# The Pact



## manaheim

I'm going to make a bit of a rogue suggestion here that we write up a bit of a pact for people dedicated to some level of quality in the halls of TPF. This is just a draft, and I'm very open to edits. Consider this revision 1.

My thought is that those of us who are into this commit to the pact by signing this and putting *a big bold link to this in their sig*, and this becomes our modus operandi, regardless of whether or not it will make "everyone happy".

Maybe this is too extreme. I dunno. It seems like this is the way the forum ran before, and it seems like people want it back that way, so I figured I'd take a shot at it... as stated in the pact... be direct and honest with your criticism.



Giving Critique
Critique is given to help people become better photographers, artists, and occasionally business people.
I will offer honest critique when it is asked for.
I will critique the work, not the person.
I will not hesitate to be direct.
I will not hold back critique, even if feelings may be hurt.
If a shot has fundamental flaws, I will not hesitate to say so.
I will offer both technical and artistic critique when possible.
I will respect the requestors wishes if specified (such as if they only want technical critique)
Summary comments along the lines of "I like it!" or "Great job!" or "It sucks!" do no one any good and will be avoided at all costs. Opinions must be expressed with reasons and analysis.
Lastly, I will make a reasonable effort not to hurt feelings, but not at the cost of sacrificing the aforementioned statements.

Accepting Critique
Critique is given to help people become better photographers, artists, and occasionally business people.
I will accept critique graciously.
I may not agree with or use all that I receive, but I will still but I will still take into consideration all critique provided.
I will actively and openly discuss critique so received.
When appropriate, I will challenge those who critique me to gain a better understanding.
I will not attempt to discredit or insult those who would take the time to provide any form of critique.
I will not discount opinions without serious consideration.

Know Theyself
I hereby acknowledge that I am not Ansel Adams.
I will be mindful of my own skill level when speaking with others and actively point out where I am speaking of things I am not totally certain of.
I acknowledge that no matter how good I am, there is always going to be someone better out there, and there is always going to be something else to learn.

A Committment to Community
I am a part of this community and therefore a stakeholder in it and will act as such.
Anyone who acts shoddily on this forum is a detriment to this community. I will take it upon myself to make polite comments to those people and (in extreme cases) report them to the moderators if appropriate.
I will actively participate in trying to redirect discussions to improve the quality of discourse.
I will actively suggest and promote changes to the community to make it better.

Response to Smarm (Antagonism/Ingratiation/etc.) (I like the word "smarm")
If someone rails at a response where I am adhering to this pact, I will point them to this pact and suggest that they read it.
If someone rails at me and I deserve it, I'll apologize and correct my behavior.
I will do my best not to get involved in flame wars.
I will give everyone at least one chance to take back what they said or correct their approach.
If all else fails, I will actively employ the ignore feature and move on with my life.

Did I miss anything?


----------



## fwellers

Thanks for the thread. I think I'll take the opportunity to reply since you asked. 



> My thought is that those of us who are into this commit to the pact by signing this and putting it in their sig ...


It's got potential as a sticky or something. I sure wouldn't want to see that on the end of everybody's posts ( in their sig ). My fingers would fall off from all the scrolling. 



> Summary comments along the lines of "I like it!" or "Great job!" or "It sucks!" do no one any good and will be avoided at all costs. Opinions must be expressed with reasons and analysis.


I would put it more along this line:
It's ok to express positive feelings about a picture such as "I like it" or "Great job", but it's better to make an effort to include at least one reason why you like it. That actually helps  you as much as the OP.  



> Anyone who acts shoddily on this forum is a detriment to this community. I will take it upon myself to make polite comments to those people and/or report them to the moderators as necessary.



Just a personal opinion here, but I don't like reporting people, or people who report people. I wouldn't want to agree to that one. The first part ( make a polite comment to them ) yea, but not the second part.  
I find that mostly a juicy comment or two here and there can keep things from getting too boring, but the best way to avoid letting a thread go to the dogs is to ignore the poor behavior and move on.  


I think you number 5 section is the best. right on just as it is.


----------



## SpeedTrap

I like it!


----------



## farmerj

that 4000 posts thing is eating at you?

What you have written is well done, but it should be "common" sense.  I think we are realizing that it really is "rare" sense though.

No pact should be needed if you just do what is right, and do it with courtesy and respect.


----------



## Joves

This should be stickied in the Beginners area. With the title of Before asking for C&C Please read this first.


----------



## musicaleCA

Joves said:


> This should be stickied in the Beginners area. With the title of Before asking for C&C Please read this first.



Indeed, but you know what, I like the idea. A little link in our sigs could do a world of good for newbies (I've been here for two months and I'm talking about newbies; crazy). Maybe it'll catch someone's eye and encourage them to provide more meaningful critique.

So, here is just a bit of rewording (I'm going to use letters to denote the line after each section number, and that's something else I'd like to see; easier to reference material that's well-organized):

2.c I *may* not agree with or use all that I receive, *but I will still take into consideration all critique provided in line with §1.*

2.e *When appropriate,* I will challenge those who critique me to gain a better understanding.

2.f I will not attempt to discredit or insult those who *<snip>* take the time to provide *any form of* critique, *regardless of §1.*

4.b Anyone who acts shoddily on this forum is a detriment to this community. I will take it upon myself to make polite, *non-inflammatory* comments *toward* those people and/or report them to the moderators as necessary. *I not act in such a manner.*

5. Smarm? Really? I had to look that up; bloody Brits.  :greenpbl: How about *Response to Smarm/Ingratiation/Antagonism*?

Oh, and sorry if my language took at turn for the legalease guys. I think my legalease turned on for a moment.


----------



## kundalini

manaheim said:


> I *may not*agree with or use all that I receive, but I will still listen.





fwellers said:


> I sure wouldn't want to see that on the end of everybody's posts ( in their sig ). My fingers would fall off from all the scrolling. .


A link would suffice.



For Chris's eyes only.
*[video=youtube;bsC1m4Fb9Hs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsC1m4Fb9Hs"]CLICKY[/video]*


----------



## kundalini

Stupid new feature for youtube vids....... kills all the surprise.


----------



## fwellers

kundalini said:


> Stupid new feature for youtube vids....... kills all the surprise.



Gotta love that sig of yours Kundalini.


----------



## manaheim

Without getting into multi-quote hell... 

1. ooo... styx... now if I just had SOUND on this machine. 
2. Music- nice edits (and there were some other good ones earlier as well, I'll try to incorporate those later tonight)
3. Yes, I meant put it as a link in your sig and to post the link to people occasionally if they are going against the pact... even if they haven't agreed to it.     They must succumb!
4. Farmer... as you kinda eluded to... common sense is anything but common.


----------



## EhJsNe

Just a few questions...and comments....before I add this to my signiture...because I agree with most....but not all...and some changes to this (not HUGE) to make it kinda better...idk......



> "I will not agree with or use all that I receive, but I will still listen"


I think that should be changed to MAY or MIGHT NOT agree....



> "Lastly, I will make a reasonable effort not to hurt feelings, but not at the cost of sacrificing the aforementioned statements."


I think it should be "I will make a reasonable effort to not hurt feelings, but if I feel I may hurt feelings...include something such as "not to be taken personaly" or something like that before the comment....that one ist a big deal to me...it can stay how it is....I would do that anyway...



> I will challenge those who critique me to gain a better understanding.


Could this one be explained to me? I dont quite get what it means.

and towards the bottom...what exactly do you mean by "rail"....im geting the context clues, but I cant find a certain definition of the word as you used it.

and last but not least....what exactly does the ignore feature do? Do the comments and posts they post not appear to me...or can they just not send me private messeges?


----------



## musicaleCA

Re the last quote: I interpret that to mean that should you not understand why someone is offering a particular critique or opinion, to ask the *why* they have that opinion, and given their more in-depth explanation, you learn.

"Rail" is slang for attacking, yelling, raging belligerently at someone, or otherwise flaming.

Ignore should just block people's posts and PM's, but I believe you still have the option to see what someone you've ignored has said, if you so choose. I wouldn't know for sure; haven't used it here yet, but that's what I've seen on other vBulletin boards.


----------



## Onion

This is like a bunch of nine year olds playing in a fort.  When is the part where you spit in each other's hands and swear to be blood brothers for life?  Then some kid named mickey reaches under the mattress and brings out a crumpled magazine full of porn.  Somebody yells out freestyle! Then it's all the pacting you can handle.


----------



## kundalini

Onion said:


> This .....


I'm still trying to figure out who you are, but in the meatime, could you please refrain from contributing in this thread. IMO, there has been strides made within this thread to hopefully get this forum back on track.  The comments such as you have made thus far within this thread serve no genuine purpose towards that goal and do nothing towards that end.

In other words, could you please kindly phuque off.


----------



## Onion

kundalini said:


> Onion said:
> 
> 
> 
> This .....
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still trying to figure out who you are, but in the meatime, could you please refrain from contributing in this thread. IMO, there has been strides made within this thread to hopefully get this forum back on track. The comments such as you have made thus far within this thread serve no genuine purpose towards that goal and do nothing towards that end.
> 
> In other words, could you please kindly phuque off.
Click to expand...

 
The forum is fine just as it is. Where else can a noob ask basic questions? This pact is silly.


