SEEN BETTER DAYS by GERRY GENTRY

Perhaps not, Fred, but that is surely the best single way to get many persons to see one's photos--and thus be more likely to be nominated, I would surmise. As for saying that the Photo of the Week is not intended to be the best photo, it is hard to make the case that the elves in general really do think about what is likely to provoke the most discussion. There are the rules, and then there are the elves, and as individuals I think that they must go their own way(s). I have been told that they do not even know who else is an elf. I cannot verify that. Their choices sometimes mystify me, regardless of the basis for selection.

In any case, among the things that this thread shows is that anger is not a very good way to respond to anything by way of criticism. Anger shows less about the harshness of the criticism than it shows about the disposition of the one who is angered or insulted too easily.

You and I are used to a LOT of give and take, in part because we were socialized in philosophy programs. Not everyone is used to such, and many are apt to take an honest criticism as an ad hominem attack when it is not meant to be. The result is that the one insulted often DOES respond with an ad hominem attack, and then usually the conversation disintegrates. I think that it speaks well of the PoW as an institution that the discussion went on, even though the recipient more or less bailed out of any kind of rational exchange, if indeed he ever began to engage in a rational exchange.

The PoW will continue to be viewed as an honorific, in my opinion, no matter how many times the administrators say that it is not that. You and Jack McRitchie and Gordon Bowbrick (Gordon B) and Mike Dixon and other recipients are among the best photographers on the site. It does not always happen that way, but it happens that way often enough that one believes that at least some of the elves are looking at perceived quality rather than what will provoke discussion.

As for the present photo, I like it, I just don't love it as processed. At some point subjectivity comes into play, and beyond a certain point no further explanation is possible. We certainly cannot quantify what is "too much processing." Some of the defenders seem to be missing the boat in their zeal to defend. Honest criticism is honest criticism, and one either values it or one does not. If one is too easily insulted, that is one's own self-imposed cross to bear, in my opinion.

--Lannie

John,
Thanks. I have been exposed to critiques by instructors, etc. They were never like this. I dare say, if someone were in my face (as many who have helped me have been) the context of what they said would be different, even if it were harsh....and there is a difference between someone telling me how to improve and someone who just doesn't like my work. People are different John. Some have natural ability and others need to be trained. There are as many famous quotes against the need for critiques, as there are for them. I have found my niche in photography complete with it's own set of standards, not just a fan base...

I offered my critique of this image and my understanding of how Gerry must feel. I'm intelligent enough to know the difference between critique and attack. The tough love concept is chickenshit when you're not face to face (I've never seen someone ruin so many images.... quote from Lannie). That was a wonderful comment, wouldn't you say? No, it was in the spirit of helping him become a better photographer, right? I was not attacking this forum, just certain comments

Maybe it's just my impression, but there basically seem to be 2 kinds of different critiques people expect/deliver. Some focus on the technicalities of the photos, commenting on sharpness, tonal range, and rules of thirds, and so on. And some focus on how they experience a photo, what message they perceive etc.
Both can go quite harsh, though the second might seem more likely to do so, because it's personal perceptions. They're more tricky in every way as it's not about clearly described guidelines such as "must be sharp", "focus on the eyes" and stuff like that. Once those critiques go beyond "Oh nice" or "I do not like", but instead try to explain how and why things are perceived the way they are, then seriously: how harsh are these? These are real-world viewers, really taking time to study your photo, giving you clues to the communicative value of a photo. Disappointment? Sure. A bit of anger, sure. Insulted? No way. It's not understanding one another, rather than harshness or attacks.
If I explain something in a unclear way, and nobody understands a word I say (for example, these very words), am I to blame those who do not understand me, or should I show some self-reflection, and try to improve on my communicative skills? But, once you refuse to self-reflect, everything is an insult.

Sure, the use of language is tricky, especially online where you have to do without facial expressions, tone of voice and so on. That is a limit every forum has. To me, that means giving people a bit leeway in how I explain their words, assuming they mean well until it becomes very obvious they don't. It's easy to feel attacked, but maybe it's just as much about what you read into it than about what was really said.
So I can understand that Gerry felt disappointed, and that we upset him. I can understand he could not find a way to deal with what was said (we all have our days), and could not digest it as honest experiences being shared. Getting worked up about it, I can get. Replying defensive and angry, I can get (up to a level). But, replying with insults to all others, saying they are incompetent snapshooters who can all go to hell, I cannot understand. And I don't feel a need to be understanding about that either.

