful and if it's not so "by the book" than so be it. Personally I think people should take more risks, then maybe we wouldn't see the same kinds of photo's over and over and over. Thanks, and no hard feelings Charles, it's all for fun dude! Tom S.<div></div>

[kyle shortes]

I'd vote it as discussion rather then argument. And it seems the majority of quality photos seems to be passed up un-noticed. My purpose for photo.net is for critiques, I don't car about the ratings, I care about the honest input of other members. I'm still very much so an amature, and I am still realying on advice from other members with more advanced skills. But when it comes down to it, when you take photography for what it is, a form of art. Then style and substance should mean nothing. You should be able to look at a photo and see what its purpose is, find the hidden value in it that the photographer wanted to capture, and if you cant do that, then find a value in it for yourself. Nudes and porn, whos to say porn isnt art? The point Im trying to make is stop going on if you think its a good or bad picture, stop worrying about originality and aesthetics, and look at teh deeper side of it. Try and think about what the photo says to you, and what the photographer wanted to say.

Thats all I'm going to say.

 

This puts a damper on my eagerness to learn from the site.

[Charles_Webster]

Thomas, I didn't think you were upset with my critique, I was upset by what I considered at the time a "cheap shot" at my choice of cameras. If you read my reply to that comment, you'll see why I use a camera that can be had for $5 on eBay every day. I also felt that the comment reflected that you had not looked at any other pictures in my portfolio, or read my profile.

 

Once you stated the intent of your picture, I understood what you were trying to do. At the time that I commented, I didn't have that info. The new Critique Forum format allows extended subtitles to explain the intent if necessary. I, for one, plan to use that text whenever I post a picture that might require explanation.

 

This is still an interesting discussion.

 

<Chas>

[hatley]

Well, since Mark Plonsky commented on your photograph, I'll mention my reason even though you have recieved many responses. Back when I first joined photo.net I was (and am still) amazed by <a href="http://www.photo.net/photos/mplonsky">Mark's photos</a>. One day he dropped a positive comment on <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1618655">this photo</a> and I walked around on cloud nine for days, weeks even. My photog friends shared a beer with me and we talked of being "Plonskied". It meant so much to me that I credit that comment for sticking with photography beyond the first few months.<br><br>

Moral of my story is, when someone you respect gives you some real advice that helps you (even if its hard), or gives you praise it makes all the other stuff meaningless. Its the beauty of this place, finding like minds and inspiration.

[kelly_flanigan1]

<b><h3>Olevm perdisti</b></h3>@FIN

[tsaujon]

Hey Charles. I took your advice and looked over your entire portfolio, you do have some very nice photo's, I really like the painted hills, that one with the red layers is georgeous. I guess I should of looked further before I made that first judgment. What really got me stirred up was that A.T. fellow that gave me a critical, non constructive and offensive critique. I went to his port and he didnt even have one photo posted. I cant stand it when people trash the work of others but wont show any of there own. Peace out, and I welcome your honest critiques anytime :)

[travis1]

same thing could be said about life.

[Charles_Webster]

Kelly, I'm sorry but I don't have any idea what you are saying.

 

If you are suggesting that we terminate this thread, I have little to do with that. It began as a middle of the night rant and has taken on the qualities of discussion that I thought was missing from PN.

 

I believe the folks originally involved in my rant have contributed, and that meaningful communication has occurred among many people.

 

This thread is exactly why I should bother with photo.net.

 

<Chas>

[dancingdove]

Bravo..! & goodnite. ~d.d.

[Charles_Webster]

<em>Oleum perdisti - you are/have wasted your oil (time).</em> Amazing what you can find w/ Google ;-)

 

I don't agree. I believe that these posts <b>have</b> answered my question. Many people have been encouraging, helpful, and even critical. But many people have contributed. And that has <em>not</em> been a waste of time.

<BR>

<Chas>

[rachelfoster]

And I found this helpful as well.