(Hope I don't get slammed for this thread. CS members posting discussion here should exercise caution and maturity.)
My question: what does it take to be a senior member in CS; or what is a senior member? I used to think senior member means members with certain level of photography skills or maturity in discerning good and bad photographs. But of late, I have seen senior members complimenting seemingly bad pictures. e.g. pictures with bad keystone distortion that does not add to the composition, and without any other merits; pictures with horrible white balance, CA and no other compositional merits; pictures with over saturation, bad/ blown highlights, over the edge contrasts and haloing. the list goes on.
Then I realised that perhaps members are senior because they contribute a lot to the forums. By contribute I mean number of posts. Then again, whether these posts contributed to the forum is another matter altogether.
The reason I post this question: I have learned a lot from CS. Back in 2008, CS members seems to be of a different breed, senior or not. I benefited from their truthful (though sometimes harsh and insensitive) comments. It helped me learned what is right/ better (some may argue there is no right or wrong in photography. Granted. But some mistakes, be it technical or compositional, are so obvious, it has to be wrong). Some are subjective, but I took them in nonetheless.
Today in CS, I see many budding photographers (probably due to proliferation of DSLR). I have seen posts that in the past would get slammed (some members more harsh than others), but today, they get a pat on their backs and even the thumbs up. How are they going to learn if they are always encouraged to produce bad pictures? What makes it worse, these comments come from senior members. The TS would think: senior member, must be correct, I should be happy that I am a genuis, just started already got compliments. (pun intended).
So I ask the question: what is a senior member? Someone who made 4,000 posts; or someone with discerning taste. (Note I said discerning taste, not necessarily a good photographer. A good critique need not be a good photographer. A good photographer may not be a good critique.)
My question: what does it take to be a senior member in CS; or what is a senior member? I used to think senior member means members with certain level of photography skills or maturity in discerning good and bad photographs. But of late, I have seen senior members complimenting seemingly bad pictures. e.g. pictures with bad keystone distortion that does not add to the composition, and without any other merits; pictures with horrible white balance, CA and no other compositional merits; pictures with over saturation, bad/ blown highlights, over the edge contrasts and haloing. the list goes on.
Then I realised that perhaps members are senior because they contribute a lot to the forums. By contribute I mean number of posts. Then again, whether these posts contributed to the forum is another matter altogether.
The reason I post this question: I have learned a lot from CS. Back in 2008, CS members seems to be of a different breed, senior or not. I benefited from their truthful (though sometimes harsh and insensitive) comments. It helped me learned what is right/ better (some may argue there is no right or wrong in photography. Granted. But some mistakes, be it technical or compositional, are so obvious, it has to be wrong). Some are subjective, but I took them in nonetheless.
Today in CS, I see many budding photographers (probably due to proliferation of DSLR). I have seen posts that in the past would get slammed (some members more harsh than others), but today, they get a pat on their backs and even the thumbs up. How are they going to learn if they are always encouraged to produce bad pictures? What makes it worse, these comments come from senior members. The TS would think: senior member, must be correct, I should be happy that I am a genuis, just started already got compliments. (pun intended).
So I ask the question: what is a senior member? Someone who made 4,000 posts; or someone with discerning taste. (Note I said discerning taste, not necessarily a good photographer. A good critique need not be a good photographer. A good photographer may not be a good critique.)
