Editorial Review for POW #48 (Beta ver. 1.0)

[AJHingel]

<p>Clive, I don't think you are right in your critic. You might say that the photos that did not receive any critics in this round represent those uploaded photos that would have received relatively more critical remarks - my photo included of course. <br>

If you don't agree with the critics that have been written above, why don't you yourself have the courage to express your own critical viewpoints. They would surely be welcome.<br>

I think we all deserve at lest a follow up to your remarks presented "with all respect", explaining why you believe it is justified to write:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>all you're doing is perpetuating the falsehood that much of what is posted here is very good, when quite the opposite is true</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Personally I don't think what was uploaded is any better or worse than what normally is shown in this forum.</p>

[pnital]

<p>Double</p><div></div>

[pnital]

<p>Sorry, forgot the size....</p>

[crappystuffs]

<p>It has a nice and charming Doisneau's quality in it, Evental.</p>

[john_macpherson]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2163426">Clive F</a> , Dec 12, 2010; 11:24 a.m. With all due respect, the "criticism" here leaves a lot to be desired.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Clive thats possibly a very fair and accurate observation. </p>

<p>But, here's another observation - many of us are NOT critics. I'm not. I'm a photographer. Being a GOOD critic probably requires a lot more than 'just' being a photographer. I'm here because I enjoy photographing and I enjoy looking at the work of other photographers, and in support of the initiative put forward by Elmo I was happy to enter into the spirit of the venture, and say what I liked and why I liked it, and what aspects I didn't like about a couple of images.</p>

<p>However to be criticised by you for not being a good critic appeals to my sense of irony! Nice one - it raised a smile from me at least. :-)</p>

<p> </p>

[fi_rondo1]

<p>Clive may have a point there... criticizing, by popular conception, is to either find fault or to put someone's work in some sort of historical context (not necessarily to praise the piece in question)...</p>

<p>Usually the artist being criticized has no means of rebuttal, but here we have the opportunity to at least get some input from the photographer. So if there's a question that's prevalent, such as Javier's overexposed image, it's a perfect opportunity to ask Javier something like:</p>

<p><em>Javier, I've noticed some of your images have been over-exposed lately, why have you been doing that? </em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

Or</p>

<p><em>Marc, what were trying to get at with the "negative sprocket framing and incorrect sizing"?</em> (E. Short)</p>

<p>So Marc... Javier... how about it?</p>

<p>Since we're not dead yet this might be a good opportunity to get an idea why certain decisions are made rather than only to suggest ways to make an image stronger. It also might open up more interesting veins of discussion. Things take some time to evolve, but it looks like there's a lot of activity to back up a thread of this sort...</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<blockquote>

<p>all you're doing is perpetuating the falsehood that much of what is posted here is very good</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree. Not very good as compared to what? If you like a picture(or not) and say so, that is <em>not</em> a falsehood. It's an opinion. An opinion that may or may not agree with yours. Images are rarely so cut and dried, great or poor, that some comment cannot be made to praise or criticize almost any image. The above reviews seem, on whole, an attempt to find some balance. John has a point. Not only am I not (thankfully) a professional critic but also a neophyte in street photography. How droll and simplistic my comments and images must appear. Though not as experienced or well spoken as some, I know what I like and what I don't and, though you might not agree, I reject anyone that tells me my opinion is false, glad handing or otherwise insincere.<br>

Instead of standing on the sidelines, why not pick a couple of images and review them to your taste, even my weak image, so we can all benefit from your seasoned eye and deep experience. At the end of the day, isn't sharing ideas and opinions the purpose of this exercise? </p>

[pnital]

<p>Thanks Phalayasa, I like his streets work of Paris..</p>

<p>btw, I agree with Anders , it is easier to write a critique when the photo is a part of the written word, not a URL. So the viewer can understand better the critique, can add his point of view, agree or not. It can evolve the discussion . another way I see, is to choose 2 ,3 photos (after the week has ended) voting! which is the ones that most want to critique and do it as E. offered.<br /> Some addition...</p>