----------



## musicaleCA

With all due respect Onion, you haven't been here as long as some of these guys. In fact, *I* haven't been here so long either. They've seen a different forum, that apparently had a lot more quality of critique and some simple mutual respect.

The biggest issue is the quality of critique provided here, which *is* lacking. It's a photography forum, and people seeking critique need, well, critique. There's far too much patting on the back and saying "good job" without even stating what was done well in the photo. That kind of response doesn't help anyone; not the writer, not the poster, not the other readers of the forum.

I will also note that this pact (or whatever you want to call it) is meant to discourage the kind of reply you posted above that kundalini referenced; snarky replies don't help anyone either.


----------



## Onion

I have seen enough to have an opinion. Any problems here will have to be solved by management, not a few bullies that have swore to each other to be rude and inconsiderate to any one who does not agree with them, or asks the wrong question.

The good photographers are gone. I doubt that they will be replaced by the cliquish and arrogant behavior as demonstrated in this thread. 

There are limited choices. Rogue vilgilantes are the least desirable.

"Fuque off?" That's very mature.

If I had paid for membership here I'd be angry too.


----------



## musicaleCA

Onion said:


> I have seen enough to have an opinion. Any problems here will have to be solved by management, not a few bullies that have swore to each other to be rude and inconsiderate to any one who does not agree with them, or asks the wrong question.



Agreed to be rude and inconsiderate? Can you quote what you're referring to for me? Are my eyes deceiving me? (Seriously, I want to know how you reached that conclusion.)


----------



## Onion

I'm taking Kundalini's response to *Fuque off* as a response that will be typical of the pact.

I was just making a joke in the first place. I guess only pact members (bullies) are the only ones allowed to go off topic and have fun with stupid videos and talk about forcing people to "succumb."

Stay crunchy.  I can't stand this place.


----------



## manaheim

Hey guys, if we're agreeing to the pact as we should be, just block/Ignore Onion.  He has his opinions.  He is as welcome to them as we are.  I personally find his behavior here pretty unconstructive, but whatever...  the internet is full of them.  If we let them drag down the discourse, we let them win.

Now if I can just FIND the stupid ignore/block thing...


----------



## Garbz

Joke? Kundalini's post was funny, yours Onion was downright offensive. The only person here who is rude and inconsiderate because they don't like what someone said is YOU.

Maybe pay a little attention and you'll find this has nothing to do with noobs asking basic questions.


----------



## manaheim

Ok, changes made.  Check it out.  I also put something in my sig.  Woot.


----------



## kundalini

Onion said:


> I'm taking Kundalini's response to *Fuque off* as a response that will be typical of the pact.


Typical of someone reading into a response what that want to see rather than the actual content. 



If you go back to my original comment it was "could you please kindly *phuque off*". I was trying to be cordial and considerate of your feelings with the "please" and "kindly", but nowhere did I say *Fuque off. *
**


Carry on..............


----------



## blash

Absolutely signed!

manaheim check your PMs - and by the way see about adding a standard Pact signature for all of us to use.

As for Onion - he's a provocative-type troll who comes onto a thread where he knows his opinion is unpopular and unhelpful and posts anyways. Don't feed the trolls - he's a classic example of why more moderation is needed on these forums to keep trollage in check by the classic banhammer. In the meantime, if someone will let me know where this fabled "Ignore" button is, I will be more than happy to use it.


----------



## Dagwood56

I want to begin by saying that I respect you and the theory behind this "pact", but I have to say that I'm not sure its the right way to "fix" things on the forum either. I'm very much opposed to labeling as I mentioned in an earlier thread regarding the silly "thank you" button and I'm not crazy about clicks [wrong spelling I know] either and to me, this pact, will be yet another offset group that is going to draw fire from many others on the forum. There are already the "work groups" that have many members hanging within one long thread that I suspect other members feel they are not welcome to comment on [its content] if they aren't a "group" member, and there are also threads popping up by other members starting their own mini gallery rather than posting individual image threads. DwayneOaks C&C thread....why have a forum in the first place if everyone in the "COMMUNITY" is going to hide within their own little houses? The contents of this "pact" are practical, but I just feel it needs to be implemented in a different way to really make a difference and get TPF back to a helpful, and friendly Community. 

Thank you very much - the podium is now open for comments.


----------



## JerryPH

farmerj said:


> that 4000 posts thing is eating at you?
> 
> What you have written is well done, but it should be "common" sense.  I think we are realizing that it really is "rare" sense though.
> 
> No pact should be needed if you just do what is right, and do it with courtesy and respect.



You would be surprised how uncommon "common sense" really is.  If there are people that want to critique and they are strong-armed into not participating becuase the people who are posting in the CC sections have no clue what to expect or how to receive or even ASK properly for CC, they make the entire experience something that no one wants to really do again, so of course *good* CCers will not poarticipate.  

It may not need to be there forever, because once the direction of the way CC is asked and given, and it becomes a forum standard, everyone who does this, will follow "THE PACT".

My method is only slightly different and more basic.

When I post a shot for CC, I have a very simple methodology:

1. I also ask for things that I am specifically looking for (PP, composition, artistic, technical, etc... suggestions).  

2. I read the CC of the person that gives me their point of view and REALLY try to see it from their side

3. I *never* argue, disagree or finnagle with them.

4. I ask questions if there is something that is not clear to me

5. *ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS* thank them for taking the time to help me out. I was not raised in barns or in the jungles with apes.  A little courtesy goes a long way.

It is a simple system, very basic common sense, really... but how many actually do it this way?

Imagine if everyone did it this way?  I think that this is the goal that was trying to be accomplished, but in a more formal and structured manner.

Edit:
I don't usually do things like this, but in this case, if it would help, I added the link to my sig.  I want TPF to improve over the downhill slide it's fallen into recently.


----------



## PhotoXopher

I like the idea, see if it catches on.


----------



## SrBiscuit

Onion said:


> Stay crunchy. I can't stand this place.


 
then go away.

you say it's site management's job to do this, but again, perhaps you're too new to see that management does not typically step in. there was a comment made last week to the effect of: mgt has their ad dollars, so they dont care anymore.

i think this effort is nothing more than an effort by the users to better the site. if it works i think we can all expect an improved community. i think manaheim has the site's best interest in mind, and just wants users to get the best from being a member here.

good on ya manaheim.:thumbup:

*also adding link in sig.*


----------



## Chiller

Good on y'all for giving this a go.:thumbup::thumbup:   I honestly hope it works out.   
 The management and whoever else must bend tho.   It has been proven by the number of threads that keep popping up about attitudes,critique and so on,  that people wish that TPF would improve.   They just keep hoping these threads go away, and their lack of support shows how much interest they really have in fixing the issues.   Believe me, Im all for the change, but it is going to take a small miracle for anyone to actually implement them here....but keep pushing...miracles happen  
Good luck


----------



## Overread

I spend a few days away from active posting and you lot start a cult!
Well I guess I agree, though it dissapoints me a bit that such basic things must be spelled out - good manners should be automatic (I mean heck most people here are past 10 years old - heck most are past 25!).......

But don't expect me to start kissing dead chickens, dancing round maypoles and other such initiation thingies 

Good luck to the plan!!


----------



## fwellers

Chiller said:


> Good on y'all for giving this a go.:thumbup::thumbup:   I honestly hope it works out.
> The management and whoever else must bend tho.   It has been proven by the number of threads that keep popping up about attitudes,critique and so on,  that people wish that TPF would improve.   They just keep hoping these threads go away, and their lack of support shows how much interest they really have in fixing the issues.   Believe me, Im all for the change, but it is going to take a small miracle for anyone to actually implement them here....but keep pushing...miracles happen
> Good luck



I look at it as a good thing that management stays out of these things as much as possible. One thing that trips my trigger is overzealous policing of speech. If we're a community of adults, for the most part we should be able to take care of things ourselves. Which, for the most part, is to just ignore what you don't like. People's skins are too thin, and they are too willing to give up control to "management" ie.. "government".


----------



## manaheim

Jerry, you had a few ideas that I think might even go well into the pact, such as trying to say "thanks!" though I suppose we have to draw the line somewhere, and being courteous might be a good place to start. 

BTW, I've received a couple PMs asking me if its ok to put my pact sig in theirs- please feel free.

Also BTW... kundalini...


----------



## Chiller

fwellers said:


> I look at it as a good thing that management stays out of these things as much as possible. One thing that trips my trigger is overzealous policing of speech. If we're a community of adults, for the most part we should be able to take care of things ourselves. Which, for the most part, is to just ignore what you don't like. People's skins are too thin, and they are too willing to give up control to "management" ie.. "government".


 
  My only issue with the change here, is....it could work, if they let those that care work with them.  I have been a mod on 3 other forums.   There are good things and bad things about being a mod.  It can be good, when you see the efforts put forth are actually working. It can be bad, when those that feel the internet is just a place to be rude, and obnoxious come out, and the big red ban button is hit.  I used to give 3 warnings.  The first...a small....keep it clean  "Please" warning....the second...keep it clean.....the third....sorry, strike three your out...you were warned. 
  There are not enough people here with that authority.   Yeah...they say, police yourselves, but it just ends up in fights, when somebody who is an Un-mod(sorry kinda like the undead:lmao comes out and challenges another member...backs get up...words are exchanged.  Hell....it has happened in this thread.  Have you seen a mod perk up?  Nah.  
  Im not anti mod....believe me.  I really dig the mods we have here, but there are not enough...that is my beef. 

