Critiques
tony cooper
where the critiques have some teeth, but where the critiques are
mostly constructive?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
D-Mac
> What are some places one can post photographs for critique? Sites
> where the critiques have some teeth, but where the critiques are
> mostly constructive?
>
>
Just send your pics to Mark Thomas. Even if they have blown highlights
and blocked shadows, he'll still tell you how his lifetime (or part
thereof) experience as a wedding photographer (no idea of when or where)
qualifies him to tear shreds off you for being as stupid as he is!
D-Mac.info
Mark Thomas
> What are some places one can post photographs for critique? Sites
> where the critiques have some teeth, but where the critiques are
> mostly constructive?
>
>
I would suggest you avoid sites like photosig, flickr, etc, unless you
simply want to join clubs of wankers who will give you *oodles* of
fawning praise, provided you do the same..
There *are* decent critics at those sites, but it will take you a while
to discover them and learn how to avoid the backrubbing..
Mark Thomas
> Just send your pics to Mark Thomas.
D-Mac isn't obsessed with me.
Oh no.
tony cooper
Precisely why I'm looking. The few times I looked at Flickr, I've
never seen a critique that was useful. "Oooooh, that's pretty" or
"That's a piece of crap" isn't a critique. You don't learn anything
from it.
OG
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gqt5q41019bqgklt9...@4ax.com...
> What are some places one can post photographs for critique? Sites
> where the critiques have some teeth, but where the critiques are
> mostly constructive?
>
DPReview has forums for different brands of camera (usually different ones
for compacts and dslrs). I can't speak for other groups but the people on
the Pentax dSLR group are generally happy to provide a 'C&C' on photos.
http://www.dpreview.com/
Select 'Discussion Forums' on the navigation sidebar and select your
preferred forum.
Once you've identified your target forum it's probably worth doing a search
for "C&C" (include the quotes) to see the quality of images others are
posting (and also to find out the quality of the replies!)
tony cooper
wrote:
I read dpreview sometimes, but I didn't see a forum for critiques.
The "Samples and Galleries" has some, but it seems odd to break down
the photos by the camera that was used. I don't see how it makes a
difference, when critiquing a photo, what camera was used or what
camera the person critiquing owns.
Chris Malcolm
There are large numbers of Flickr groups devoted to encouraging "Wow!
Great shot!" responses, because that's what most people want.
But Flickr is a large and diverse place and there are plenty of places
where serious criticism and advice is gone into at length. These are
often much more specific than simply "constructive criticism". They
tend to specialise in topics, such as architecture or sports, or
techniques such as studio lighting or high dynamic range. Some of them
run informal classes where after an introduction to the theme everyone
goes off to take photographs and bring them back for discussion. Some
of them are geographically local and have regular face to face
meetings, tutorials, etc..
Saying "The few times I looked at Flickr, I've never seen a critique
that was useful" is rather like saying "the few times I looked into the
library I never saw a good poem".
Search for usefully categorical key words and phrases in photograph
descriptions, comments, and group discussions. That'll get you started
in the right direction.
--
Chris Malcolm
OG
Agreed, it shouldn't make a difference.
But in the real world, you what you want is to find a group of people who
are interested in photography who will be willing to give up their time and
expertise to offer critiques of your work. To do this, it helps if there is
a sense of community within the group, and shared ownership of a particular
brand of camera gives you a group that has a hopefully positive view of
itself; such that people are willing to help other members out without
falling into either of the extremes of 'Wow, Gr8 shot M8!' and 'Call
yourself a photographer?' neither of which is what you're looking for.
I'm not saying it's ideal, but if you want somewhere to get C&C of your
photographs it's a good place to start.
Or at least, in my experience the Pentax DSLR group is; maybe they have a
stronger sense of community by not being one of the 'big two' brands.
And yes, the forums are mainly for 'discussion', but they are generally open
to offering C&C on occasional images or series of images.
tony cooper
wrote:
>>>tony cooper wrote:
>> Precisely why I'm looking. The few times I looked at Flickr, I've
>> never seen a critique that was useful. "Oooooh, that's pretty" or
>> "That's a piece of crap" isn't a critique. You don't learn anything
>> from it.
>
>There are large numbers of Flickr groups devoted to encouraging "Wow!
>Great shot!" responses, because that's what most people want.
>
>But Flickr is a large and diverse place and there are plenty of places
>where serious criticism and advice is gone into at length.
If you know of such "places", then why not just provide a link?
>These are
>often much more specific than simply "constructive criticism". They
>tend to specialise in topics, such as architecture or sports, or
>techniques such as studio lighting or high dynamic range. Some of them
>run informal classes where after an introduction to the theme everyone
>goes off to take photographs and bring them back for discussion. Some
>of them are geographically local and have regular face to face
>meetings, tutorials, etc..
>
>Saying "The few times I looked at Flickr, I've never seen a critique
>that was useful" is rather like saying "the few times I looked into the
>library I never saw a good poem".