<p> </p>

[saintelmo21]

<p>I understand what Clive is getting at. What we've done here is to avoid <strong>reviewing </strong>the photo's posted on POW #48, which we don't like. We've picked photographs which appeal to us in some way, so that we could write good overall reviews while picking out a couple of minor weak points. To be fair, Clive cannot post a review because he did not participate in POW #48. Good catch, Clive! I appreciate that. We have quite a few photographs yet to get a review, so I hope that we continue. Otherwise, we will file this away as a good lesson learned for the next Editorial Review.</p>

[saintelmo21]

<p>I forgot: I have asked the moderator about posting photos rather that links. Unfortunately, it is not allowed by PN management. He said it will be a problem if we try to do that. So, for now, I think this is the best we can do.</p>

[fi_rondo1]

<p>Repeal the: No Post / No Critique clause!</p>

<p>Critique just might be somebody's strong point...</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>Jumping in to second Fi's suggestion. I'd go so far as to invite the opinions of photographers who enjoy street photography, but don't post here because they rarely shoot images they consider "street."</p>

[saintelmo21]

<p><em>Fi Rondo , Dec 12, 2010; 07:04 p.m.</em><br /><em> Repeal the: No Post / No Critique clause!</em><br /> Funny, Fi. Makes me feel like an elected official...'who run barter town, now?' I actually introduced the No Post/ No Critique clause (hereafter to be referred to as "the clause") because of your keen observation that often people who post negative comments have no photos. So, then we can open it up to all reviews welcome, but the other guidelines still stand? We'll start on officially when Editorial Review (beta ver. 1.1) comes out. And, for now as well, it can be open to the 'public' as far as I am concerned unless someone vehemently objects. The "review" part of this seems to have bogged down a bit.</p>

[dgoakill]

<p>The problem with people critiquing street that do not shoot it, is that you can't fully appreciate street UNLESS you shoot it. The main problem with street photography on many sites is that the people that want to voice an opinion about it in most cases have no idea what they are talking about. You can't apply the same approach to street that you do other genres of photography.<br /><br />If someone spends all their time shooting macros of flowers and composing shots while testing different lighting techniques how can they leave that all behind and look at a street shot for what it is? They can't, which is why street shots don't get rated well here or anywhere else (part of the reason this idea of street critique was started in the first place). This whole critique thread was born out of several past threads where this very idea was discussed.<br /><br />Most photographers don't get street, they think it's all lucky hip shots and isn't worth any time. There was a great article in Black and White Photography magazine (the one form the UK, not B&W from the states) a few months ago that took four photographers that never shot street before and set them loose on the town. They gave them a quick summery of what street is, showed them some famous photos, and sent them on their way. All four couldn't believe how hard it was to shoot street and at least one of them didn't even try shooting people. Now how can you have your work judged by someone that can't do that? <br /><br />I don't take my car to an airplane mechanic for an estimate on new tires....</p>

[crappystuffs]

<blockquote>

<p>it is easier to write a critique when the photo is a part of the written word, not a URL.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A makeshift solution is to just open the POW as another tab in your browser and have the review thread in another tab. It's a tad slow when compared to have pictures and words at the same thread, but if slowing down sometimes lead us to better pictures, maybe it will also lead us to better critiques. At least a more sensible one.<br>

The thread is definitely still in its beta stage at this point, and I think we should do a couple more beta runs.<br>

