| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/24/2012 10:21:54 AM · #26 |
If a person, who only speaks English, fails to get their point across to a person who only speaks Spanish, whose fault is it?
To expect that everyone else shares your artistic vision, to expect everyone else sees the image as you do, is hubris.
If people are not "getting" your image, perhaps your powers of communication need to be improved. |
|
|
|
03/24/2012 10:38:54 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
hubris |
Great word! Thanks for reminding me of it! :-)
|
|
|
|
03/24/2012 08:01:14 PM · #28 |
In first place, kudos for your commitment, I am sure it will make a better photog of you, and often put a smile on the lips of some other photographers.
Your question is a bit rethorical, I am sure. If you have spent time wonderign about who checks it and who doesn't, and when, you know already the general trends :)
Some don't check but a few, which I respect. As blindjustice puts it, it's generally an aknowlegement, more a "thanks for stopping by" than anything else. If I were to only mark 100% useful comments as such, I wouldn't probably do that more often than I give 10s to images, and most appreciative comments would end up unchecked, even if they comfort me, entertain me and I am grateful for them.
Some will forget to check, loose interest at some point in the challenge and stop checking them, never revise post challenge ones.
In a few cases, but not too often, people will only check praise as useful. Which is a pretty honest attitude, thinking of it. It's very true that many people only deem useful positive reinforcement, while others might well consider it as damaging to adults as it is beneficial to toddlers.
In very few cases it could even be some kind of message :) Dunno, somebody might call for honest feedback on an image without really wanting it. That point they might be stuck with marking as useful your criticism on that one, but then vent their disappointment by leaving unchecked further comments from you. Things like that.
But that's pretty rare, albeit amusing.
After all, your comments are about the image and yourself, the reaction to them about the image and the photographer.
Occasionally you might spot faults in your comments which were left unchecked, and learn from that.
But you'll probably find much more useful for yourself to revise your comments after several months, and reassess if they still make sense to you, independently on how the photographer marked them. That might tell you something interesting about your development as a photographer and a viewer. At least, that's how it works for me.
Keep commenting, I am sure it will help you a lot improving, and I for one enjoy your impressions.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2012 08:16:41 PM · #29 |
I tend to acknowledge and mark nearly any comment as 'helpful', as a matter of courtesy.
When I don't, I want to communicate strong disagreement.
Example: a comment faults framing/composition, when the composition is considered and deliberate, especially when it charges the whole purpose of the image.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2012 08:40:30 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I tend to acknowledge and mark nearly any comment as 'helpful', as a matter of courtesy.
When I don't, I want to communicate strong disagreement.
Example: a comment faults framing/composition, when the composition is considered and deliberate, especially when it charges the whole purpose of the image. |
Not a criticism, yours is the image and yours is the checkbox.
But, I personally find that kind of comment quite useful.
In my language, there is a proverb which roughly translates as "Learn the craft and set it aside".
If my choices of style, PP, composition, whatever, don't work for someone, that tells me something about their effectiveness with a certain audience. One day I might feel compelled removing that barrier with a specific image, and assess if a certain something that might put off viewers is really essential for me to like the image.
Not a reason in itself to tailor on a specific audience, but a bit of useful knowledge to set aside and use when need arises.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2012 09:01:47 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by mcaldo:
...If my choices of style, PP, composition, whatever, don't work for someone, that tells me something about their effectiveness with a certain audience. One day I might feel compelled removing that barrier with a specific image, and assess if a certain something that might put off viewers is really essential for me to like the image.
Not a reason in itself to tailor on a specific audience, but a bit of useful knowledge to set aside and use when need arises. |
I agree and acknowledge some degree of value.
I am suggesting that there may be instances when there is greater value in redirecting an opinion,
when it is uninformed.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2012 12:03:03 AM · #32 |
I know that people have wanted different options in the past.