No, it's like saying "The few times I went to the library, I couldn't
find the poetry section". In that case, I'd ask the librarian to
point to the section. In this case, I'm asking here. If you can't be
arsed, don't bother.
>Search for usefully categorical key words and phrases in photograph
>descriptions, comments, and group discussions. That'll get you started
>in the right direction.
Too much trouble to provide some real help, Malcolm? What is a
categorical key word? I tried "critique" and came up with
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sarahkap83/2999897427/
tony cooper
<larry...@shitstring.com> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> Precisely why I'm looking. The few times I looked at Flickr, I've
>> never seen a critique that was useful. "Oooooh, that's pretty" or
>> "That's a piece of crap" isn't a critique. You don't learn anything
>> from it.
>
>You just have to find the right group on flickr that will give you honest
>and straightforward critique that is helpful in your learning quest. I'm
>not sure why you feel the need to seek out a pat on the back, especially on
>Usenet. There's nothing to be gained here if your goal is anything other
>than fighting.
Why do you feel that looking for place to have photos critiqued is
"seeking a pat on the back"? A critique is sought to know how others
view your image, what improvements others suggest, and to offer
suggestions to make the image better.
Most of us see our own images holistically if we like them. We
overlook inherent flaws because we like the overall image or we are
pleased to have been able to capture something close to what we
wanted. The critique makes you stand back and look at the parts and
pieces.
Phil the Farmer
Fine - your photos are all brilliant, now fuck off
Dudley Hanks
"Larry Thong" <larry...@shitstring.com> wrote in message
news:PdOdneqtnP73qD7U...@supernews.com...
> tony cooper wrote:
>
>> Precisely why I'm looking. The few times I looked at Flickr, I've
>> never seen a critique that was useful. "Oooooh, that's pretty" or
>> "That's a piece of crap" isn't a critique. You don't learn anything
>> from it.
>
> and straightforward critique that is helpful in your learning quest. I'm
> not sure why you feel the need to seek out a pat on the back, especially
> on
> Usenet. There's nothing to be gained here if your goal is anything other
> than fighting.
>
Sorry, Larry, have to disagree with you on this one. I've had a number of
very helpful critiques about my pics posted here on Usenet.
Of course, there's the stupid stuff too, but that is easily ignored (most of
the time). I find that the few knowledgeable shooters here more than make
up for the trolls and goofs.
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
>> Sorry, Larry, have to disagree with you on this one. I've had a
>> number of very helpful critiques about my pics posted here on Usenet.
>>
>> Of course, there's the stupid stuff too, but that is easily ignored
>> (most of the time). I find that the few knowledgeable shooters here
>> more than make up for the trolls and goofs.
>
> any value they have with their constant infighting. Don't get me wrong,
> priorities are priorities, but once one learns how to identify their
> priorities is when you see how little value they actually have.
It's no worse than the average workplace: cliques, back-biting, office
politics, etc...
It's human nature and not necessarily confined to Usenet; just watch the
evening news, or CNN...
Take Care,
Dudley
OG
I can't remember who it was, but it has been suggested that you first look
at your photographs upside-down.
Your brain will recognise a good photograph.
Paul Furman
Agreed.
And I agree that the social networking bent of flickr looks like kind of
a weird diversion but ultimately it's a good place to get your work
seen. The most valuable feedback I get there is the viewing statistics.
Forget whatever cheesy pats on the back you see, it is useful to see
what people are bothering to notice in your work. I tend to agree with
the public but sometimes surprised what people take notice of or ignore.
I do also enjoy checking out the work of people who commented or noticed
something in my work and frequently find something interesting in their
work. So that's where the social networking really works. Their
discussion forums are impossible to keep track of but the comment system
is well done and an effective way to exchange ideas and get input. But
again, mostly the words do not matter nearly as much as the simple
click-count. What this does is allow you to sort your collection by
'interestingness' and that's a darn useful critique right there.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Dudley Hanks
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:xZJol.11205$hc1....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
That's a good point, Paul. I never looked at it like that. I may have to
reconsider flickr
Take Care,
Dudley
Paul Furman
> On 24 Feb 2009 00:26:07 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>> Precisely why I'm looking. The few times I looked at Flickr, I've
>>> never seen a critique that was useful. "Oooooh, that's pretty" or
>>> "That's a piece of crap" isn't a critique. You don't learn anything
>>> from it.
>> There are large numbers of Flickr groups devoted to encouraging "Wow!
>> Great shot!" responses, because that's what most people want.
>>
>> But Flickr is a large and diverse place and there are plenty of places
>> where serious criticism and advice is gone into at length.
>
> If you know of such "places", then why not just provide a link?
Depends what sort of photos you are interested in.
>> These are
>> often much more specific than simply "constructive criticism". They
>> tend to specialise in topics, such as architecture or sports, or
>> techniques such as studio lighting or high dynamic range. Some of them
>> run informal classes where after an introduction to the theme everyone
>> goes off to take photographs and bring them back for discussion. Some
>> of them are geographically local and have regular face to face
>> meetings, tutorials, etc..
