| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/27/2005 12:32:34 PM · #1 |
(Since it might not be clear from the context, I'm posting this as a suggestion in my role as a site member, not as Site Council.)
It's no secret that the Critique Club receives more critique requests than it can fulfill most weeks. Also, many CC members have difficulty with critique requests for which the photographer has not provided comments, and question whether their critiques are even being seen.
My suggestion is to require that the Photographer Comments be filled out on any photograph where a critique is requested. The comments should provide the critique writer with insight into the photograph, its setup, and/or what type of feedback the photographer is looking for.
This could be monitored with an input validation at submission time. Critique club members could also be provided a means to skip entries where meaningless comments were provided, and the Critique Club managers given the means to monitor that skipping system for abuse.
This would help cull the number of CC requests coming in, and assure that critiques went to people who had themselves invested time and effort into the provess, and therefore are more likely to be interested in the results.
I'd like to know what the community, and especially the Critique Club volunteers and customers, think of this idea before presenting it to Site Council.
When replying, please also indicate whether you are a CC volunteer, CC customer (one who requests critiques), both or neither.
Thanks,
Terry
|
|
|
|
11/27/2005 12:37:15 PM · #2 |
I agree with the suggestion. I think a lot of people just click the critique box when entering their image for a challenge without really considering if they want one.
When I do a critique I usually mention that had comments and steps been included in comments, then a more detailed critique qould be possible. It makes it difficult trying to second guess the processing steps used to achieve a certain finished image.
Steve (CC volunteer) |
|
|
|
11/27/2005 12:43:21 PM · #3 |
Having requested the critique many times and received only one (I believe), I would be HAPPY to do that, as I do TRY to do that anyway. Of course, being a mistake prone human, I know I may have missed some.
It seems to me that anyone requesting a critique should be more than willing to comply with a rule such as this, seems very minimul effort to expand to help both yourself and the cc members. I know, it is IMO!! LOL
Jacque |
|
|
|
11/27/2005 01:02:18 PM · #4 |
I personally do not mind giving critiques on a photo when no details have been offered. I will (as Formerlee mentioned) add a note that had they left comments, I might have been able to offer more on the photo.
That being said, I think I would support the idea mentioned here. My only hesitation would be that we would be denying photos on an individual basis, and for as long as I have been a CC member (2 1/2 years) my altimate goal was to try for everyone to receive a crit. Even if we didn't make it through the photos, they were denied at random. No one ever said...'Hey Bob, you're not getting a critique because this or that isn't good enough'.
My goal has always been to get more people to critique so we wouldn't have to deny ANYONE. However, it seems that unless I'm sitting there holding their hand, or bribing them with free memberships, that it just isn't going to happen.
Because I feel that the number of photographers who refuse to leave comments (even after being prompted when checking the box) will be quite small, I think this would be a good idea to help the people out who are doing the critiques. In the long run, I don't think many people will be denied a critique.
So...Here are my thumbs of aproval.
~Heather~ (CC Volunteer 2.5 years, CC Admin 3 months) |
|
|
|
11/27/2005 01:12:20 PM · #5 |
I have pretty much given up asking for a critique, but would like to get them from time to time.
Terry, I support your proposal, but have one suggestion to add.
Obviously, you will need to let customers know of the requirements on THEIR behalf.
Providing details re camera, settings, etc should be straight forward and self-explanatory, however some people might find it hard to understand what you expect from them in terms of their "intentions" (or type of feedback), or might find it hard to put into words.
I think this problem can be mostly overcome by
a) explaining it well
b) providing a few examples
c) breaking it up into smaller chunks/steps/topics/areas to be addressed.
I just thought of one more problem. If I were to tell you in my comment that I had concentrated on a very narrow depth of field as my main goal for that photo, would I then just get a :"Yup, narrow DOF works well", but no one will bother to point out to me that it is way too dark, quite out of focus, and that my composition stinks?
Terry, I think you're onto a good thing, and by the time the SC have put their heads together over this, I'm sure you'll be covering all those bases, right?
Perhaps you could show your first draft to us mere mortals, too - you never know ..... even WE might have a good idea at times :-) |
|
|
|
11/27/2005 01:15:40 PM · #6 |
Are Critique Club reviews an anonymous process?