  I have a tough skin and balls bigger then y;alls head ,  but I also dont like being e-mailed by somebody calling me a "satan worshipper", or being told my horror images offend them...or being told by somebody that a hobby photographer should only post in the "just for fun", or that Im a right wing activist, cause I shot a protest that did not agree with somebody.  That pisses me off.  Critique my photos...yeah...go nuts, but dont accuse me of being somebody Im not.   So there you have a wee rant....:lmao:.  

Anyways...I think I might just give up on this topic.....   LIke I mentioned.  I hope there is change, and I hope y'all can work out a plan.   This use to be at the top of my favorites list, but now I only use it to keep the bottom from hitting the toolbar on my monitor.


----------



## Dagwood56

Chiller said:


> Anyways...I think I might just give up on this topic..... LIke I mentioned. I hope there is change, and I hope y'all can work out a plan. This use to be at the top of my favorites list, but now I only use it to keep the bottom from hitting the toolbar on my monitor.


 
 Thanks once again, I *REALLY* needed a laugh today!


----------



## fwellers

>>words are exchanged.  Hell....it has happened in this thread.  Have you seen a mod perk up?  Nah.  
  Im not anti mod....believe me.  I really dig the mods we have here, but there are not enough...that is my beef.<<

You made my point about overzealous modding. You think that this thread needs moderation. Why ? I haven't seen anything in this thread even close to needing a moderator. Why can't people just be people without such great fear and need for governance ?   So someone made some abrupt comments. Whoppde doo.  What he said wasn't bad at all. It was a differing POV. The way he said it could have been better, but it wasn't. So who cares ? Certainly not me. Why do you ?



> I have a tough skin and balls bigger then y;alls head , but I also dont like being e-mailed by somebody calling me a "satan worshipper", or being told my horror images offend them...or being told by somebody that a hobby photographer should only post in the "just for fun", or that Im a right wing activist, cause I shot a protest that did not agree with somebody. That pisses me off. Critique my photos...yeah...go nuts, but dont accuse me of being somebody Im not.   So there you have a wee rant....:lmao:.



Now that's a whole different story. emailing you ? flat out repeated ad hominums, invoking my bosses father  etc...  Now you're talking another level entirely.


----------



## Chiller

I have seen worse name calling, thats for sure.   Mods are pretty much non existant here tho.   In another thread, I mentioned....dead links...threads in wrong galleries, stuff like that.  Stickies a few years old.   The Interview with a mod place....half those "mods" are gone.   
  oh...sorry...back to this thread. I got caught up in my French fries and gravy.(or to be politically correct, so I dont get another message...sliced potatoes and gravy) 
 My main point is, this place needs some revamping, and some sort of organization, people in place to keep small things in line.   Maybe cause I have seen other forums run that way, I figure it could work here.  I remember a time when the mods actually participated in the thread, posted pics and were part of the goings on.   

 As for my pms and e-mails. My mail boxes are always open to anyone who wants to talk photography, or ask any questions, whatever...even say hi.  But my pictures are what I see, not what I believe.   


Damn...I should be working.   Gotta run.  Bodies are piling up all over the place here. :er:


----------



## Dagwood56

Okay - after asking Chris to give me a few more reasons why I should add the pact to my sig and mulling over his response -- I'm on board.

Now can someone *Pleeeeze* tell this old idiot how you embed the pact link into text?


----------



## JerryPH

- Click on the USERCP link at the top of the page
- on the left side click on EDIT SIGNATURE
- Enter the text you want in your sig (Not an equipment list, that is against forum rules  )
- highlight the words that you want to be a link

Click on the LINK button... look below:






Enter the link which is 
www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photographic-discussions/169089-pact.html#post1633751

- Click on OK
- Click on SAVE SIGNATURE

That's it.


----------



## fwellers

Chiller said:


> I have seen worse name calling, thats for sure.   Mods are pretty much non existant here tho.   In another thread, I mentioned....dead links...threads in wrong galleries, stuff like that.  Stickies a few years old.   The Interview with a mod place....half those "mods" are gone.
> oh...sorry...back to this thread. I got caught up in my French fries and gravy.(or to be politically correct, so I dont get another message...sliced potatoes and gravy)
> My main point is, this place needs some revamping, and some sort of organization, people in place to keep small things in line.   Maybe cause I have seen other forums run that way, I figure it could work here.  I remember a time when the mods actually participated in the thread, posted pics and were part of the goings on.
> 
> As for my pms and e-mails. My mail boxes are always open to anyone who wants to talk photography, or ask any questions, whatever...even say hi.  But my pictures are what I see, not what I believe.
> 
> 
> Damn...I should be working.   Gotta run.  Bodies are piling up all over the place here. :er:



Ha. You're funny man. hehe.
Yea I remember those times. For a while I was a mod on a very active political disussion forum. And back then we did post a lot. Talk about a balancing act. fugedaboudit.  The owner of the delphi forums was always monitoring the forums and threatening to lower the status of forums, close them down etc... But the level of crap that went on there makes this place look like a nunnery !!


----------



## Chiller

fwellers said:


> Ha. You're funny man. hehe.
> Yea I remember those times. *For a while I was a mod on a very active political disussion forum*. And back then we did post a lot. Talk about a balancing act. fugedaboudit. The owner of the delphi forums was always monitoring the forums and threatening to lower the status of forums, close them down etc... But the level of crap that went on there makes this place look like a nunnery !!


I was also a mod on a halloween forum.  People think the noobs are bad here. You have no idea how many threads are started...."so, Im doing my first home haunt...where do I start"....or...."Im building my first gravestone..what type of foam do I get" 
Many did not see, or chose to ignore the..."How to start a home haunt"....or the "Prop Building" tutorials. :er: And there are even pictures too, with fancy diagrams. All they need is a printer. 
Then....there are the do gooders who come on, and say how evil we are to do such a bad thing by scarying people. Um....uh....alrighty then....I wont go into details, but...you get the point. :lmao:
BTW....this is not a political forum, so please keep your political thoughts to yourself.......Kidddding.....laugh with me.:lmao::lmao:you said the word political.


----------



## Chris of Arabia

This isn't intended to be one of those point and counter-point things, but it was the easiest way to provide an update



Chiller said:


> Mods are pretty much non existant here tho.



I'd agree that we seem to be less present than say a year back, but that doesn't mean we're not around, neither does it mean that we are not addressing things when they get reported.



Chiller said:


> In another thread, I mentioned....dead links...



Unfortunately, the internet is full of dead links. Whatever time the mods do spend on here is not spent trawling the threads for stuff to edit out - it's really not a practical proposition. 



Chiller said:


> threads in wrong galleries, stuff like that.



Report it



Chiller said:


> Stickies a few years old.



I've weeded those out already. Things should be tidier now, if not, let me know.



Chiller said:


> The Interview with a mod place....half those "mods" are gone.



Good point. I've requested that it be closed down, but it's not something I can do myself.

As to the Critique Forum, I don't think that's due back here any time soon. Whilst it pre-dates my slightly elevated status on TPF, I seem to recall it wasn't the most edifying spectacle and was justifiably canned.

I'll go back to something I've said before though, if you think there is a problem, then either report it or use the feedback forum.


----------



## Chiller

Thank you for replying Chris.  Please dont think Im attacking you, or the other mods....just trying to get you help.  I have been a mod, and know what you are up against...it is not an easy job.  Sure it can have its rewards, what little there are to offer, but sometimes the BS, does not help with that.  You and the others can only do what is handed to you.  I also said before...it starts at the top, and the top does not want to see any change.  
  I personally appreciate what you all do.  

Anyways...this will be my last post for a while.  Im going to take a break from TPF for a little bit.   I feel it is time to slide back into obscurity, silence my voice, and let things take its course here.  

Take care my friends.   Be safe...k?


----------



## fwellers

Chiller said:


> fwellers said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha. You're funny man. hehe.
> Yea I remember those times. *For a while I was a mod on a very active political disussion forum*. And back then we did post a lot. Talk about a balancing act. fugedaboudit. The owner of the delphi forums was always monitoring the forums and threatening to lower the status of forums, close them down etc... But the level of crap that went on there makes this place look like a nunnery !!
> 
> 
> 
> I was also a mod on a halloween forum.  People think the noobs are bad here. You have no idea how many threads are started...."so, Im doing my first home haunt...where do I start"....or...."Im building my first gravestone..what type of foam do I get"
> Many did not see, or chose to ignore the..."How to start a home haunt"....or the "Prop Building" tutorials. :er: And there are even pictures too, with fancy diagrams. All they need is a printer.
> Then....there are the do gooders who come on, and say how evil we are to do such a bad thing by scarying people. Um....uh....alrighty then....I wont go into details, but...you get the point. :lmao:
> BTW....this is not a political forum, so please keep your political thoughts to yourself.......Kidddding.....laugh with me.:lmao::lmao:you said the word political.
Click to expand...


Yea, I didn't realize that I was delving into the political arena when I made a comparison between exessive moderation of speech on forums and overbearing govt. My bad . :er:


----------



## JerryPH

Heck, being a mod in about any forum is often tough... been there and done that too several times and still am a mod in a couple other forums.  But I think that I am lucky from the perspective that the mods/owners that I am with, are very unified and directed with clear goals and very well layed out lines of conduct.  This is not something that you see everywhere.