>>
>> Saying "The few times I looked at Flickr, I've never seen a critique
>> that was useful" is rather like saying "the few times I looked into the
>> library I never saw a good poem".
>
> No, it's like saying "The few times I went to the library, I couldn't
> find the poetry section". In that case, I'd ask the librarian to
> point to the section. In this case, I'm asking here. If you can't be
> arsed, don't bother.
>
>> Search for usefully categorical key words and phrases in photograph
>> descriptions, comments, and group discussions. That'll get you started
>> in the right direction.
>
> Too much trouble to provide some real help, Malcolm? What is a
> categorical key word? I tried "critique" and came up with
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/sarahkap83/2999897427/
Here: http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=critique&m=all
It's quite a lot of work. You have to pay to play. Upload your photos,
then give them keywords/tags and add them to group pools. Search groups
for your area of interest and when you find photos from others which
interest you, see how they have tagged their photos, which groups
they've been submitted to. Check those out, add your photos to those
groups...
The discussion areas are impossible to follow up on, take a look but
don't count on following through there, instead, comment on people's
photos directly with back pats & questions... add photos you like as
favorites if you don't want to say something cheesy, those people will
come & rate your photos and it gives everyone more input.
For formal written critiques, the photo.net & dpreview suggestions sound
good.
Dudley Hanks
"Savageduck" <savag...@savage.net> wrote in message
news:2009022321094675249-savageduck@savagenet...
> On 2009-02-23 18:48:45 -0800, "Larry Thong" <larry...@shitstring.com>
> said:
>
>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, Larry, have to disagree with you on this one. I've had a
>>> number of very helpful critiques about my pics posted here on Usenet.
>>>
>>> Of course, there's the stupid stuff too, but that is easily ignored
>>> (most of the time). I find that the few knowledgeable shooters here
>>> more than make up for the trolls and goofs.
>>
>> any value they have with their constant infighting. Don't get me wrong,
>> priorities are priorities, but once one learns how to identify their
>> priorities is when you see how little value they actually have.
>
> constructive criticism in these NG's.
> The query Tony made is valid, however the solution is more complex. I
> think that hanging your work out and ask the World to provide
> constructive criticism, is to invite marginal advise.
> I would think that sharing your work via flickr or other photo social
> network is one thing. To trust the opinion of a few who would bre sincere
> in their criticism is another.
>
> Dudley is dealing with very serious visual accuity issues, those of us who
> are aware of his problems try to provide him constructive help.
> He is trying to capture acceptable images under his very difficult
> circumstances and needs an "eye" to point him towards techniques he can
> use to gain his goals.
> It may be wishful thinking, but some of us have provided sincere advice
> and recommendations, and we can only hope it has been helpful.
> Having said that, these groups may not be the best place to get
> constructive criticism.
>
> Outside of some of the humorous interchanges, argumentative egos seem to
> be the norm here.
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck
>
I think the key is sincerity. If someone sincerely wants to improve their
work, a number of very knowledgeable people are prepared to step up and help
out. But, for those who just want a "pat on the back," the feedback may be
more than bargained for...
But, hey, a lot can be gained from a verbal sparring match too...
Take Care,
Dudley
tony cooper
<larry...@shitstring.com> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>>> You just have to find the right group on flickr that will give you
>>> honest and straightforward critique that is helpful in your learning
>>> quest. I'm not sure why you feel the need to seek out a pat on the
>>> back, especially on Usenet. There's nothing to be gained here if
>>> your goal is anything other than fighting.
>>
>> Why do you feel that looking for place to have photos critiqued is
>> "seeking a pat on the back"? A critique is sought to know how others
>> view your image, what improvements others suggest, and to offer
>> suggestions to make the image better.
>
>Because if you're looking for honest and helpful "critique" on Usenet
Watchoo talking about "Usenet" for? I didn't say anything about
critiques on Usenet.
> you
>are either naive in thinking you'll get it or you're a dreamer. I agree
>with what you expect from a critique, but you've been in these parts long
>enough to know what you're dealing with on Usenet. I know deep down inside
>you really are not expecting to get what you seek here.
>
Actually, I do. I asked for recommendations for sites - websites,
forums, that sort of thing - where critiques are given. There's some
people here will do this. A couple have been mentioned.
>> Most of us see our own images holistically if we like them. We
>> overlook inherent flaws because we like the overall image or we are
>> pleased to have been able to capture something close to what we
>> wanted. The critique makes you stand back and look at the parts and
>> pieces.
>
>Yep, and on the same token some of the images I shot and didn't like were
>liked by others. And sometimes people that "critique" put into an image
>something the photographer didn't want there.
I really don't follow that. A critique doesn't put anything into an
image. It points out what is good and what is bad about an image.
>Constructive critique is
>always welcome; it's when it is turned into a pissing contest that one
>questions the value and the motives of the person making the critique.
