If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Pairs comments - Alan B.
On 7/25/2012 6:22 PM, Savageduck wrote:
.. snip What's new? We have regular commentators who chose not to contribute this time, other than responding to others comments on their work, and we had commentators who comment selectively on images they deem as worthy of their attention. Personally I believe that all images submitted are worthy of some comment, good bad, or indifferent. True, but how meaningful is a comment such as: "I agree with _______ ." And the commentator has nothing to add. -- PeterN |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Pairs comments - Alan B.
On 7/27/2012 10:26 AM, tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:19:13 -0400, PeterN wrote: On 7/25/2012 6:22 PM, Savageduck wrote: . snip What's new? We have regular commentators who chose not to contribute this time, other than responding to others comments on their work, and we had commentators who comment selectively on images they deem as worthy of their attention. Personally I believe that all images submitted are worthy of some comment, good bad, or indifferent. True, but how meaningful is a comment such as: "I agree with _______ ." And the commentator has nothing to add. I think that it is meaningful. It says that _____ is not the only one who sees it that way. If X says the image is OOF, Y offers no more by saying the image is OOF than he does by saying he agrees with X. Just that statement, though, is not really enough. Adding something would be good. Yes. But, if IMO the commentator has said all that is necessary, what can I add. -- PeterN |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Pairs comments - Alan B.
On 2012-07-27 07:19:13 -0700, PeterN said:
On 7/25/2012 6:22 PM, Savageduck wrote: . snip What's new? We have regular commentators who chose not to contribute this time, other than responding to others comments on their work, and we had commentators who comment selectively on images they deem as worthy of their attention. Personally I believe that all images submitted are worthy of some comment, good bad, or indifferent. True, but how meaningful is a comment such as: "I agree with _______ ." And the commentator has nothing to add. That comment is meaningful in that it is an indication of the lack of effort the individual is prepare to expend on comments. For the Pairs SI there were several who seemed to have observed similar elements, and were similarly effected positively and negatively with regard to several images, but had different interpretations as to the reasons. They seemed quite capable of expressing those slight differences without resorting to the copout, "I agree with _____." That is OK, but take the trouble to qualify the agreement. You have no argument from me that to comment on all the images submitted takes time and effort. I certainly try to keep some of my comments brief, but do my best to comment extensively when I believe that I might be able to let the shooter see his/her image in the way I do, and think about it. There are two major elements to a comment, addressing the physical photographic qualities of the image, and the subjective interpretation the viewer has of the image. That is why there are times I think, "What a great image, but it has been spoilt by something which could have been fixed at the time of capture, or in post processing with just a little more effort." I know that is the way I learn when I read constructive criticism of my submissions from others. However, when when somebody says something negative, without providing reasons for their thoughts, with, or without a path to a fix, the comment is diminished in value. Now if that vapid comment is followed from another commentator by, "I agree with _____" and there is an added personal reason for the agreement regarding interpretation, and/or adding a capture, editing/adjustment suggestion, it becomes a useful constructive comment. There have been times I have been busy with other stuff, or when I have started composing my comments, and have not felt in anyway enthusiastic about expending the effort to continue, or I believed that I had not been able to put something useful together. The result being that I might delay posting until later, or believe that would just skip the commentary this time. One thing I have found irritating in the past, has been when comments are slow being posted and somebody remarks on the dearth of comments without making an effort to fill the particular hole. I certainly don't care if comments come from folks who have not submitted, provided they have either interpretive or constructive corrective substance. Sometimes I wonder what would be said if all the usual commentators dropped out for a month or two. So with "The Road" a few weeks away, I am pondering my level of enthusiasm and/or inertia regarding making comments at all, particularly when faced with the same lack of enthusiasm for the task others have expressed. Maybe, maybe not. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Pairs comments - Alan B.