It would be wonderful to have a "thanks for the comment, but YOU'RE WRONG!!" check box. It would be fun to see it, and it would be also informative to receive it. |
|
|
|
03/25/2012 04:55:26 AM · #33 |
| I do appreciate all the comments you are making Denielle really amazing you are taking the time to do that, you don't need to, but if you want to we can't stop you hey. |
|
|
|
03/25/2012 09:21:28 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I know that people have wanted different options in the past.
It would be wonderful to have a "thanks for the comment, but YOU'RE WRONG!!" check box. It would be fun to see it, and it would be also informative to receive it. |
Do you mean wrong about your intent, or about technical remarks?
But are people ever really wrong about an image?
I mean, sometimes the intent of the photographer might be clear enough, or there are objectives circumstances that need to be known to understand the image, for instance in photojournalism.
Sometimes people might suggest you should have used a softbox, when you actually did. They are wrong then. They might be right that light is not that soft though.
But there are quite a few filters involved before someone decides what your image evokes or describes for them.
I feel it's a bit like with songs.
I am always puzzled that some songwriters will lament their work got misunderstood, and people made a completely different meaning out of their songs. That people are fond of their work for the wrong reasons.
Is Springsteen's "Born in the USA" an American anthem or a pretty bitter criticsm of the US? While the lyrics are quite clear, I know people who feel strongly that it is a song full of pride.
Or Robert Frost's "The road not taken" or "Stopping by the woods on a snowy evening"?
Both are so clear and effective, I always thought the meaning was quite impossible to get wrong, so clear, spelled out. So different from other Frost's work. Till I read that Frost felt they were his most misunderstood poems :)
Once you let it free to fly, people will do what they will with it :)
|
|
|
|
03/25/2012 09:25:05 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I agree and acknowledge some degree of value.
I am suggesting that there may be instances when there is greater value in redirecting an opinion,
when it is uninformed. |
That could be true, sure. If a comment is obviously inapplicable to your image, not marking it as useful might lead the commenter to give the image a second look and think out of their own box.
Message edited by author 2012-03-25 09:25:31. |
|
|
|
03/25/2012 09:50:18 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by mcaldo:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I know that people have wanted different options in the past.
It would be wonderful to have a "thanks for the comment, but YOU'RE WRONG!!" check box. It would be fun to see it, and it would be also informative to receive it. |
Do you mean wrong about your intent, or about technical remarks?
But are people ever really wrong about an image?
I mean, sometimes the intent of the photographer might be clear enough, or there are objectives circumstances that need to be known to understand the image, for instance in photojournalism.
Sometimes people might suggest you should have used a softbox, when you actually did. They are wrong then. They might be right that light is not that soft though.
But there are quite a few filters involved before someone decides what your image evokes or describes for them.
I feel it's a bit like with songs.
I am always puzzled that some songwriters will lament their work got misunderstood, and people made a completely different meaning out of their songs. That people are fond of their work for the wrong reasons.
Is Springsteen's "Born in the USA" an American anthem or a pretty bitter criticsm of the US? While the lyrics are quite clear, I know people who feel strongly that it is a song full of pride.
Or Robert Frost's "The road not taken" or "Stopping by the woods on a snowy evening"?
Both are so clear and effective, I always thought the meaning was quite impossible to get wrong, so clear, spelled out. So different from other Frost's work. Till I read that Frost felt they were his most misunderstood poems :)
Once you let it free to fly, people will do what they will with it :) |
I would never mark a comment as wrong, I think all comments are useful. But it would be interesting to see if anyone thinks that my comments on their picture are wrong. It would give me a chance to go back and look to see what I missed. It could be quite interesting. :)
|
|
|
|
03/25/2012 12:29:53 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
...But it would be interesting to see if anyone thinks that my comments on their picture are wrong. It would give me a chance to go back and look to see what I missed. It could be quite interesting. :) |
Sadly, I do believe that the ensuing exchange would for the most part be akin to the discourse children often have: "Yes, you did... No I didn't...Yes, you did" ...and the much desired learning process would squelched.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/25/2012 01:09:23 PM · #38 |
| I posted a picture straight from my camera (except resizing) to FB last night. It was a shot of a barracuda that happened to have my finger in it's mouth (the finger was a reflection). I was just really amused by it. So one of my friends "shared" it. The first comment she got on it said "Photoshop" and that was it. It's easy to be wrong about some stuff. |
|
|
|
03/25/2012 02:34:13 PM · #39 |
If a photographer or artist can show an amount of unchecked pride, so can a commenter.