Phil, please quote people in full context--at least if you want to be taken seriously.

--Lannie

Lest I be misunderstood in my own criticisms, my saying that Gerry had ruined a lot of photos was really about one thing applied to many photos: too much post-processing, in my opinion. I am sure that he is the kind of guy who keeps his original files and can go back and redo them--or not, depending on whether he agrees. Yes, I was too emphatic, but I did mean it. I also emphasized, though, that they could still be redone and made better.

I happen to think that Gerry has a natural, God-given gift for photography. I don't have it. I can recognize talent in others, though, and I can be horrified when I see what I view as great captures processed in a way that fails to take advantage of his gift of composing so well at the moment of shooting. Very few have that gift.

Whether I was right or wrong about the post--processing is for Gerry to decide. I say again that he can come away having weathered the storm and having gotten the Photo of the Week. That is no mean achievement in my book.

As for blowing up, I have blown up with less provocation. . . .

The photo was strong enough to sustain what has been a rather spirited discussion, in spite of the breakdown in communications.

My wife was always horrified by my controversial style, and there is a case to be made for saying that I could do a lot better. I will consider that if Gerry will reconsider his post processing. I have to confess that I have never gotten an award for tactfulness. Temper, yes. Tactfulness, no. (Don't ask about the award for temper.)

I hope that we will soon see the PoW emblem next to Gerry's name, even if he might have asked that it be removed. He did earn it, after all.

--Lannie

Lannie
There are times that being brutally honest is welcomed and necessary, however in most of those cases, it's not going to be pastered on the bulletin board for everyone to see. In a world filled with landmines, we have to be careful where we step. Our critiques have to take into account that in most cases, we don't know the person whom we're evaluating, and that it is only our opinion, not the LAW. Granted, some are going to react to any criticism, but in the end, we are responsible for our words, and are those words to the recipient or the forum itself......

Sorry if I took your statement out of context.....

I fully agree. And while we're at it, please, let's change the title of this to "Critique of the Week" to avoid the natural assumption made by many that being chosen for the "Photo of the Week" is an honor, an award, or recognition for having the best photo and that a message of congratulations is therefore appropriate. Let's also replace the gold cup, a widely accepted symbol of an award, with something else. Many months ago someone (I remember who but will withhold the name) suggested a "Purple Heart" symbol. That suggestion makes me smile, and it is so appropriate. The suggestion may have been partly in jest, but sometimes we need a bit of light-hearted humor when strong and divergent opinions are being exchanged.

Yes, I know suggestions for improving the POW are supposed to be submitted elsewhere, but that feels like sending them to a black hole. Folks have had reasonable concerns and reasonable suggestions for the POW for a very long time, yet nothing ever seems to change.

i love faces i find this woman’ terrifically interesting. I know nothing about her but immediately think of her as a strong individual I’d like to photograph. Be she your mother, or a bag lady, or someone else’s mother, I’d photograph her in a shutter click. As a viewer, or photographer, I’m always on the lookout for compelling faces and the power this one face promises, her presence and bearing, seems a gift. Yet the way you chose to frame and present her, instantly reminded me of one of those fiercely independent bag ladies one sees in the capital cities of the world. That she’s hostile at the intruder with the camera can’t be denied, and I wonder how you fail to read the expression and note the suspicious disdain, or hear the murmur I hear; if only I could get up from this wheel chair I’d beat the shit out of you …

how one views a picture is absolutely and completely independent from the creator of the image, and possibly, even often, contradictory to the intent of the photographer. This is an essential fact of any picture; the idea that once a photograph is public, how others see it is no longer the photographer’s domain. This seems to be lost on you, hence the astonishing hurt toward your colleague’s criticism. Unusual too. And as sad as it is revealing. And admittedly funny. Funny in the way tragedy and hilarity often commingle, funny AND sad, in how you invoke your mother now seemingly so upset at all the bullying brought on her little boy by all the insensitive, all the not so nice, bullying viewers… A grownup photographer finding refuge in mommy makes for a poignant and bizarre POW.
Finally, you do well to re-consider migrating elsewhere. This is not about other people, or other places. It’s mostly about your considering and addressing the mediocrity of vision and presentation

