| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/12/2006 10:11:01 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I volunteer to be in the Reaction Club (unless someone is going to start an Overreaction Club) |
Sorry to be making a joke in a seemingly serious discussion thread, but an Over-reaction Club would surely be interesting! LOL |
|
|
|
10/12/2006 10:26:33 PM · #27 |
a critique should encompass all of the above - objective and subjective reaction. the critic should be able to tailor the critique to the artist. take a look at their 'folio. is this someone who would benefit from an in depth, how-to tech crit, or someone with more experience, who's looking for more depth.
i'm too tired to say much more andhave it make sense, but i think my direction is vaguely clear here?
|
|
|
|
10/12/2006 10:29:35 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by xianart:
a critique should encompass all of the above - objective and subjective reaction. the critic should be able to tailor the critique to the artist. take a look at their 'folio. is this someone who would benefit from an in depth, how-to tech crit, or someone with more experience, who's looking for more depth.
i'm too tired to say much more andhave it make sense, but i think my direction is vaguely clear here? |
I agree, but not all critters are capable of all that. bucket can do it, so can e301 and Bear Music, but I, for example, don't have the technicals. Everyone should crit what they know... :) ...but I agree that everyone is capable of a "reaction" and I'd love to hear more of those to my photos, even if it's "Dull!"
|
|
|
|
10/12/2006 10:37:56 PM · #29 |
| A "reaction" comment is not hard to give. Everyone can do it. It is what you feel, your reaction when you see a photo. No need to tell the photographer any technical stuff, no need to tell him how to make the photo better. Just tell him what you think of the photo. It's easy, and I hope more people would do it. |
|
|
|
10/12/2006 10:49:47 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
but not all critters are capable of all that. |
You callin' me a critter? :-) Actually I've been off doing just that. Off to do one more before I call it a day. |
|
|
|
10/12/2006 10:50:22 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by posthumous:
but not all critters are capable of all that. |
You callin' me a critter? :-) Actually I've been off doing just that. Off to do one more before I call it a day. |
pick me!
|
|
|
|
10/12/2006 10:52:01 PM · #32 |
| Gotta do one more from the pile, then maybe I'll go get one of yours. :-) |
|
|
|
10/12/2006 10:53:02 PM · #33 |
Pulling this back to the basics ... the details which were really needed as a start were the camera details and a couple of works in description. I have done a number of critiques and like John got pulled up and told off when I wasn't providing enough detail in a critique.
When a photographer was an indepth critique they are asking for someone to take time and effort over what is being said. You recieve comments for the reaction type stuff and if no one comments ... guess there is no reaction.
When a photographer takes the time to give a us the details the indepth crititues are really very good and much more aimed at what is really been sought. When a photographer gives absolutely no details and doesn't take the time to consider what we need to know and then expects a detailed comment or critique .. I was getting a little GIGO ... garbage in garbage out .. so took a break ....
Just a thought .. and yes I am now critiquing again .. when and if I am able.
Kari |
|
|
|
10/13/2006 12:43:34 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
What does it say about the photograph itself if the photographer doesn't care enough to provide some commentary?
For someone critiquing a photograph, how should that silence be interpreted? As detachment? lack of concern? disregard? |
To me it says the picture speaks for itself. And if it doesn't speak to me, there's something to write commentary about. You don't need to know what you were 'supposed to feel' to detail why exactly you felt nothing at all (or, for that matter, explainw hat reaction you id have). |
I'm not talking about a dissertation on "How to achieve world peace through a photo" just a few comments about what was going on when the image was created and some of the step taken to get to the image on my screen.
The problem is that too many images are mute. |
|
|
|
10/13/2006 01:25:34 AM · #35 |
One thing I see missing is the fact that the Critique Club was initially set up for a way to get people involved in this community more, and to perhaps learn *themselves*, in attempting to comment on others. My take on the CC is that it is there for people to try and give views and recommendations and critiques that will help people better themselves in the arena that is *THIS WEBSITE*, not photography as a whole, or photography as some kind of psychological zen art that is only understood by a few.
I think too many people lose sight of the fact that DPC is *not* a Photography Art site. It is a site built on competition and mass-consumption. Sure, there are a select few that try and just do what they do on the side, and can and do make the competitive nature of DPC secondary.. but for the most part, people are here to improve in a way that will win them ribbons.
