I didn't assume ppl who don't post are ppl who can't shoot well, don't put words into my mouth. I am simply saying, its polite for people to be more open and transparent, and a good way to show this is by posting their works, which I would love to view in my free time too, not just to see their credentials. Got it?
You can keep your million to yourself, I'm not interested in it , really, but if you want to let others know about it, you are most welcome to start another thread . Got it?
Please be clear what is a critique before you ask all the questions in the 1st place.
To make it simple, a true critique is soley target on the pictue or photo, not the person. If someone make some comments which do not help to improve in terms of photography or if you find insulting. Then simply ignore it. Do not get too personal.
Even if someone jsut say your photo is "great" or "nice", it's will encourge the poster but it's also not a critique as he didn't say why he/she like it.
There are people who are really helpful in clubsnap but unfornuately there are alot who just pass on remarks which are not so unhelpful. But the fact is, Clubsnap is a BIG forum in Singapore so it's hard to control sometimes.
I still can't agree with your view that a critic have to post his pictures to show his abilities before he can critique, because that's not relevant. Imo whether a critic is 'honorable' or not, should base on whether his critiques point out any flaws/strong points of the pic, or whether he provide suggestions for improvements(which you might or might not agree as arts can be subjective), not by whether himself got any nice pic to show.
To better explain my point, consider such critiques:
1) Wow very cute! Nice pic!
2) Very good shot! What lens you used?
3) This pic sucks. With such a good camera you should be able to do better.
4) The colour balance seems off. A bit warmer will be nice.
5) The pose seems a little stiff.
6) Good composition, made your subject stand out nicely.
Look at them and you seriously think you need to looks at the critics' own pics to know which group of critiques is of better value to you? Which is good or bad critiques?
And what if critics for 1) 2) 3) did take very good pictures, while 4) 5) 6) never even post a pic?
Even for a beginner, if most critiques say 'the pose is stiff', but no one explain how to make
a model relax, or post his own pic of a model with relaxed pose, he should be able to look up books or guides on people photography or glamour shots. That's already providing a direction for improvement. It would be good if they do, but a critique simply might not be able to tell you everything you need to know.
Useful critiques can be polite, can be harsh, that could be the critics' style(I prefer polite of course ). Some sweet complimenting critique can be of less use, if they don't provide much in terms of improvement. But one thing is for sure, useful critiques do not necessarily need to come from critics who post their own good pics.
It seems like "culture shock" to me, in reading such opinions and views that is so different from yours ...
It would be honorable if the Critique Giver has some Portfolio of works to accessed to, for validation and credential. -- It's like taking a bank loan with stated collaterals, i can't imagine any bankers are willing to deal with anyone just by any identity alone.
Without portfolio of works ( good or bad ), nobody in the right minds are going to take that chance to buy your works or your words !
Sure, there are credible people around who doesn't present their works online or in private exchanges. However, you can't expect everyone to be able to tell by your words alone, that you are "somebody" who are qualified for making a honorable or educated critiques.
The question here is HOW to discern who are genuine and who are not.
[ Although i disagree to many views presented here, but that does not mean i don;t have respect for certain posters, who care to outline their thoughts gentlemanly ... While those seems like picking a fight just becos of different POV, are really sad ... ]
OK, as the TS, let me summarise so far, what most members here think about this topic.
As can be seen statistically, most members are in favour of the fact that critics don't have to put up any postings of their portfolio.
Most would prefer a more polite approach but are ready to face the harsh ones as well.
Its up to the critique seeker to filter out which are the non-beneficial critics.
As with most topics that puts anyone in the podium, discussions can get very heated at times, but they are not all non-beneficial. Some may learn, some may not, but the depth of a forum is always multi-fold, open to the eyes of many from all walks of life. End of it all, I don't think anyone walk out of this forum gaining nothing, I have certainly benefitted and thanks to those who participated with gusto and balls...hehe. I think when we get into heated arguments and debates, its because, I hope, due to our passion for this art and this place. Cheers and hope to see you in future takes.
ps: this is a point summary,not a closure statement, pls feel free to continue this discussion.
Disclaimer : Remember, you don't have to be a moderator to moderate
Last edited by nikontiger; 20th June 2007 at 01:27 PM.
But, the below statement, I can't agreed with.
Base on your idea of " proving your worth before you speak " ie, "show me your works if you want to critic other's work", what have you to show/prove to label other's action as ungentlemanly? Base on what rules or norm here do you claim to have the right to label others?
To show or not to show is a personnal choice, which is an acceptable norm here and you have agreed to " humbly submit to the accepted norms by majority here ". If that is the case, why do you still label it as " ungentlemanly behaviour " ? Have you really humbly submit to the accepted norms by majority here?
You can chose to disagreed with the accepted norm here but I think it's uncalled for, for you to label it as " ungentlemanly behaviour "
Why should we discourage this accepted norm here?
There are many here who can take good images but don't post their work here or have a link to their work, should we discourage their particpation in giving out pointers? At the same time there are some who post very good images here, does that mean everything he/she said is the holy truth? Even if the critic giver can't shoot a decent image, if his views are valid, should it not be accepted?
What we have to learn is to accept that everyone will have a diff. view. It's up to the one asking for critic to process the critics given and build on those he find valid.
Since you insist on " gentlemanly behaviour ",base on what do you claim to be worthy of moderating.
Please, as a gentleman, show us the prove, bear in mind that the only and final prove of the title and authority of a moderator here in CS is from the Admins here.
Base on your own idea of gentlemanly behaviour, please show us your claim to be able to moderate.
Last edited by yqt; 20th June 2007 at 04:11 PM.
I get paid more shooting part time ...... damn, I should find more time to shoot part time