On 2012-07-27 08:08:05 -0700, PeterN said:
On 7/27/2012 10:26 AM, tony cooper wrote: On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:19:13 -0400, PeterN wrote: On 7/25/2012 6:22 PM, Savageduck wrote: . snip What's new? We have regular commentators who chose not to contribute this time, other than responding to others comments on their work, and we had commentators who comment selectively on images they deem as worthy of their attention. Personally I believe that all images submitted are worthy of some comment, good bad, or indifferent. True, but how meaningful is a comment such as: "I agree with _______ ." And the commentator has nothing to add. I think that it is meaningful. It says that _____ is not the only one who sees it that way. If X says the image is OOF, Y offers no more by saying the image is OOF than he does by saying he agrees with X. Just that statement, though, is not really enough. Adding something would be good. Yes. But, if IMO the commentator has said all that is necessary, what can I add. There is always a different take on things. Take the following: My comment; "Tim Conway: Pairs-01: The Conway socks. A nice pair and good idea for employing the shadow created pattern. However there remains a major OOF issue which cannot be ignored. So great potential spoilt by bad focus." Alan Browne's comment: "Tim Conway http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/144705061 I like the shadow laying diagonally across the socks. But overall it's a bit of a soft and dull image. Too deliberately contrived." Similar thoughts behind the comments, but with a decidedly different take regarding phrasing, and possible reception by Tim, or others who might read both. Now you might agree with one, or other, or both of those, but you might have seen something slightly different. Alan was able to make his unique and similar comment for this image without resorting to the worthless, "I agree with ___." In the case of one of your images you would have found this difference. My comment favorable because I liked the shot, but empty of technical critique, Alan's more detailed. My comment: "Peter Newman: Pairs-01: Fishing net reflected on wet beach. Nice." Alan Browne's comment: "Peter Newman http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/144738873 A very strong composition and of course speaks to my fetish for narrow colour palettes that are well set off in the areas of light, shadow, silhouette and reflection. Interesting symmetries as well. The most poetic of the SI this turn and a case where cropping was used very well. Technically seems a bit off - lots of JPG artifacts suggesting this was a deep crop, then resized down to minimize softness or camera shake." -- Regards, Savageduck |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Pairs comments - Alan B.
On 7/27/2012 12:59 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-07-27 08:08:05 -0700, PeterN said: On 7/27/2012 10:26 AM, tony cooper wrote: On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:19:13 -0400, PeterN wrote: On 7/25/2012 6:22 PM, Savageduck wrote: . snip What's new? We have regular commentators who chose not to contribute this time, other than responding to others comments on their work, and we had commentators who comment selectively on images they deem as worthy of their attention. Personally I believe that all images submitted are worthy of some comment, good bad, or indifferent. True, but how meaningful is a comment such as: "I agree with _______ ." And the commentator has nothing to add. I think that it is meaningful. It says that _____ is not the only one who sees it that way. If X says the image is OOF, Y offers no more by saying the image is OOF than he does by saying he agrees with X. Just that statement, though, is not really enough. Adding something would be good. Yes. But, if IMO the commentator has said all that is necessary, what can I add. There is always a different take on things. Take the following: My comment; "Tim Conway: Pairs-01: The Conway socks. A nice pair and good idea for employing the shadow created pattern. However there remains a major OOF issue which cannot be ignored. So great potential spoilt by bad focus." Alan Browne's comment: "Tim Conway http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/144705061 I like the shadow laying diagonally across the socks. But overall it's a bit of a soft and dull image. Too deliberately contrived." Similar thoughts behind the comments, but with a decidedly different take regarding phrasing, and possible reception by Tim, or others who might read both. Now you might agree with one, or other, or both of those, but you might have seen something slightly different. Alan was able to make his unique and similar comment for this image without resorting to the worthless, "I agree with ___." In the case of one of your images you would have found this difference. My comment favorable because I liked the shot, but empty of technical critique, Alan's more detailed. My comment: "Peter Newman: Pairs-01: Fishing net reflected on wet beach. Nice." Alan Browne's comment: "Peter Newman http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/144738873 A very strong composition and of course speaks to my fetish for narrow colour palettes that are well set off in the areas of light, shadow, silhouette and reflection. Interesting symmetries as well. The most poetic of the SI this turn and a case where cropping was used very well. Technically seems a bit off - lots of JPG artifacts suggesting this was a deep crop, then resized down to minimize softness or camera shake." I understand what you are saying, anmd see your point, but, Had Alan made his comment prior to yours, and assuming you agreed with him, Your comment: "Fishing net reflected on wet beach. Nice." while making me fee good, woulld not help me to improve the image. Also, there are times when I am motivated to comment, and times when I am not. I feel that I have an ob;ligation to try to make a constructive comment, simply because that is the purpose of the group. If I can I comment on most. There are some images that I feel I cannot comment on in a constructive manner. Others As I've said earlier, I feel I have nothing to add. I would rather say something in a reasonable time, then hold all my comments back until I have something to add to all. -- PeterN |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Pairs comments - Alan B.
