fireblade
Vincenzo.
i have followed HCSP from inception, and the idea of posting your image for critique if it does not make the main thread is good, and some of the mods were brutal, but truthful. If you follow the main thread and see what they allow, you will get the flow...then you see the ones who post their images that did not make the main page asking why and you can see it instantly. When one of those would start kicking the shed door not liking the critique they would get hammered by the mods, and they won't let up if you questioned it a second time....most walk away broken
back alley
IMAGES
it's one thing to say don't participate if it's not for you but...each thread reflects on the whole of the forum and this brutal thread reflects poorly on rff...that is my brutal opinion on the thread.
FrankS
Registered User
Gosh, why?/how?
As long as there are no personal attacks, how can someone receiving a no punches pulled critique after requesting one, be a bad thing?
The examples of posts critiquing the critique were not desired.
back alley
IMAGES
hard to explain without getting into personalities...which i would do without hesitation but for fear of getting thrown off the forum.
the thread lowers the forum to the level of a community camera club as as far as i am concerned. the need for this kind of thing is relevent for new shooters but not really needed by folks with any sort of experience. the complaint was that prior requests for an evaluation were a disguised plea for a pat on the back or acceptance but i don't see any difference in this thread. it's way too macho for me...brutal? another way to say look at how tough i am!
flyalf
Well-known
Poster of photo approves or disapproves critique. To post photo you need 3 approvals
Michael Markey
Veteran
I must admit that this is my assessment too.
I was reasonably enthusiastic at first but I can hear this sort of negative stuff every thursday at my local camera club.
It really isn`t very edifying.
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
With respect, Frank, *this* thread is not the one you started (the one that Dave among others has already left). Inviting Dave to leave *this* one is either poorly thought out syntax, or something rather less civil.
It doesn't matter whether your intentions are good or not, once the acceptable terms include 'brutal' and 'no pulled punches.' Take responsibility for what you implicitly encourage; don't pretend to be surprised when the macho-men and testosterone-boys start throwing verbal and gestural punches at each other, and at other photographers of whatever level of skill who did not imagine they were inviting abuse and contempt.
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
"the need for this kind of thing is relevent for new shooters but not really needed by folks with any sort of experience."
But participation is voluntary. You would want to decide for them that it is not needed?
I love RFF. I like the way we have shared pictures and people are supportive. But why not also the option of a no punches pulled review?
If people have a problem with the word "brutal" or the word "honest" then change them to something more palatable.
If people have a problem with the whole idea of a no punches pulled critique, and it is a bad thing for RFF, then I'm fine with dropping the whole thing. Just trying to help RFF. I love RFF.
But participation is voluntary. You would want to decide for them that it is not needed?
I love RFF. I like the way we have shared pictures and people are supportive. But why not also the option of a no punches pulled review?
If people have a problem with the word "brutal" or the word "honest" then change them to something more palatable.
If people have a problem with the whole idea of a no punches pulled critique, and it is a bad thing for RFF, then I'm fine with dropping the whole thing. Just trying to help RFF. I love RFF.
FrankS
Registered User
Nothing less civil. The topic was the critique thread, that I suggested Dave not participate in if he found it troublesome, not THIS thread.
I will take no responsibility for poor behaviour of others who were being rude. I do regret that there was poor behaviour. That was not at all what I was proposing. Perhaps my choice of wording was not optimal, but in no way was rudeness my goal.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Haven't been over to the other thread for a while. You mean to say some people saw the whole thing as an invitation to behave uncivilised?
What were these people thinking at all, how can anything] on the forum ever be considered an invitation to be rude and misbehave?Brian Legge
Veteran
So my read here -
There are a few parts to this - Franks intent (a request for objective deeper, more objective critiques), the thread title/description used to communicate Franks goals, readers interpretation of Franks intent and the finally how this manifested in the thread.
I think most here appreciate Franks intent. Lots of people appreciate thoughtful feedback that would help them grow. Most would also agree that superficial responses like 'I like this photo!' aren't as useful as posts like this or this one
The trick is figuring out how to get there. Most people at RFF are well meaning though many - myself included - are probably incapable of providing really insightful feedback.
There is a somewhat vocal contingent in the street photography community - not specifically RFF though I'm sure some are here - who rate the quality of a critique by its viciousness and devastating effect it is to the requester. That type of critique can become a feedback look as people start posting more for entertainment, celebrating breaking people, etc.... which leads to driving away those who aren't in to that sort of thing. That path can snowball in to something that changes culture on the site overall.
I don't believe this thread was anywhere close to that point.
Perhaps a large thread shared by multiple people is more less conducive to useful feedback? As some in the thread pointed out, its difficult critiquing a single image vs a series, they don't know the posters goals/objectives, etc. Perhaps one approach would be to use this thread to help build a 'how to ask for a critique / how to give a critique' sticky? I think there are lessons learned in a variety of ways in this thread but wading through 20 pages makes it difficult to extract.
