Why don't we do them here?
Good question - I'm sure there are many users here who would be willing to spare a minute or two to write down some comments and critique as you can sometimes see in the Weekly Contest thread. I would be happy to both critique and, of course, get some opinion on my pictures too.
Regarding any rules, would you suggest 5 pictures per topic / thread so the critique is about specific work rather than hundreds of pics?
IMHO I feel it would work well with the community here .
Just open a new thread...
Excellent idea.
However, I think at this stage that we could also give consideration to the tone to be used should something such as that take off.
This is because while the tone of the critiques from the Weekly Contest are almost invariably encouraging, respectful and thoughtful, - which is what I think we should try to cultivate - much of what passes for online communication is not.
Indeed, I recall a stunned reaction - and some hurt and disappointment - when strikingly stringent critiques were offered after one particular Weekly Contest a few months ago.
Just open a new thread...
Why don't we do them here?
When it comes to critiques, I believe it matters who giving them. How many people are actually qualified to give critiques? What's makes someone qualified? Just because someone is in the Digital Photography section on Macrumors doesn't make them qualified, that's for sure. I've seen some excellent images win weekly contests, along with some terrible images that kind of make the whole process for entertainment only. I think the person giving critiques should be someone who actually makes a living with their images and has a high level of achievement in the photography community.
I think it just means that the person seeking a critique on an internet forum needs to take the comments with a grain of salt. But I don't make a living with my images, and I have not reached a high level of achievement in the photography community, so my opinion may not be worth much.
When it comes to critiques, I believe it matters who giving them. How many people are actually qualified to give critiques? What's makes someone qualified? Just because someone is in the Digital Photography section on Macrumors doesn't make them qualified, that's for sure. I've seen some excellent images win weekly contests, along with some terrible images that kind of make the whole process for entertainment only. I think the person giving critiques should be someone who actually makes a living with their images and has a high level of achievement in the photography community.
I think it just means that the person seeking a critique on an internet forum needs to take the comments with a grain of salt. But I don't make a living with my images, and I have not reached a high level of achievement in the photography community, so my opinion may not be worth much.
However, I think at this stage that we could also give consideration to the tone to be used should something such as that take off.
This is because while the tone of the critiques from the Weekly Contest are almost invariably encouraging, respectful and thoughtful, - which is what I think we should try to cultivate - much of what passes for online communication is not.
People will have to be able to say "I hate that picture because x, y, and z".
my first reaction to the op was critiques couldn't work here for that exact reason. When i first started doing glamour photography, i posted for critiques on a certain other forum aimed at professionals. I got some very harsh but detailed feedback. I recall one person who wrote at least 1000 words tearing apart one of my favourite pictures i'd taken. As harsh as the words were he ended with some encouragement.
It was humbling, but i used it to improve and my pictures are far better now, and i owe a lot to those early critiques.
I find a lot of the critiquing in the contest threads to not be that helpful. The general theme is no matter how much you might hate the photo, find anything positive you can say about it. That's fine for the contest, but if you want a place to help people grow as photographers, there has to be harsh words. People will have to be able to say "i hate that picture because x, y, and z". I just don't see that happening here.
My first reaction to the OP was critiques couldn't work here for that exact reason. When I first started doing glamour photography, I posted for critiques on a certain other forum aimed at professionals. I got some very harsh but detailed feedback. …..
It was humbling, but I used it to improve and my pictures are far better now, and I owe a lot to those early critiques.
I find a lot of the critiquing in the contest threads to not be that helpful. The general theme is no matter how much you might hate the photo, find anything positive you can say about it. That's fine for the contest, but if you want a place to help people grow as photographers, there has to be harsh words. People will have to be able to say "I hate that picture because x, y, and z". I just don't see that happening here.
When it comes to critiques, I believe it matters who giving them. How many people are actually qualified to give critiques? What's makes someone qualified? Just because someone is in the Digital Photography section on Macrumors doesn't make them qualified, that's for sure. I've seen some excellent images win weekly contests, along with some terrible images that kind of make the whole process for entertainment only. I think the person giving critiques should be someone who actually makes a living with their images and has a high level of achievement in the photography community.
Well, here, I have to say I disagree. This is because it is possible to be critical yet constructive, and I do not believe that harsh words are necessary; I don't think people respond well to harsh words, especially in any sort of a learning environment. Instead, they shrivel and get defensive.