----------



## Jaszek

You've got a new supporter . Now we just need a sticky to remind people to read stickies


----------



## manaheim

Jaszek said:


> You've got a new supporter . Now we just need a sticky to remind people to read stickies


 
  I'm betting that won't happen. 

If we all keep it in our sigs occasionally someone will see it and make a post and bump it inadvertantly.

Thanks for adding it to your sig!


----------



## Jaszek

no problem


----------



## JamieR

I think it's a good idea, but i think you all need to get out the house more, it's only a forum :lmao:


----------



## Garbz

Can we put a size restriction on the pact signature? Jeesh reading through this thread already gives my eyeaches 




JamieR said:


> I think it's a good idea, but i think you all need to get out the house more, it's only a forum :lmao:



Don't encourage him. It's hard enough to keep him from leaving entirely. This has been a great community for years but has gone dramatically down hill <drama scene> with some notable members disappearing, leaving chaos, disorder and a complete lack of reason. <end drama scene>


----------



## Dao

Let see if my sig works .....


----------



## musicaleCA

+3.1415926... I like.


----------



## leighthal

I'm sc-a-re-d to post anything now. Some of you are making this so newbie unfriendly and I can't understand why. Yes, we all ask stupid questions at some point. Ahem, besides me of course. LOL  :lmao: When someone is new they are unsure and need guidance to find the things they are looking for. It took me 3 weeks just to find the damn search button. Every time I found it they changed the theme and my search would begin again.
In regards to the pact.... I personally lost interest after paragraph one. (ADD at it's finest). The parts I did read seem like common sense. If someone doesn't have that "be nice, be helpful" filter then oh well, move on to the next comment. As a newbie I love getting critiques that are more involved on the technical side. I have learned a lot for some of you and hope to continue to do so. I also love the 'nice shot' 'thumbs up' etc etc comments. Art is subjective and not every post has to have a reason you like something. I would like to know that if I post a simple 'cool photo' comment it is received well and doesn't land me on the ignore pile.

In the end, I'll forgo the pact signature. While a sound idea, pacts are more geared for clubs. This is a forum. Forums breed all kinds, all manners and all opinions. It's up to me; the user, to sift through what is usable and what is not.

Thanks for taking the time and effort to post it Manaheim. (I apologize for my ADD profusely)


----------



## Dagwood56

leighthal said:


> I'm sc-a-re-d to post anything now. Some of you are making this so newbie unfriendly and I can't understand why. Yes, we all ask stupid questions at some point. Ahem, besides me of course. LOL  :lmao: When someone is new they are unsure and need guidance to find the things they are looking for. It took me 3 weeks just to find the damn search button. Every time I found it they changed the theme and my search would begin again.
> In regards to the pact.... I personally lost interest after paragraph one. (ADD at it's finest). The parts I did read seem like common sense. If someone doesn't have that "be nice, be helpful" filter then oh well, move on to the next comment. As a newbie I love getting critiques that are more involved on the technical side. I have learned a lot for some of you and hope to continue to do so. I also love the 'nice shot' 'thumbs up' etc etc comments. Art is subjective and not every post has to have a reason you like something. I would like to know that if I post a simple 'cool photo' comment it is received well and doesn't land me on the ignore pile.
> 
> In the end, I'll forgo the pact signature. While a sound idea, pacts are more geared for clubs. This is a forum. Forums breed all kinds, all manners and all opinions. It's up to me; the user, to sift through what is usable and what is not.
> 
> Thanks for taking the time and effort to post it Manaheim. (I apologize for my ADD profusely)


 
Its not meant to alienate or exclude anyone and there will always be photos cool enough or good enough to warrant a simple "good job". The problem is this [IMO], so many new users have come here and they post that they have just bought their first camera and pretty much ask how to use it and then they post that thread and move on to give C&C on other people's photos when they've just admitted they don't know anything. Unfortuneately, many times these people are saying "great job" to a photo by another newbie [when the photo is actually quite bad] and then that newbie thinks -"oh, hey! This is great, they liked it, I'm not as bad as I thought I was and continues on the same course without ever improving. As its been said before, it becomes an issue of the blind leading the blind and then no one learns anything. Yes, it is common sense to be polite etc., but in today's society, common sense has pretty much flown the coop and many people need to be reminded.....just more of my 2 cents.


----------



## fwellers

Dagwood56 said:


> leighthal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sc-a-re-d to post anything now. Some of you are making this so newbie unfriendly and I can't understand why. Yes, we all ask stupid questions at some point. Ahem, besides me of course. LOL  :lmao: When someone is new they are unsure and need guidance to find the things they are looking for. It took me 3 weeks just to find the damn search button. Every time I found it they changed the theme and my search would begin again.
> In regards to the pact.... I personally lost interest after paragraph one. (ADD at it's finest). The parts I did read seem like common sense. If someone doesn't have that "be nice, be helpful" filter then oh well, move on to the next comment. As a newbie I love getting critiques that are more involved on the technical side. I have learned a lot for some of you and hope to continue to do so. I also love the 'nice shot' 'thumbs up' etc etc comments. Art is subjective and not every post has to have a reason you like something. I would like to know that if I post a simple 'cool photo' comment it is received well and doesn't land me on the ignore pile.
> 
> In the end, I'll forgo the pact signature. While a sound idea, pacts are more geared for clubs. This is a forum. Forums breed all kinds, all manners and all opinions. It's up to me; the user, to sift through what is usable and what is not.
> 
> Thanks for taking the time and effort to post it Manaheim. (I apologize for my ADD profusely)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not meant to alienate or exclude anyone and there will always be photos cool enough or good enough to warrant a simple "good job". The problem is this [IMO], so many new users have come here and they post that they have just bought their first camera and pretty much ask how to use it and then they post that thread and move on to give C&C on other people's photos when they've just admitted they don't know anything. Unfortuneately, many times these people are saying "great job" to a photo by another newbie [when the photo is actually quite bad] and then that newbie thinks -"oh, hey! This is great, they liked it, I'm not as bad as I thought I was and continues on the same course without ever improving. As its been said before, it becomes an issue of the blind leading the blind and then no one learns anything. Yes, it is common sense to be polite etc., but in today's society, common sense has pretty much flown the coop and many people need to be reminded.....just more of my 2 cents.
Click to expand...


The forum reflects real life to a certain extent. Many times IRL people who are new at something together, will encourage each other. Nothing wrong with that. some people just like to say nice things to others. Nothing wrong with that either.
A person who is seeking critique, will have to be able to make judgements on the person critiquing them, as well as the actual critique given. That also is a reflection of real life.  
I don't think the sole purpose of the forum is to make people better photographers through critique. Yes that is a good product of this forum and others, but it is just as imperfect as people themselves are.  
And some people don't view that as the be all and end all of the forum. They want support, comraderie, and a place to hang out too. It takes all kinds.


----------



## Chris of Arabia

leighthal said:


> I'm sc-a-re-d to post anything now.



Just keep posting and doing what you can do to improve your own output. People will post stuff that you're not going to enjoy reading from time to time, pact or no pact - some may be useful and other stuff not so. When it gets to the point where the feedback is heading down the offensive route, just report it and it will get dealt with appropriately*.

* for the more sensitive amongst us, that doesn't necessarily mean the mods are going to delete/ban/warn anyone.


----------



## Chris of Arabia

OK, 'Interview with a Mod' has now been tucked away out of sight.


----------



## SonnarSphere

Dagwood56 said:


> The problem is this [IMO], so many new users have come here and they post that they have just bought their first camera and pretty much ask how to use it and then they post that thread and move on to give C&C on other people's photos when they've just admitted they don't know anything.



where on the forum has this occurred? and is there more than one
 instance of it, per hundred or even per thousand posts? 
and what is outrageous about about a novice saying.. 
i like this/i dont like that. 

i think in art (subject photography), this is about all you can say! 
the statements 'that is good', 'that is bad'. belongs to establishment
Art Salon of the 1800's. if people are crap photographers in your view,
just ignore them. or be charitable and find something positive to say.

we can sit using photo.net 'rate photos' all day, giving 1 for aestethic
and 1 for originality.let it out!! :0)



Dagwood56 said:


> Unfortuneately, many times these people are saying "great job" to a photo by another newbie [when the photo is actually quite bad] and then that newbie thinks -"oh, hey! This is great, they liked it, I'm not as bad as I thought I was and continues on the same course without ever improving.



this seems to me to be based on assumptions, generalisations. 
who is this newbie and how is it possible to read this newbie's mind?
it assumes that this newbie is stimulated and motivated 
only by some 'supervisor', here on the forum who operates 
this newbie as if by remote-control.

how can it asserted that the person will continue to make identical
copies of the picture that disgusted you until 're-programmed' by
criticism and how it can be asserted that they will 'never improve'
unless 'an expert' acts as a catalyst for advancement (advancement 
compatible with the 'experts' values and beliefs)?

i just think the stance of a pact is absolutist. everything can be improved,
including this 'manifesto' which contains (in DRAFT form) several 
'will not/can not/shall not' type statements. in using negative dialogue, 
these don't actually mean anything tangible. 'i will not' doesn't inform 
anyone what a person WILL.

e.g "i will not eat soup for lunch"

so..do we know what will be eaten for lunch?

no. 

so, what WILL the pact do?
and is it useful? ecologically sound in terms of a group dynamic..and 
what is the desired outcome. and when is this outcome to be achieved?

and how do we know when it has been achieved?
and what do we do then?