The people that ask for critiques from the CC are.. *primarily*.. people that want those ribbons. They don't care about what a photograph *means*.. not that a photograph means *anything* except to the specific viewer at the time of the viewing (or the photographer themselves), and I think it's a little pointless to worry about that aspect in a group like the Critique Club.
That's not to say that people shouldn't try, but I think people tend to take it far too seriously. You either work within the confines of the club, or you don't, and the club, IMO, is here for the purpose of helping people closer to the ribbons that are up for grabs every week... *not* to get a gallery showing in some Greenwich Village art fair.
So yes. My critiques (when I do them), are tailored to technicals and what one should consider if they want to improve their DPC score. That doesn't mean I ignore the artistic aspects, but those are secondary. Other people do it differently. It's sad that John didn't fit, and I admire his stance, but sometimes one just has to realize that an avenue isn't built for what you are trying to accomplish.. and... for me, the CC was never built for what John was trying to accomplish.. and for what the OP is also seeming to call for.
Anyway, long winded, misses some points, but I had to get it out. I think there are some darn fine CCers out there, and truly, to attack a method of critiquing (such as e301's saying that technical critiques with headers aren't worth much), doesn't help *anything*. I've certainly had my fair share of PMs thanking me profusely for my honest efforts on their behalf.
So.. final words.. instead of threads like this, or complaining about how it's done, just.. join. Use your own methods and show us how it should *really* be done. We can use all the help we can get.
Message edited by author 2006-10-13 01:26:29.
|
|
|
|
10/13/2006 01:34:23 AM · #36 |
So, if I have the gist of this discussion, there are two competing camps of critics.
One camp is not interesting in what the photographer has to say about the image -- but is only interested in telling the photographer what they themselves (the critic) feels the image should have (attempted?) to accomplish. Thus leaving the photographer with a critique that may or may not be of any use to the photographer at all.
The second camp is interested in what the photographer was (attempting?) to accomplish with the image. Focusing the critique on what the photographer could have done (or not done) to better accomplish their own goal. The critics impressions of the image may then be added, but only as counter-point to the photographer's intention.
---
I have to place myself in the second camp. I joined the CC and have tried leaving a few critiques -- but they just leave me feeling hollow in the end. When leaving the critiques I did, I no idea what the photographer was trying to accomplish most of the time -- and thus no way of knowing if the critique would be of any use to them. Maybe I'm just not self-centered enough to be a critic, posting critiques without a care for the photographer's intention. I want to know the time I spend is spent on something the customer (photographer) actually wants.
David
|
|
|
|
10/13/2006 01:41:57 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by David.C:
So, if I have the gist of this discussion, there are two competing camps of critics.
One camp is not interesting in what the photographer has to say about the image -- but is only interested in telling the photographer what they themselves (the critic) feels the image should have (attempted?) to accomplish. Thus leaving the photographer with a critique that may or may not be of any use to the photographer at all.
The second camp is interested in what the photographer was (attempting?) to accomplish with the image. Focusing the critique on what the photographer could have done (or not done) to better accomplish their own goal. The critics impressions of the image may then be added, but only as counter-point to the photographer's intention.
---
I have to place myself in the second camp. I joined the CC and have tried leaving a few critiques -- but they just leave me feeling hollow in the end. When leaving the critiques I did, I no idea what the photographer was trying to accomplish most of the time -- and thus no way of knowing if the critique would be of any use to them. Maybe I'm just not self-centered enough to be a critic, posting critiques without a care for the photographer's intention. I want to know the time I spend is spent on something the customer (photographer) actually wants.
David |
Or a third camp.. where it's 75% Camp A, and 25% Camp B...
and, to make things easier, I always go into a critique assuming 100% that the person simply wants to better their score on DPC. After all, that's what most people are on this website for. For those rare people that get nothing out of it.. oh well. They'll think twice before clicking that little button next time. If a person clicking that button really wants something more of the nature of Camp B.. they should make *sure* that they have a write up in their description requesting it.
That is one thing I'd like to see though.. something that gave more information about what you, as the photographer, should provide to get the sort of critique you are clicking that button to get..
baby steps though.
|
|
|
|
10/13/2006 01:50:12 AM · #38 |
It takes a few seconds for a submitter to decide, 'Yeah, a critique from the Critique Club would be nice' and check the checkbox. It can take anything from 20 minutes to an hour to perform the resulting critique. To not provide at the least technical details of the shot and an insight into what is being communicated shows a stark lack of respect for the time of the members of the Critique Club.
