> > I expect a different level of photos from Bill Robb or Mark C. or > Frank and > > can offer sharper criticism. With less experienced photographers, > > it isn't so much criticism as encouragement. > > > That was, I believe, Shel's reasoning behind his harsh critique. The > photographer had an extremely high quality body of work, and posted an > image that was far, far below his standard. > Shel certainly did saw off on him, but I didn't think it completely > undeserved, either. > At some point, an honest critique of a good photographer posting a junk > photo is going to delve into asking just exactly what the photographer > was thinking.
I don't remember whose photo it was that was critiqued, but as I remember the whole incident, Shel was giving an example of what one might want to write. I don't recall it being as tough as other people seem to recall and I think it was one of those things that spiralled out of control. A lot of people seem to think that a critique or criticism is by definition negative, but it isn't. The difference between encouragement or abuse and criticism is that the latter is reasoned, whereas the former are just unsupported assertions of opinion. "Great photo, Frank" and "Pile of shit, Bob" are perfectly valid opinions and the sort of thing that we'll always get because we're all far too busy to write much about each photo, but it's nice when people occasionally give us some of the thinking behind the opinion. For the record, if I don't comment on a picture it doesn't mean that I like or dislike it, merely that I don't want to comment on it. Similarly, when I post pictures I'm always happy & interested to hear whatever anyone has to say about, but I won't read anything into silence. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
