I've submitted to photocritique twice. My first subission got clobbered
as well. The second was somewhat better received but deemed unsuccessful
overall. I'm not sure I agreed with everything Reichmann said, but I
think I'll try again. (For my last entry, which is currently in the
gallery, he says (to paraphrase) the light is good, the subject is good,
the compositional elements are good, but the picture doesn't flow, there
is nowhere for the eye to come to rest. I'm not sure I know what that
means, but I do think the composition could have been better if I could
have found a much higher vantage point. Unfortunately, it didn't exist.)
In any case, the negative remarks don't trouble me. I know I'm not the
equal of photographers with a truly artistic eye and probably never will
be. But I'll have a lot of fun trying.
Paul
"Daniel J. Matyola" wrote:
>
> I guess how we react to criticism like this depends on why we have the gallery and
>what we expect from it.
>
> While there is no reason to be rude or crude, I think that we could take a little
>more in the way on constructive criticism.
> When I first started submitting shots to the PUG, I had hoped for more helpful
>feedback. It seems everyone jumps in to praise
> a great shot, but no one wants to tell you why your shot is less than great.
>
> I have submitted several photos to the Photocritique site, including three that had
>received at least some positive comments on
> the PUG. One was ripped to shreds, with some biting and harsh comments that were,
>nonetheless, justified. One received more
> favorable comment there than it did here. The third got a mixed reaction, with a
>couple of comments that really showed me how
> I could make the picture better and more effective.
>
> I enjoy photocritique, and I enjoy the PUG. They don't necessarily have the same
>purpose, but more constructive criticism on
> the PUG would, in my view, make it more useful. Then again, I've become inured to
>harsh criticism in other areas of life, so
> I'm pretty hard to insult. From the comments so far, it appears that most of the
>list members like the PUG as a friendly photo
> exchange and don't want to see it get into more serious criticism. That's fine, if
>that's what most of us want.
> --
> Daniel J. Matyola mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Stanley, Powers & Matyola mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Suite203, 1170 US Highway 22 East http://danmatyola.com
> Bridgewater, NJ 08807 (908)725-3322 fax: (908)707-0399
>
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, visit
>http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
> Don't forget to visit the PUG at http://pug.komkon.org
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, visit
http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
Don't forget to visit the PUG at http://pug.komkon.org
