I read Doug Brewer's comments, and Bill Robb's, and Doug Franklin's. Lots of what each of them said makes good sense to me. The pictures I post here are often not the greatest, but are current/topical. I'm sorry my standards are so low.
I look at almost every picture posted or linked to here. I probably comment positively on too many of them, and rarely make negative comments. Silence is my negative response. I try to specify exactly what it is I like about the photos, but can fall into the trap of 'Nice photo' at times. I've been on the list for a while (10+ years) and know a bunch of you. It's easy to encourage folks you know and have met personally. And I'll do this. If I'm doing to much of this, tell me to shut-up or just send me to the trash bin. I think the quality of pictures here has improved with digital and over time. The subject matter that we prefer individually is quite different. Look at who did and didn't enjoy the Chicago Art Institute photo exhibit. This leaves a lot of room tolerance of many different types of photos. I hope it stays this way, but I'm not likely to tell you if I hate your photo! Regards, Bob S. On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Doug Franklin <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2010-06-29 20:58, William Robb wrote: > >> He was, IIRC, commenting on a very bland photo that was well below the >> level that the photographer was capable of, and Shel told him that, >> almost to the letter. >> >> And all of a sudden people started throwing poo at him. > > And that's the main reason that I offer criticism "personally" (one-on-one) > instead of "out there in the ether". I can discuss virtually anything with > equanimity, most people can't, regardless of their posturings. > >> I appreciate the kind words that my images earn, but I also appreciate >> when the flaws get picked out, as this is how I improve as a >> photographer and as an image editor. > > I'm completely on board. But I can learn, anyone that can learn, can learn > from a critique offered in private, just as well as one offered in public. > What we lose, we lose as a group, not necessarily as individuals. We lose > the "learning from others' mistakes" aspect. > >> I don't think we take the same care any more, and I think it shows. > > I surely don't. I'm still learning. A large part of that learning is to > shoot a lot at different settings and see what happens. That used to be > more expensive than I could afford, what with wet processes and all. > Digital has made it a lot cheaper for me to learn, in some ways, though it > has surely burdened me in other ways. I mean, c'mon, four or five thousand > shots to review for a long weekend? > >> What pisses me off is when I make a suggestion about how to improve a >> photograph and get told that the picture is what it is, and that I >> should judge it on it's own merits, and not the merits of a picture that >> could have been. > > Have you noticed (I have) that these responses often don't come from the > photographer, but "hangers on" or self-selected "protectors of the > list/forum/club/society/etc."? Like those pecker heads that get in the > leftmost (fastest) of six lanes and go two miles an hour below the speed > limit while a forty ton semi bears down on them a +20 MPH. > >> But because I care, [...] > > There's a larger discussion waiting to be had on that, but it's not strictly > about photography. It boils down to what you care about, what you define as > worth caring about, and how you deal with "assaults" on those beliefs. How > much tact you can or will manage in response. > > Bill, you "know" me (electronically), and you know I'm not aiming this at > you, personally. It's a discussion that needs to be had, though. It's also > one unlikely to produce constructive results in many venues. Too many people > just can't "get outside themselves" when "debating" things they care deeply > about. > > Additionally, those sorts of "critique me" questions often are asked begging > a congratulatory response rather than "the truth". You and I both know of > many photo (and other) sites built on and dedicated to exactly that formula. > > Sometimes, though, even open minded askers don't have the fortitude to > handle a scathing, though non-personal response. They were genuine in their > query, and the response was genuine, educational, and polite. But the asker > wasn't emotionally prepared to handle harsh opinion. And sometimes, well > meaning respondents can't manage an appropriate level of tact to get over > the psychological hurdles of the recipient, however modest and reasonable. > > As I recall, though, Shel committed the unpardonable sin of debate: he > personalized it. I don't recall the verbatim quotation, but it ran along > the lines that the photographer should have been ashamed to present such > dreck publicly. That's far, far over the line. Shel presented an otherwise > valid argument in such divisive and uselessly, hopelessly perjorative terms > that the "teaching moment" evaporated. > > He had valid criticisms of the work that could have helped the original > photographer and others to become better. But he proposed it in a way that > was unacceptable to much of the audience. And he lost them. And we all > lost the opportunity to teach and to learn in the furious acrimony that > followed. > >> And sometimes, that involves telling someone that I wouldn't have pushed >> the button. >> And why I wouldn't have. >> And if that is harsh, it is because I am a man of few carefully chosen >> words. > > Well, the responsibility certainly lies on both sides. Something that > really disturbs me about a lot of so called "modern discourse" is the overt, > self-aggrandized polarity of it. They don't just disagree with us, they're > "black" and we're "white" (not racially, but as in the "black versus white" > view of the world). > > But the net-net is that fewer and fewer people seem to be less and less > inclined to even make the attempt to see the counter-argument's side of the > debate. > > That does not generally lead to an environment conducive to helpful, > practical solutions. > > -- > Thanks, > DougF (KG4LMZ) > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