There are a few parts to this - Franks intent (a request for objective deeper, more objective critiques), the thread title/description used to communicate Franks goals, readers interpretation of Franks intent and the finally how this manifested in the thread.
I think most here appreciate Franks intent. Lots of people appreciate thoughtful feedback that would help them grow. Most would also agree that superficial responses like 'I like this photo!' aren't as useful as posts like this or this one
The trick is figuring out how to get there. Most people at RFF are well meaning though many - myself included - are probably incapable of providing really insightful feedback.
There is a somewhat vocal contingent in the street photography community - not specifically RFF though I'm sure some are here - who rate the quality of a critique by its viciousness and devastating effect it is to the requester. That type of critique can become a feedback look as people start posting more for entertainment, celebrating breaking people, etc.... which leads to driving away those who aren't in to that sort of thing. That path can snowball in to something that changes culture on the site overall.
I don't believe this thread was anywhere close to that point.
Perhaps a large thread shared by multiple people is more less conducive to useful feedback? As some in the thread pointed out, its difficult critiquing a single image vs a series, they don't know the posters goals/objectives, etc. Perhaps one approach would be to use this thread to help build a 'how to ask for a critique / how to give a critique' sticky? I think there are lessons learned in a variety of ways in this thread but wading through 20 pages makes it difficult to extract.
FrankS
Registered User
Moderators, please (continue to) do whatever is best for RFF, even if that means locking this thread. It was an initiative that I thought would be helpful, that maybe is not. In the future, individuals who want this type of thing can simply ask for a frank critique.
jky
Well-known
.... or perhaps to get a sense of what the photographer's "goals/objectives, etc" what about the OP providing a self critique of the image first then every one else can chime in?
Reading the OP's rationale for taking the photo, the composition, use of light, etc... might guide the ensuing responses.
Reading the OP's rationale for taking the photo, the composition, use of light, etc... might guide the ensuing responses.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
So my read here -
There are a few parts to this - Franks intent (a request for objective deeper, more objective critiques), the thread title/description used to communicate Franks goals, readers interpretation of Franks intent and the finally how this manifested in the thread.
I think most here appreciate Franks intent. Lots of people appreciate thoughtful feedback that would help them grow.
...
Perhaps one approach would be to use this thread to help build a 'how to ask for a critique / how to give a critique' sticky? I think there are lessons learned in a variety of ways in this thread but wading through 20 pages makes it difficult to extract.
Yup, I'd find it interesting to see a mentor for that on the forum, somebody who's considered an authority on critiques and who could also post on 'how to critique'.
Anything that helps me and other RFF members to develop their photography skills is a welcome contribution to RFF IMHO, and some guidance (for those who want it) to further their photography from snaps would be greatly appreciated.
Brian Legge
Veteran
Based on this post and others with similar statements, I think it may be the word 'brutal' which may be causing ambiguity. Its coming across as a more important trait than honesty.
Perhaps it would be worth considering changing the thread title to 'honest critique thread' or something that might cause less confusion about the intent.
Perhaps it would be worth considering changing the thread title to 'honest critique thread' or something that might cause less confusion about the intent.
Sparrow
Veteran
I took brutal to mean truthful, it being viewed in the context of it being Frank who posted it ... and while I try to be truthful all the time, I realise some people would need permission to do so while others would leap at the chance to have a go ...
... I thought it was fairly good natured overall, some angst but with a bit of a laugh in places. However I'll consider Joe's opinion now he's stated it ...
... I thought it was fairly good natured overall, some angst but with a bit of a laugh in places. However I'll consider Joe's opinion now he's stated it ...
Ranchu
Veteran
It's posted right at the door that if you ask for a critique you'll get what people really think, so if you choose to do that, don't be under any illusions to the contrary. That's much different than what usually happens, don't you agree?
Brian Legge
Veteran
I think that hinges on how people define critique. I expect a people providing a critique to provide a 'why' in addition to 'what they think'.
Ranchu
Veteran
Because it's too soft, no thought has been given to the light, and the subjects are really boring. I believe that was communicated?
Mcary
Well-known
bru•tal : savage, cruel, vicious, callous, blunt, outspoken, merciless, sadistic, harsh, unpleasant.....
Why would a Woman and some Men on Rff choose to play Battle with that mentality
I would prefer 'candid' but Boys will be Boys and hey whatever floats your Boat
Their are always other Threads to follow
Realistically I don't even care about being 'Critiqued'....
I shoot for what my Eye sees and if it Entertains, Questions or Seduces a Viewer than Great ....No big deal if it doesn't
I don't need a mentor or anyone to validate my Creative work as good or bad
^Love this^