Wahawk Loc: NE IA

Photo Analysis should have the heading/title changed to "Photo Analysis/C&C"
However many who ask for C&C are primarily interested in showing what they have done and are asking for others to give more comments than the harsh critiques that are sometimes see in Photo Analysis.

Also, some of the ones giving the comments and critique need to get a grip on their attitudes!! Giving critique NEEDS TO BE CONSTRUCTIVE!!! I hate seeing comments such as "Nothing of interest" or "What's the subject?" or other similar comments instead of giving CONSTRUCTIVE comments on their thoughts for making it a better photo. I personally have gotten some fairly sour attittudes towards some of those who comment based on their LACK OF TEACHING SKILLS and their BIG EGOS!!! As a result when I select to look at a post, if I see that it was posted by one of them I immediately back out and ignore it. Others I look and have to laugh at how ordinary or poor their photos are in comparison to what they say about others.

To ALL who offer comments and criticism, you don't have to put a sugar coating on everything, but OMG you don't have to be so harsh in trying to SHOOT the photographer!!! At least have the decency to give your opinion on making it better!! Every negative comment needs a positive comment on how to improve it!

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

It is a matter of terminology and how people use the categories that are there.

Photo Analysis was designed for C&C but some were told that they had to be more specific about what they wanted to know about a pic before putting it in there. This category should be for ANY CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.

Photo Gallery is PRIMARILY a Show & Tell, but C&C is also appropriate there, BUT USE TACT!!!! Don't be too cruel or the OP will quit posting.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

Most of YOUR comments that I have seen are VERY TACTFULLY and thoughtfully done. Your attitude for "always gentle and positive" is very different from the harsh, "SHOOT 'EM DOWN" attitude of some of the other commenters!!

THANK YOU for being a constructive TEACHER instead of a cruel basher!!

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

I totally agree on the USER classifications because there are some who are Pro PORTRAIT photographers that shoot mediocre or worse landscape, or flowers, etc, and there are Pro Wildlife photogs who couldn't take a decent portrait if they tried for month!!! I am sure that MOST of the better photographers on UHH have areas of expertise where they would be considered PRO or close to it, and yet are very inadequate at other areas. It is difficult to be at the top of all categories of photography.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

I have seen the same with others that have posted. I guess if you want the harsher C&C and possibly more "informed" from the better photogs here, post under Photo Analysis, maybe under both categories so that you get comments by the "general" viewers as well as by those who love to give the more in-depth comments and critiques.

budrakey

I have to agree with Festina Lente about the classifications. What does have getting paid for it have to do with the quality of the photo? Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced levels make the most sense to me and perhaps for the real egotists :-), Master level.

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

I think someone just has to agree to monitor it and the administrator will add it.
I think that is how some of the other sections got started. Worth a PM to the administrator.

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

I made the mistake of posing a photo for C&C in the "photo analysis" section once. The admin moved my photo because my question was not specific enough. As far as I am concerned this section is about useless as it is and does need to be changed.

Jim D

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

Amature - From the Randomhouse Unabridged Dictionary "#1 - A person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financlal benefit or profesional reasons." Some of the best photographers are amatures. It just bugs me that a "Pro" who takes pictures at a stand in a big box store is thought better than an amature that does macro work doing insecst and is a master of their craft. It may be just me but I have it when people think that someone is a "pro" they know more than many amatures. - I think the classifaications should be beginner, intermidiate, and advanced. - Dave

wrr Loc: SEK

No labels, we don't need labels, labels are almost always counterproductive. One of those things that looks good on paper but in practice, bad, bad idea.

toolmaker Loc: Albert Lea, MN. USA

I'll add my vote for this idea . We all have more to learn , and this is a way to do it.As stated, there are folks with expertise in different phases of this craft. What works for portraits does not automatically work for nature or macro photography.

Dave

connievloutely Loc: Quaker State (PA)

I am in favor of C & C.

I have been taking pictures and have had a wet lab for 62 years. I am still learning.

I have the techie part figured out, but my composition and understanding of light is poor.

A PRO is one who gets paid for what he does and gets paid according to the satisfaction of his clients.

tk Loc: Iowa

Okay, rank amateur here. I do not give intense critique on shots because I know I'm not capable of giving the true details of what is needed when a shot needs work.

And, I'm asking this for the truth, am I helping create the problem when I tell someone I like their shot? I do like the shot, I wouldn't lie but sometimes I see a shot placed out there with no comments for quite a while and I feel like someone should say something. They may not ask for C&C so I say something generic but truthful, either nice shot, I like it, or you must have had a great time getting this shot. Maybe this kind of response is helping create the problem.

MWAC Loc: Somewhere East Of Crazy

Jim same thing happened to me, posted an image in the Analysis form and Admin moved it because I did not ask a direct question regarding the image just asked for C&C. I agree that forum is as useful as the white dot on the top of a chicken turd.

wrr Loc: SEK

No labels, we don't need labels, labels are almost always counterproductive. One of those things that looks good on paper but in practice, bad, bad idea.