Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New forum category on images comments  (Read 15383 times)
leonvick
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 108



WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 26, 2005, 12:35:11 AM »
ReplyReply

I quit the photo forum on a popular site elsewhere because the comments were nothing more than gooey compliments that served no purpose. To add insult to  injury, whenever somebody asked for critique and got it, they became defensive to say the least. From that and similar experiences, I must conclude that online critique can only work will when the critic is a well-established authority whose opinions will be absolutely respected by us lesser mortals. Even then, a photograph that is the pride of a competent photographer will take no criticism gracefully unless it is high praise! The criteria of excellence are simply too subtle to withstand the opinions of others, and especially of those who might be less qualified to comment than the photographer who submitted the picture.
Logged

Leon
Wherever I go, there I am.
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 26, 2005, 12:49:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Have you actually visited the critique area? It bears little resemblance to what you're whining about. How about trying it before criticizing?
Logged

leonvick
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 108



WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 27, 2005, 12:12:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Have you actually visited the critique area? It bears little resemblance to what you're whining about. How about trying it before criticizing?

Whoa there, Johnnie boy! When did you get appointed as Champion of the Realm and Keeper of the Keys to the Chastity Belts of the Virgins of Hypocrisy? With a little work on your reading skills you might notice that my post was a warning referring to a different forum on a different board at a different time and place. I plead guilty to cynicism on the basis of the conditions I observed THERE, all created by good people with grand and noble intentions. Sorry if I inadvertently stepped on your toes but I'd hate to see any forum at LL become as useless as that one!
Logged

Leon
Wherever I go, there I am.
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 27, 2005, 07:15:40 PM »
ReplyReply

The forum members here have a fairly long and distinguished history of delivering blunt and (most of the time) constructive and useful image critiques going back as long as I've participated here, even though the designated forum for such discussions is new. So your experiences elsewhere aren't particularly meaningful or relevant to what has ever gone on here, or is likely to anytime soon. Who appointed you to be the Ultimate Arbiter Of The Practical Relevance Of Critique Forums?
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7036


WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 27, 2005, 07:58:53 PM »
ReplyReply

leonvick, while you are giving other people advice about their reading skills, perhaps you should zero-in your own reading skills on your initiating post. You made sweeping generalizations clearly intended to be universally applicable, quote:

<< I must conclude that online critique can only work will when the critic is a well-established authority whose opinions will be absolutely respected by us lesser mortals. Even then, a photograph that is the pride of a competent photographer will take no criticism gracefully unless it is high praise! The criteria of excellence are simply too subtle to withstand the opinions of others, and especially of those who might be less qualified to comment than the photographer who submitted the picture.>>

Had you taken the trouble to examine the tenor of photo critique on this website - and you have been a member of this Forum for several years - you would have seen yourself that you cannot sustain these conclusions. Apart from the generalized insult to people of character that they express, they are factually wrong.

A number of us put considerable time and effort into a lengthy dialogue on the merits and guidelines for creating this section of the Forum (unfortunately that thread was a victim of the site crash), so when you come along after the fact and denigrate the initiative for ill-founded reasons, you may wish to consider the effect it has on how other members may regard the quality of your remarks.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
leonvick
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 108



WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 27, 2005, 10:22:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
<< I must conclude that online critique can only work will when the critic is a well-established authority whose opinions will be absolutely respected by us lesser mortals. Even then, a photograph that is the pride of a competent photographer will take no criticism gracefully unless it is high praise! The criteria of excellence are simply too subtle to withstand the opinions of others, and especially of those who might be less qualified to comment than the photographer who submitted the picture.>>

Had you taken the trouble to examine the tenor of photo critique on this website - and you have been a member of this Forum for several years - you would have seen yourself that you cannot sustain these conclusions. Apart from the generalized insult to people of character that they express, they are factually wrong.

A number of us put considerable time and effort into a lengthy dialogue on the merits and guidelines for creating this section of the Forum (unfortunately that thread was a victim of the site crash), so when you come along after the fact and denigrate the initiative for ill-founded reasons, you may wish to consider the effect it has on how other members may regard the quality of your remarks.

I did not denigrate this forum and my comments were relevant, not ill-founded. I was cynical about its success, for good reason. Time will tell. The rules you have established prove that what you fear is what I expected, so I don't think we're so far apart.