----------



## mikemicki

I think this is a good idea.  I'm in.  eacemrgreen:


----------



## Dagwood56

~~~SIGH~~~ If I worded something improperly than I apologize, I was not meaning to offend anyone, and I don't intend to engage in an argument. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I stated mine as best I could and thats all it was - an opinion.


----------



## SonnarSphere

i pick up on what is posted and debate it. is my only intention. you can be
confident that that is something different than a personalised criticism targeted
 at you, Carol.

written communication is important in this forum. as important as the pictures.
i feel that if people allow pride and reputation to become tangled up in a hasty
posture, codified in a list of rules, it will be less than successful - and that will
be frustrating. it is quite possible some of the 'best' photographers are the 
least capable educators. that's a challenge.


----------



## ottor

I dunno.... I just dunno... hummm... was OK with the idea until I had to admit that I wasn't Ansel Adams.... :mrgreen:


Actually - it makes so much sense that I cant' help but be in... 

Thanks!!

r

(Still lookin for a blow-up photographers assistant....)


----------



## manaheim

Sonnar... it's really only abolitionist if you look at it emotionally, which is a bit part of why we're here lately.  People post an image that has some pretty serious issues and say "How's this?"  If anyone responds saying anything other than "It's GREAT!", a good percentage of people get really upset.  Not everyone, but a notable number.

What's more is when someone else (evidently fairly new to the field) _does_ say "It's GREAT!" for one of us to come in and correct that, we wind up looking like jerks, and then the people have another chance to get upset with us. 

So, eventually more experienced folk say less... the newbs are left to pat teh newbs on the back, and the level of discourse and knowledge share diminishes.

And yes, this absolutely DOES happen.

And here's the thing...

There _are_ some rules to photography.  You certainly don't have to follow them all the time, but you kinda need to know what they are to know how and when to break them.  And we're not talking about "gee, I don't like the color" here... we're talking about overexposure/underexposure, framing the subject as only a tiny part of the frame, having no subject at all, etc.  These generally are not considered subjective elements.

Really, all the pact says is "you know, you may get upset, but I'm still going to try to help you anyway... and if you get ticked off at me for trying, meh..."

I don't see how that could ever be considered bad.


----------



## fwellers

sorry to say this, but the more I read this thread, the more I think that "the pact" being spelled out, objectified as such, and tagged to certain people's sigs, has very little positive value and is more divisive and limiting in nature.

I say that people should just give the criticism they feel obliged to give, when asked for it, but to give it with sensitivity to  the recipient's feelings. 
The asker for cc just needs to realize that criticism of photography has a highly  subjective nature to it.  Even exposure is subjective. If someone posts a pic that has blown highlights or looks underexposed in the shadows ( loss of detail in the shadows ), then mention it, but not as if your take on it is FACT. 
the recipient will learn from any well given critique, even if he/she doesn't agree with it.
But the more you try to codify responses, the less creative potential will exist.


----------



## skieur

fwellers said:


> I say that people should just give the criticism they feel obliged to give, when asked for it, but to give it with sensitivity to the recipient's feelings.
> The asker for cc just needs to realize that criticism of photography has a highly subjective nature to it. Even exposure is subjective. If someone posts a pic that has blown highlights or looks underexposed in the shadows ( loss of detail in the shadows ), then mention it, but not as if your take on it is FACT.
> the recipient will learn from any well given critique, even if he/she doesn't agree with it.
> But the more you try to codify responses, the less creative potential will exist.


 
Sorry, but what you have said above is NOT reality and has NEVER been reality in the either high level amateur competition level or professional photography at the corporate or organizational level.

Any performance evaluation is very minimally subjective, if it is given by someone with a lot of experience. The same is true for photography. Underexposed or blown highlights IS FACT, whether the person appreciates or is sensitive to it or not.

Creative potential is only effective, if it takes place within the parameters of the structure of the medium. Put in other terms, kicking a garbage can may be expressing oneself but it is NOT by any stretch of the imagination creative. Literature is not literature without words that are readable and photography is meaningless without a subject that can be seen in the picture.

The role of critique is to be clear, concrete, understandable and as objective as possible without any artificial attempts at sensitivity or diplomacy which usually fail. Put another way, confidence should come from within. No one should depend on others to build their self-confidence through false praise, masquerading as sensitivity or diplomacy.

skieur


----------



## Garbz

To all those people who think we are alienating them, have a careful read at the wording of this pact. All it does is aim to improve the quality of the discussions. If you're a newbie feel free to post, and now expect a much more useful reply to help better your photography. 

Ultimately it's just going back to the way things were 2 or 3 years ago, It's just a shame we had to start it like this in a thread, and in writing.



fwellers said:


> the recipient will learn from any well given critique, even if he/she doesn't agree with it.



And those are the key words right there. "Well given critique". This pact is not designed to stop any well given critique, or codify the responses so every gets the same bland reply. The goal is to stop critique which is not well given and utterly useless. Many of the points in the pact happen now for the most part except for one standout line:

_Summary comments along the lines of "I like it!" or "Great job!" or "It sucks!" do no one any good and will be avoided at all costs. Opinions must be expressed with reasons and analysis._

If I post a picture of my cat and someone says "I LOVE IT" the next says "IT SUCKS" I gain nothing from it. However if I get "I LOVE IT your cat is so fluffy and cute, I love cats," and then "IT SUCKS you've cut off the ear the lighting is terrible and there's something weird on his eye" Then I learn a lot. 

By getting the full story it is obvious who is critiquing the photo, and who is biased because of how damn sexy my cat is.

I had that very case a while ago when deciding if I should spend $150 to frame a print of mine. I got a good 5 replies saying "THIS IS AWESOME" before I got some reasonable ones saying "the proportions may look better if I cut this here", or "this part is distracting does it need to be in the otherwise good shot".


----------



## farmerj

Garbz said:


> To all those people who think we are alienating them, have a careful read at the wording of this pact. All it does is aim to improve the quality of the discussions. If you're a newbie feel free to post, and now expect a much more useful reply to help better your photography.
> 
> Ultimately it's just going back to the way things were 2 or 3 years ago, It's just a shame we had to start it like this in a thread, and in writing.
> 
> 
> 
> fwellers said:
> 
> 
> 
> the recipient will learn from any well given critique, even if he/she doesn't agree with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And those are the key words right there. "Well given critique". This pact is not designed to stop any well given critique, or codify the responses so every gets the same bland reply. The goal is to stop critique which is not well given and utterly useless. Many of the points in the pact happen now for the most part except for one standout line:
> 
> _Summary comments along the lines of "I like it!" or "Great job!" or "It sucks!" do no one any good and will be avoided at all costs. Opinions must be expressed with reasons and analysis._
> 
> If I post a picture of my cat and someone says "I LOVE IT" the next says "IT SUCKS" I gain nothing from it. However if I get "I LOVE IT your cat is so fluffy and cute, I love cats," and then "IT SUCKS you've cut off the ear the lighting is terrible and there's something weird on his eye" Then I learn a lot.
> 
> By getting the full story it is obvious who is critiquing the photo, and who is biased because of how damn sexy my cat is.
> 
> I had that very case a while ago when deciding if I should spend $150 to frame a print of mine. I got a good 5 replies saying "THIS IS AWESOME" before I got some reasonable ones saying "the proportions may look better if I cut this here", or "this part is distracting does it need to be in the otherwise good shot".
Click to expand...



Did you explain that you were looking to frame the print....

And that you were asking for feedback in what would look better.?


----------



## SonnarSphere

@Garbz quote:_ Summary comments along the lines of "I like it!" or "Great job!" or "It sucks!" do no one any good and will be avoided at all costs._

well this is someone's opinion. and obviously shared by others. but i disagree that
the positive words of encouragement 'do no good'. we can say encouraging things
and also give constructive help. there seems to be defensiveness over the 'words'
of the ideology of this 'pact' and yet an intolerance of k_ind words_ used elsewhere.


----------



## SonnarSphere

maybe a simple solution is, in the same fashion as we can elect/decline editing of our photos, 
we could elect/decline coaching on photography or elect/decline to have serious critique. 
that way people, generally regarded as poor photographers would fade out the picture - 
or continue happy in obscurity. a win/win arrangement.


----------



## manaheim

...or you could just not support the pact.

I mean, seriously, it's not like it's mandatory.

The idea here is to try to establish some kind of cultural guidelines and to help other people understand how some of us go about our day on TPF and why... but if the prevailing majority of people on the forums don't feel the pact is the way TPF should be, then the pact will fall flat on its face.

Debating the pact is essentially like debating whether or not I should like the color blue.


----------



## SrBiscuit

SonnarSphere said:


> maybe a simple solution is, in the same fashion as we can elect/decline editing of our photos,
> we could elect/decline coaching on photography or elect/decline to have serious critique.
> that way people, generally regarded as poor photographers would fade out the picture -
> or continue happy in obscurity. a win/win arrangement.


 
im pretty sure that the person posting the photos elects whether or not they want coaching and/or critique when they state in their post: "C&C please".
 if that C&C is missing, i try very hard to avoid saying much about the photo(s), and just look at it.


----------



## fwellers

skieur said:


> Sorry, but what you have said above is NOT reality and has NEVER been reality in the either high level amateur competition level or professional photography at the corporate or organizational level.



I am referring to this forum, not to a photography competition. I wasn't aware that the raison d'etre of this forum was to groom, prepare or otherwise emulate a photography competition.



> The same is true for photography. Underexposed or blown highlights IS FACT, whether the person appreciates or is sensitive to it or not.