Why is a poet valued for endless mystery and hidden meanings, so much so a critic would not say- "that's too obtuse" or there should be a clearer message? Or... Man there's too many literary references for me...
It pretty silly to say that because a commenter didn't get it you need to be clearer. Its tough to be a critic.. Don't assume, take something out of that is different if you can, but don't be negative if you really don't know.
(But for the most part people do get it or take something better out of it like a reinterpreted song lyric meaning)
But perhaps when you add a contest atmosphere, that's where it gets emotional. |
|
|
|
03/25/2012 02:49:57 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
..Why is a poet valued for endless mystery and hidden meanings, so much so a critic would not say- "that's too obtuse" or there should be a clearer message? |
Could it be it's because 'endless mystery and hidden meanings"
are not at all the poem,
that a poet only strips from them what he can,
and by doing so demonstrates what 'is' as opposed to what it 'means'.
As one Edward Dahlberg once put it: "Meaning is that which exists through itself."
Message edited by author 2012-03-25 14:50:34. |
|
|
|
03/25/2012 04:04:22 PM · #41 |
I typically won't check the box if I've done something obvious and it says "You did this obvious thing".
If it's a blatant problem, I don't mind, but if it's an obvious edit that may add to the picture, I don't find it helpful. What would be helpful would be: "You decided to do this obvious thing, but I feel using the obvious thing in this way would've been a wiser decision." |
|
|
|
03/25/2012 04:27:37 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Why is a poet valued for endless mystery and hidden meanings, so much so a critic would not say- "that's too obtuse" or there should be a clearer message? Or... Man there's too many literary references for me... |
But, poets ARE criticized for that kind of stuff, all the time. Depends on the critic.
It's important to remember that in DPC the audience and the "critics" are the same group, more or less. Out in the real world of literary or art criticism (if you can call that world "real") the critics live on a different planet than do the consumers of the work. Not in DPC...
R.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2012 08:53:44 PM · #43 |
Can You respond to the person in anyother way thatn checking the box. I always check the bow, but would like to ask or answer questions myself to that person (s). All in all it has always been helpful to me
|
|
|
|
03/25/2012 09:05:45 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I posted a picture straight from my camera (except resizing) to FB last night. It was a shot of a barracuda that happened to have my finger in it's mouth (the finger was a reflection). I was just really amused by it. So one of my friends "shared" it. The first comment she got on it said "Photoshop" and that was it. It's easy to be wrong about some stuff. |
That's my stance on wanting impressions and feelings generated from my images rather than someone telling me how to "fix" it.
I can't tell you how many times I've had it recommended to me to not have done X or Y, when I hadn't done either, or that some specific technique I had used to get the image I want is criticized for that specific technique. That just doesn't work for me....
Case in point........I got this comment on my Sunrise/Sunset in B&W image.
While very dramatic, this doesn't tell me much about the subjects in the foreground because it is so dark. Another option would have been to wait until the sun is just setting or has set completely (we already know what the sun looks like) to reduce the brightness and give more detail in the foreground.
So.....This gentleman wants to see more of the subjects in the foreground, and states that it's too dark for that, and then goes on to point out that "We already know what the sun looks like."......
Huh? What's the theme of the challenge????
Anyway, I was, and still am quite happy with the image, and remain somewhat confused by the comment as to its merit. I looked at the man's profile, and it's obvious that he took time and thought about his comment, yet......
I certainly don't have any answers, and am content to live with the system 5the way it is. We certainly will never get the comments exactly as we think we should. LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
03/25/2012 09:33:15 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
So.....This gentleman wants to see more of the subjects in the foreground, and states that it's too dark for that, and then goes on to point out that "We already know what the sun looks like."......
