Dorkroom v2.0: Rules & Suggestions, Now With Accurate Thread Title!

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Dorkroom v2.0: Rules & Suggestions, Now With Accurate Thread Title!

ConfusedUs: Feb 24, 2004; Bees?
You want fucking bees?
Here you go!
ROLL INITIATIVE!!

Manny, dude, you should probably stop before you get in trouble. That has to be the most thinly veiled, passive-aggressive, "Why the hell did YOU get promoted" accusation I've heard in a very long time.

We know you don't like SoundMonkey. Seriously man, we know. So let's stop the hate train before it gets rolling and get back to posting awesome pictures.

# ¿ Jan 9, 2012 04:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 5, 2024 19:52

ConfusedUs: Feb 24, 2004; Bees?
You want fucking bees?
Here you go!
ROLL INITIATIVE!!

Wow this got real wanky real fast. I'm almost sad I spoke up.

# ¿ Jan 9, 2012 04:56

ConfusedUs: Feb 24, 2004; Bees?
You want fucking bees?
Here you go!
ROLL INITIATIVE!!

Awkward Davies posted:

To bring it back to PAD: I don't have an formal photo background. I suspect many share that with me. I've always found the critique in PAD to be fairly worthless, and the photos less compelling than what gets posted in SAD.

Point being: I'd love it if someone with an actual background could give a 101 on how to critique a photo. Things to look for, ways to speak about photography, some sort of way to evaluate the quality of a photo (I've realized that this is highly subjective for me, but that's an entirely different discussion).

So, anyone?

The most banal and common of critique will be the "rules" critique. Rule of thirds! Don't chop off hands! You missed the focus! Overexposed! Underexposed!

A subset of this are the "distracting" people. That white collar is distracting! That red flower, in the background, out of focus, 3px high...it's distracting! That shadow of a bird on the field? DISTRACTING

The best critique starts with "What is this photo's purpose?" and goes from there.

# ¿ Jan 9, 2012 05:05

ConfusedUs: Feb 24, 2004; Bees?
You want fucking bees?
Here you go!
ROLL INITIATIVE!!

SoundMonkey posted:

These are actually all excellent points, it does get a bit tiresome to see the same often-inaccurate critiques used over and over (not that I'm saying this is the case, but it does pop up sometimes).

I've actually toyed with the idea of a High Level Critique and Style Development thread, but that's more or less what PAD was trying to be before your benevolent reign, and it tanked.

# ¿ Jan 9, 2012 05:11

ConfusedUs: Feb 24, 2004; Bees?
You want fucking bees?
Here you go!
ROLL INITIATIVE!!

CarrotFlowers posted:

I would agree that there is a lot of this in PAD, and that it is a product of 2 different things:

1. The people who most often post photos in PAD are beginners and a lot of the time miss things like focus, over/under exposure, chopping off limbs awkwardly, etc. They are very basic rules, but to a beginner, they are invaluable (speaking as a recent beginner)

2. Again, because the people posting are new, they don't feel comfortable critiquing anything except basic rules. It's easy to say "I think this is underexposed" than to say "What was the purpose of this photo? The intent behind the photo isn't clear" because they most likely feel like the person posting the picture is way above their level. You see it time and time again people post "I'm new at this, so take it as you will" or "I don't really know much about photography, but..." Just as I would be intimidated to critique one of the really experienced, shooting for 10 years type photographers we see in SAD, I think most beginners are just intimidated to really dig in deep with their critiques. That and there have been a few people who aren't very receptive to critiques (not in PAD), which may add to the feeling of not wanting any backlash or starting an argument about "what is art" or something. It's safe, and it's easy for beginners to give.