To a point, but I say that even blown highlights or underexposure is subjective. I've had people tell me that pictures were underexposed. And when they do, I take another look. At first I think they were right more often, but some of what is underexposed for one person, is just exactly how I want it in my picture.  Who decides ? I say the ultimate decision is with the photographer, and is subjective. That's why I said to give your critique, but not in a way that makes your version of photographic reality the only one.



> The role of critique is to be clear, concrete, understandable and as objective as possible without any artificial attempts at sensitivity or diplomacy which usually fail.


Maybe in a training school or something. Manners dictate otherwise. Now if you are critiquing a fellow photographer who you've exchanged critiques with for a while, and you both understand each other's way, then sure, dispense with the extra words and get right to the heart of the matter. You both understand each other, and on some level you both understand that the other person's critique has  a largely SUBJECTIVE quality to it.
But for those who critique others whom they don't know, it's way better to take the time to package critique with a bit more care. Pretty much the same things goes for every avenue of life.



> Put another way, confidence should come from within. No one should depend on others to build their self-confidence through false praise, masquerading as sensitivity or diplomacy.


Why do you insist on confusing manners with disingenuous flattery ? As for diplomacy, it goes to my last paragraph above. Don't assume that because someone is new to photography, that they can't read between the lines. There are plenty of ways to get your critique across without giving offense to someone who doesn't know you ( yet ). They involve a measure of normal diplomacy.

Peace,
Floyd


----------



## fwellers

manaheim said:


> .
> 
> Debating the pact is essentially like debating whether or not I should like the color blue.



Dude, you made the thread. 
What's wrong with discussing it ?


----------



## mooimeisie

I would like to know how this pact will affect those on this board who do not post it in their signature.  I for one just accept everything listed in the Pact as common sense.  I do understand what you all are aiming at, offering serious critique to those who ask, but what happens to the serious new photographer who is not part of this group.  I posted yesterday a thread asking for C&C.  There's been alot of activity on this thread, but not one post from anyone with over 50 posts when I do ask for help.  Does that mean that if I don't get any replies from the serious photographer, belonging to the pact that you all think my stuff sucks and you're not interested?  Are you not critiquing because I don't have the pact in my signature and you think I can't take it.  Is my type of photography not your style?

I really think that if you show the "Pact" in your signature, it also carries a responsibility of showing that you are a very serious photographer.

Also, I was very disappointed to learn from this pact, that I was not Ansel Adams.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

mooimeisie said:


> Does that mean that if I don't get any replies from the serious photographer, belonging to the pact that you all think my stuff sucks and you're not interested?


 
Quite the contrary.
If you get no replies, that means your photos are perfect!
Well, thats how I see it anyways. :mrgreen:


----------



## skieur

fwellers said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but what you have said above is NOT reality and has NEVER been reality in the either high level amateur competition level or professional photography at the corporate or organizational level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am referring to this forum, not to a photography competition. I wasn't aware that the raison d'etre of this forum was to groom, prepare or otherwise emulate a photography competition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same is true for photography. Underexposed or blown highlights IS FACT, whether the person appreciates or is sensitive to it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To a point, but I say that even blown highlights or underexposure is subjective. I've had people tell me that pictures were underexposed. And when they do, I take another look. At first I think they were right more often, but some of what is underexposed for one person, is just exactly how I want it in my picture.  Who decides ? I say the ultimate decision is with the photographer, and is subjective. That's why I said to give your critique, but not in a way that makes your version of photographic reality the only one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The role of critique is to be clear, concrete, understandable and as objective as possible without any artificial attempts at sensitivity or diplomacy which usually fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe in a training school or something. Manners dictate otherwise. Now if you are critiquing a fellow photographer who you've exchanged critiques with for a while, and you both understand each other's way, then sure, dispense with the extra words and get right to the heart of the matter. You both understand each other, and on some level you both understand that the other person's critique has  a largely SUBJECTIVE quality to it.
> But for those who critique others whom they don't know, it's way better to take the time to package critique with a bit more care. Pretty much the same things goes for every avenue of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put another way, confidence should come from within. No one should depend on others to build their self-confidence through false praise, masquerading as sensitivity or diplomacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you insist on confusing manners with disingenuous flattery ? As for diplomacy, it goes to my last paragraph above. Don't assume that because someone is new to photography, that they can't read between the lines. There are plenty of ways to get your critique across without giving offense to someone who doesn't know you ( yet ). They involve a measure of normal diplomacy.
> 
> Peace,
> Floyd
Click to expand...


This forum is on photography and the raison d'être of many here has already been stated.  They want to get into semi-professional or full professional photography.  Interest in competitions has also been mentioned by a number of members too.  This forum is not some "nursery", isolated from the reality of what photography is like when shooting or working with outher photographers.

As to underexposure and blown out highlights, what the photographer WANTS is really irrelevant.  What is important is whether the viewer looking at the photo is distracted by technical weaknesses.  Put another way, if the technique of underexposure does NOT contribute to the quality and effectiveness of the image then it is a weakness.  That point is basic.
The ultimate decision on technique may be by the photographer BUT the ultimate decision as to the success of that technique in creating an effective image with visual impact is by the VIEWER.  A photo must stand on its own in terms of quality and analysis.

As far as manners go, any charaterization or interpretation can be taken from a clear, concise and accurate evaluation.  The reader may be the one with the "problem".  The only clearly bad manners approach is using terms like: "This sucks." which usually displays the ignorance of the person making the comment more than anything else.

In the area of carrying manners to the point of silliness, I have seen comments such as "Great photo, but..." going on to list several things that are totally wrong with it in every area from the technical to the aesthetic.

To repeat, the photo must stand on its own and if the proper approach to critique is taken, it is much more objective than subjective.

skieur


----------



## skieur

Bitter Jeweler said:


> mooimeisie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean that if I don't get any replies from the serious photographer, belonging to the pact that you all think my stuff sucks and you're not interested?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the contrary.
> If you get no replies, that means your photos are perfect!
> Well, thats how I see it anyways. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...


Actually, it often means that there are so many things wrong with it that the person does not know where to start. 

skieur


----------



## manaheim

fwellers said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Debating the pact is essentially like debating whether or not I should like the color blue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you made the thread.
> What's wrong with discussing it ?
Click to expand...

 
Well, my very unclear point was that you are, in effect, arguing something that is subjective while at the same time arguing that the pact is in err in some way because it argues the subjective.

To be more specific, the pact is an agreement of sorts that people are trying to adhere to in order to make TPF into what they feel is a better place.  You needn't agree with it, you needn't go along with it, you needn't like it... but those of us who are going along with it have every right to do so regardless of your opinions.

You are somewhat going against the pact because you feel it is [I'm paraphrasing a lot here, so forgive me] objectifying art and boiling it down to some core rules.  You don't think that is so.  Fine, don't go along with the pact.  It's subjective. 



fwellers said:


> I am referring to this forum, not to a photography competition. I wasn't aware that the raison d'etre of this forum was to groom, prepare or otherwise emulate a photography competition.


 
No one ever said it was.  I suppose it _could_ be since the mods like to make these rather specious claims that the board is "member driven" (kinda like driving the titanic using a spoon as an oar, but ok)... It's pretty clear to me that the pact says...
_Critique is given to help people become better photographers, artists, and occasionally business people. _​In fact, the intent of the critique was to make it all internal.  Everything there is about what the _individual_ will adhere to... it makes no assertions about TPF as a body.  Again... don't agree?  Fine.  Don't "sign" the pact.  Simple enough.



fwellers said:


> To a point, but I say that even blown highlights or underexposure is subjective. I've had people tell me that pictures were underexposed. And when they do, I take another look. At first I think they were right more often, but some of what is underexposed for one person, is just exactly how I want it in my picture. Who decides ? I say the ultimate decision is with the photographer, and is subjective. That's why I said to give your critique, but not in a way that makes your version of photographic reality the only one.


 
Yes, and the pact also says...

I may not agree with or use all that I receive, but I will still but I will still take into consideration all critique provided.
When appropriate, I will challenge those who critique me to gain a better understanding.
Since this is in the very same pact as all the stuff about giving critique, I think it's fair to assume that...

The person giving the critique fully expects the person receiving it to not always accept or agree with the critique (because we understand that there _is_ an element of subjectiveness to it)
We are _hoping _that people here on TPF will know enough about the pact and have read it to know that it's totally ok to disagree with us and do your own thing.  Maybe they're not ansel adams now, but maybe they will be soon... far be it for us to hold them down to an overexposure rule. 
That being said, I do _personally_ believe you have to understand the rules in order to know how to break them effectively.  I've seen a lot of evidence of this in a variety of art forms, including painting, writing and music.