Huh? What's the theme of the challenge???? |
To me a "sunset" picture is not a portrait of the sun, but a landscape/skyscape/scene illuminated by the setting sun. Your commentor appears to prefer more detail available to the interesting foreground subjects, and is less concerned with obtaining a sharply-defined image of the sun itself. When I have an image which is a near-silhouette, I usually play around with the dark tones to see if I'd rather bring out or obscure detail ... it's no crime for someone to prefer the choice you didn't make.
If people could just mentally translate "You should have ..." to "I would have preferred ..." I think everyone would be less stressed about comments, and perhaps more people would stop being afraid to make them.
It's amazing about how the threads about "not enough comments" and those complaining about the quality/content of the comments leapfrog each other every few days. It's just someone's opinion -- unless it's from the photo editor of National Geographic just ignore it if you don't agree and don't want to debate the point ... |
|
|
|
03/25/2012 09:33:26 PM · #46 |
| You don't need answers. It's how they viewed it... and how they would shoot it with their style. You don't have to agree or understand. |
|
|
|
03/25/2012 10:10:25 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
You don't need answers. It's how they viewed it... and how they would shoot it with their style. You don't have to agree or understand. |
exactly.
i still think we should let people who cant handle criticism or comments to turn off commenting on their photos. we would still be able to leave them, they or anyone else just wouldn't see them. that way no ones feeling get hurt.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2012 10:18:41 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by vawendy:
...But it would be interesting to see if anyone thinks that my comments on their picture are wrong. It would give me a chance to go back and look to see what I missed. It could be quite interesting. :) |
Sadly, I do believe that the ensuing exchange would for the most part be akin to the discourse children often have: "Yes, you did... No I didn't...Yes, you did" ...and the much desired learning process would squelched.
Ray |
*sigh* This whole thread has squelched my desire to comment yet again. For the first year or two of these threads, I ignored them and kept commenting anyway.
Now, I rarely comment anymore unless I like a photo. And then my comments are the dull "I like your photo" type. I would much prefer criticism -- whether or not I agree with it -- so that's the type of comment that I used to leave. But I've seen too many threads like this, so I'm beginning to believe that people don't want critique. I just looked at the "drug" challenge again. And there were probably about 10 images that I would have critiqued. They would have been along the lines of "have you tried this?" Which simply means, the choice you made didn't work for me, but I do think it could be improved by doing this. But I'm tired of having to tiptoe around when commenting. If I have to make sure I word everything so carefully as to not bother anyone, it's just not worth it.
I really do think it's a shame. I, personally, would much rather know that people didn't like about my shot.
With Jeb's shot, I probably would have said "have you tried bring out the foreground? The street is wonderful. What about darkening the top quite a bit so there isn't a light bar -- it draws the eye. I think that both of those things would bring the eye back down into the picture to focus more on the sunset itself"
This is what those suggestions would bring:
original:
Edited version:
It may or not be better, but this is my idea on how to improve an already good shot. Why is it wrong to give suggestions? I know that I get so caught up in my shots, that many times I miss some things. I would much rather have someone give me suggestions on how to improve my photo than say "nice photo" or say nothing at all.
Oh well. I'm grumpy tonight. It bugged me looking through the challenge and not making suggestions. But if they're not wanted, why bother wasting the time.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2012 10:26:29 PM · #49 |
if someone takes the time to comment, the image resonated with them in some way, whether you hit the mark or they saw potential that you failed to grab a hold of. |
|
|
|
03/25/2012 10:32:54 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Now, I rarely comment anymore unless I like a photo. And then my comments are the dull "I like your photo" type. I would much prefer criticism -- whether or not I agree with it -- so that's the type of comment that I used to leave. But I've seen too many threads like this, so I'm beginning to believe that people don't want critique. |
If you sign up for the Critique Club, you will know that all the photos you comment on are by people who say they wanted feedback, but you give up having the option to cherry-pick the the photos (they are assigned randomly from a pool). |
|