I don't mind having criticism from non-street photographers. A constructive criticism is a constructive criticism, whether it's from another street photographer or from a non street photographer. Of course, I wouldn't hesitate from countering any of them right away if I think they are way off their mark.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't take my car to an airplane mechanic for an estimate on new tires....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a truly terrible analogy unless you believe that photography is mechanical.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The problem with people critiquing street that do not shoot it, is that you can't fully appreciate street UNLESS you shoot it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the sole value of one's photography is to have it be appreciated solely by similar photographers, which is exactly what this says, then it's a very limited audience. If the value of one's photography is to speak, reveal, communicate and document with people, then it serves a broad enough purpose to justify actually putting it out in public. No genre of photography intended for a private club will every succeed. It says that only the process matters, not the communicative value of the photograph. It reduces landscape photography to an analysis of who spent the most days in the field looking for the right light just as it reduces street photography to who did the best in percentages.<br /> <br />Boring boring boring.</p>

<p>I could care less, as could the vast majority of people looking at photography, about what it took to get it. Either the photograph resonates with me or it doesn't. I don't really think about what it too to get it until after I decide how I feel about it.</p>

<p>I figure if what it took to get it, how "hard" street photography is as in the example above about some magazine putting photographers in the field (by the way, I have been a massive failure at landscape photography but that doesn't mean I don't "get it"), if that is what matters in one of my photographs, then I have failed massively. I don't want anyone to think about what it took to get it, even the ones that were phenomenally hard to get. I want them to respond if it works for them.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> The problem with people critiquing street that do not shoot it, is that you can't fully appreciate street

UNLESS you shoot it.

 

I disagree. I don't shoot music performances, landscapes, flower macros, urban architecture, sports, etc -

and wouldn't do a very good job at it if I tried. But I regularly check out and enjoy work posted on the

Nikon and Canon forums which includes those genres among others. A lot of what I see is very good and it

is easy to understand and articulate why. No matter what the genre, it is still about composition, taking advantage of nice light, energy, etc

working in synergy to produce a compelling photo. Critique writing is about analysis and communication.

[fi_rondo1]

<p>Well, Dave... first off, photographers not interested in or knowledgeable about street photography probably wouldn't waste their time on this forum. Also, insight and a sympathetic eye cannot be relegated only to those who shoot in a certain genre...</p>

<p>Leaving this review thread open to the readers of this forum can only be a plus... and who knows? There might be some sympathetic lurkers out there who just might have something to say...</p>

<p>Remember what volume that article was in? I'd like to read it...</p>

[bms]

<p>Speaking on no authority whatsoever, being a relative street novice (and minding that, Dave, one out of two times my picture at the bottom of the screen shows a flower macro!), IMHO:</p>

<p>- I would keep the no post - no critique clause (<em>"put up or shut up")</em>..... if you are really itching to dress down a few aspiring street photogs, just put up one of your own.</p>

<p>- I see the purpose of this as constructive criticism. Statements like "<em>all you're doing is perpetuating the falsehood that much of what is posted here is very good</em>" at probably not very helpful, but I admit there is some truth.. and this is IMO at least WHY this thread was started - we all strive to get better (I am the first to admit I am no genius street shooter). Just shoulder padding makes me feel good but certainly does little to improve my photography. Personally, I chose pics I liked but I also made suggestions how I think they can be improved (at least for one of them, the other one was pretty perfect in my book at least).</p>

<p>- so everyone or at least more people may benefit from critique, maybe we should either a) only pick one photo or two each week to critique, but make sure that it is mixed up - maybe a secret list of random numbers to determine which gets picked... or b) we say a maximum of one or two people can critique any given photo before another one gets chosen. or c) we pick one or two person each week that reviews all POW photos but that is a little excessive.</p>

<p>Just another 2 cents, just some ideas</p>

[dgoakill]