On 2012-07-27 10:38:57 -0700, tony cooper said:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:18:22 -0700, Savageduck wrote: I know that is the way I learn when I read constructive criticism of my submissions from others. However, when when somebody says something negative, without providing reasons for their thoughts, with, or without a path to a fix, the comment is diminished in value. Now if that vapid comment is followed from another commentator by, "I agree with _____" and there is an added personal reason for the agreement regarding interpretation, and/or adding a capture, editing/adjustment suggestion, it becomes a useful constructive comment. The one unsupported negative comment that I feel is both acceptable and understandable is the one that goes something like "This image doesn't do much for me". True, and those, or words to a similar effect are in my commentary tool box, and I use them. I did for the Pairs mandate with the following examples: "Max Duryee: Pairs-01: Patterns on a wood panel, but for me this is not too exciting, technically good, but not exciting." or "KurtP: Pairs-02: A similar concept to #1, but this one doesn’t quite work for me, perhaps it is the tight crop, or odd angle created by shooting from above to the right. Who knows?" There are images that are neither good nor bad, properly or improperly framed or processed, and/or with and without significant flaws. They are just without interest to the viewer. I have indifferent feelings toward Bob Flint's shots of his various horticulture endeavors as subject matter for the SI, and I think the tone of my remarks reflected that. "Bob Flint: Pairs-01: These guys seem to be your go to subjects. Nice patterns but I have to say I find things a tad boring. Pairs-02: See comments for #1." I don't see attempting to ascribe the lack of interest to flaws when the image fails because viewer doesn't see anything of interest in it. Nor, do I see trying to find something good about that image. ....and that was pretty much my feelings regarding the Max Duryee panel shot commented on above. Sometimes it is tough just to find the appropriate words to express one's opinion regarding a particular image, but does that make it less worthy of comment? -- Regards, Savageduck |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Pairs comments - Alan B.
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:37:48 -0400, PeterN
wrote: : On 7/27/2012 12:59 PM, Savageduck wrote: : On 2012-07-27 08:08:05 -0700, PeterN said: : : On 7/27/2012 10:26 AM, tony cooper wrote: : On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:19:13 -0400, PeterN : wrote: : : On 7/25/2012 6:22 PM, Savageduck wrote: : : . : snip : : What's new? We have regular commentators who chose not to contribute : this time, other than responding to others comments on their work, and : we had commentators who comment selectively on images they deem as : worthy of their attention. Personally I believe that all images : submitted are worthy of some comment, good bad, or indifferent. : : : True, but how meaningful is a comment such as: "I agree with _______ ." : And the commentator has nothing to add. : : I think that it is meaningful. It says that _____ is not the only one : who sees it that way. If X says the image is OOF, Y offers no more by : saying the image is OOF than he does by saying he agrees with X. : : Just that statement, though, is not really enough. Adding something : would be good. : : : Yes. But, if IMO the commentator has said all that is necessary, what : can I add. : : There is always a different take on things. : : Take the following: : My comment; : "Tim Conway: : Pairs-01: : The Conway socks. A nice pair and good idea for employing the shadow : created pattern. However there remains a major OOF issue which cannot be : ignored. So great potential spoilt by bad focus." : : Alan Browne's comment: : "Tim Conway http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/144705061 : I like the shadow laying diagonally across the socks. But overall it's a : bit of a soft and dull image. Too deliberately contrived." : : Similar thoughts behind the comments, but with a decidedly different : take regarding phrasing, and possible reception by Tim, or others who : might read both. Now you might agree with one, or other, or both of : those, but you might have seen something slightly different. : Alan was able to make his unique and similar comment for this image : without resorting to the worthless, "I agree with ___." : : In the case of one of your images you would have found this difference. : My comment favorable because I liked the shot, but empty of technical : critique, Alan's more detailed. : : My comment: : "Peter Newman: : Pairs-01: : Fishing net reflected on wet beach. Nice." : : Alan Browne's comment: : "Peter Newman http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/144738873 : A very strong composition and of course speaks to my fetish for narrow : colour palettes that are well set off in the areas of light, shadow, : silhouette and reflection. Interesting symmetries as well. The most : poetic of the SI this turn and a case where cropping was used very well. : Technically seems a bit off - lots of JPG artifacts suggesting this was : a deep crop, then resized down to minimize softness or camera shake." : : : I understand what you are saying, anmd see your point, but, Had Alan : made his comment prior to yours, and assuming you agreed with