It can be argued that John took his principles too far, but it would be very difficult to defend the position that his principles were without justification.
Speaking from my own experience it is not very encouraging to click the 'Give Me An Image To Critique' and recieve no input from the photographer. If you then browse the user profile and discover that the photographer has not even acknowledged the previous Critique Club comments as being helpful then it is extremely difficult to motivate oneself to give the time.
|
|
|
|
10/13/2006 01:54:18 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by PaulE:
It takes a few seconds for a submitter to decide, 'Yeah, a critique from the Critique Club would be nice' and check the checkbox. It can take anything from 20 minutes to an hour to perform the resulting critique. To not provide at the least technical details of the shot and an insight into what is being communicated shows a stark lack of respect for the time of the members of the Critique Club.
It can be argued that John took his principles too far, but it would be very difficult to defend the position that his principles were without justification.
Speaking from my own experience it is not very encouraging to click the 'Give Me An Image To Critique' and recieve no input from the photographer. If you then browse the user profile and discover that the photographer has not even acknowledged the previous Critique Club comments as being helpful then it is extremely difficult to motivate oneself to give the time. |
This is where contacting Manic or Karmat and getting them to remove the image from your queue comes in. If you *honestly* feel that you can't give the critique you need, it is an option. What they wanted to avoid, however, are one line comments like John was leaving on images.
I do agree that more effort needs to be put in place to stop just *anyone* from clicking the button.. but that's much, much, much easier said than done, from all aspects.. including coding, agreeing on what needs to be included, etc.. For me, it's just a "Do the best with what I have". And do it .. sporatically enough... to not become cynical about it ;)
|
|
|
|
10/13/2006 02:00:23 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
This is where contacting Manic or Karmat and getting them to remove the image from your queue comes in. If you *honestly* feel that you can't give the critique you need, it is an option. What they wanted to avoid, however, are one line comments like John was leaving on images.
I do agree that more effort needs to be put in place to stop just *anyone* from clicking the button.. but that's much, much, much easier said than done, from all aspects.. including coding, agreeing on what needs to be included, etc.. For me, it's just a "Do the best with what I have". And do it .. sporatically enough... to not become cynical about it ;) |
Manic, Konador or me. i don't think karmat has much to do with the CC. I could be wrong though.
My only comment on this is that 'You didn't provide your thoughts on this image, so I'm not gonna waste my time critiquing it' is NOT a valid CC comment. I don't care how you look at it. |
|
|
|
10/13/2006 02:01:06 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by e301:
Almost all of the 'sample critiques' are formulaic assessments of technical aspects of an image. Often so formulaic that they have categorised headings to accompany their 'thoughts'. This is a plea for some humanity in the process, some feeling, some self-expression. Otherwise it's dead.
Ed |
Well, I am one of those who use a formulaic approach. Why? Specifically so I can do what your griping about and provide an in depth critique.
I've have several headings that I use. These help ensure I address a wide variety of aspects. I think it also benefits the recipient by making the critique more easily digestible. I address technical elements, creative elements, general feel. Sometimes the areas over-lap. But I have found that using such headings works rather well for me and helps me provide a better critique.
I've had quite a few respond positively from my input. I do not think the categorized headings hurt my critiques in any significant way.
Below is a sample of one of my critiques. Just to show you how I do it. And to be frank, if you don't like it....or want it differently....show me the money. Cause none of us are getting paid. We're just trying to be helpful.
*shrug*
Time is precious....perhaps all of us CC members should simply save our precious asset and provide no input. This isn't to say that there is not room for improvement in many of our critiques. It's simply to say that I think your condemnation of common methods and use of categories to be completely off-base.
- Saj
*******************
Comment:
::: Critique Club ::: [The Saj]
First Impressions: Oh no...not another flower. Oh wait..there's more! :)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Composition: Composition is good on the foreground (flower & hopper). The biggest issue I see with the composition is the background which is very distracting.
Subject: Subject is of a nice flower could be considered typical. However, the placement of a secondary subject (hopper) makes this entry stand out beyond the normal flower entry.
Technical (Colour, focus, and light): Focus is good. Color and lighting is good. However I feel the image could be brighter and might benefit from an increase in hue saturation, particularly in the green.
-------------------------------------------------------------
To improve?: Consider a different background. This may seem crazy, but you could hold a white piece of paper behind the flower.