<blockquote>

<p>If the sole value of one's photography is to have it be appreciated solely by similar photographers, which is exactly what this says, then it's a very limited audience.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jeff, there is a difference between appreciating a work of art as one might in a gallery and critiquing said art work. You don't need to shoot street to appreciate it, but if you are going to critique it, you should know enough about it to make a valid argument. Too often in reading street reviews those not liking a shot often don't have a valid argument. Most often the negative response is due more to a subjective emotional response than the over quality of the image both aesthetically and technically in it's execution. This is then an opinion, not a critique, a critique shows you what you did wrong and why, an opinion most times is too loose. <br /><br />The problem is it's been flying around here too often, people coming into a thread and saying, none of the shots are good without giving any reason for such a statement. That was the main issue behind starting a thread like this. And I'm sorry, but if someone is going to tell me my shot is either good or bad I want to know why, in detail. It also wouldn't hurt to be able to see some of their work so that I can evaluate just how good the advice they are selling is.</p>

[fi_rondo1]

<p>Dave, coming into a thread and disparaging the work is far different than a thread set aside specifically for critique. Anyone who is negative for the sake of being a jerk will be taken to task anyhow, so that's not a big deal (it might even make for some good reading)...</p>

<p>As far as I know neither Janet Malcolm, Colin Westerbeck (co-author, Bystander) or Geoff Dyer (The Ongoing Moment) or Susan Sontag were street photographers.</p>

<p>Nothing human is alien to me... Terence, Roman playwright</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Nothing human is alien to me... </p>

</blockquote>

<p>And that's why one doesn't have to be something to critique it, unless it's for the purpose of learning and/or using a specific technique.</p>

<p> </p>

[saintelmo21]

<p>If you look at the number of valuable 'critiques' posted in the street category of Photo Critique forum I think you will see that we are in no danger of getting blown out by all the nudie and pet-portrait photogs peeking over the wall at the S&D forum. What repealing “The Clause” will do for the Editorial Review is let experienced hands like Ray., Clive F., Brad, Ton and others, who do/did not post on POW, share their experience and ‘criticism’ in a constructive way so that we can benefit. So, while we may have to put up with the oddball sniping attack from a lost landscaper, the potential benefit may be worth it.<br>

I stand by the Review guidelines as being essentially sound. If everyone who submits a review does so according to them, it will work out fine. Meanwhile, pics from the following photographers on POW 48 have yet to be reviewed: ME, Anders, Phalayasa, DS, Yury, Sanford, Efim, Costo, Jane, Eric, Louis, Benjamin, Pnina, Shawn, and Mark Atwell… <br>

Brad, Clive, and Jeff will each of you pick a pic or two from POW 48 and give a review here?</p>

 

[ray .]

"Nothing human is alien to me..."

 

True apparently for Terence the Roman playwright, but of course you know you don't want to go too far with that, lest you encourage threads full of photos of puppy dogs, babies,

and roses. It's not the puppy dog itself but how it's photographed. The most accessible photos will tend to look like Hallmark. Do keep in

mind that many art forms fall very far short of having a universal following and are not comprehensible by all

humans.

 

On the other hand, it didn't seem to me that a group of people trying to get better would benefit much just by critiquing each other. Good suggestion to open it up, Fi.

[Uhooru]

<p>The most well known photographic curators and critics weren't photographers, particularly John Szarkowski pops into mind. The problem with a single photo critique thread for me, is that really a "critique" should be aimed at a photographers overall work and perhaps a grouping of images. Except for a couple of people, like Brad who's been really doing a "work", I don't think as a group, from what I've seen that there is yet a coherent body of work. There is, but we don't see it in the context of a thread. it's difficult to talk about a single image out of the context of your interpretation of what the phographer is about more than just, "street". the closest I've gotten to useful single image critiques was having a good instructor in photo school who would engage in a process with the students to explore a photo. It would involve questions about intent and then maybe a discussion of means. How to use photographic technique to promote ones photographic intentions. It wasn't formulaic, it started from the point of view of each picture taker the project each was working on, and then how to get there.<br /> Just to say, it's good, bad or ugly wasn't what it was about. It was more about a positive engagement, not just about saying these photos suck or these critiques suck. That's why I've been sort of hesitent to join in. Not sure I can add to any ones understanding, if I don't even understand my own pictures:)</p>