DSLRUsers.com

This is an aspect I have wondered about for some time now, what I am referring to to is people editing images that are posted for Critique and Review, as some may be aware I do this quite often and have not thought a great deal about it, I feel its always a two-fold excerise, i get benefit from processing someone elses image and hopefully it gives the other person another view.

However after a recent discussion, I have wondered about the etiquitte for this, I am aware of the bleeding obvious one where people put 'PPOK' or 'PP not ok' or 'do not edit image' etc in the sigs, this makes it nice and black and white, however I am interested in whether there is some unwritten courtesy and etiquitte regarding the editing of posted images?

Is it somethign that sh$ts you to tears? does it help you learn? is it a waste of time and electrons? Is it somethign you should not do unless requested?

thoughts, comments, discuss

Often thought of it myself.

In my mind, once you post it online anyone can download it and play all they want. I'd rather see the results and let them share the knowledge in turn potentially helping everyone who reads it. Besides this helps interactivity much like a normal conversation where an idea gets modified and sometimes improved and takes a different shape. This is compatible with both art and science.

It's kind of arrogant to think that my processing is the only way possible!

On the other hand, a good way to prevent this would be to have a contrasty dim BW copyright notice overlaid on your photo. Any contrast adjustments and this would pop like crazy.

I generally have a look, if it is specifically mentioned that Editing is NOT OK then I will leave it be. But if it is not explicitly stated then the assumption is that I can have a play (not that I do very often). If I play I will rarely keep the image, and almost never repost...but that is who I am. I tend more to use minds-eye to visualise the post that I would apply

I am always happy to have my images edited. I don't think it is a problem and I much prefer to see the results of others edits on my images than have them edit it and not show.

My only gripe is when the original image is edited and replaced. This tends to break the continuity of the thread.

I'd also be happy for my images (assuming I've posted them for critique) to be edited and reposted - ideally of course with the steps done posted as well so I and others could learn better/different PP techniques.

Everyone will have their own reasons for or against and that's fine by me.
Personally, i don't have a problem with it because i think it's easier if someone can show me a suggestion rather than having to try and explain it all in words.

Good topic

Assuming you mean re-editing and posting the re-worked image, for me personally, I think that it should be an open dialogue. Unless you know that person well, out of courtesy, if you wish to re-edit the image then ask permission first than just 'assuming' its ok to do so.

Photography (like any form of creative) is a very subjective matter and also can be personal. Who says that because you don't like the image that the person has posted for critique, that it gives you the right to download/edit and re-upload saying "Voila. I think this is better"? Unless the OP has specifically seeked help then it should be left as it as.

Me personally, I don't want my images to be edited by others unless I've stated so. Please don't take it as arrogance, but there is always a reason why I edit my images the way I do. I don't expect everyone to like but that's the beauty of critiquing

The way I see it,If someone has the decency to spend some of their time to try and improve my image, then it would be rude of me to get upset. Wether I like their effort or not is immaterial.

I tend to agree with both points of view, though I tend to lean slightly more to Devilla's way of thinking.

I'm not sure if the moderators of the Image Critique section are up for this or not, but perhaps the rule could be set that posting a re-edited image is disallowed unless the OP specifically states in their post that they are happy for others to do so ?

This way, those people who are up for having their image played with and re-posted within the same thread can say so...otherwise it is seen as a bit of a no-no ?

Should someone still want to provide an example to the OP, they could always send them a PM and ask for permission first. If the OP is OK with this, they could then edit their original post and state they are happy for [insert members name here] to post an example - or they can simply choose to do so away from the forum, or via PM and direct URL links to the edited image.

Whilst I believe most people here would be happy for others to play with their images (and re-post them) for the benefit of learning/sharing ideas, I think it is a bit more respectful and courteous to make sure this is the case before re-posting an example - which would avoid anyone getting upset and requesting an image to be removed.

Just a suggestion....and a good topic !

Dave

devilla101 wrote:Good topic

Indeed.

re-upload saying "Voila. I think this is better"?

Ron,

I'm not sure that I accept this premise. Whenever I offer critique, in any form (and that description, for me, fits within the topic of discussion), it is never because I might think my version is "better", whatever that might actually mean. And to be honest, I really have no concept whatsoever of what "better" might be.

Different? From the original? Hopefully, yes.

An alternate way of looking at the image? Again, hopefully yes.

But that's the extent of where I like to take things.

Unless the OP has specifically seeked help then it should be left as it as.

Respectfully, I'd like to disagree.

Implicit within our critiques section here - and really, that's a given for this discussion - is the premise that images are posted "for critique". That's one reason why we have a (soft) limit of four images per thread/post - it's damn difficult to do an honest critique on much more than that.