Summary: An interesting capture. I like the shadow of the flower overlooking the hopper. Background is overly distracting.
-------------------------------------------------------------
It is my hope that these insights are helpful, and constructive. If you have any questions regarding this critique, please feel free to PM me. Also feel free to PM me with any feedback on this critique. And please remember to mark it "Helpful" if you found it so.
- Jason "The Saj" |
|
|
|
10/13/2006 02:27:52 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by HBunch:
[quote=Artyste] My only comment on this is that 'You didn't provide your thoughts on this image, so I'm not gonna waste my time critiquing it' is NOT a valid CC comment. I don't care how you look at it. |
I will not leave comments to that effect, although I will admit to having to surpress such thoughts in order to get on with the job.
Originally posted by Artyste:
I do agree that more effort needs to be put in place to stop just *anyone* from clicking the button.. but that's much, much, much easier said than done, from all aspects.. including coding, agreeing on what needs to be included, etc.. For me, it's just a "Do the best with what I have". And do it .. sporatically enough... to not become cynical about it ;) |
I know enough about PHP and MySQL to know that it would not take too much effort to include a filter in the submission process to ensure that if 'I would like an indepth critique on my submission.' is checked then all technical data should be filled and to scan the comments to ensure it has at least 50 words, and then provide an appropriate alert explanation.
More code, I agree, would be required to filter out ungrateful submitters who have a poor track record. Shame though as theese are the ones who are taking away from those eager to learn - both the submitters and the Critique Club members.
Originally posted by Artyste:
One thing I see missing is the fact that the Critique Club was initially set up for a way to get people involved in this community more, and to perhaps learn *themselves*, in attempting to comment on others. My take on the CC is that it is there for people to try and give views and recommendations and critiques that will help people better themselves in the arena that is *THIS WEBSITE*, not photography as a whole, or photography as some kind of psychological zen art that is only understood by a few. |
This I agree with. I am confident I have learnt more from my critiques than the recipients have - largely due to the application I put into the task. I am actively trying to learn when I critique. Those recieving the critiques are not necessarily doing the same.
It would be great to have a little button on the Critique Club page saying 'Do you know what - I just can't be bothered to critique this.' that would send a ncie warm message to the photographer encouraging them to provide mroe information and alert them to the time consuming job providing a critique can be.
|
|
|
|
10/13/2006 02:30:32 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
And please remember to mark it "Helpful" if you found it so. |
Nice - I think I will add this to my template.
I do not do structured critiques. I have tried using various templates that others use but have found they do not suit my style.
|
|
|
|
10/13/2006 02:42:10 AM · #44 |
Dear Jason,
As I was reading this thread, much to my surprise, I recoqnized the critique below...because the photo is mine. You deserve to be shown not only the "money," but my undying gratitude as well for spending your valuable time to have a hard look at my photo. As a new person here at DPC, I checked that box more on a whim "Hmmm...I wonder what this is about." I was VERY surprised and greatly appreciative to get your critique. I found the headings very helpful to understand the organization of your own thoughts. In addition, I took some extra shots to follow up on your ideas and you were kind enough to have a look at those as well so you would know I weighed your words carefully. I find the CC an incredibly useful tool to the development of my photography. In addition, I've received generous critiques from  drachoo who volunteered some of his morning time so generously to the DPC'ers and from stdavidson as well on my HCII submission. All of these pennies from Heaven have helped me grow as a photographer and as a person. THANK YOU!!!!!
So, if you come here to have your ego stroked...well, I believe they make movies (or whatever) for that. Otherwise, please remember, it's the teacher and the student that creates the teaching!!!! We all benefit from THE PROCESS of photography including the critiques which IMHO is the most valuable part.
Maybe I have been fortunate, but I have yet to come across any seriously unwelcome comments. I have found this website to be incredibly responsive and highly interactive. Personally, I look forward to my first "dull" comment...Huh, what do you mean you don't want to see ANOTHER shot of my blue-eyed cat?!!!!!....::sheepish grin::
Thank you to all of my "teachers."!!!!!
Now, if only they'd "SHOW ME THE RIBBON"....lol.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Well, I am one of those who use a formulaic approach. Why? Specifically so I can do what your griping about and provide an in depth critique.
I've have several headings that I use. These help ensure I address a wide variety of aspects. I think it also benefits the recipient by making the critique more easily digestible. I address technical elements, creative elements, general feel. Sometimes the areas over-lap. But I have found that using such headings works rather well for me and helps me provide a better critique.