Critiques have be in a neutral environment. They don't work Usenet
because the participants build up an opinion about the person from
routine posting exchanges, and that builds a bias into the critique.
tony cooper
wrote:
That's an interesting perspective. I'll try Flickr if I can find the
right sub-group.
tony cooper
wrote:
>On 2009-02-23 18:48:45 -0800, "Larry Thong" <larry...@shitstring.com> said:
>
>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, Larry, have to disagree with you on this one. I've had a
>>> number of very helpful critiques about my pics posted here on Usenet.
>>>
>>> Of course, there's the stupid stuff too, but that is easily ignored
>>> (most of the time). I find that the few knowledgeable shooters here
>>> more than make up for the trolls and goofs.
>>
>> Possibly, but I find that most of these "knowledgeable shooters" negate
>> any value they have with their constant infighting. Don't get me
>> wrong, priorities are priorities, but once one learns how to identify
>> their priorities is when you see how little value they actually have.
>
>Agreed the constant infighting is the major hurdle to obtaining
>constructive criticism in these NG's.
>The query Tony made is valid, however the solution is more complex. I
>think that hanging your work out and ask the World to provide
>constructive criticism, is to invite marginal advise.
>I would think that sharing your work via flickr or other photo social
>network is one thing. To trust the opinion of a few who would bre
>sincere in their criticism is another.
Like many here, I belong to a camera club, and the club has monthly
critiques at the meetings. The critiques are either done by two
members who are professional photographers or by other members of
other camera clubs around the world. (A couple of months ago, a group
from Scotland did our pix) It's digital only, and the images are sent
to another club and the comments relayed at our meetings. An average
of 70/80 shots are viewed each critique night. The critiquers don't
know who submitted the image.
It's been invaluable to me. The shot goes up on the screen, and I try
to mentally assess the image before the critique starts. It makes me
more aware of what works and what doesn't. By the time my shot comes
up, I know how it will be received because I've been listening to what
the speakers have been looking for. A particular reviewer will have
his or her "hot buttons". Each reviewer will have his/her own "hot
buttons", but the cumulative experience over months is valuable.
I don't always agree with all of the critique on an image, but I can
usually take something from it.
>
>Dudley is dealing with very serious visual accuity issues, those of us
>who are aware of his problems try to provide him constructive help.
>He is trying to capture acceptable images under his very difficult
>circumstances and needs an "eye" to point him towards techniques he can
>use to gain his goals.
>It may be wishful thinking, but some of us have provided sincere advice
>and recommendations, and we can only hope it has been helpful.
>Having said that, these groups may not be the best place to get
>constructive criticism.
>
>Outside of some of the humorous interchanges, argumentative egos seem
>to be the norm here.
--
tony cooper
wrote:
>Here: http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=critique&m=all
>
>It's quite a lot of work. You have to pay to play. Upload your photos,
>then give them keywords/tags and add them to group pools. Search groups
>for your area of interest and when you find photos from others which
>interest you, see how they have tagged their photos, which groups
>they've been submitted to. Check those out, add your photos to those
>groups...
>
>The discussion areas are impossible to follow up on, take a look but
>don't count on following through there, instead, comment on people's
>photos directly with back pats & questions... add photos you like as
>favorites if you don't want to say something cheesy, those people will
>come & rate your photos and it gives everyone more input.
>
>For formal written critiques, the photo.net & dpreview suggestions sound
>good.
Ta. Bookmarked.
PeteD
> tony cooper wrote:
>
>> What are some places one can post photographs for critique? Sites
>> where the critiques have some teeth, but where the critiques are
>> mostly constructive?
>
Nah, probably the worst plce, they love everything there.
PeteD
"OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:70h1k4F...@mid.individual.net...
Have to agree, the Pentax group is excellent.
PeteD
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gqt5q41019bqgklt9...@4ax.com...
> What are some places one can post photographs for critique? Sites
> where the critiques have some teeth, but where the critiques are
> mostly constructive?
>
>
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Personally I like the special interest groups at DP Review, people with same
cameras will also give you some great tips on processing from your
particular camera.
J. Clarke
How did you manage that? Are you sure you didn't miskey "critique" into
something else?
In any case, you need to be looking in _groups_, not in the main search.
Seems that the real problem here is that you need someone to show you how to
use the card catalog, not that libraries have card catalogs anymore.
What specific groups you will find helfpul only you can answer, the rest of
us don't know what sort of photography you're working on at the moment or
what you believe your specific strengths and weaknesses are.
Chris Malcolm
> On 24 Feb 2009 00:26:07 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>>>>tony cooper wrote:
>>> Precisely why I'm looking. The few times I looked at Flickr, I've
>>> never seen a critique that was useful. "Oooooh, that's pretty" or
>>> "That's a piece of crap" isn't a critique. You don't learn anything
>>> from it.
>>
>>There are large numbers of Flickr groups devoted to encouraging "Wow!
>>Great shot!" responses, because that's what most people want.
