To critique, or not (Page 6): Since this is not a political forum (for the most part), free speech has nothing to do with it. The issue is allowing honesty and a diversity of views.

Bipod

gessman wrote:

It looks to me like there's a key ingredient being overlooked here. As has been pointed out, there are several places within the sub-forums where criticism is encouraged just as it also is in the Photo Gallery when a poster invites the viewers to critique a posted image so a provision for critique exists and is taken advantage of constantly in the Photo Gallery. Anyone who posts an image can ask for guidance, critique, suggestions, etc., at which time it's "open season" for those who can, or simply feel they can, to give all the constructive advice they choose as well as those who, although much unappreciated, just want to launch an ad hominem attack because they caught hell from the spouse earlier but the issue here is not what magnanimous and qualified people some of us are but the fact that for those who don't ask for all that it is perceived as an intrusion they are not interested in and therein lies the disconnect. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if a person doesn't request critical comments it shouldn't be too hard for the rest of us to just quietly move on.

Now, folks, for what it's worth, I hear what you're saying and believe that most of you are suitably knowledgeable, benevolent, and have good intentions but the way it sounds when it first hits the ear is that some of us are saying that we're going to critique a person's photo when we see something they could improve regardless of whether they want it or not because we don't give a damn what they want, it's our right to abuse their sensitivities because it's 'Murica and we've by god got the right to say whatever we want to because it's free speech and that's our right. That attitude, as some of us know while others have only heard, has caused a lot of free dental work and accidental hemorrhoidectomies through the years, something that can't happen over the 'net but that doesn't avoid people getting upset when stuff they haven't asked for and do not want is nonetheless crammed up... That some of you are prepared to force feed people who've indicated they're full up to the gills sorta makes it look like your actions aren't all about them and magnanimity after all.

It looks to me like there's a key ingredient being... (show quote)

Since this is not a political forum (for the most part), free speech has nothing to do with it.
The issue is allowing honesty and a diversity of views.

Must we also always ask the poster if it is OK to disagree?
Or must disagreement be confined to a subforum?

What fascinating discussions we are going to have here:

"I agree."

"I agree that you agree"

"I agree that you agree that I agree."

"How right you are!".

"But you are right that I am right!"

"We are right together!"

(Gee, I feel like I just moved to Japan. You gotta have wa,
miles and miles and miles of wa...)

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Bipod wrote:

Since this is not a political forum (for the most ... (show quote)

There are two cases where I disagree with this as a general rule...

1) In the gallery section, unless the poster asks for feedback / criticism, I think it's rude and unwarranted to point out poor composition, exposure, focus, etc. And yes, posts on that forum do often come to sound like your fictional dialogue on agreement. If you want to be supportive and point out the good points, that's fine, but if you don't, there's nothing wrong with just passing by without comment

2) You don't get to disagree with facts by presenting "alternative facts". It may be my opinion that Nikon DSLRs have superior autofocus, but it's not right for me to deny the results of a reputable camera tester like DXO by giving my opinion that Nikon is faster than whatever. I may still prefer the Nikon autofocus system, but IMHO, I should not do this by denying factual information.

Except for these two cases, I think you're spot on. You don't have to be disagreeable or unpleasant to give feedback, and you don't have to practice armchair psychology and diagnoses.

You certainly don't spare the criticism of systems or images, and occasionally may add a bit of snark, but I have not noticed you doing those things that you deprecated in this post. I salute you for that.

Andy

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

gessman wrote:

It looks to me like there's a key ingredient being overlooked here. As has been pointed out, there are several places within the sub-forums where criticism is encouraged just as it also is in the Photo Gallery when a poster invites the viewers to critique a posted image so a provision for critique exists and is taken advantage of constantly in the Photo Gallery. Anyone who posts an image can ask for guidance, critique, suggestions, etc., at which time it's "open season" for those who can, or simply feel they can, to give all the constructive advice they choose as well as those who, although much unappreciated, just want to launch an ad hominem attack because they caught hell from the spouse earlier but the issue here is not what magnanimous and qualified people some of us are but the fact that for those who don't ask for all that it is perceived as an intrusion they are not interested in and therein lies the disconnect. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if a person doesn't request critical comments it shouldn't be too hard for the rest of us to just quietly move on.