I agree that a photographer whose work is chosen for a POW mention should have the right to refuse it. I remember my friend Rémi, who was awarded the coveted Rhodes scholarship, and to the surprise of everyone around him refused it. He simply didn't see himself going that route. Our local and provincial salons used to see a lot of displays of ego and frustrations of those who both won and lost prizes. Mostly, the value of the competitions and prizes was not the chance to critique the images, which unfortunately did not occur as openly as here, but to teach each of us a certain humility. The humility of receiving a top prize when you knew that your work, while good, was not that exceptional when compared to other ardent photographers. One learns very little from accumulating prizes without the chance for meaningful analysis and discussion of approaches and aesthetics, I chose to eventually opt out of those salons and competitions, if only because I believed that there had to be more depth to the process than just an ego boost. Like beyond Rémi's unrequited Rhodes.

While the POW may be coveted by some, as Lannie mentions, and one's name is permanently (as long as one remains a member) emblazoned with a fancy little cup beside one's name, I see it much less as an award or prize (albeit the golden cup), or level of attainment, but simply as a more visible and active opportunity to critique what we love doing, albeit via the photo of one of our colleagues. Yes, perhaps most of us would like to have some of our own photos critiqued with the same focus and intensity as a POW image, but the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of fellow photo.netters means that the selection of anyone's photo for critique is a quite rare possibility. I keep discovering some amazing photographs by fellow members who will likely never have a POW selection. That discovery in itself is great, as it can allow interaction of a positive kind with the photographer (who often then discovers the other's work) and the exchange is almost guarranteed to be very positive.

It is also hard to know the values, approaches or competences of the judges (the mysterious elves, bless them) as they are "in camera." That may be a limitation if one is used to portfolio evaluations or other forums of critique by known judges or educators, but in the end I think it is really is not so important as the opportunity it gives each of us to apply our own sense of values and critical abilities, to have a meaningful exchange with the author (which unfortunately has not yet happened here), to compare aesthetic considerations, to learn from and to teach the other, and to interact with other photographers via the particular example in question.

Let's take the POW for what it apparently is - an example that merits discussion (for or against) and not some coveted standing or prize - and allow the recipient the right to first refuse the exercise, if he or she so chooses.

Put your stuff out there and see what you get. Everything on photo.net is there for all of us to discuss and learn from. Put your worst up, put your best up and buck up.

Gerry has rated other photographs on Photo.net and given a few "one" ratings himself.

Gerry understands how to give an honest critique of another persons photograph, he doesn't mince his words:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7316394

BLUR, OVER EXPOSED, HAND IN TOP LEFT DISTRACTING, BABIES EYES BLACKED OUT, LOOK LIKE A SNAP SHOT THAT NOT BEEN COMPOSED PROPERLY. HOPE THIS HELPS YOU.

I meant that only in the sense that he might have second thoughts if he did indeed refuse it during the heat of the moment. Of course, his wishes should be honored if he really, really does not want it.

Given the emotional nature of the exchange, however, I would hope that the management might write him to ask him if he would like to reconsider it, in the cold light of dawn and the clear judgment of reason--if Gerry really did refuse it.

--Lannie

Well, yes, but I can also see how one might feel elated to get an email telling one that one's photo has been selected as THE PHOTO OF THE WEEK, only to run immediately into the criticisms of Fred, myself, and others. The very elation can set up the potential for a very adverse emotional reaction.

As for the photo, it certainly has generated a lot of words and a lot of thought.

Still, Gerry's last words above do have a way of rebounding: "HOPE THIS HELPS YOU."

Then there is "SNAP SHOT," which seems to recur in his comments--IN CAPS, NO LESS.

We all have our bludgeons, and we should all be a bit more careful about how we use them. I personally don't like the backswing that seems to accidentally pop one in the teeth and then allows the perp to say, "Oh, I am so sorry" as he grins to himself in depraved satisfaction.

--Lannie

Gerry can dish it out, but he can't take it.

If someone gets an email that their photograph is going to be POW, they can take their photograph down to avoid the honor. If they don't want an icon next to their name as a POW winner, too bad, even if they quit photo.net there would probably still be a record of it.