>>
>>But Flickr is a large and diverse place and there are plenty of places
>>where serious criticism and advice is gone into at length.
> If you know of such "places", then why not just provide a link?
Because the ones I happen to know of are very specific and I don't
know what your photographic interests are. For example I've found
http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/
very good for strobist advice and criticism, and
http://www.flickr.com/groups/photographyforrealestate/
very good for real estate. But like many photographers I find that
most photographers don't share my specific interests.
>>These are
>>often much more specific than simply "constructive criticism". They
>>tend to specialise in topics, such as architecture or sports, or
>>techniques such as studio lighting or high dynamic range. Some of them
>>run informal classes where after an introduction to the theme everyone
>>goes off to take photographs and bring them back for discussion. Some
>>of them are geographically local and have regular face to face
>>meetings, tutorials, etc..
>>
>>Saying "The few times I looked at Flickr, I've never seen a critique
>>that was useful" is rather like saying "the few times I looked into the
>>library I never saw a good poem".
> No, it's like saying "The few times I went to the library, I couldn't
> find the poetry section". In that case, I'd ask the librarian to
> point to the section. In this case, I'm asking here. If you can't
> be arsed, don't bother.
I don't know if I can help because I don't yet know what you
want. "Constructive criticism" could mean how to correct exposure when
the camera's autoexposure gets it wrong, how to capture details in
both clouds and landscape in sunset shots, or how to improve skin tone
in glamour shots. There are also groups which set up specific
photographic topics month by month where people post example
photographs which get discussed, such as the "afterclass" group. There
are also groups based around specific photography books.
>>Search for usefully categorical key words and phrases in photograph
>>descriptions, comments, and group discussions. That'll get you started
>>in the right direction.
> Too much trouble to provide some real help, Malcolm? What is a
> categorical key word?
A categorical key word is any word which is much more likely to appear
in what you want than in what you don't want. Flickr lets people
append textual descriptions, and also to tag images with what they
consider to be key words which would help in searches. You can choose
which of those you search. You can slso search on group title and
descriptions, or search through the entire text of group discussions.
> I tried "critique" and came up with
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/sarahkap83/2999897427/
That's very odd because it's a photograph without the word "critique"
in its title, tags, description, or comments. In fact there are very
few words of any kind associated with it. What's more it has only been
looked at a dozen times in the months since it was put on display
(which of course may change now you've advertised it :-).
It's hard to imagine what kind of search would ever find that image,
let alone put it near the top in a large trawl. Perhaps what you need
help with is how to do computer searches?
--
Chris Malcolm
tony cooper
wrote:
>> I tried "critique" and came up with
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/sarahkap83/2999897427/
>
>That's very odd because it's a photograph without the word "critique"
>in its title, tags, description, or comments. In fact there are very
>few words of any kind associated with it. What's more it has only been
>looked at a dozen times in the months since it was put on display
>(which of course may change now you've advertised it :-).
>
>It's hard to imagine what kind of search would ever find that image,
>let alone put it near the top in a large trawl. Perhaps what you need
>help with is how to do computer searches?
Not particularly odd. I used "Flickr +critique" from the Google page,
found several sub-groups, picked one, and scanned a few photos in that
group.
Computer searches in general are not a problem for me, but I'm totally
unfamiliar with how Flickr is set up. I wasn't aware that key words
are used with photos in categories. I didn't see anything that
explains their hierarchy.
I can work it out, though. I thought that some nice person in this
group would offer some shortcuts or helpful pointers; I was just
looking for a jump start in an unfamiliar area. That's what I would
do if I was on the other end.
John McWilliams
> Outside of some of the humorous interchanges, argumentative egos seem to
> be the norm here.
No, that's absolutely untrue! Liar, liar, pants on fire!!
--
john mcwilliams
Dudley Hanks
> tony cooper wrote:
>
>> I really don't follow that. A critique doesn't put anything into an
>> image. It points out what is good and what is bad about an image.
>
> how they would take the photograph, even when not knowing the
> circumstances
> or environment the photographer was in." In other words, they are
> assuming.
>
>>> Constructive critique is
>>> always welcome; it's when it is turned into a pissing contest that
>>> one questions the value and the motives of the person making the
>>> critique.
>>
>> Critiques have be in a neutral environment. They don't work Usenet
>> because the participants build up an opinion about the person from
>> routine posting exchanges, and that builds a bias into the critique.
>
>
Perhaps what is needed is a neutral way to post pics for critiquing?
I think blogspot could be used. Someone would just have to set up an
account and publish the email address for posting. All pics posted would
then appear under the same "user" and comments could be left. Very little
upkeep to such a system too.
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
>> Perhaps what is needed is a neutral way to post pics for critiquing?
>
> that you already lost respect for the person(s) doing the critique and
> this
> makes it not worth the effort.
>
>> I think blogspot could be used. Someone would just have to set up an
>> account and publish the email address for posting. All pics posted
>> would then appear under the same "user" and comments could be left.
>> Very little upkeep to such a system too.