Now, folks, for what it's worth, I hear what you're saying and believe that most of you are suitably knowledgeable, benevolent, and have good intentions but the way it sounds when it first hits the ear is that some of us are saying that we're going to critique a person's photo when we see something they could improve regardless of whether they want it or not because we don't give a damn what they want, it's our right to abuse their sensitivities because it's 'Murica and we've by god got the right to say whatever we want to because it's free speech and that's our right. That attitude, as some of us know while others have only heard, has caused a lot of free dental work and accidental hemorrhoidectomies through the years, something that can't happen over the 'net but that doesn't avoid people getting upset when stuff they haven't asked for and do not want is nonetheless crammed up... That some of you are prepared to force feed people who've indicated they're full up to the gills sorta makes it look like your actions aren't all about them and magnanimity after all.

I think I'm done here. Cheers!

It looks to me like there's a key ingredient being... (show quote)

Not giving a damn what the poster wants is a straw man. "Force" is a straw man. Something is put up, there is no reason, unless explicitly stated, to comment or not. Do as you see fit. It is often more caring to make a comment, to give a damn.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Bipod wrote:

Since this is not a political forum (for the most ... (show quote)

Looks to me like you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. Anything else?

gessman Loc: Colorado

artBob wrote:

Not giving a damn what the poster wants is a straw man. "Force" is a straw man. Something is put up, there is no reason, unless explicitly stated, to comment or not. Do as you see fit. It is often more caring to make a comment, to give a damn.

I agree with you but the people who don't want any unsolicited advice don't and therein lies the problem. Again, it's your call - do what you want to do. If you disappear you can always set up a new profile under another name.

Bipod

gessman wrote:

I agree with you but the people who don't want any unsolicited advice don't and therein lies the problem. Again, it's your call - do what you want to do. If you disappear you can always set up a new profile under another name.

Too true!

But one thing I can't understand: if someone doesn't want advice or feedback, why the heck
would he or she post to the Internet? To post to a public forum is to solicit feedback.

If someone walks out onto the stage, people may clap and cheer or people may boo and hiss--
that's what audiences do. Anyone who treads the boards takes that risk, as do musicians.
It was the same in Shakespeare's day.

At least on the Internet, the crowd can't throw vegetables...

Bill_de Loc: US

Bipod wrote:

Since this is not a political forum (for the most ... (show quote)

It is one section out of many. Most sections are designed for discussion, one is designed to be able to just show pictures. So for those who feel compelled to give an opinion, asked for or not, UHH provides more than ample opportunity.

---

gessman Loc: Colorado

Bipod wrote:

Too true! br br But one thing I can't understand:... (show quote)

I don't really have a dog in this hunt and only got involved to explain what was going on in uhh when the "no unsolicited" rule came into being, and why, and I have spent the afternoon answering questions that people have that are of little concern to me.

As to your question, I can imagine several reasons why a person might post a pic other than to get feedback. They might just want people to see what a good photographer they are and where they've been. Some just want to share interesting things they've seen with others they think might appreciate seeing them. Some post to make a point, some post to teach a technique.

On that note, I was on the 'net when it was Arpanet, several years before "Clinton invented the Internet," and "Al Gore discovered Global Warming," well before the www came into existence in 1994 and "Usenet" was the encrypted conveyance mechanism for visual images and nowhere, bearing in mind that I don't have a dog in this hunt, have I ever seen it written or heard it stated before now that just because a person posts a pic online they are asking for unsolicited advice and opinions about their images. That would then seem to me to be a figment of your imagination. It may be what you expect but obviously not everyone agrees with you. I also have never perceived the 'net to be a stage for performing arts but I have been to the Shakespeare Theater in Statford and thought I knew the difference until now. LOL

Now, since it's not my forum, not my rule, and I have no moral imperative to defend it, having soon been married 60 years next month and don't care to be perceived as being argumentative, let me suggest that if you want to discuss this issue further that you send a PM to Admin. I'm sure he'd be happy to discuss it with you and frankly, I've devoted all the time to the subject that I care to. As far as I'm concerned everyone has my blessings in doing whatever they choose to do. Cheers!

