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!

xenilk: Apr 17, 2004; ERRYDAY I BE SPLIT-TONING! Honestly, its the only skill I got other than shooting the back of women and calling it "Editorial".

Paragon8 posted:

Yeah, I agree with this. I think there's definitely a problem with a lot of armchair photographers parroting "wisdom" from entry level tutorials and such. I certainly don't post as much because getting mediocre criticism from someone who's never posted an image in that thread is basically meaningless to me.

It'd be nice if we sort of had a put up or shut up rule but it would be hard to implement without coming across as too elitist.

Honestly, I think implementing a rule like that would need to have a lot of thoughts put into it and even then it would be hard to manage. Why? Because no one has the same definition of what is a bad critique and what's a good critique.

Do my "critiques" consist mostly in pointing out that the horizon is crooked/limbs/composition could be better/background is too crowded or distracting? Yes. Do I think it's worth saying? Of course, because I think it's important to develop your eye and see those things right away as your taking your picture, the rest is up to post-process which is another game of its own.

I can understand how senior photographers can be annoyed by those comments, especially when it's uncalled for but you have to remember that it's not everyone that are at your level. And even if those comments are uncalled for; having a senior photographer come back and explain why that comment is uncalled for makes the whole thing a whole more constructive.

I personally remember once when you called me out for a comment I made and invited me to read one of your blog entries and I can say I learned a lot from it. I think it would have been a shame and very demoralizing/confusing if I'd gotten a ban/warning for that instead.

Anyways, sorry about the rant.

P.S: You should keep posting, rear end. :P

xenilk fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Jan 9, 2012

# ¿ Jan 9, 2012 16:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 04:22

xenilk: Apr 17, 2004; ERRYDAY I BE SPLIT-TONING! Honestly, its the only skill I got other than shooting the back of women and calling it "Editorial".

guidoanselmi posted:

what the hell? friendly concern and curiosity is now a bannable offense?

Also kind of a shame since he was a very active member.

# ¿ Jan 9, 2012 20:11

xenilk: Apr 17, 2004; ERRYDAY I BE SPLIT-TONING! Honestly, its the only skill I got other than shooting the back of women and calling it "Editorial".

ConfusedUs posted:

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.

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.

In a perfect world, this would be great.

Unfortunately I strongly believe that if this is enforced we'll all look like elitist and will scare new people away as they won't be able to formulate the ideal critique you're looking for.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2012 04:03

xenilk: Apr 17, 2004; ERRYDAY I BE SPLIT-TONING! Honestly, its the only skill I got other than shooting the back of women and calling it "Editorial".

SoundMonkey posted:

ConfusedUs is right on the money for what qualifies, at least in my mind, as good critique. However, like he said, encourage not enforce - I don't want to become the judge of how good someone's idea of critique is, and it would probably discourage newer members from giving critique, when really, what they see is just as valid as what anyone else sees.

Having said that, really truly horribly bad insulting critique is probably still not a good idea.

Yeah, a one word critique or a mean/bad one without any explanation should never be accepted. Everything else is a gray area in my book.

But as you stated, I think becoming a judge to say what's right or wrong with any critique that's not a one word/mean one would be a major "faux pas" and would create useless drama.

I think that's a wrap up on that subject for me, ha ha.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2012 04:53

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