On 5/15/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hmmm. > Pretty much any critique of a photograph, especially by an onother > photographer is on some level, a discussion of how the critiquer would > present the subject differently. > Otherwise, it's just a jerk-off.
Well, no. I think that I more or less answered it in my initial post: "Suggesting other ways of looking at the situation the next time is fine, but telling everyone how you (I don't actually mean you, Paul, I mean the generic "you") would have taken it isn't usually that constructive, IMHO." To expand somewhat: I'm no teacher, but I've been taught by many, and the best teachers don't merely provide me with information. They teach in such a way that I think that I've come up with an idea. Or, they teach me to figure things out for myself. It's like the old adage, "give a man a fish and you've fed him for today, teach a man to fish and you've fed him for a lifetime." So, I would much prefer that someone critiqueing a work say, "Next time you're in that situation, try this approach, compare it to what you've done, and see which you prefer." I think that's much more effective than, "I would have done it this way". So, IMHO, it's not a matter of "how the critiquer would present the subject differently". Quite frankly, I don't give a rat's ass how someone else would take my photos. It's a matter of "would ~I~ want to do it differently?" I'm always more than open to suggestions. Not so much open to someone telling me how they'd do it, or what I ~should~ have done. Maybe I'm just splitting hairs, but I don't think so. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