fwellers said:


> The role of critique is to be clear, concrete, understandable and as objective as possible without any artificial attempts at sensitivity or diplomacy which usually fail.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in a training school or something. Manners dictate otherwise. Now if you are critiquing a fellow photographer who you've exchanged critiques with for a while, and you both understand each other's way, then sure, dispense with the extra words and get right to the heart of the matter. You both understand each other, and on some level you both understand that the other person's critique has a largely SUBJECTIVE quality to it.
> But for those who critique others whom they don't know, it's way better to take the time to package critique with a bit more care. Pretty much the same things goes for every avenue of life.
Click to expand...

 
Manners are one thing, not being true to the critique is another.  If your manners get in the way of honesty, then you're doing a disservice to everyone.  That, of course, is my opinion.  It also appears to be the opinion of many who are going with this pact.  You don't agree?  No problem.  Don't go with it.

The pact _does_ say...
_Lastly, I will make a reasonable effort not to hurt feelings, but not at the cost of sacrificing the aforementioned statements._ ​


mooimeisie said:


> I would like to know how this pact will affect those on this board who do not post it in their signature. I for one just accept everything listed in the Pact as common sense. I do understand what you all are aiming at, offering serious critique to those who ask, but what happens to the serious new photographer who is not part of this group. I posted yesterday a thread asking for C&C. There's been alot of activity on this thread, but not one post from anyone with over 50 posts when I do ask for help. Does that mean that if I don't get any replies from the serious photographer, belonging to the pact that you all think my stuff sucks and you're not interested? Are you not critiquing because I don't have the pact in my signature and you think I can't take it. Is my type of photography not your style?
> 
> I really think that if you show the "Pact" in your signature, it also carries a responsibility of showing that you are a very serious photographer.
> 
> Also, I was very disappointed to learn from this pact, that I was not Ansel Adams.


 
Moo... first, this isn't some kind of rule of law here.  It's just a "member-driven" (mad coughing fits) initiative to try to instill a different culture here at TPF... we're just trying to drag it back in time a few years to when it was just as nice and cool, but more focused on growing people as photographers as well.  Not just answering "What camera should I buy?" 3000 times.

Your decision to add or omit the item or sign or not sign it has no bearing whatsoever on anything... except that I would argue that the more people do, the better off TPF will be... but that is _subjective_. 

And no, you don't have to be any level of photographer to put this in your sig and agree to it.  You just have to try to follow the rules in it.  If you read it carefully, you will see that it talks about things that will apply to both experienced and inexperienced photogs.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

skieur said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the contrary.
> If you get no replies, that means your photos are perfect!
> Well, thats how I see it anyways. :mrgreen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it often means that there are so many things wrong with it that the person does not know where to start.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...

 
I wonder where you can download a sense of humor.


----------



## Dagwood56

I posted this link [or one like it] a while back, but I can't find the thread now. Perhaps it will take some of the  question out of "what" critque is and "how" it is given.

Basic Strategies in Reading Photographs


----------



## fwellers

skieur said:


> This forum is on photography and the raison d'être of many here has already been stated.  They want to get into semi-professional or full professional photography.  Interest in competitions has also been mentioned by a number of members too.  This forum is not some "nursery", isolated from the reality of what photography is like when shooting or working with outher photographers.



In my negligence I must have missed the mission statement of this forum. Can you point me to that place where it says that the purpose of existence for this forum is a training boot camp for professional and semi pro photographers and that all else is nursery school ?
Maybe I ventured onto the wrong forum half a year ago. I am just a hobbyist.



> Put another way, if the technique of underexposure does NOT contribute to the quality and effectiveness of the image then it is a weakness.  That point is basic.



And therein lies the rub. The determination as to what contributes to the quality of an image is SUBJECTIVE.



> The ultimate decision on technique may be by the photographer BUT the ultimate decision as to the success of that technique in creating an effective image with visual impact is by the VIEWER.  A photo must stand on its own in terms of quality and analysis.



Again. A subjective judgment. Not FACT.




> As far as manners go, any charaterization or interpretation can be taken from a clear, concise and accurate evaluation.  The reader may be the one with the "problem".  The only clearly bad manners approach is using terms like: "This sucks." which usually displays the ignorance of the person making the comment more than anything else.



As long as both parties agree to what a clear and concise vocabulary of evaluation consists of.  Something about flys, honey and vinegar comes to mind.  



> In the area of carrying manners to the point of silliness, I have seen comments such as "Great photo, but..." going on to list several things that are totally wrong with it in every area from the technical to the aesthetic.



One of the managerial skills people learn regarding critiqueing and evaluating co-workers ( which holds true throughout life ), is to say something positive before letting them have the goods so to speak. You're example seems like someone who was trying to do that.


----------



## fwellers

manaheim said:


> Well, my very unclear point was that you are, in effect, arguing something that is subjective while at the same time arguing that the pact is in err in some way because it argues the subjective.



:thumbup:

But I don't see anything wrong with that. I think that critique is too subjective and means too many things to too many people to have a bunch of people running around with "THE PACT" strapped to their sig. If everyone on the forum was an aspiring pro, and this forum's purpose was to provide that level of training then that's another story. As I said to Skieur, I am under the impression this is a social forum that has a training element to it. 
I do realize that my argument is also subjective, so I guess the circle is closing in on yours and my little discussion. 



> To be more specific, the pact is an agreement of sorts that people are trying to adhere to in order to make TPF into what they feel is a better place.  You needn't agree with it, you needn't go along with it, you needn't like it... but those of us who are going along with it have every right to do so regardless of your opinions.



I so stipulate your honor. You do have the right. I will not try and arrest you for brandishing of "the pact" :meh:.


----------



## manaheim

^^^ 

Done and done, then. hehe...

That was an amusing ride. 

On your managerial comment, btw... you're kind of getting into 'how not to be an arsehole", which is absolutely valid but may be beyond the scope of the pact to teach.


----------



## manaheim

See now, like this... this is downright phuquing rude... non-constructive, and non-helpful.  This is _not_ what the pact wants people to act like.


----------



## mooimeisie

manaheim said:


> See now, like this... this is downright phuquing rude... non-constructive, and non-helpful. This is _not_ what the pact wants people to act like.


 
I totally agree with this comment on this comment.  I don't think this forum or the pact will every be able to teach manners.


----------



## Antarctican

So should we, as members who can police the forum, be correcting the offender and letting them know that such unhelpful/rude comments are not the correct way to comment on someone's pics?  I vote yes


----------



## fwellers

manaheim said:


> On your managerial comment, btw... you're kind of getting into 'how not to be an arsehole", which is absolutely valid but may be beyond the scope of the pact to teach.



And usually beyond the scope of my abilities.


----------



## manaheim

Antarctican said:


> So should we, as members who can police the forum, be correcting the offender and letting them know that such unhelpful/rude comments are not the correct way to comment on someone's pics? I vote yes


 
Yeah, I was wondering that myself. I'm thinking if we're going to turn things around a bit, we're going to have to take to the streets and at least give people a friendly reminder here and there. Maybe just even pointing them to the pact. (though maybe not with the guy I so rudely called out as an example of what NOT to do...)

I mean... if we're "member driven"... right? 

EDIT:  There.  I posted a hopefully constructive response to the non-constructive response.



fwellers said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> On your managerial comment, btw... you're kind of getting into 'how not to be an arsehole", which is absolutely valid but may be beyond the scope of the pact to teach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And usually beyond the scope of my abilities.
Click to expand...

 
hahahahaha...


----------



## Chris of Arabia

manaheim said:


> I suppose it _could_ be since the mods like to make these rather specious claims that the board is "member driven" (kinda like driving the titanic using a spoon as an oar, but ok)...



There are very few businesses out there that don't listen to their customers and take on board what they are saying - those that don't end up on a long and uncomfortable ride to oblivion - why would TPF be any different?

That said, it's not the Mods who have the say in what direction the forum takes, it's the new owners: Dascrow, 4nines and ekool. By all means contact them directly, they do respond. It's probably fair to say that they don't have the same emotional investment in the forum as its founders, but they still need to see it work. So if any member has concrete proposals on what needs to be changed/updated/developed or whatever else is on people's minds, then I'm sure they will consider it in line with the business strategy they are pursuing - I should point out that neither I nor any of the other Moderators are privy to that. It may be teaching granny, but comments such as "things are not like they used to be" aren't going to travel very far.


----------



## mooimeisie

Perhaps a standard reply we can post to someone's reply we feel is totally inappropriate.  Something like a "How not to be a @#*&" thread or post.


----------



## manaheim

Chris of Arabia said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose it _could_ be since the mods like to make these rather specious claims that the board is "member driven" (kinda like driving the titanic using a spoon as an oar, but ok)...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are very few businesses out there that don't listen to their customers and take on board what they are saying - those that don't end up on a long and uncomfortable ride to oblivion - why would TPF be any different?
> 