I would think one might be able to trust the objectivity of a CC volunteer to allow for communication with the photographer regarding any particulars related to a photo under review.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2005 01:25:33 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Jammur:
Are Critique Club reviews an anonymous process? |
No, they are not anonymous, since they are done after the challenge has ended, so that the critiquer would be able to see the photo details and the other comments in order to give a more useful critique.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2005 01:28:04 PM · #8 |
Personally, I dont care if someone agrees with my critique or not, not finding any of these three helpful was enough to make me never want to spend my time on a photo ever again. And I did PM each person and even included a link to their photo that I critiqued.
It's not like I sat down jumbled a few words together and hit Post...I sat down and poured my thoughts into these shots...
  
Maybe it could be made that no matter what the critique is found helpful.
----------------------------------------------
So anyway, yes, I support your idea. You figure if the person isn't willing to take a couple minutes and provide some comments, then what's the point in trying, they're not going to read it anyway...pull up the critique, look at the photog's comments, if they suck, hit the reject button.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2005 01:31:13 PM · #9 |
what about limiting the images that are critiqued to the no mans land of 4.5 - 5.5 scorers. these images tend to get the least comments during the challenge. the high scorers get tons of comments, and typically would not need a critique. the real low scorers typically are quite difficult to offer suggestions to. this way anyone could check the 'i wanna critique' box - but only those falling within a certain score range would actually be eligible. seems reasonable to me.
i am not a critiquer nor a requester.
edit: to say the original idea is also valid and could be used in tandem with mine.
Message edited by author 2005-11-27 13:33:46.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2005 01:32:04 PM · #10 |
Yes great idea. I love doing critiques but they do take quite a lot of time, up to 45 minutes, so it is a little off-putting to put all of that effort in when the photographer hasn't even taken the time to fill in the f-stop, shutter and ISO information let alone a photographer's comment.
The critique is a challenging and fun thing to do because it is a discussion between the photographer and the critquer and as such its really great to be able to get the idea behind it, the aspirations of the photographer, the setup and the trials and tribulations that surrounded getting it captured.
I've had some comments from CC customers who didn't know what clicking the "I would like an indepth critique on my submission." actually means and are surprised when they find out how detailed the process is. They have also said that they couldn't find any FAQ on the DPC site about CC.
It's so frustrating knowing that we cannot get all of the critiques done, so I applaud the opening of the discussion and anything that may arise out of it.
Brett (CC Volunteer) |
|
|
|
11/27/2005 01:43:53 PM · #11 |
Terry - As a customer I think it is great idea. The biggest reason would be that if someone did not bother to put in the time to doucment their photo then why should a member of the CC volunteer the time to give them input.
Besides, I think it helps me to try and document my photos if for no other reason than to make me review the steps I took to photograph it and process it.
Thanks to all the CC members for their efforts. |
|
|
|
11/27/2005 01:58:36 PM · #12 |
I think it's a good idea. I do occasional CC comments, and I would like the extra information, in particular what is it that the photographer is after in a more detailed critique.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2005 02:04:23 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by deapee:
It's not like I sat down jumbled a few words together and hit Post...I sat down and poured my thoughts into these shots... |
Yep Deapee, I don't think people appreciate how long it takes.
I documented this in a discussion with a photographer ... Each Critique takes me at least half and hour, more typically 45 minutes and can take an hour using these headings.
::: Critique Club :::
An opening comment, usually positive using the photographers comments to understand the process and planning that went into the capture.
- First Impression - the most important one:
What is the first impression of the image as presented, what does a casual, quick look at it reveal? What does the image do or could do to make the viewer stop and become involved in it?
- Composition:
Studying the composition sometimes involves downloading a copy for more detailed viewing. On occasion one wonders if de-centering would help, so before saying so, it can be useful to re-cro and test the comment.
- Subject:
Is the subject properly responding to the brief of the Challenge? What are the strong features of the subject and what, if any, might further enhance the package.
- Technical (Colour and light):
What were the camera settings used, because they are deliberate settings, what effect they have had on the image. Review colour, light and depth of field.
- To get a Ribbon?:
What is the scoring history of the image. All the other comments are read to get a sense of viewer impact.
If just getting a better score is the goal for this image (it's not always so) how the voting process might have impacted on the image. Discuss what may contribute to getting a higher score or what might have been a barrier to a better score.
- Summary:
I read all of the comments made by others to see how it was received and their impressions of certain elements. I open the photographers Profile then and review their body of work to see if there's any generic praise or hints that can be made in the summary. I then review the whole critique, edit and post.