But critique may take many forms, and I find it fairly easy to describe, in words, an alternate treatment that I might like to see applied to an image. Others might not be so comfortable with the written word, but could find it much more expedient to just go ahead and do it, and post what they mean.

The outcome is basically the same - a critique of the image. It's merely the detail of the means that's differs.

Me personally, I don't want my images to be edited by others unless I've stated so. Please don't take it as arrogance, but there is always a reason why I edit my images the way I do. I don't expect everyone to like but that's the beauty of critiquing

I accept and respect that, but I really think that you're selling your selling yourself short here, and by doing this, I think that you're losing much in the way of potential critique possibilities.

Aussie Dave wrote:I'm not sure if the moderators of the Image Critique section are up for this or not, but perhaps the rule could be set that posting a re-edited image is disallowed unless the OP specifically states in their post that they are happy for others to do so ?

If we were to implement any such rule (and I'd need to be convinced of a need for it. ) my tendency would be to go the other way - to permit re-editing unless stated otherwise.

I hear your arguments against this, but I believe that re-editing is little more than a different way - and perhaps a very effective way - of expressing one's critique.

I'm not convinced that restricting the means of critique to just the written word is a better way to go, but equally, I'm disinclined to make any policy changes in this realm either. This is a very interesting thread, but I don't see that there's any emerging problem either.

Wink wrote: i don't have a problem with it because i think it's easier if someone can show me a suggestion rather than having to try and explain it all in words.

Exactly.

phillipb wrote:The way I see it,If someone has the decency to spend some of their time to try and improve my image, then it would be rude of me to get upset. Wether I like their effort or not is immaterial.

I agree.

Again, this comes back to, for me, the fundamental basis for the critiques section here: we are looking at the images, not the person.

good to see some responses, thanks for taking the time to post

devilla101 wrote:Assuming you mean re-editing and posting the re-worked image,

correcto!

Interestign side thought though, I reckon when the OP edits their own picture they should have both versions in the thread makes it heaps easier to follow after a few responses

devilla101 wrote:Me personally, I don't want my images to be edited by others unless I've stated so. Please don't take it as arrogance, but there is always a reason why I edit my images the way I do. I don't expect everyone to like but that's the beauty of critiquin

This is one of the reasons for startign the topic, unless you have explicity stated you do not want your images reworked I would have not idea you felt this way (note, I have absolutely no objections to people who feel way this either). So potentially its easy to tread on someones toes without realising it.

Aussie Dave wrote:Should someone still want to provide an example to the OP, they could always send them a PM and ask for permission first. If the OP is OK with this, they could then edit their original post and state they are happy for [insert members name here] to post an example - or they can simply choose to do so away from the forum, or via PM and direct URL links to the edited image.

This leads onto the next issue for me, if there is some unwritten rule that one must first ensure the person is happy to allow editing, then it means the process of editing someones image becomes a (possibly) 2 day affair rather than a 3 minute one. Firstly PM the person, wait for response, edit, send link, post link blah blah.. that exceeds my 5 min limit for PPing my own images.

Personally, if I had to PM the person and wait for a response then edit it or then send teh link via PM I would not even bother, I do not have that much time or attention span. I think putting restrictions on a form of critiquing in a forum that already struggles to get critique is not a good idea.

Probably the most quick and dirty way to ensure people are not offended, is if you have significant objections to having your images reworked than include something in your signature or thread, like PP not OK - this seems to work at other forums.

Aussie Dave wrote:I think it is a bit more respectful and courteous to make sure this is the case before re-posting an example - which would avoid anyone getting upset and requesting an image to be removed.

This is exactly why I keen to hear peoples views on this, everyones is valid and there is no right or wrong! I think its way too easy to piss someone off when there are unwritten rules like this.

I personally think its a mark of respect for the OP if you are willing to:

1) spend time to adequately critique their image (irresepective of your experience or chosen field of photography)
2) take the time to download edit and reupload a edited version to assist the OP in seeing your view or convey your critique - Note this can take less time then writing out a 2 paragraph critique (especially for me with my great grammar and spelling)

Where else in this day and age can you get your product reviewed and returned at not cost

That's one reason why we have a (soft) limit of four images per thread/post - it's damn difficult to do an honest critique on much more than that.

I agree, sometimes I even find myself just picking 2 images to respond to!

Hey hey!

Great post, great topic to bring to discussion. Personally I think it is with respect of others that the request should be made first, out of common courtesy. I find that it is a personal matter in photograph, critiquing another persons image is going beyond the obvious of "wow that looks amazing!"