>
> that have a mutual respect for one another.
>
> BTW> The new dog looks nice!
>
Granted, I'd rather know whom I'm dealing with as well -- when hearing
either good or bad. But, if somebody truly wanted an unadulterated
critique, such a system could prove interesting.
Re: Michener, indeed, he is a pretty puppy. His only aesthetic flaw is a
bit of an underbite, but that gives him a kind of pouty look when shot from
the right angle, so it's almost a plus...
Take Care,
Dudley
Chris Malcolm
> wrote:
>>> I tried "critique" and came up with
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/sarahkap83/2999897427/
>>
>>That's very odd because it's a photograph without the word "critique"
>>in its title, tags, description, or comments. In fact there are very
>>few words of any kind associated with it. What's more it has only been
>>looked at a dozen times in the months since it was put on display
>>(which of course may change now you've advertised it :-).
>>
>>It's hard to imagine what kind of search would ever find that image,
>>let alone put it near the top in a large trawl. Perhaps what you need
>>help with is how to do computer searches?
> Not particularly odd. I used "Flickr +critique" from the Google page,
> found several sub-groups, picked one, and scanned a few photos in that
> group.
That explains it. Flickr has its own specific organisation and
navigation methods which generic web page searchers won't necessarily
understand. Its own search and navigation facilities work better.
> Computer searches in general are not a problem for me, but I'm totally
> unfamiliar with how Flickr is set up. I wasn't aware that key words
> are used with photos in categories. I didn't see anything that
> explains their hierarchy.
It's not a hierarchy. There's some organisation based on people and
their photographs and some on groups, which have both photographs and
discussions. Like the Web there are many optional features for
building hierarchies. There are key word tagging facilities but the
keys are optional and individually chosen. Jpeg camera EXIF data is
used if present in the submitted photograph jpeg. Googlemap type
geotagging is available, and some groups make it mandatory.
Unfortunately Flickr knows me and my preferences well, so I can't see
what their introductory pages would look like from outside to a
stranger. I do recall that it's not as easy as it should be to find
out how to use Flickr. As a computer geek one thing I rather like is
that their designers have left a lot of DIY options open. There are
third party tools available which integrate with Flickr, places where
you can use your own (restricted) html code, and so on. It's clear
they expect you to learn a lot of it simply by playing around, and
that they expect users to invent their own ways of using it.
> I can work it out, though. I thought that some nice person in this
> group would offer some shortcuts or helpful pointers; I was just
> looking for a jump start in an unfamiliar area. That's what I would
> do if I was on the other end.
It's too big and diverse for that without a lot more personal context,
rather like saying "I'm visiting Europe for a week and looking for
advice."
Paul Furman's advice was good. The social aspect is very
important. You make friends with specific people and specific groups
of people. Groups are one way of finding people with similar
interests. Photograph descriptions and tags are another. You can check
out the groups and contacts of interesting people. And if you take
care to describe and tag your photographs in appropriate ways people
with similar interests will look for and find you.
Now I reflect on it I've actually got most of my useful criticism
indirectly. If I find myself struggling with a particular kind of
photograph I look for better photographs of the same kind of thing, or
in the case of well known things like buildings or beauty spots the
same thing. Studying better photographs of the same thing, and trying
to copy them, is a good way of learning. And in some cases you'll find
friendly experts or fellow students who are willing to help you.
In the case of specifically local photographs you may find local
photographers who'd welcome the opportunity to meet at a place of
photographic interest and learn together how to take better
photographs there.
There are plenty of Flickr groups set up with the specific purpose of
providing the kind of feedback you ask for, e.g., with rules that if
you post a photograph for criticism you must offer criticism of at
least the three previously posted photographs. Some of those may be
just what you're looking for, but they're too vague and unspecific for
me. What I found worked best for me was using Flickr to make friends
with photographers with similar interests.
--
Chris Malcolm
tony cooper
wrote:
>> Not particularly odd. I used "Flickr +critique" from the Google page,
>> found several sub-groups, picked one, and scanned a few photos in that
>> group.
>
>That explains it. Flickr has its own specific organisation and
>navigation methods which generic web page searchers won't necessarily
>understand. Its own search and navigation facilities work better.
I spent about a half-hour last night trawling through some of the
various Flickr groups that came up when I searched for "critiques".
Of the listed groups, a half-hour commitment only allowed for
exploring some of them. I'll go back tonight and look at some other
groups. (My attention span is limited to a half-hour at a time for
this pursuit. Longer than that, all groups begin to look even more
alike.)
I really wasn't able to determine much of anything. There doesn't
appear to be much in the way of structure to the groups. All of the
groups seemed be open to any type of photography, any level of
expertise, and any type of viewer response. It seems that a moderator
can set up a group and hope someone comes.
In the individual groups, the comments about the posted pix ranged
from "That's a pretty flower" to some really useful comments about the
image. No group seemed to have consistently useful, or consistently
useless, comments.
