What the?

[phillipb]

A point to consider is that if you try to force people to say more then just "nice photo", you will probably end up with even less replies because beginners will feel that they can't contribute more then that. So only the experienced or the opinionated people will end up being heard.

[kipper]

Somebody mentioned growth and the number of photos that are posted.
One of the other forums that I post on has a limit for the main section to 48hours between image posts and only one can be posted at a time. For the Australasian section they have 24hours.

What this means is you chose your best photo to post and not any old tripe.
It also doesn't mean the board is saturated with images for people to try and comment on. With a large userbase and no limits, it becomes very hard to keep up with the volume of posts.

At first I hated this limitation, but now I've come to agree with it.

[gstark]

Peter,

Marcus

First up - I'm guessing something triggered this for you. Are there some of your images that weren't critiqued cos I'll do so happily

On a more serious note a few points to consider:

• Based on the law of averages, there will be some of our members who, for whatever reasons, don't feel capable of verbalising what they do or don't like about a shot
• Some shots sink to the bottom because of high post volume. I've had images get missed. I just go back and bump them with a comment along the lines of "So tell me, is this image REALLY that bad! I can take it"
• I know a fair few of the people here and some of them I'm honoured to call my friends. And guess what - they also get some of my harshest critiques (no point in arse licking as far as I'm concerned). Reason these CAN receive harsh critiques from me is, over time, I get to know what they are capable of and whether my comments are relevant (no point telling a newb their shot could be better if they had used different aperture settings to gain greater DOF if they are still getting used to their camera)
• There are times when I'll see an image and really have nothing good or bad to say about it (like Onyx - many baby pics are in this category for me) and Deb If you're reading this it DOESN'T mean I don't want to see your kids pics since there have been some GREAT baby photos here too.
• then there are are issues like time to post etc that have already been covered well already

And if we're voting on it - I'd say I like things just as they are. Add a happy snaps section and I just plain won't look there and in the process miss some great shots - since one person's happy snaps might be another's work of art. I'm more inclined to agree with Leek that you just add a tag if you DON'T want critique.

I agree with almost verything that you've said here.

The one point that I disagree with is your last ...if you don't want a crituqe, then don't post the bloody image: it's a critques section, and any and every image is open to be critiqued.

Whether viewers of an image choose to do so is an entirely different matter.

[gstark]

OK

Now I'm annoyed

<rant on>I've just seen two posts where people have commented or not commented on images based on the presence (or absence) of a request for a critique. Presumably in response to this thread. I've said it elsewhere, but it's a REVIEWS and CRITIQUES thread. My view is the requirement for review and critique is implied. I'd hate to get to the stage where I have to say "please critique" in every image post (since I'm enough of a masochist to always want comments), or feel obliged NOT to critique because the poster didn't ask<rant off>

Exactly.

I'll have a chat to the other mods, but my gut feeling is that we'll be removing those explicit calls for a critique because they're not required.


Matt, please go ahead; I welcome your posts. Your's too, Deb.

[phillipb]

after reading this thread there is no way in hell I will be posting another image of them on here.

Deb

Wrong attitude Deb, you take the photos that make you happy, if other people don't like them that's their problem.
Why is the face of a baby gorilla or a bee or spider any more artistic than that of a human baby?

[Greg B]

Deb, I don't think you should worry too much about Onyx having a stir.

Photos of kiddies (in my view) are just as valid as photos of anything else. Such as our cat, for example.

In the absence of a prescribed theme or subject, the content of a photo is a decision for the photographer. Different subjects appeal to different people - for example, I like photos of cats and aircraft because I like cats and aircraft. I also like photographs of other things because I like the photograph as a photograph.

I remember commenting to the GLW some time back that, on a forum such as this, you got to see some photographs which were excellent in their artistry, and some photographs which were excellent because the content was interesting, and some photographs which were excellent because they give you a warm fuzzy.

Who is to decide which is more valid? Well, it is my post, so the answer is ME. And I say they are all valid, and they are all welcome, and I enjoy looking at them for different reasons, and sometimes I comment and sometimes I don't. And I'll decide when I want to comment, whether because I'm inspired or moved or just interested.

We have a couple of hundred active members here, taking thousands of images. Rich pickins indeed. Let's enjoy and welcome them all.

[gstark]

We have a couple of hundred active members here, taking thousands of images. Rich pickins indeed. Let's enjoy and welcome them all.

And to that I say hear, hear!

And will close this thread as well.