I used to be a university teacher and one of my tasks was the setting, and grading of term papers, theses, and (obviously) exams. The term papers and theses were returned, and feedback was given, on a one to one basis, in a session which could last up to the best part of an hour, which meant that grading, and returning the papers of a single class could take more than a week.
The point when delivering feedback is to ask yourself what you want the outcome to be. Do you want the kid, student, baby photographer to want to improve? Or do you want to express yourself in a savagely truthful manner, where the 'need to tell the truth' takes precedence over the need to deliver the message - 'this could be improved, there, you missed the point, however, you got that right' - with respect?
There were students whose work I thought poorly researched, complacent, downright lazy at times; but, in order to deliver a form of feedback that would persuade them to want to change, it has to be delivered in the right way. Hence, you find the positive features - sometimes, the sole positive feature - before delivering the rest of the message which is that this essay/paper/thesis/photograph really could do with a bit of remedial action and here is how to set about doing that.
The bottom line is that anything here is something done by someone in their spare or free time; these photography fora are for enthusiasts and hobbyists. Holding people to the standards of professionals and critiquing them accordingly when they are doing something that they find fun will run the risk of soon taking the fun out what should be a fun experience.
Does it matter that people are qualified, or have to be qualified?
The fact that they are enthusiastic enough, and sufficiently interested to take and post pictures should be sufficient to participate. This is not a forum for professionals but for hobbyists, amateurs, enthusiasts, a few who may make some sort of income from photography, and almost all of whom are interested in wanting to learn more.
Holding people to professional standards - and critiquing accordingly - may undermine the very purpose of the exercise which is that it should be a fun experience where people showcase what they do, get others to comment, and hopefully learn from the experience while enjoying it.
Re weekly winners, agreed, some have been outstanding, while I, personally, would not have selected others. The grounds for this may vary; an outstanding image, with flawless composition and lighting may still fail to win while others - perhaps less - objectively impressive - may have struck a chord with the person who was judging that particular week's contest. While high standards may be recognised across the board, personal preferences in the whole area of what is liked visually - and draws a response from someone personally, will vary enormously. That is inevitable.
At this stage of the business, while I think it an excellent idea, if a culture of 'harsh but truthful' criticism becomes the norm on such a thread, those who simply enjoy photography as a hobby will politely withdraw and exclude themselves from the whole endeavour, leaving it to those who view themselves as professionally proficient and qualified to participate. Then, it will not be a learning process, but an esoteric sub-thread for a self selected photographic elite.
People enter the weekly contest - which, remember, is not a professional setting, but one that is designed to be and intended to be fun, - in a spirit of cheerful optimism, and exchanges take place in a similar tone, one that prioritises constructive criticism. That allows a safe space where people feel confident enough to want to share what they have done.
At the end of the day, it is a venue for enthusiasts and hobbyists, not professionals, and a nicer and more welcoming atmosphere, to my mind, is a better place to hang out for hobbies, than one where strict standards of proficiency are applied.
When it comes to critiques, I believe it matters who giving them. How many people are actually qualified to give critiques? What's makes someone qualified? Just because someone is in the Digital Photography section on Macrumors doesn't make them qualified, that's for sure. I've seen some excellent images win weekly contests, along with some terrible images that kind of make the whole process for entertainment only. I think the person giving critiques should be someone who actually makes a living with their images and has a high level of achievement in the photography community.
Many photography forums seems to use the "CCxx" series whereby the poster of the picture indicates what type/level/harshness of feedback they are requesting, those feeding back can then adjust accordingly. I can't find a precise definition in the time I have available now but basically it goes (my words):
CC1 - Positive feedback only
CC2 - Balanced only (ie some neg but must be pos too)
CC3 - Constructive but phrased nicely
CC4 - Gloves off, I'm wanting to improve and need to know how it is
All can have an optional "E" added which indicates the poster is willing for feedbackers to take the posted image and edit it to show what they mean, and post it back into the thread.
These could be agreed and then posted as a sticky set of guidelines at the head of the forum, Mods, posters and feedback givers then have a similar language to work from.
but think it's a great idea.
in order to deliver a form of feedback that would persuade them to want to change, it has to be delivered in the right way. Hence, you find the positive features - sometimes, the sole positive feature.
...
The bottom line is that anything here is something done by someone in their spare or free time; these photography fora are for enthusiasts and hobbyists. Holding people to the standards of professionals and critiquing them accordingly when they are doing something that they find fun will run the risk of soon taking the fun out what should be a fun experience.