Meanwhile, I am working with a local camera club of experienced novice photographers, trying to explore with them some principles of constructive group critique. They really want to learn how to take better photos, but without the harsh or supercilious comments often found in other clubs. Online critique is easy compared to doing it face to face in a meeting!

As for the Luminous Landscape, the first thing I said about a critique forum here was that I had quit another one elsewhere because of its flaws. I intend to participate in the LL forum with total enthusiasm. I hope it will be different and prove my doubts irrelevant. I won't mind being told if I'm wrong. Just give it some time and stay cool. Please!
Logged

Leon
Wherever I go, there I am.
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 28, 2005, 01:11:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I did not denigrate this forum and my comments were relevant, not ill-founded. I was cynical about its success, for good reason. Time will tell. The rules you have established prove that what you fear is what I expected, so I don't think we're so far apart.
You absolutely did so denigrate the forum here. The sweeping generalizations you made in your post completely ignore the long-standing practice of how critiques have been performed in the LL forums over the last 2-3 years (whether there's been a dedicated area for such things or not), and are insulting to those of us who have participated in those critiques. Bringing up the pointlessness of the critiques in other sites' fora is irrelevant. The idea that the LL forum members are capable of doing honest, constructive, and thoughtful image critiques, even if they aren't ego-inflating isn't pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking; it's been the rule rather than the exception for the 2 1/2 years I've been here, and isn't likely to change soon. The (unfortunately lost) thread regarding desirable critique criteria and the fact that we're even having this discussion are further evidence in that direction.

If you wish to be part of the solution instead of the problem, and continue your constructive participation in the critique forum you are certainly welcome and encouraged to do so. But please do not continue to try to reinvent your initial comments regarding the critique forum, you are only undermining your own credibility.
Logged

Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #27 on: September 28, 2005, 05:40:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Bloody ####! this isn't even the critique forum and the insults are already flying, that forum doesn't stand a chance if this is any indication.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7036


WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 28, 2005, 07:57:35 AM »
ReplyReply

pom, no problem - the actual Critique forum has started well. I'm not worried now and never was through the process we engaged when developing it. That was a constructive process and the results are justifying the time we put into it. Though most of us have never met eachother, a spirit of mutual respect has emerged over time, and this is something that "leonvick" simply failed to recognize.

Needless to say, this is a wide open forum open to all comers new and experienced, hence when developing a forum section dedicated to photo-critique it is useful to have a minimal set of guidelines defining what is constructive and comfortable. For the benefit of leonvick, this wasn't done out of any kind of fear - it was done to confirm a set of expectations, and I am pleased to see that you share them. Yes, cool is the name of the game.  :cool:
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #29 on: September 28, 2005, 09:08:47 AM »
ReplyReply

"So your experiences elsewhere aren't particularly meaningful or relevant to what has EVER gone on here, or is likely to anytime soon."  [Emphasis added]

I find this a stretch.  One only has to go back to teh critique of an image submitted by sebarri to see this isn't true.

And I think this attitude comes from high places.  While not a "critique, the following response was made to a comment regarding the LL front page image:

"I assume for the tone of your comment ... that you don't care for the photograph.

That's fine. Others disagree.

For example the juried invitational exibition in Europe that just requested that it be submitted, and the book publisher that wants to use it as a cover."

I took this as the person offering the comment was entitled to his opinion, but the opinion wasn't worth much, given more photo-savy people really love the image.  A subtle put down of the person making the comment.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7036


WWW
« Reply #30 on: September 28, 2005, 09:29:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Howard,

The Seberri episode started in the usual correct manner. Seberri submitted a photo. The people who commented on it had problems with it and explained them correctly. Seberri had problems with our comments. So far so good - that is part of the game. But then it went way off the rails when Seberri took refuge in baseless attacks on the qualities of "occidental" vision. So yes, once in a while ridiculous things can happen on an open, international forum accessible to countless millions of people with all kinds of backgrounds, baggage, experience or inexperience. But this was - thank goodness - exceptional, which I find very encouraging and a good statement for L-L.

There is no general attitude here coming from "high places".  The people active in this area are the regular members who just call the shots as they see them. The "high places" you quote in your post were simply underlining the fact that certain kinds of critique are useful and others aren't - exactly the subject of our guidelines. I don't think there is any issue here.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #31 on: September 28, 2005, 10:08:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Mark, I was not trying to make an issue out of this.  I merely gave two (and there are others) examples that could show leonvick isn't so wrong as some others would suggest and that an on-line critique section may not be as rosey as suggested.
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8202



WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 28, 2005, 10:18:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Howard,

I feel that your comment doesn't give a balanced view of this forum. From what I have seen, most of the time comments and critiques on the LL forum are thoughtful and sensitive. It is also true that from time to time someone makes a comment that is construed by someone else as insulting or belittling, and the reply may reflect that construction (as, I feel, was the case with the response you quoted -- without quoting the original comment that led to the response).

