Actually, if you take the time, commenting photos is interesting. You have to put words to you feelings about a picture, and thus you get more aware of you own thoughts and preferences. In the long run, your own pictures get better.
DagT
P� tirsdag, 23. september 2003, kl. 06:36, skrev Simon King:
Hi Chris, Good idea, count me in too. Simon
-----Original Message----- From: Chris Brogden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 23 September 2003 9:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PUG comments
There's been at least a couple of people who've mentioned the PUG comments
since I got back on the list. I've been thinking about them, too, but it
seems to me that there were some problems with the old format. People
often didn't really have feelings either way about the photos they were
assigned, or they didn't have time to post critiques in the first few days
of the month, or they felt that it was too much like homework and didn't
grant them enough individual freedom. So, taking those criticisms into
account, why don't we start up the comments again, but with some changes:
First, participation is completely voluntary on a month by month basis.
You don't have to comment every month, though it's probably good to push
yourself to do so. I'm not going to be keeping track of names, or
assigning specific photos to specific people, or anything like that. This
means less work on my part and more freedom on everyone else's. If you
want to comment, do so. If not, don't. Your choice. There are no
deadlines, so you don't have to have something written 30 minutes after
the photos go up. If it takes you most of the month to talk about all the
photos you want to mention, no problem.
Each month you participate, try to comment on at least 5 photos. If you
use the following guide, we'll establish some sort of consistency in the
comments:
1. The most interesting lighting, either natural or artificial. Which
photo do you think makes the best use of light/shadow? How so? What's so
good about it?
2. The most interesting composition. Pretty self-explanatory. Pick a
photo where the composition goes a long way toward making the shot and
talk about it. What's so great about the composition? Why does it work?
3. One that doesn't quite work for you. Pick a photo which could have
been so much better if... and then explain why and how you think it could
be improved. Constructive criticism, please.
4. Another 1, 2 or more photos that you like. Pick a couple more photos
that you like, and try to figure out why you like them. Talk about what
makes them good in your eyes, what appeals to you, why you like them, etc.
If you don't like some or all of these approaches, great! Come up with
some yourself. The important thing is to try and talk about some photos
each month, however you want to approach it.
I see this as being a self-organizing thing, so I'll be just another commentator. If you want to try and commit to talking about some PUG photos each month, then reply to this email and let the PDML know. There's still no pressure to follow through each month, but at least you're saying publically that you want to give it a try, which will hopefully be enough motivation to do it.
You don't have to submit to the PUG to do this, or even consider yourself
a great photographer or art critic. You're just giving your opinions...
no big deal.
The PUG is a pretty cool gallery, and it's a shame we don't talk more
about our photographs, given the amount of time we spend discussing
equipment. Let's get a bunch of people who actually want to try and talk
about photographs once a month, and we'll see if it makes a difference.
Put "PUG" in the subject line if you remember, so people who only care
about equipment can filter the posts if they want, and so it's easier to
find in the archives. Something like "PUG: October 2003 comments" would
be good.
Should be interesting to see if this goes anywhere. I'll do my 5 comments
when the October gallery is up.
chris
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, frank theriault wrote:
I too, miss PUG comments, but I'm in the same boat as you. My shots
rarely get mentioned, except for by those who take the time to comment
on ~every~ shot (and then the comments have always been good), and back
when Brogden organized the little critique circle a year or more ago -
again, never a bad comment that I can remember.