Brett (CC Volunteer)
Message edited by author 2005-11-27 15:07:09. |
|
|
|
11/27/2005 08:49:33 PM · #14 |
I'd like to see some type of review of the process for Critique Club requests. As is obvious, the majority of 'critiques' are from experienced photographers who put time and effort into their critique. I think that not only should there be a requirement (new code/field even) to include all camera settings and post processing details, but it (the CC request) should not be so easy to just 'tick the box'. A genuine request should be made, 'somehow'.
An additional suggestion; having to wait until after the Challenge has ended (or at least the last day of it - if your score is bad, etc), for those that perhaps thought their photo was better than it scored, or those that genuinely wish to have 'skilled' insight in order to improve and learn. This may 'reduce' the number of requests, especially from people who do not understand what it really is that they are 'requesting'. It should also enable a higher ratio of 'Photographer found comment helpful.' boxes ticked, which is always a nice acknowledgement for those that take the time to comment, or critique, in this case, members of the Critique Club. |
|
|
|
11/27/2005 09:01:18 PM · #15 |
I disagree with the suggestion (as it stands). For the simple reson that it gives too much insight into the photo. When the voting is taking place you only see the title, nothing more. With the extra info it's possible it will change your opinion of a photo 180 degrees. While it will give a good critique, it wouldn't be the same critique that you'd get from a voter, which is ultimately who you're trying to please. (more or less)
I would, however, like to see something implemented to limit the number of critique requests, since there is obviously far more than we can handle at the moment.
[cc volunteer] |
|
|
|
11/27/2005 09:06:02 PM · #16 |
When I'm providing a critique as a club member I review it without regard to the challenge. I will comment on it's relevancy to the challenge last if I do at all.
The more information provided by the photographer the more a critique can provide information on how well the photographer met their objective.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2005 09:15:02 PM · #17 |
With all due respect to those that volunteer to do critiques...what difference does it make if the photographer leaves comments or not? About the only thing I could see needed are the required fields (Aperture, ISO, Shutter Speed). Those can be helpful to give some tips for improvement perhaps.
Let me ask this; what is a critique? Isn't it nearly the same as judging a photo based on the image itself? When you look at a photo don't you automatically (especially if doing a critique) look at the basics; Composition, Focus, Exposure, Noise, etc...? I think of a critique as feedback you might get from a judge at a photo show. You did this, this, and that great, this area, etc...needs work.
Something else that should be considered for critiques is the format being used by the person giving the critique. There should be set guidelines used that all critiques follow. As it is right now the range is quite dramatic and there isn't any standard.
Another suggestion is to limit who can receive a critique. Set a limit of requesting to those with under 15 challenges submitted, or an average score of under 5.25. Give the help to those who want, and or need it.
Again, I think it's great that people volunteer time to do this. Thanks for the effort, much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2005 09:17:39 PM · #18 |
This is a valid point, and I think it could even go one step farther in not allowing those giving a critique the ability to see prior comments. I think it influences the verbiage used in many cases. JMO. ;^)
Originally posted by jadin:
I disagree with the suggestion (as it stands). For the simple reson that it gives too much insight into the photo. When the voting is taking place you only see the title, nothing more. With the extra info it's possible it will change your opinion of a photo 180 degrees. While it will give a good critique, it wouldn't be the same critique that you'd get from a voter, which is ultimately who you're trying to please. (more or less)
I would, however, like to see something implemented to limit the number of critique requests, since there is obviously far more than we can handle at the moment.
[cc volunteer] |
|
|
|
|
11/27/2005 09:21:46 PM · #19 |
I helps if the image is technically lacking in some way, but overall. I don't think it's necessary. I just evaluate the image for what it is.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2005 09:26:23 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
I'd like to know what the community, and especially the Critique Club volunteers and customers, think of this idea before presenting it to Site Council.
|
I have left CC before and simply stated that without the photographer's comments, I can't offer anything more. Some photos just make no sense when looking at them without some insight from the photographer. At some point in the past when I was working the critique club, I gave the CC members permission to skip over photos that had no input from the photographer.
Here it is....
