Comparison between critiques on photosig and here

[jim_orr]

I have been a trial member here for a while and I see a huge difference in the

ratings and critiques between this site and photosig. PS really gets after you

to tell you what you made a mistake with and how to improve the shot. On this

site, basicaly everyone is slapping eachother on the back for average and even

poor shots. This is not to say that the photography on this site is not

phenominal. I have seen some amazing photography here. I was just wondering if

the crits here are meant to help you improve, or just a Blog type set up to

tell eachother you like their work. I rarely if ever see someone say, "This is

not good, you need to try again."

No right or wrong here, just curious.

Thanks

[j.kivekas]

I feel that photo critique standard has dropped a bit here during the last two years. Both the sites are huge and thus the profile of the quality is very similar. However, I find PN the better site for two things: 1) The number of top photographers is higher here (yes, subjective) and 2) here you are allowed to say things and you don't have to lick the administrators. I flew out from Psig because I called Sheena the lady with the last word. The sensorship there was (is?) completely uncivilized. The atmosphere here is definitely more tolerant.

[Norma Desmond]

Jim, I can only speak for myslef. I've noticed the same thing about a lot of patting on the

back. It can be annoying sometimes when it's clear the photo is mediocre. What I try to do,

without being obnoxious (and some folks on this site seem not to be able to help

themselves from being so--has something, I think, to do with being behind an anonymous

keyboard), is always to be encouraging, to try to find something good to say, but to give

constructive criticisms when they are warranted. I mostly get positive reactions to honest

comments. I also get ignored a fair amount by people who read my comments and don't

have much to say in return. I think as important as getting 2-sentence (or, in many cases,

2-word) critiques is getting into dialogues about photos, so when someone makes an

interesting point about a photo, it seems very helpful to respond, whether in agreement or

disagreement. But I figure, regardless, I learn from every critique I give because it

forces me to look carefully and see in a certain way. I also get the

sense that a lot of new photographers don't feel comfortable actually being critical of

someone else's work, because they, themselves, are only learning, so they only praise

what they like and keep the rest to themselves. While I understand that way of thinking, I

encourage everyone to try to be critical because, again for me, it is so much a part of the

learning process. Dare to be wrong, someone else will invariably disagree if you make a

naive comment, and then you will learn something . . . perhaps.

[dangoldman]

I do similar to Fred. Trying to approach it as conservatively as possible etc. I think the hardest thing about giving a harsh critique here is that its not generally done by others, so its therefore harder for someone to step up and do it. Yet people seem to have no problem leaving "below average" anon ratings.

[Brian]

Great advice from Fred. There is as much or more to be gained from giving critiques as from getting them.