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Bipod wrote:

....(Gee, I feel like I just moved to Japan. You gotta have wa, miles and miles and miles of wa...)

An excess of politeness is bad, but so is a lack of politeness. And coming from people that presumably want to consider themselves as being adults, a lack of politeness somehow seems inexcusable.

Negative criticism has become a bone of contention mainly because of the way that it's delivered by some forum members. Negative criticism is a thorny issue and it needs to be delivered with consideration and a realisation of the potential that it has to provoke a defensive reaction. Yes, it's true that some people are going to react negatively to any negative criticism regardless of how considerately it was given, but those people are in the minority and the fact that they exist doesn't justify rudeness and bluntness being used across the board.

In addition to the above, most people have the potential to get touchy where the results of their artistic and/or creative efforts are concerned (a highly personal subject for most). That's perfectly normal and understandable, and if criticising with an understanding of that fact is too much effort for you, not responding at all is the better option.

swartfort Loc: Evansville, IN

larryepage wrote:

There are maybe three people on this site whose thoughts about one of my photographs might matter to me. There may eventually be a few more, but not right now. So I rarely post here.

In my mind, the "right" to provide meaningful commentary can come only from a position of trust. It can be quite difficult many times to have a lot of trust here.

This is well said regarding trust. My number of members here who comment on my posts is about 10. They are also the members who's comments and posts I seek out. The qualities that I appreciate in them(in order) are:

Knowledge/experience
Willingness to share their critiques with in depth analysis
Kindness
Ability to articulate often difficult subjects effectively
My desire to emulate the results they get (I want to see their work
posted here too).

Most of my "trusted" posters here know who they are as I have reached out and thanked them individually thru PM. Those who tend to "blow up" images ("start from scratch", "your equipment is inferior",
"full frame is the only way", etc.) vs. critique them, I just block and never see the negative comments again.

SO, Thank you to all who post, and all who comment with the intent to be helpful and kind.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

If there were not other places designed for robust discussions and criticism, I could see some point in the argument that "if you post it, you are inviting criticism" In a diverse space like UHH, what is so frightening to the trolls out there that one small corner requires respecting what the poster wishes?

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

I am resigned to the conclusion that the Internet and many of the forums contained there are like STRAWBERRIES! I am not a good farmer and I don't, sadly enough, have a green thumb but my grandaughter the expert horticulturist tell me that to raise good strawberries you need lots of fertilizer. So...you gotta dig through a heap of dirt and dung to get to those sweet juicy strawberries. If you want to pick fresh strawberries, you have to decide of all the toil is justified.

Photo forums are somewhat similar to camera clubs and professional photographers associations except for the anonymity. In the clubs and associations, there can be infighting, difficult politics to navigate, cliques, factions and some bad actors, however, folks eventually have to meet in person, attend conventions and meetings and people are less likely to break the rules, become rude or unnecessarily harsh, snide or obnoxious in face to face situations. At live meetings there is usually an expectation of decorum and oftentimes some formal procedures. Perhaps familiarity breeds contempt but anonymity may encourage it or exacerbate contempt in certain personalities.

I think there are lots of sweet strawberries- well sweet people around here ! There are also thrones, garden pests, scary snakes, stinging insects, mildly toxic plants, and some poison ivy. After a while, you get to know who' s who and what's what and life on the net/forum becomes more fun, productive and enjoyable. Unlike the strawberries, I feel that the real good folks and their stuff rises to the top and the bad stuff eventually self-destructs.

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

I don't like to be criticized. I believe that critique helps us grow to be better photographers. After all, we should be learning from each other.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

I think there are lots of sweet strawberries- well sweet people around here ! There are also thrones, garden pests, scary snakes, stinging insects, mildly toxic plants, and some poison ivy. After a while, you get to know who' s who and what's what and life on the net/forum becomes more fun, productive and enjoyable. Unlike the strawberries, I feel that the real good folks and their stuff rises to the top and the bad stuff eventually self-destructs.

While psychoanalysis is difficult to read on these Interwebz, intention is not.

Andy

Bill_de Loc: US

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

I am resigned to the conclusion that the Internet ... (show quote)

Your granddaughter is very smart.

--