him, Your : comment: "Fishing net reflected on wet beach. Nice." while making me fee : good, woulld not help me to improve the image. Only if you weren't paying attention. The Duck told you that he saw your picture as a well executed piece of art with no deeper or hidden meaning (e.g., as an allegory for your take on the human condition) and little or nothing to teach the viewer, other than that a fishnet on a beach rendered that way looks good. And that's independent of whether Alan spoke first, last, or not at all. Whether that take on your picture is correct or not, only you can judge. But at least he's telling you how another person saw it. : Also, there are times when I am motivated to comment, and times when I : am not. I feel that I have an ob;ligation to try to make a constructive : comment, simply because that is the purpose of the group. If I can I : comment on most. There are some images that I feel I cannot comment on : in a constructive manner. Others As I've said earlier, I feel I have : nothing to add. I would rather say something in a reasonable time, then : hold all my comments back until I have something to add to all. This thread is degenerating into a murky, inconclusive analysis of analysis - the sort of thing you might get in a prolonged debate between an Orthodox rabbi and a Jesuit. I think we should simply acknowledge that comments are good (at least they demonstrate interest), well thought-out comments are better, and deep, penetrating insight is as valuable as it is rare. Then go ahead and take the comments we receive for what they seem to be worth, remembering always that pride and defensiveness are often a creative person's worst enemies. Bob |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Pairs comments - Alan B.
On 2012-07-28 12:27 , Robert Coe wrote:
This thread is degenerating into a murky, inconclusive analysis of analysis - the sort of thing you might get in a prolonged debate between an Orthodox rabbi and a Jesuit. I think we should simply acknowledge that comments are good (at least they demonstrate interest), well thought-out comments are better, and deep, penetrating insight is as valuable as it is rare. Then go ahead and take the comments we receive for what they seem to be worth, remembering always that pride and defensiveness are often a creative person's worst enemies. Well said. Several years ago I wrote an addendum to the rulz for the SI regarding "critique". Yep, they're still there at the bottom of the Rulz page: / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Critiquing photos (This is not part of the rulz, just something to consider) One of the interesting aspects of the SI is the reaction of others. We all anticipate hearing good and not so good things about our photographic efforts. Honest criticism has value, but as anything of value it is not trivial to do. So please consider the following before making a critique: Simply saying "I don't like it" is not critique. Nor is simply saying "I like it". When criticizing a photo, consider and state its strong as well as its weak points. It is not all aesthetic and art. It is not all technical. It is not about whatever rules about photography you may be clinging to. Every photo is unique. So do comment and critique the work of others remembering that you can only learn from their full, considered and honest critique, and likewise they can only learn from your full, considered and honest critique. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / -- "Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities." -Samuel Clemens. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Pairs comments - Alan B.
On 7/28/2012 12:27 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
snip This thread is degenerating into a murky, inconclusive analysis of analysis - the sort of thing you might get in a prolonged debate between an Orthodox rabbi and a Jesuit. I think we should simply acknowledge that comments are good (at least they demonstrate interest), well thought-out comments are better, and deep, penetrating insight is as valuable as it is rare. Then go ahead and take the comments we receive for what they seem to be worth, remembering always that pride and defensiveness are often a creative person's worst enemies. If you substitute "hubris" for "pride" I could agree with your statement. Most of us take some sort of pride in any images that we post. -- PeterN |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Pairs comments - Alan B.
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 14:26:51 -0400, PeterN
wrote: : On 7/28/2012 12:27 PM, Robert Coe wrote: : : snip : : This thread is degenerating into a murky, inconclusive analysis of analysis - : the sort of thing you might get in a prolonged debate between an Orthodox : rabbi and a Jesuit. I think we should simply acknowledge that comments are : good (at least they demonstrate interest), well thought-out comments are : better, and deep, penetrating insight is as valuable as it is rare. Then go : ahead and take the comments we receive for what they seem to be worth, : remembering always that pride and defensiveness are often a creative person's : worst enemies. : : : If you substitute "hubris" for "pride" I could agree with your : statement. Most of us take some sort of pride in any images that we post. Indeed, "hubris" is the more accurate term. Consider it substituted! Bob |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|