jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Graham does have the following line on his posts: "Please do not Edit or mark my images in any way.”

I have something similar on mine.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

This image could be used in the "To crop or not to crop?" debate. How necessary is the girl? The main subject of the shot is the reaction of the boy to the Faceless One. So should the girl be cropped out? The debate rages on............. and on.............

My take on it is that the girl isn't part of the main story but she does provide an element of context and setting. This event took place in a street, and stuff happens in streets where there are typically people milling about and doing unpredictable, random stuff. Without the girl this could be a staged event in some back alley. The girl makes it real and reminds us of the wider context. If the shot consisted of just the boy and the Faceless One, the main story would still be there but it would be diminished IMO.

Graham Smith Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

The girl adds another dimension, another layer. Besides I like random stuff in my pictures

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

I have written that I will not comment on his works.

It is just irksome to have "edit" misinterpreted, both from the aspect of truth and that of learning. To edit is to change the photo, intrinsically, by cropping, burning, dodging, etc. To illustrate an idea like perspective or composition with an overlay is not editing.

While it's a shame that we are kept from learning by a reasonless prohibition of editing (there is no harm to the original nor the photographer's intent or freedoms), it is incomprehensible that this person, and perhaps this section (not entirely clear if this is so), forbids learning by illustration.

I am open of course to hear any reason disputing my opinion.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Did not read Graham's lines. Yours neither, but now I know. I respect your request, but cannot understand. Perhaps you can help by telling me why.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

I see your point, and Graham's. But speaking of "another dimension," the lighting and perspective of the middle to upper right of the photo (the girl, the background including some of the brick pillars, and some of the sidewalk) seem different from the rest. Do you see this, oand if so, are able to explain it? Graham said "lens distortion," but that didn't sit right with me.

Graham Smith Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

As my picture seems to be causing you so much consternation here is the unedited original converted from the raw .DNG to .png You can play with it, scribble on it to your hearts desire but do not post it.

(Download)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Graham has a long history of using light to good effect. Rather than querying his judgement and choices I'll go with the idea that there must have been something about that top right corner that Graham didn't care for - unwanted eye-catching highlights or some such. Technical perfection isn't something that he prioritises and I suspect he doesn't attach much importance to criticisms of a lack of technical perfection. And as many others will tell you, the undeniable strengths of his photos have very little to do with the technicalities of editing beyond his skilled use of light and dark. Rather than trying to eliminate a problem altogether I suspect he reduced it to an acceptable level and then concentrated on other aspects that he considered more important.

Elsewhere you refer to the section's "reasonless prohibition" of editing. For a start, editing isn't prohibited - you are simply asked to seek permission first (unless it's stated - or has been stated in the past - that editing is OK). Secondly, you will hopefully take away from this that some people just don't like anybody doing anything to the product of their creative efforts. You should acknowledge that and respect that possibility, even if someone hasn't specifically stated that dislike. That's why we recommend seeking permission first.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

I looked again at the photo. I was wrong about the perspective. A bad bricklayer (the pillar) led me astray--my mistake. Graham was wrong, however, in responding, both in tone and in fact.

To briefly recap, I first wrote a compliment to this photo, "Fascinating as an event, compositionally, and technically." Then a follow up after Graham had downplayed the framing: "Actually, the composition seems fine, a radial, as shown with the structural lines in the illustration.. I do wonder, however, what caused the strange perspective distortion of what should be slightly converging lines, as in the illustration."

To my reinforcing of his quality of composition and question about the distortion (which I hoped we all could learn something from), this was the response: "Here we go again. Let's call it lens distortion and be done with it.
I will add that if you edit, draw your lines on or in any way mark my pictures I will cease posting in here.
It is against the section rules."

So there we have it. I did not edit, so what I did was not, as I understood it, against the section rules. However, Graham had added "marks" to editing his photos, and I missed that--my fault.

I still have not had answered the why of the "no editing or reposting" rule, except that some people want it, a circular argument. Perhaps there is a reason, but "It's accepted that..." is not a reason; understanding the reason would be a learning experience. In the real world, my work may be, and has been, freely reproduced for comment, in newspapers, mags, and educational circumstances. It is called "Fair Use" for a good reason, as it enlightens.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Simply because I have edited my photos to the best of my ability at the time with the tools I have. They suit me, and that’s what matters. Oftentimes folks will say something to the effect of “do this or do that” to make your photo better. Usually, though, I don’t have the editing tools or the know-how to go beyond what I have done. I know that sometimes I could have done a better job if I had spent an hour or more in some program like Photoshop (which I don’t have and don’t want), but doing so just isn’t important to me.

That’s why--hope that makes sense to you. Cheers, John.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Sure, that makes perfect sense from a practical standpoint for you. No problem, and thanks for letting me know.

However, for me and for the others on this section, I find SEEING what the person commenting means is very helpful. For the others, they may have learned something, my photo as the example. For myself, I am in the same situation as you, and/or recognize the commenting person just has a person preference; but sometimes I think, "Right!" I thank the person, and usually post the better pic.

I guess, while I understand the feeling of "it suits me, leave it alone," I do not see that as a worthwhile position if getting better is a desire.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Yes, that's right - some people want it. Isn't that enough of a reason for you? I'll say again - some people don't like anybody doing anything to the product of their creative efforts. If you don't acknowledge that fact you'll carry on causing annoyance or even offence. It would be a simple thing to just respect those wishes, whether you understand them or not, or whether you relate to them or not. I can tell you there's nothing unusual about that kind of sentiment. You'll see it repeated in people's signature comments quite frequently. That's why we recommend that you ask permission first.

I'm not a psychiatrist so I can't give you an in-depth explanation of the reason why some people have an aversion to anybody doing anything to the results of their creative efforts. Perhaps it's because being creative involves investing something of yourself in the finished product, so a criticism of the product is a criticism of the originator. Whatever the reasons are, whether you want to understand them or not, there's no shortage of people who get very touchy about any interference with the results of their creative efforts. I suggest you acknowledge that fact whether you agree with the idea or not.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

While acknowledging the fact, it's not enough of a reason for understanding and learning. It is obviously enough for practical purposes. In a regular, pat-on-the-back-only section, it's understandable. It makes "For Your Consideration" less effective by the standards of the world of photography critiques.

Graham Smith Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

Here's an idea Bob. Why not start a new section where the editing of the images of others, whether they like it or not, is encouraged. I'm sure you could come up with a title for it.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Critique is welcome and encouraged (even the uncomfortably honest type, provided it's given in a civil manner). Unwanted edits (or any other kind of unwanted interference) are another matter altogether. I suggest you make the effort to differentiate between the two.