The reason why SAD gets higher quality photos is because the people who post there don't "need" critique - there's a ton of highly accomplished, talented photographers who don't need a newbie photographer telling them basic things to change. There are some very generous and awesome photographers who post critiques in PAD without posting their own photos (because they are awesome photographers), and I am super grateful for them, as their knowledge and time is so helpful to beginners. I know it takes time and effort to form a crit and that people are busy, so I really appreciate those that take the time to give their experience and talent to PAD. I wish more people would. I try and be active and give critiques past the basic rules, but I also look for critiques on my work, so it's a 2 way deal for me. I like to think that when I get to the level of other photographers here, I will continue to post in PAD.

I don't think enforcing PAD the way we used to will change anything - we'll get less traffic than now, and it was a dying thread. I think it's fine as is, even though it's not ideal. Sometimes you don't get what you're looking for (a really in depth, well thought out crit), and sometimes you do, everyone just needs to deal with it. I also think that self critique is a very helpful tool, and even if the only critique you got was your own, at least you took the time to really put some thought into what you liked, and what you can change next time.

Once upon a time, I would bring my powers to bear, swooping down on PAD like an eagle, wings spread and claws outstretched, reaching for the low-hanging fruit of underexposure. I would snap at amputated limbs with rabid fury, and my beady eyes could catch the slightest of focus mishaps. I would scream my rage to an uncaring sky. The mice would freeze in their tracks, holding their 18-200 lenses forth like a shield, but it did no good, for I was a living ball of feathers and hatred, rending their photos limb from banal limb.

But no longer.

I yearn for more, for the peace of wispy skies and carefully managed color palettes. I thirst for the cool balm of style, but I fear that my thirst will go unsated, for this is the land of the common critique.

Somebody fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Jan 9, 2012

# ¿ Jan 9, 2012 06:05

ConfusedUs: Feb 24, 2004; Bees?
You want fucking bees?
Here you go!
ROLL INITIATIVE!!

Back to critique: I agree absolutely that there is a place for the "rules" critique. Everyone has to start somewhere, and many start here. Stating "that's underexposed" to a new photographer does, indeed, help the new photographer.

Unfortunately, that help is small and gives diminishing returns. And what's more, it does nothing at all to help the person giving the critique.

It's been said that you never really master something until you teach it to another, and I believe this to be true. I don't know how many times I've spoken with a new photog about things they could do to improve their photo, and then found myself committing a similar mistake later down the line.

The written word is a way to express yourself, but moreover, it allows one to be somewhat introspective as that expression occurs. By simply taking the time to deconstruct someone else's photography, you might find yourself applying that same critical eye to your own work as you create it.

It's easy, as someone who's been behind a lens for most of a decade, to forget that everyone starts small, and the small things matter. The banal, rules-driven critique has its place, but I would encourage each and every photographer who drops into PAD and says "OVEREXPOSED!" to stop for a minute and type a few words about something deeper.

There's a truly excellent example of this over in the Portrait thread.

"McMadCow (click for context) posted:

As others have said, the lighting in the 1st and 3rd is effectively excluding the rest of the picture around her. Your color temperatures are obviously mixing too, and not in a successful way.
As far as the second shot goes, I don't mind backlighting- I do it myself all the time- but in this case there isn't some compositional reason for it and the result falls flat.

One thing I've noticed in these three shots is that your location really isn't part of your picture. Sure it's in it, but that's not the same thing. She's have just as much relationship to her setting if she was in front of a white backdrop. If you're going to shoot on location, have the location play a role in the picture, and have the subject exist in the location.

Emphasis mine. At first, his critique of the photo in question is simple. Almost trite. "You screwed up the lighting, dude" is a perfectly acceptable critique, and it's true. The lighting in those pictures is messed up.

Then he goes beyond and gets something conceptual into the mix. That is good critique, and that is what we should all strive for. I encourage everyone here in the Dorkroom to think of critique less in terms of rules and more in terms of what could this be.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2012 03:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 5, 2024 19:52

ConfusedUs: Feb 24, 2004; Bees?
You want fucking bees?
Here you go!
ROLL INITIATIVE!!

That's why I said encourage, not enforce.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2012 04:08

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Dorkroom v2.0: Rules & Suggestions, Now With Accurate Thread Title!