artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Just a moment in some lives.

If you want to illustrate by editing, please go ahead--that way we all learn more specifically.

(Download)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Bob, you were absent from UHH during For Your Consideration's first two and a half years. In that time there were several conversations about the most effective ways to offer feedback, given the wide range of experience, education, talent and interests of participants in this forum.

One topic explored the value of mentoring. We also talked about the pros and cons of the OP providing background information - what was their vision or intention with a specific photo.
That topic is here. Even if one reads only the first page of replies, it's an enlightening discussion.

In Graham's thread, you said, "I do not see that (an OP's objection to having their photo edited) as a worthwhile position if getting better is a desire."

It seems to me that "getting better" would need to be defined for each individual. Some UHH members, like MinnieV (see her 2018 accomplishments here) have the talent, motivation and energy to achieve measurable success and recognition. Some have set goals to become highly proficient with post-processing, including compositing. Some may offer a finished work, inviting us to provide a reaction (like/dislike, and why). And yeah, sometimes we just like to be silly and share

It's difficult to understand your motivation for your comment, "It (not allowing edits unless authorized by the photographer) makes 'For Your Consideration' less effective by the standards of the world of photography critiques." How do juried shows/competitions and other "non-invasive" critiques factor? Are you saying they are not as effective as showing what you mean?

The founder of For Your Consideration, St3v3M, stressed a "coffee shop" atmosphere ("open, honest and courteous conversation"). And while we have had times of contentious and rude behavior, the section has always been as I described. It was never meant to be formal critiques offered by only those with professional experience.

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

I like the photo. I think it is effective in black and white. If it were color, we might be distracted by bright clothing and a brightly colored bike. Here we are just looking at the people and their expressions. I think it works quite well.
Erich

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

I don't get this. Better is better. Better is able to achieve what you want, quicker or more efficiently, or esthetically. I have taught and critiqued from 6th grade to graduate school, mostly college students and adults in art/photo organizations. I understand your points, I just do not see the importance of them.

Better is improvement. Showing someone is more specific than words. I have not heard anyone put that concept down. I am saying that FYC is not being the best it could be, at any level of photographic talent. Each person's work should be helped along from where that person is. As I see it, again from critiquing literally thousands, amateur and professional, the potential of this section is not being met.

You ask, "How do juried shows/competitions and other "non-invasive" critiques factor? Are you saying they are not as effective as showing what you mean?" Definitely.

Please see my comment to R.G. This is a tar baby issue for me, as there seems to be more heat that light. I will be glad to continuer the discussion of how we can help one another, if anyone wants to, but the seeming discord and personalization are getting us nowhere. We can do better.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

You touch on my intent for this photo, and are right about B&W as I see it. Thanks for looking and commenting.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Just because some people don't want their photos edited?? 🤔 What prompted today's criticisms of the section, Bob? I don't recall similar from you during the past two years, but perhaps I just wasn't paying attention.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Off point, Linda. I am saying that the section could be better if, instead of only written comments, edits could be made, that is, a specific meaning rather than a vague meaning. Also, putting arrows or perspective lines or other such clarifying guides are not really edits, and often clarify meaning, as you see in books and visuals about art and photography. These common learning experiences would make FYC better. Why so stuck on a method, however originally arrived at, that limits learning?

Do you not think SEEING what is meant is better than trying to be specific in words? That is my point. It is you who call that point criticism; I am saying that point would make us better. Are you against discussing improvement?

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

Your point is well taken, Bob. For many of us, seeing what a person means can be more effective than mere words. There are people who post in this section, however, that do not want their photos altered at all. That is why it is necessary to ask for permission to alter a photo in any way. Many times I will post a photo and state in my intro that I don't mind alterations or edits. In that case, I'm giving anyone permission to show me rather than tell me what they mean. Without permission from the person who originally posted the image, alterations should not be made. I have learned a lot from you about composition and how to arrange elements in my photos to create certain effects. You have done this with the use of visual aids. Since I encourage that from people who view my photos, there is no problem. With other folks however, permission must be granted. This does not impede learning. Most people will give you permission. So there is only an extra step. You will always be a teacher. I get this and I understand it. Your efforts are sincerely appreciated. In cases where folks don't want any alterations at all made to their photos, that position must be respected. If permission is granted upon request, or given in the person's intro, then you should feel free to show people what you mean. Does this make sense?
Erich

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

A separate topic to discuss your suggestions for section improvement would have been seen by more people and would have been seen as prepared and thoughtful, rather than an attempt to force your viewpoint onto someone who requested you not edit their image. Looking forward to seeing more of your ideas on how to make the section better, even if you are two years late

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

First, I did not start with suggestions "to make this section better." Nor, did I "force my viewpoint." I QUESTIONED the meaning of "edit," and why such an unhelpful rule existed.

Then, I didn't know there was a time limit on discussing change. I am sad you seem to be taking this personally. The discussion has ended in no changes, I think I have been heard, and what I considered a goal, not a personal one, but one for everyone, seems not to be important to everyone. All's good.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I've taken a personal interest in FYC since its beginning, when MinnieV invited me and got me involved in hosting discussion/share topics. Were I not interested in the section, I wouldn't have attempted constructive feedback and conversation in your second topic on FYC here. You and I interpret your actions in Graham's thread differently, but like you said, "All's good now" and we're moving on. Best to you.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Good. Since your out-of-left field first post seems to have diverted my post, merely asking for comments about a photo, perhaps you would be so kind as to comment, and, I hope, return the discussion to my photograph.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I wish I could say I was surprised that you found my comments here inappropriate while you used Graham's thread to advance your own agenda. I'm fairly certain that in the history of UHH, no one else has managed to insert tar baby, straw man and democracy into a single photo critique

Regarding your posted photo: I see only ennui, which makes me uninterested in their lives. Their apparent boredom is boring to me. In contrast, Graham's "Sharing the Knowledge" is quite animated. I can imagine several stories, and that keeps me interested enough to examine the body language of each person.

A technical issue of this image that is bothersome is the bright ground area directly behind the middle girl's bike wheels, as it also seems more sharply focused than the shrubs and foliage immediately next to it. While examining that area, I discovered a bright white spot leading to gray smears beside the top of the lady's left hand. Her right hand and wrist show evidence of whatever edit you performed there.

Hope this helps.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Thank you for admiring my insertion of tar baby, straw man and democracy into a single photo critique. You missed beating a dead horse, by the way. I thought each quite appropriate, and revere each as a good communication tool.

Too bad you mistook my agenda. Unlike you, here, I did not "use [a thread] to advance my own agenda." I TRIED, to use Graham's thread, first to understand why he thought he photo was a bad composition when I thought the opposite and why his image was distorted. He avoided answering, and went off. Then you went off as I tried to explain and hold a discussion based on reason and fact.

Your technical discoveries about my photo do help. Your interpretation is quite off, as they were watching a parade assemble.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I posted a response in the other thread, the trajectory of which is when these kinds of protracted arguments arise, they only serve to inhibit, slow down impair the teaching/learning process.

There are too much argument and emphasis on the process, the politics and the philosophy and the substance is left behind in the chaos. Some folks simply do not want their work augmented, altered, edited, overlaid with diagrams or perhaps even critiqued. Each person has the own way of learning and practicing their craft. I am a firm believer in giving and receiving critiques- it's a great teaching and learning tool, however, I will not foist my thinking on this matter on anyone else. To me, the critiquing process has to be a cooperative and participatory exchange between the submitter and the critic or it tends to become confrontational work less effectively. You can not effectively help folks who don't want to be helped or prefer seek out their help through other means.