Hi,
From: Tanya & Russell Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Amongst other things, Tom wrote the following:
>Post a photo you feel good about and let me tell you it was amateurish,
>something just barely worthy of a beginner photographer, and of little or
>no
>significance. Then tell me what it felt like...."
>And I must say that I totally agree. I think that we need to be
>encouraging people here,
>not deflating them. I too, like that shot, and I too, am glad that Shel
>was not critiquing my
>shot, which, I gather from the lack of comments and also after comparing it
>to the other
>fantastic submissions, was not "up to scratch". This was my first PUG and
>I can guarantee
>that had I received such harsh comments, I would not be submitting again.
Please don't feel that way. However harsh people may seem to you,
nobody wants you to leave or stop submitting. Whatever you submit is
worthwhile. The picture of your dog's eye is similar to a well-known
photo by the British photographer Jane Bown of a cow's eye, and proves
that you have a good eye! I, for 1, am looking forward to seeing
more of your work.
----- Message from "aimcompute" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 1 May 2001
>if I make a submission and you like it, I like to hear it.
>if there's something I could have done better, I like to hear it.
>if your opinion is that it's virtually worthless, then what's the point in
>commenting? If as the photographer, I felt that way, I wouldn't have
chosen
>it.
People get emotionally involved in their photographs, as we can see, and
this means that their own judgement is not necessarily the best. This is
something I've experienced myself quite a lot, and I personally value the
emotional detachment that other people's opinions can bring to my work
(although I reserve the right to disagree and stick to my emotionally-based
opinions). If somebody's work is virtually worthless (and I'm not
suggesting that this is so in John's case) it can work like a bucket of
cold water and stop people wasting their time going in the wrong direction.
>> After all, what is the use of feedback if it
>> can only ever be praise? Surely a sincerely held, and well argued,
>> negative opinion is better than any number of insincere positive
>> opinions.
>You are arguing something I did not say. Feedback, both positive or
negative
>may be appropriate. OTOH, if we look hard enough we can find or
manufacture
>something negative about practically anything. Is that beneficial?
>Sometimes emphasizing the positive can be just as good or better, in it's
>effect on the hearer than anything else. In part, the tone and/or content
>of the feedback depends on what its intended purpose is.
This is probably the nub of the thing, really. Each person submitting their
work has motives for doing it; each commentator/reviewer has _their_
motives for doing it. Nobody, as far as I've seen, has explained what they
want to get from a review of their work, and none of the reviewers has said
anything about what their criteria for reviewing a picture are.
>> Ah, but was that the photographer's intention? If so then the picture
>> was successful; if not then the picture has failed. Since we don't
>> know what the photographer's intention or motives were we cannot say
>> whether or not it is a successful picture.
>I disagree. It may be, as you say, that the photo invokes emotions the
>photographer was not trying to convey depending on who looks at it. If
the
>photo invokes an emotion different than what the photographer was
attempting
>to convey, why does that make it unsuccessful? It simply means different
>people see different things. If a photo can evoke many different feelings
>in many people, and the photographer did not intend those feelings, maybe
>it's more sucessful than he ever realized at the time he was taking it.
On something like this we can only state our positions, since it's a matter
of individual opinion and there's no right or wrong.
>>
>> Of course, each individual will react differently to any given
>> picture. <sni[p> That may seem like a very over-the-top thing to
mention,
>but it makes
>> the point that as far as useful criticism goes, the feelings evoked in
>> the critic by the photograph are worthless.
>>
>> Criticism is very difficult; Shel is at least trying to go beyond the
>> rather bland and innocuous comments that most other people give. If
>> and when I next submit to the PUG I hereby request to be reviewed by
>> Shel. And he can take the gloves off :o)
>Post a photo you feel good about and let me tell you it was amateurish,
>something just barely worthy of a beginner photographer, and of little or
no
>significance. Then tell me what it felt like.
Fortunately I'm a sufficiently good judge of my own work not to put myself
into that position. On the numerous occasions that I have put forward my
work for criticism I've made clear beforehand what it is I'm trying to find
out. I've had people skimming through my work - including national museum
curators of photography and similarly well-qualified people - muttering
'boring, light's too flat, not sharp' etc. I know what it's like, but I put
myself up for it because I want to improve.
>I agree. Criticism is difficult when you are looking for the right
approach
>so that it will be taken in the way intended. I say again, I don't think
>the majority are looking for a "critique" in the sense that Broadway plays
>or Hollywood movies are critiqued in newspaper columns. I haven't found
the
>comments thus far to be bland or innocuous, just because they're mostly
>positive. And since the gallery has a long history of containing many
>pleasing shots, it doesn't surprise me the comments tend to be positive.
I agree that it's a very good gallery most months, and there are some
exceptionally good and interesting photos this month, but my overall
impression is that very few people are really trying hard to stretch
themselves and move their photography up a notch or 2. This criticism is
not restricted to the PUG, of course, but applies to most photographers,
amateur or professional.
>>
>> > It evokes some kind of emotion or wonder which
>> > good photography is supposed to do.
>>
>> It's a matter of opinion what good photography is supposed to do (if
>> anything).
>>
>I would guess photography must do something for us, otherwise we'd be
doing
>something else.
We all know it does _something_ but is that what it's _supposed_ to do? :o)
>I'm a little riled, so please don't take my comments personally.
Not at all. It's useful to find out what everybody is trying to get out of
their work. I'm even considering offering my services as a reviewer. I like
the way it's farmed out and it has made me look more at the PUG since it
started. I think it does suffer though from conflicting motives, as I said
above.
---
Cheers,
Bob
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
