Check out www.photosig.com It's a critique site that is based on constructive critique of pictures, and other members can vote both the pictures and critiques as helpful or not.
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Larry Colen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 1, 2010, at 1:37 PM, Doug Franklin wrote: > >> On 2010-07-01 15:50, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: >> >>> In any event, this list would be more useful to all of us -- >>> especially the hacks like me -- if we were all a little more honest >>> and a little more critical in our comments on images submitted to the >>> group. >> >> I'll agree, if you'll change the word "would" to "could". I've been around >> PDML since late in 1998, and on the Internet for far longer than that, and >> participating in information "debate societies" for longer still. I've seen >> how little it takes for a single individual to push a well functioning >> debate into what we call a "flame war" on the Internet. Sometimes even >> destroying a well functioning society, like this one. Several have come >> close in my tenure with the PDML. Even well meaning ones, like Shel. >> >> What you're suggesting certainly can work. But it absolutely requires that >> either everyone abide by the "civility rules" or there be a swift and sure >> mechanism to fix the problem when they're broken. A public list, blog, >> whatever, on the Internet, rarely has strong enough governance to correct >> these problems, much less prevent them in the first place. > > I used to hang out on a newsgroup (ADFP) that went in for bare knuckled > debate. A lot of it was great fun, but the thin skinned often did not > survive their welcoming "wall of flame". The official FAQ for the group was > "lurk". And since people were more likely to be attacked for writing poorly, > than for disagreeing with someone, in it's heyday it was a wonderfully > literate oasis on usenet. > > I would love to be in a photo critique group that was both honest, and > competent, and I wonder if such a group already exists. I've seen a few too > many examples of people who have just learned that changing aperture would > affect the depth of field pontificating as if they were the world's foremost > authority. Hell, I've probably been guilty of speaking beyond my authority I > time or two myself. This afternoon. It would be nice if such a group existed, > but like most idealistic utopias, there are many, many, structural challenges. > > In any case, I think that such a group would be better if it weren't > equipment specific, and that trying to foster that level of open discussion > may not keep the PDML as warm and welcoming to newcomers. We could try to be > more straightforward when someone asks for C&C, and also respect a request > for gentle C&C. But lets not break what we have, trying to craft the platonic > ideal of photo critique discussions. > > -- > Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est > > > > > > -- > 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. > -- Aloha Photographer Photoblog http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/ -- 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.