I have no idea, at this point, how a new contributor like me would
pick a group. I don't see that any of the groups has a profile that
is particularly distinct.
The above is not intended to be critical of Flickr. My comments are
just first impressions, and I now realize that it's going to take
quite a bit of time to get a feel for what Flickr is all about.
To continue - roughly - on your analogy about a library, the groups
are like a library where the books are shelved randomly in sections
with poetry, fiction, reference, and biography all mixed up. Rather
than being able to go to the poetry section, you have to peruse each
individual section and try to determine which one offers the most in
poetry.
> There are key word tagging facilities but the
>keys are optional and individually chosen.
I can see that some photographers and viewers would appreciate
keywording, but I can't think of a way it would work for me. My
output is too eclectic. I don't look for a particular type of subject
matter or scene to photograph, and I don't do a regular type of
photography (macro, architecture, street, B&W, portrait, table-top).
Rather, I look at a scene and hope to find something photographable in
that scene.
>It's too big and diverse for that without a lot more personal context,
>rather like saying "I'm visiting Europe for a week and looking for
>advice."
Well, see, that's exactly the type of question I'd ask. I wouldn't
ask where the cathedrals, castles, market days, beaches, or museums
would be. I'd ask the open-ended question and see if the suggestion
appealed to me. I'd rather find something new to me than something I
expected to visit.
>And if you take
>care to describe and tag your photographs in appropriate ways people
>with similar interests will look for and find you.
Not in my case. I don't have a pattern of similar interest.
tony cooper
wrote:
>For formal written critiques, the photo.net & dpreview suggestions sound
>good.
I did put up an image at photo.net last night. They have a category
for digital alterations, and I have a recently taken photograph where
I left the main subject in color and desaturated the background. It's
not as digitally altered as most of the other work, but I have to call
it digitally altered because it's not all-color or all-B&W.
There's a lot of really good images up on photo.net, and I may be over
my head there. I'll see if there's any response.
Chris Malcolm
> wrote:
>>> Not particularly odd. I used "Flickr +critique" from the Google page,
>>> found several sub-groups, picked one, and scanned a few photos in that
>>> group.
>>
>>That explains it. Flickr has its own specific organisation and
>>navigation methods which generic web page searchers won't necessarily
>>understand. Its own search and navigation facilities work better.
> I spent about a half-hour last night trawling through some of the
> various Flickr groups that came up when I searched for "critiques".
> Of the listed groups, a half-hour commitment only allowed for
> exploring some of them. I'll go back tonight and look at some other
> groups. (My attention span is limited to a half-hour at a time for
> this pursuit. Longer than that, all groups begin to look even more
> alike.)
> I really wasn't able to determine much of anything. There doesn't
> appear to be much in the way of structure to the groups. All of the
> groups seemed be open to any type of photography, any level of
> expertise, and any type of viewer response. It seems that a moderator
> can set up a group and hope someone comes.
Or they can run around inviting people. There's no limits on the power
of group administrators. Some groups have very strict rules which are
carefully policed. Some don't allow direct posting, you have to submit
for approval. Some you can't submit for approval unless you've first
been invited by a member. Flickr provides the building. What people
get up to in the rooms is up to them.
> In the individual groups, the comments about the posted pix ranged
> from "That's a pretty flower" to some really useful comments about the
> image. No group seemed to have consistently useful, or consistently
> useless, comments.
> I have no idea, at this point, how a new contributor like me would
> pick a group. I don't see that any of the groups has a profile that
> is particularly distinct.
One pf the difficulties is that it's up to the group admins how they
describe and advertise their group. Some take the attitude that if you
need a description then they don't want you as a member. It's rather
like finding a good cafe in a new city. The ones you find on your own
are where you may meet some of the people who know better ones.
>> There are key word tagging facilities but the
>> keys are optional and individually chosen.
> I can see that some photographers and viewers would appreciate
> keywording, but I can't think of a way it would work for me. My
> output is too eclectic. I don't look for a particular type of subject
> matter or scene to photograph, and I don't do a regular type of
> photography (macro, architecture, street, B&W, portrait, table-top).
> Rather, I look at a scene and hope to find something photographable in
> that scene.
Why the singular? Why not types in the plural? Surely there are some
types of photographic topic that appeal to you, and others which
don't? Don't you have some photographs strongly featuring people's
faces, and some without any people at all? Don't you find photographs
with a lot of face in them pose different photographic problems from
photographs with a lot of water in them?
>>It's too big and diverse for that without a lot more personal context,
>>rather like saying "I'm visiting Europe for a week and looking for
>>advice."
> Well, see, that's exactly the type of question I'd ask. I wouldn't
> ask where the cathedrals, castles, market days, beaches, or museums
> would be. I'd ask the open-ended question and see if the suggestion
> appealed to me. I'd rather find something new to me than something I
> expected to visit.
I'm surprised you're prepared to go as far as committing yourself to
using a camera. Have you already ruled out drawing and painting? :-)
>>And if you take
>>care to describe and tag your photographs in appropriate ways people
>>with similar interests will look for and find you.