Message edited by author 2005-11-27 21:27:21.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2005 09:32:34 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by jadin:
I disagree with the suggestion (as it stands). For the simple reson that it gives too much insight into the photo. |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Let me ask this; what is a critique? Isn't it nearly the same as judging a photo based on the image itself? |
I think there's a mis-conception about what the critique is. Challenge voting is about judging an image on its own merits, no prompting allowed. In the voting we have voters comments as a place where all voters have the oportunity to share their thoughts and impressions with the photographer. Sadly few do yet feedback is one of the greatest features of DPC.
The Critique on the other hand is an in-depth analysis of all of the elements of the image to try and help the photographer understand why people saw their image in a particular light and voted accordingly. Don't we all sit looking at our scores and say ... why don't they like it? I thought it would score much better than this...
To understand why it's necessary to get right to the core of all of the elements in the picture. It may have a very shallow depth of field and be critisised for that in voting only to read in the photographer's comments that they were trying to get a special effect with the DOF. The critiquer can then discuss ways that might be enhanced so that it doesn't look like a mistake but more of a feature.
The voting is the place to gauge the top-of-mind response, the critique is a rare oppourtunity to get an in-depth assesment of it in order to learn and try new tricks for the future.
Brett (CC Volunteer)
Message edited by author 2005-11-27 21:38:17. |
|
|
|
11/27/2005 09:51:13 PM · #22 |
As a member of the Critique Club I have the following to offer:
It would be very helpful if the details of the shot were present. This would allow rational judgements to be made as opposed to educated guesses. Especially post processing steps.
It would be nice if people who asked for critiques acknowledged them. I realize that the choices are 'helpful' or not helpful by default. But not helpful leaves you wondering if they even read what you took the time to write. Why did they ask for it if they are not at least going to acknowledge what you wrote?
Existing comments do not influence my critiques. Sometimes they let me know how the voters thought, but that is not necessarily the same as I thought. A lot of times existing comments point out things I may have missed or overlooked which will help me in my critiques.
I like the way the system works now, but would like to see better controls over who asks for a critique. With the short time I have been involved with the CC, I have done critiques on the same photographer too many times. Do people ask for an in depth critique on every photo they submit? In one day I critiqued two photos by the same photog. Seeing as how the system is random, I found this a little disquieting. There should be some standard or limit on the request procedure besides a checkbox.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2005 10:40:53 PM · #23 |
I'm a fairly new CCCer and do a critique based on what I get in the way of information. Of course, the more information, the better the critique.
The only observation I'd make is that those photographers who receive lots of comments or know they are headed for a score of over 6.0 untick the Critique box before the Challenge ends.
That would take the high scorers out of the line and would obviously provide others who need it a better chance of a critique.
And right now, I'm one of those who is working in 'fits and starts' due to other committments which I have to deal with. I'll be back in a while. |
|
|
|
11/27/2005 11:19:06 PM · #24 |
The main thing here is that as a serious critiquer I really want to be aware of what you are trying to accomplish with your image, and the steps you took to accomplish that. So, for example, if you told me you specifically wanted a very dark, moody image, I might comment differently upon your murky, massive dark areas than I would were I not aware of this. Unaware, I might say that "you're at least 2 stops underexposed here". Knowing your goal was a very dark image, I might discuss ways to get better resolution and contrast in the darker tones. You get the idea.
The part of CC that depresses me is never knowing if anyone even READ the danged critique, or whether it was of any use. It gets wearisome. SO much work for so little return.
I check my comments received every day to read & acknowledge them, and do not understand why others don't do this also.
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/28/2005 09:18:15 AM · #25 |
OK - I'm seeing some validity to more photographer comments now based on Robert's post and some others that have voiced opinion recently in this thread. Point taken.
Robert - I think some people aren't aware of how to get to the 'comments received' link in their profile. Especially newer members. I know it took me a while to find it. ;^)
Originally posted by bear_music:
The main thing here is that as a serious critiquer I really want to be aware of what you are trying to accomplish with your image, and the steps you took to accomplish that. So, for example, if you told me you specifically wanted a very dark, moody image, I might comment differently upon your murky, massive dark areas than I would were I not aware of this. Unaware, I might say that "you're at least 2 stops underexposed here". Knowing your goal was a very dark image, I might discuss ways to get better resolution and contrast in the darker tones. You get the idea.
The part of CC that depresses me is never knowing if anyone even READ the danged critique, or whether it was of any use. It gets wearisome. SO much work for so little return.
I check my comments received every day to read & acknowledge them, and do not understand why others don't do this also.
Robt. |
|
|