I've had quite a few respond positively from my input. I do not think the categorized headings hurt my critiques in any significant way.
Below is a sample of one of my critiques. Just to show you how I do it. And to be frank, if you don't like it....or want it differently....show me the money. Cause none of us are getting paid. We're just trying to be helpful.
*shrug*
Time is precious....perhaps all of us CC members should simply save our precious asset and provide no input. This isn't to say that there is not room for improvement in many of our critiques. It's simply to say that I think your condemnation of common methods and use of categories to be completely off-base.
- Saj
*******************
Comment:
::: Critique Club ::: [The Saj]
First Impressions: Oh no...not another flower. Oh wait..there's more! :)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Composition: Composition is good on the foreground (flower & hopper). The biggest issue I see with the composition is the background which is very distracting.
Subject: Subject is of a nice flower could be considered typical. However, the placement of a secondary subject (hopper) makes this entry stand out beyond the normal flower entry.
Technical (Colour, focus, and light): Focus is good. Color and lighting is good. However I feel the image could be brighter and might benefit from an increase in hue saturation, particularly in the green.
-------------------------------------------------------------
To improve?: Consider a different background. This may seem crazy, but you could hold a white piece of paper behind the flower.
Summary: An interesting capture. I like the shadow of the flower overlooking the hopper. Background is overly distracting.
-------------------------------------------------------------
It is my hope that these insights are helpful, and constructive. If you have any questions regarding this critique, please feel free to PM me. Also feel free to PM me with any feedback on this critique. And please remember to mark it "Helpful" if you found it so.
- Jason "The Saj" |
|
|
|
|
10/13/2006 06:34:42 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by e301:
I've just read John's profil spiel about being kicked out of the CC. I don't want to go into details about that, but it prompted some thoughts.
|
John? I always thought his name was Jim. ;) |
|
|
|
10/13/2006 06:47:59 AM · #46 |
i'm looking forward to CC comments/critiques because they are usually long and nice to read, and realistic in some way so i always check the photo for indepth crit, but the crits/comms are slowly pouring in ... or not at all.
so my emotions are mixed , and i told my self lately do not check it they are not what you meant to be but i check them regulary, probably i got used to check all what i can find on the web page :-)
|
|
|
|
10/13/2006 07:19:33 AM · #47 |
Ed,
I applaud your sence of what a critique is, and should be.
However, this subject is beating a dead horse.
No one on this site cares to learn how to decipher, define, or examine with great care the details of an image. Mainly because this is not a school of photography. Hell its not a school.
John may have been a bit abrasive at times, but his insights are genuine.
The CC is a good idea on paper, but, in reality the gold standard of critiqueing is as far left as it is as far right. There is no standard.
The lines that blur between critiques, comments, the image and the challenges are huge.
John had some good insight, but even his critiques were not of a standard. Sometimes he went off kilter.
|
|
|
|
10/13/2006 09:16:18 AM · #48 |
| I don't think this particular horse is dead yet. I also don't think that "meaning" and "art" are only for Greenwich Village. Check my profile... I am now a member of the Reaction Club. :) |
|
|
|
10/13/2006 10:09:42 AM · #49 |
| Brutality begins where skill ends. So, dead or not, I'm not going to beat ANY horse! However, ::eyeing the post of Posthumous::, I will be taking you up on on the Reaction Club offer, and will also make future use of the CC option. Although this site isn't photography school, IMHO this site is somewhat about pushing yourself to take better photos; expanding your photographic horizons by shooting different topics; and provides an interactive place to "keep the saw sharp." Although I have yet to receive a "dull" comment, I appreciate any help I can get to sharpen and keep the saw sharp!!! I don't get the impression that the CC is a method to implement a "standard," but rather a platform of construction to build a better photograph. If the critique is a brusque single sentence or a flowery novel, I will still try very hard to appreciate the intent of sharing knowledge behind it. To me, the key word here is "intention." |
|
|
|
10/13/2006 10:24:15 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by HBunch:
Manic, Konador or me. i don't think karmat has much to do with the CC. I could be wrong though.
My only comment on this is that 'You didn't provide your thoughts on this image, so I'm not gonna waste my time critiquing it' is NOT a valid CC comment. I don't care how you look at it. |
oops.. I meant you, not Karmat. hehe.
|
|