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

Charles, that moving finger can cut quite a swath:

[LINK]

This guy is going to be remembered, and we will all be able to say, "I knew him when. . . ."

In truth, though, this one is my favorite:

[LINK]

There is some serious talent to be reckoned with here.

--Lannie

He had one of a little girl looking over a city scape below I also liked, though it looks like he took it down. Also, Gerry is an example of how an artist isn't always a good art critic.

The work of Gerry is certainly interesting and with originality. Whatever else it is, a photograph is a creation that communicates. If that visual communication leaves one unimpressed, there is no reason not to say so, but in appropriate terms, often benefitting from a realisation by the critiquer of what he or she considers the pro and con elements of an appreciation. I think most here try to do that. The question that is important is whether or not a POW can be discussed without people getting their backs up and reacting aggressively, or critiquers or authors engaging in demeaning comments that might be better addressed in more humble, balanced and and sympathetic tones. As mentioned, the POW might better be called critique of the week than photograph of the week.

Then it would get the nickname COW instead of POW, Arthur.

We have to think this through, lest it wind up also being called "Holy Cow!"

--Lannie

And you had such a burning desire to tell us this, you told it to us three times.

Thanks, but no thanks. And frankly, it's childish of you to get so worked up over critiques of your photograph. It is, after all, only the POTW on Photo.net...you don't mention having won the Pulitzer with it.

So as I said to you in an earlier comment...grow up, stop pouting. All you've accomplished here today is to make a bloody fool of yourself.

Our critiques could then be known as "COW pies." Damn, this has so much potential to enliven (and correct) this important aspect of PN

There's always "_ _ _ t Kickers R Us" to emphasize the negative connotation of "criticism." or to describe those who stir things up which really ought to be left alone.

--Lannie

Jim, you're subtle, almost as subtle as I am.

I wouldn't want anyone to accuse either of us of failing to be direct.

--Lannie

Jeez, Stephanie...if you find us all so boorish and childish, why do you keep showing up here week after week? What're you hangin' around for? Just to remind us what bad little boys we are? I'd guess most of us already have mothers who, even if they are old, are still capable of giving us a verbal spanking.

Hey, here's an idea! Why don't you critique the photograph instead of other photographers? This is, after all, the Photo of the Week Forum, not the Photographer of the Week Forum.

Wouter, you should get a dog! Think of the fun you could have photographing him or her. Think of the derision you could suffer from morons who think that's all you know how to photograph! It will give you a whole new perspective on photography and life in general. Trust me on this.

Oh, and I love your "snapshots".

Jim, I was just perusing all your Polaroids. How they managed to get neglected throughout all this is hard to imagine. If I had to choose a pet right now, it would not be a dog. . . .

This has become like one of those twenty-six inning ball games that one goes back to every now and then to see what the score is.

I'm sure that, in spite of the range of our opinions and arguments, we are now going to be viewed as a wolfpack which is surrounding the young hero. We are being painted with a mighty broad brush. We are surely the bad guys now.

--Lannie

Wow! What an exchange! If anything, it really shows the intensity and passion of the participants.

But what is the "take away" of all this?

The way I understand it, the POW is neither an art gallery setting, where public and critics are invited to admire and comment the work of an artist, nor an award of some sort, but rather an invitation to a peer review.

Peer reviews are extremely valuable if you have the peers (and luckily this is the case here at PN) and a "Statement of Intent", which unfortunately the POW thread doesn't have… Elves, are you reading this too?!

Imagine for a second that this week's POW would have been accompanied by a Statement of Intent as the very first comment of the thread, something in the sense below:

"In this picture I tried to capture the mix of happy memories and the feel of the passing time that my mother, the elderly lady in the foreground, experiences when she comes to visit this un-kept waterfront shelter, one of her favourite places when she was a little girl. In post processing this shot using HDR techniques I felt that the dramatic skies, as an expression of the passing time, would nicely pull together the crisp and at the same time rough details of today's reality (SEEN BETTER DAYS…) and the pensive look in my mother's eyes."

Now look back at your own comments from the start of this thread (including you, Gerry!) and decide for yourself, what should stay, and what should have never been written.