I once made a rather snide comment here about a certain other photography forum, and I got quickly shot down for it here on LL. Reading the responses, I realized that I had, indeed, lowered the tone of the discussion, and since that time I have tried to keep my remarks to the high level that I see most of the time on the LL forum.

-Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8202



WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 28, 2005, 10:21:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I hadn't seen Mark's response when I posted mine. He said it better than I could.
Thanks, Mark.

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #34 on: September 28, 2005, 11:02:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Eric, my post was never intended to be "balanced," but merely two examples (and there are more)in response to the implication that these things never happen here. Well, they do happen here. No, such activities are not the usual responses. I never claimed nor even reasonably implied they were the norm, but they certainly are not extinct or even endangered.

leonvick was stating a conclusion. He should be allowed to do that without being accused of "whining" (habitually complaining). Beat him up and you prove his (and my) point.
Logged
leonvick
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 108



WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 28, 2005, 02:27:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
I did not denigrate this forum and my comments were relevant, not ill-founded. I was cynical about its success, for good reason. Time will tell. The rules you have established prove that what you fear is what I expected, so I don't think we're so far apart.

You absolutely did so denigrate the forum here. The sweeping generalizations you made in your post completely ignore the long-standing practice of how critiques have been performed in the LL forums over the last 2-3 years (whether there's been a dedicated area for such things or not), and are insulting to those of us who have participated in those critiques. Bringing up the pointlessness of the critiques in other sites' fora is irrelevant. The idea that the LL forum members are capable of doing honest, constructive, and thoughtful image critiques, even if they aren't ego-inflating isn't pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking; it's been the rule rather than the exception for the 2 1/2 years I've been here, and isn't likely to change soon. The (unfortunately lost) thread regarding desirable critique criteria and the fact that we're even having this discussion are further evidence in that direction.

If you wish to be part of the solution instead of the problem, and continue your constructive participation in the critique forum you are certainly welcome and encouraged to do so. But please do not continue to try to reinvent your initial comments regarding the critique forum, you are only undermining your own credibility.

Since you have written a post entirely about me instead of the topic of this thread (containing nothing but a libelous repeat of the puerile trash you've already written about me) I would suggest to Michael that it should be placed in a special forum for personal bitches as it does not belong here.

How many times do I have to tell you that my comments were about another forum, on another board, in another time and place, Jonathon? You have taken personal offense where none was ever intended and now seem determined to go to war over it. If that's the way you want this forum to be, so be it! Consider yourself insulted and pout for the rest of your life about it. You've already told me you won't apologize so I won't either, but the next time I go to Wal-Mart I'll look for a pacifier for you.
Logged

Leon
Wherever I go, there I am.
neil
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8923



WWW
« Reply #36 on: September 28, 2005, 11:42:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, why don't you all just go read a little philosophical short story, and move on.
Logged

howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #37 on: September 29, 2005, 10:13:44 AM »
ReplyReply

neil, you log in as a super administator. Are your views those of the Luminous Landscape or just yours? I am confused.

You describe yourself as a visual artist. Maybe you could drop down a few spaces here and tell us all just what an artist is, and maybe as an artist, just what art is. If you do speak for the Luminous Landscape, then the rest of us would know what art is and what an artist is.

I have read the short story and other things by Susan Sontag. I have never understood her myself. Maybe it's because I have not been able to see her as particularly bounded by consistancy, so it's hard to put your finger on where she is coming from or even where she is (Added later: or where she is going). Is it camp to understand Sontag?

Addition thought:  I've heard that indecision is the key to flexibility.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7036


WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 29, 2005, 12:11:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Neil, I've read it - now, back to reality.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
neilcowley
Guest
« Reply #39 on: October 03, 2005, 02:15:35 PM »
ReplyReply

My views are my own, but as Michael is very busy he's put me on monitoring the forum.  

This particular forum could easily be seen as a campground of a particular style of photographers.   In my role here, I'm to bring a little balance where needed and I was hoping in my suggestion of the essay to help you take some thoughts on the subject.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad