| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/04/2007 10:01:16 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
If your comment is not longer than 4 words, don't bother. |
Well, maybe this idea could be modified into something like...
"If your comment cannot contain words longer than four letters each, please don't bother."
So... if I see a photo and think "pure crap"...OK!!! I promise not to bother...;-)
|
|
|
|
05/04/2007 10:48:29 PM · #27 |
For commenters:
Let common human decency be your guild. Be objective not subjective. Quantity of comments does not equate to quality of comments. With criticisms suggest reasonable solutions. And if you can't think of anything positive to say then don't say anything.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For those getting comments(Or not as the case may be):
Most commenters don't know any more than you do about photography and you are the only person with a vested interest in your picture, not them. They have no obligation to leave a comment so just be thankful for what little you do get.
Commenters will never magically reveal all your picture's ills. That is your responsibility to figure out. They only give hints and not all of those hints are correct. When you get low scores the first thing to do is ask yourself why. Often you already know. Mix reading the comments with these activities: Study higher scoring images, read photography books, do Net research and/or ask others for input. And if you still can't figure it out then find a trusted mentor. There are plenty of capable photographers on this site that can assist you.
|
|
|
|
05/04/2007 11:02:30 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
For commenters:
Let common human decency be your guild. Be objective not subjective. Quantity of comments does not equate to quality of comments. With criticisms suggest reasonable solutions. And if you can't think of anything positive to say then don't say anything. |
I try to offer support and that is probably always subjective. I can't always offer solutions. At best, compositional value or the subject interest is the best I can do. Plus, I have a hard time understanding the ABC's of abbreviations - OOF I thought was "lacking pop"...umf. LOL now I know it's "out of focus". I go back to the comments made on my own photos and understand. Jeeze...what a goof-ball I am. |
|
|
|
05/04/2007 11:13:57 PM · #29 |
| Be subjective. Always. You can't help it. |
|
|
|
05/04/2007 11:27:06 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Originally posted by jonejess:
Developing a style is secondary to achieving relevance. |
Actually, on this statement, I will agree to disagree. I'm trying to improve my style to gain relevance. IMHO...style and relevance are directly proportional. When the style is good, the arrow of relevance hits home. Isn't it? |
"Commenting style" and "relevance" are not always directly proportional IMHO.  posthumous has an interesting and highly entertaining "style", but is it really relevant? Look at the examples he's provided.
I guess one needs to define home before it can be determined whether or not the "arrow of relevance" hits it.
Insert your metaphor here...
|
|
|
|
05/04/2007 11:35:03 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
I'm rethinking my commenting style. Hmmmm...
Would you please share your commenting style and thought processes behind...
THE ART OF THE COMMENT?!! |
When I comment, I say what is on my mind. And hopefully, even though my comments are not always agreed upon, are at the very least respected.
When I critique an image, I stay within the details of the image keeping my comments ludicrously brief.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2007 03:34:55 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by jonejess:
"Commenting style" and "relevance" are not always directly proportional IMHO. |
Personally, I always find the comments of Posthumous relevant purely based on the time it must take to compose such a comment. I can't help but wonder if "relevance" is all about perspective.
Insert your own example here...with or without a metaphor.
Message edited by author 2007-05-05 03:42:59. |
|
|
|
05/05/2007 04:19:03 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Be subjective. Always. You can't help it. |
As long as you can convert a subjective criticism into concrete suggestions for improvement that a photographer can actually try then you are fine.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2007 09:53:24 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Be subjective. Always. You can't help it. |
As long as you can convert a subjective criticism into concrete suggestions for improvement that a photographer can actually try then you are fine. |
So it's not useful for a photographer to know how his/her photo affects viewers emotionally? There is no way that such feedback could help the growth of a photographer? |
|
|
|
05/05/2007 03:52:22 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Be subjective. Always. You can't help it. |
As long as you can convert a subjective criticism into concrete suggestions for improvement that a photographer can actually try then you are fine. |
So it's not useful for a photographer to know how his/her photo affects viewers emotionally? There is no way that such feedback could help the growth of a photographer? |
Of course how the photo affects viewers is important, probably moreso than any other single factor. But even with that concrete suggestions for improvement can still be made. We do that all the time when we suggest dodge and burn to increase drama in the sky or suggest chosing a different perspective to increase the feeling of sadness.
However, most DPCers are newbies and just aren't all that sophisticated in their photography. Learning how to read lighting to keep from overexposing an image; how to properly compose an image, how to use f/stop to increase or reduce depth of field; how to get those nice water flow images we see all the time; how to use perspective to increase viewer interest to their compositions and stuff like that are probably more valuable to the average DPCer than the more esoteric aspects of photography as a form of expression.
That is why concentrating on the fundamentals of photography is generally more useful.
Message edited by author 2007-05-05 16:56:24.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2007 08:48:04 PM · #36 |
What's relevant, it seems to me, are the facts, the facts of the image at hand as well as the facts we discover when we place an image in a context. And Posthumous, via his comments, looks at the factual more so, and more profoundly so, than most of us, despite some assumptions to the contrary. There is, as anyone who shares with him the experience of generating a metaphor every now and then, no distance between fact and fiction when fiction illustrates the facts.
Read his comment on the image with the sheep in it and ask yourself, how, possibly, the particular effects of this image on a viewer could be better articulated sans metaphor and with greater brevity, despite the apparent flow of speech, which comes with an economy of language.
He (Posthumous) rarely discusses issues we belabour. He, instead, addresses what most of us neglect, and he does do simply and without the verbiage.
When he elects to comment on pictures which do not, typically, attract the attention of those with a critical sense and the skills to communicate effectively, he, really, adds a care to them which may not have gone into their making. I cannot think of a better way to motivate someone who may not know where to look for motivation.
This, if anything, is artful, and his particular gift and skill consists of seeing an image in context, even if he has to make one up.
Message edited by author 2007-05-05 20:49:22. |
|
|
|
05/07/2007 09:37:03 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
What's relevant, it seems to me, are the facts, the facts of the image at hand as well as the facts we discover when we place an image in a context. And Posthumous, via his comments, looks at the factual more so, and more profoundly so, than most of us, despite some assumptions to the contrary. There is, as anyone who shares with him the experience of generating a metaphor every now and then, no distance between fact and fiction when fiction illustrates the facts.
Read his comment on the image with the sheep in it and ask yourself, how, possibly, the particular effects of this image on a viewer could be better articulated sans metaphor and with greater brevity, despite the apparent flow of speech, which comes with an economy of language.
He (Posthumous) rarely discusses issues we belabour. He, instead, addresses what most of us neglect, and he does do simply and without the verbiage.
When he elects to comment on pictures which do not, typically, attract the attention of those with a critical sense and the skills to communicate effectively, he, really, adds a care to them which may not have gone into their making. I cannot think of a better way to motivate someone who may not know where to look for motivation.
This, if anything, is artful, and his particular gift and skill consists of seeing an image in context, even if he has to make one up. |
Wow. You must be psychic! I was thinking this exactly as you wrote it...;-) I agree 110%!
One of the things that I love about DPC is that this site is so INTERACTIVE and so the comment allows us to share our thoughts and add relevance to our votes or thoughts about someone's portfolio.
Thank you so much Everyone for all of your good advice. I really apreciate you, and will certainly practice to improve the art of my own comment based on all of your shared experiences.
Message edited by author 2007-05-07 09:39:35. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/01/2025 09:07:49 AM EDT.