But, on the other hand, I myself am quite hypocritical. I do like it when people play with my images. I like to see my shot in variable styles. It's great to have ideas thrown to you as well to spin creativity around. So as my new signature states, Don't bother asking me, just do it and show me!

biggerry wrote:Interestign side thought though, I reckon when the OP edits their own picture they should have both versions in the thread makes it heaps easier to follow after a few responses

Aussie Dave wrote:Should someone still want to provide an example to the OP, they could always send them a PM and ask for permission first. If the OP is OK with this, they could then edit their original post and state they are happy for [insert members name here] to post an example - or they can simply choose to do so away from the forum, or via PM and direct URL links to the edited image.

This leads onto the next issue for me, if there is some unwritten rule that one must first ensure the person is happy to allow editing, then it means the process of editing someones image becomes a (possibly) 2 day affair rather than a 3 minute one. Firstly PM the person, wait for response, edit, send link, post link blah blah.. that exceeds my 5 min limit for PPing my own images.

A very important point too. I think that your time estimations here are optimistic.

And it might also mean that the process of critiquing somebody's images could easily become a 2 or more day exercise. As it stands, usually, when I'm offering a critique, it will already take me quite some time to do: typically I'll look at the image three or four times - over maybe a day or so - before putting fingers to keyboard. I'll be thinking about the image, what is says to me, how I might have treated it ... and I would like to think that there's never any suggestion that what I'm offering would be a "better" version; merely a different one, based upon my own PoV.

Personally, if I had to PM the person and wait for a response then edit it or then send teh link via PM I would not even bother, I do not have that much time or attention span. I think putting restrictions on a form of critiquing in a forum that already struggles to get critique is not a good idea.

A very good point.

That's one reason why we have a (soft) limit of four images per thread/post - it's damn difficult to do an honest critique on much more than that.

I agree, sometimes I even find myself just picking 2 images to respond to!

Yep. Often, for me too.

gstark wrote:And it might also mean that the process of critiquing somebody's images could easily become a 2 or more day exercise.

I bet no one would re-edit and post an image if this rule was implemented. The time commitment is far too high. As already stated, we have enough trouble getting people to write a few words of critique which in theory should take only a few minutes.

gstark wrote: biggerry wrote:Interestign side thought though, I reckon when the OP edits their own picture they should have both versions in the thread makes it heaps easier to follow after a few responses

Agreed! This makes complete sense.

phillipb wrote:The way I see it,If someone has the decency to spend some of their time to try and improve my image, then it would be rude of me to get upset. Wether I like their effort or not is immaterial.

completely agree! It takes far more time to download, edit, upload etc. Usually I make sure when I upload, it's set to 'private' in flickr etc etc..

Gary, it's perhaps an idea to state that pictures MAY be edited and reposted on the image reviews and critiques FAQ. If someone doesn't want their photos edited, they can state in their signature. [I think that would be a very useful use of the signature actually]

Well put guys.

I was initially going to suggest the opposite (as in suggesting that the Image Critique section is considered as edit-friendly, unless otherwise stated by the OP), but thought that for those people who are not yet familiar with the system may get upset if they weren't aware of the situation.

In reading everyone's responses I agree that it would work better this way, as opposed to my original suggestion.
Timeframes would blow out and would definitely deter others in offering re-edited "suggestions" (which I had not thought about).

Good to see some discussion on this though.

Dave

surenj wrote:Gary, it's perhaps an idea to state that pictures MAY be edited and reposted on the image reviews and critiques FAQ. If someone doesn't want their photos edited, they can state in their signature. [I think that would be a very useful use of the signature actually]

I've just added something to this effect to the Forum Rules for the Critiques section.

Just out of curiosity, I would be genuinely interested to hear from someone who objects to having their images edited what is it that makes them feel that way. For example if someone posts an image and I reply by saying "I think it would look good with a high contrast B&W treatment" or if I replied by posting the edited image with the B&W treatment, what is the difference? Is it the fact that I downloaded your photo onto my computer? or something else?
Not that it makes any difference, I would still respect the OP wishes, but just curious of the thinking behind it.

phillipb wrote:I would be genuinely interested to hear from someone who objects to having their images edited

Same here. If someone wants true protection for their images they need to disconnect from the internet.

gstark wrote:
I've just added something to this effect to the Forum Rules for the Critiques section.

Great! Thankx. Now we have it in writing.

There have been some very interesting responses to this topic, some very good points raised. i will have to have a peek at the new rules!

While I have not edited the work of others I do appreciate the effort involved when someone takes the time to rework something of mine to show another point or idea as this is helpful to me and possably others who are watching.