> Not in my case. I don't have a pattern of similar interest.
Neither do I. But I do have patterns in the plural. Why are you
once again restricting yourself to the singular?
--
Chris Malcolm
tony cooper
wrote:
>> I can see that some photographers and viewers would appreciate
>> keywording, but I can't think of a way it would work for me. My
>> output is too eclectic. I don't look for a particular type of subject
>> matter or scene to photograph, and I don't do a regular type of
>> photography (macro, architecture, street, B&W, portrait, table-top).
>> Rather, I look at a scene and hope to find something photographable in
>> that scene.
>
>Why the singular? Why not types in the plural? Surely there are some
>types of photographic topic that appeal to you, and others which
>don't?
Yes, that's true...somewhat. I don't do landscapes, but that's
largely because I live in Central Florida and there really isn't a lot
opportunity here. (Or I can't see it) If I'd travel north, I might
do some. I don't do portrait work. I'd do macro, but a macro lens
isn't in the budget right now. I don't do flowers because I think
that's overdone already. I don't do birds because I don't have a lens
longer than 200mm, and that leaves waterbirds. I've done some
waterbirds, but it's hard to do something that hasn't already been
done too much.
>Don't you have some photographs strongly featuring people's
>faces, and some without any people at all? Don't you find photographs
>with a lot of face in them pose different photographic problems from
>photographs with a lot of water in them?
>
I've done some street photography, and that is an area that interests
me. It's a little harder here without a busy downtown area, but I've
done some at fairs, outdoor shows and markets, recreation areas(adult
engaged in sports), and in some neighborhoods. To do candid street
work you really need crowds where you're not noticed as a
photographer. I'd like to do more "old" things, but Central Florida
is not a rich vein for that.
>>>It's too big and diverse for that without a lot more personal context,
>>>rather like saying "I'm visiting Europe for a week and looking for
>>>advice."
>
>> Well, see, that's exactly the type of question I'd ask. I wouldn't
>> ask where the cathedrals, castles, market days, beaches, or museums
>> would be. I'd ask the open-ended question and see if the suggestion
>> appealed to me. I'd rather find something new to me than something I
>> expected to visit.
>
>I'm surprised you're prepared to go as far as committing yourself to
>using a camera. Have you already ruled out drawing and painting? :-)
My lack of talent ruled that out.
>> Not in my case. I don't have a pattern of similar interest.
>
>Neither do I. But I do have patterns in the plural. Why are you
>once again restricting yourself to the singular?
Perhaps because I'm using the word differently than you might. My
"pattern" is so eclectic that I don't think it can be defined as a
"pattern" or as "patterns". That just sounds too rigid to me.
A couple of times a week I'll get in the car and head out to take
photographs (I'm retired). I don't look for anything in particular.
One of the reasons that I like competitions like the Shoot-In is that
mandates are set. The camera club I belong to does the same thing. I
like being forced to look for something that I might not otherwise see
or set up something to fit a mandate.
I have a two images for the coming Shoot-In that were taken in a venue
that I would not have visited had it not been for the mandate.
Thinking "Where am I going to find 'wide-open'?" led me there. (Those
two may not make it in if I come across anything better)
Paul Furman
> On 25 Feb 2009 13:25:50 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> There are key word tagging facilities but the
>> keys are optional and individually chosen.
>
> I can see that some photographers and viewers would appreciate
> keywording, but I can't think of a way it would work for me. My
> output is too eclectic. I don't look for a particular type of subject
> matter or scene to photograph, and I don't do a regular type of
> photography (macro, architecture, street, B&W, portrait, table-top).
> Rather, I look at a scene and hope to find something photographable in
> that scene.
Keywords are so useful. Think about how you would like to be able to
find your photos with a keyword search. Urban, street-shooting, garden,
nature, foggy, moody, anything...
>> And if you take
>> care to describe and tag your photographs in appropriate ways people
>> with similar interests will look for and find you.
>
> Not in my case. I don't have a pattern of similar interest.
There's always something.
"Everyday life" is one possibility <g>.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
tony cooper
wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On 25 Feb 2009 13:25:50 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There are key word tagging facilities but the
>>> keys are optional and individually chosen.
>>
>> I can see that some photographers and viewers would appreciate
>> keywording, but I can't think of a way it would work for me. My
>> output is too eclectic. I don't look for a particular type of subject
>> matter or scene to photograph, and I don't do a regular type of
>> photography (macro, architecture, street, B&W, portrait, table-top).
>> Rather, I look at a scene and hope to find something photographable in
>> that scene.
>
>Keywords are so useful. Think about how you would like to be able to
>find your photos with a keyword search. Urban, street-shooting, garden,
>nature, foggy, moody, anything...
I do use keywords to sort my own images on my computer. I meant
keywords on Flickr. Right now, I use keywords to find people and
locations in old photographs I've scanned. Current stuff is arranged
by folder.