> That said, it's not the Mods who have the say in what direction the forum takes, it's the new owners: Dascrow, 4nines and ekool. By all means contact them directly, they do respond. It's probably fair to say that they don't have the same emotional investment in the forum as its founders, but they still need to see it work. So if any member has concrete proposals on what needs to be changed/updated/developed or whatever else is on people's minds, then I'm sure they will consider it in line with the business strategy they are pursuing - I should point out that neither I nor any of the other Moderators are privy to that. It may be teaching granny, but comments such as "things are not like they used to be" aren't going to travel very far.
Click to expand...

 
That's fair and reasonable.  Sorry if I'm beating you guys up a little bit.  I know you don't have as much control over the situation as some of us think you do... though I didn't know that until this thread came about.

I'm fine with seeing how this pact thing goes as a first step.  Who knows, it might be enough.


----------



## Chris of Arabia

mooimeisie said:


> Perhaps a standard reply we can post to someone's reply we feel is totally inappropriate.  Something like a "How not to be a @#*&" thread or post.



It's called the FAQ's. Now if someone can propose a set of succinct amendments to those that deal with the concerns at hand then I (or you) can take those forward for consideration - I'm fairly certain the full text of the pact would need editing down somewhat though.

EDIT: Oh hell, I went and started Page 4 of this...


----------



## JerryPH

Antarctican said:


> So should we, as members who can police the forum, be correcting the offender and letting them know that such unhelpful/rude comments are not the correct way to comment on someone's pics?  I vote yes


I would love to say yes too... but thinking logically, what can you teach to someone who has no respect for your opinion and retorts with the malice of an angry 4 year old, and the situation immediately escalates?

For policing to work, there has to be respect from the offender towards the other or power to give punishment for bad behavior from the responder to the offender.  This is why perhaps a more active intervention by the mods is key to this place improving in one way.

The worst thing that a non-mod can do is place someone on ignore.  When I place someone on ignore, it is for my personal benefit.  When someone places me on ignore, I could not care any less... so what power does that even have?

Self-policing never works.  Now, users can guide and groom another but once tempers flare, all bets are out the window and self-policing goes down the crapper.  An approach from day one of "here is how we do things here, can we ask that you follow these guidelines to make this place a better one" would.  

The only people that can effectively police are the mods, who hold the power to delete a post, lock a thread or ban someone, and users know that.

Also, as new users become members, if they are not taught from day 1 that we do a search before posting, that we don't say "that sucks" without a full explanation of why and what the expectations should be on both sides, I would not expect very many positive changes to happen very fast.

Edit:  Wow, 7 pages... this is the longest thread I have seen on TPF in a loooong time.  Proof that it is an interesting and important topic to many people here.


----------



## kundalini

Antarctican said:


> So should we, as members who can police the forum, be correcting the offender and letting them know that such unhelpful/rude comments are not the correct way to comment on someone's pics? I vote yes


YES. If enough members respond in such a way as to make the point that certain behaviors are not generally accepted, the correct course of action will eventually become a standard of acceptable behavior.



manaheim said:


> Yeah, I was wondering that myself. I'm thinking if we're going to turn things around a bit, we're going to have to take to the streets and at least give people a friendly reminder here and there. Maybe just even pointing them to the pact. (though maybe not with the guy I so rudely called out as an example of what NOT to do...)


 
As long as the Pact doesn't become a pack metallity. Taking it to the Streets should be left to The Doobies Brothers... even with Michael McDonald....

Seeing this thread develop as it has, my initial agreement in the fundamentals has now turn to a cautionary observation. The stronger one defends their position on a certain subject, the less they are to accept the validity and rationale of a different perspective. Planting ones feet firmly in the ground and daring another to cross that line in the sand is never a productive method of persuassion.

Case in point: As a young boy, I was forced to go to a Southern Baptist church. That's just the way things were. As I aged and began to discern the fundamentals from the business end of religion, the more I began to question the intent of the upper echelon. Today I detest organized religion, but in the same breath, I am grateful for the foundations of 'getting along' I was taught.

I would just dislike if something on a much lesser scale happened to the PACT.

Time will tell if this attempt to convert the current attitude is for good or for ill.


----------



## Chris of Arabia

JerryPH said:


> Proof that it is an interesting and important topic to many people here.



Strictly speaking, it was important enough for 29 people to comment, though the number of views suggests a far higher figure, unless of course we all came in here 38 times each... 

I still think there's some mileage in a review and update of the FAQs, as everyone signs up to abide by them when they register - they should be regarded as the touchstone reference point when any doubt creeps in. What's more they represent what TPF is about rather more than a thread written by someone who has left the forum by the time a new member signs up.


----------



## SonnarSphere

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/nature-wildlife/169402-spider-nest.html

this is what irritates me on this forum, and reinforces my doubts 
that this pact can be enacted with authority and credibility.


----------



## musicaleCA

And what don't you like about that thread? You didn't ask for C&C...so this pact dealy largely doesn't apply.


----------



## SonnarSphere

*Critique is given to help* people become *better* *photographers,* *artists,* *and occasionally business people.*
*I will offer honest critique when it is asked for.*
I will critique the work, not the person.
*I will not hesitate to be direct.*
*I will not hold back critique, even if feelings may be hurt.*
If a shot has fundamental flaws, *I will not hesitate to say so.*
*I will offer both technical and* *artistic critique* when possible.
*I will respect the requestors wishes* *if specified* *(such as if they only want technical critique)*
Summary comments along the lines of *"I like it!" or "Great job!" *or "It sucks!" *do no one any good* and will be avoided at all costs. *Opinions must be expressed with reasons and analysis.*
*Lastly, I will make a reasonable effort not to hurt feelings*, *but not at the cost of sacrificing the aforementioned statements.*

Accepting Critique
*Critique is given to help* people become *better *photographers, *artists*, and occasionally business people.
I will accept critique graciously.
*I may not agree with or use all that I receive, but I will still but I will still take into consideration all critique provided.*
*I will actively and openly discuss critique so received.*
*When appropriate, I will challenge those who critique me to gain a better understanding.*
*I will not attempt to discredit or insult those who would take the time to provide **any form of critique.*
*I will not discount opinions without serious consideration.*

Know Theyself
*I hereby acknowledge that I am not Ansel Adams.*
*I will be mindful of my own skill level when speaking with others and actively point out where I am speaking of things I am not totally certain of.*
*I acknowledge that no matter how good I am, there is always going to be someone better out there,* *and there is always going to be something else to learn.*

A Committment to Community
*I am a part of this community* and therefore *a stakeholder in it* and will act as such.
Anyone who acts *shoddily* on this forum is a detriment to this community. *I will take it upon myself to make polite comments to those people and (in extreme cases) report them to the moderators if appropriate.*
I* will actively participate in trying to redirect discussions to improve the quality of discourse.*
I will actively suggest and *promote changes to the community *to make it better.

Response to Smarm *(Antagonism/Ingratiation/etc.) (I like the word "smarm")*
*If someone rails at a response where I am adhering to this pact, I will point them to this pact and suggest that they read it.*
*If someone rails at me and I deserve it, I'll apologize and correct my behavior.*
*I will do my best not to get involved in flame wars.*
*I will give everyone at least one chance to take back what they said or correct their approach.*
*If all else fails, I will actively employ the ignore feature and move on with my life.*


----------



## SonnarSphere

i'm sorry but because of the bulletpoints i couldnt preface that with my comments.
imo whats black is useful and whats red is less than useful.


----------



## musicaleCA

Okay, but you still didn't answer my question.

Saying _why_ you don't find parts of that useful would be helpful, but I'm really confused as to why you think artistic critique isn't useful. Photography is a fine art, and has been recognized as such for many decades, even though as a relatively young artform the theory behind it has been discussed rather minimally when compared to more established artforms such as painting or music.


----------



## SonnarSphere

musicaleCA said:


> And what don't you like about that thread? You didn't ask for C&C...so this pact dealy largely doesn't apply.




"largely" well it either DOES or it DOES NOT. how can you be pedantic and yet vague when identifying your own rulebook as it suits. that's just silly.

affirmation number 1 - the FIRST affirmation of your pact is entirely 100% applicable to that thread situation. you are correct. i didn't ask for critique.

let me take roleplay your 'pact' here in responding to you on two points
 musicaleCA 

1. if you lack the awareness to recognise why that ignorant and pompous response in my thread would annoy the photographer concerned with making such nature pictures. i'm inclined to believe you also lack the people-skills/maturity needed for implementing the pact in a harmonious
 way, in a team environment.

2. if you immediately reject my post here as having any relevance to your
pact, you lack the ability to absorb even the opening statements of that pact.

so, with this trial-run as a demonstration of the comptency of the
'pact-educators. i find the idea of the pact, negative and unhelpful,
anti-social even!

anyway i have better things to do with my life, than this.


----------



## musicaleCA

*Scratches his head* Oookay, so I'm incompetent, and immediately rejected your post as being relevant (what, because I asked you to elucidate what you were trying to say?)? Is huffing and puffing and walking away more constructive somehow? A comment like "Anyway, I have better things to do with my life than this" is oft a cop-out; a way to throw your opinion at someone else and then leave before they can respond.

If you think the reply that the photo was "messy" was somehow pompous, it wasn't, and in fact, I think it was right on cue. But again, you didn't ask for critique, so I didn't spend the time to point out the technical flaws of your image. And since you didn't ask for critique and no one was flaming you, this agreement largely don't apply; the first two sections concern critique and the last concerns flaming. And since no one in that thread seems to support this agreement anyway, I'm confused; do you see their responses as somehow representative of what the supporters of this pact are trying to achieve?


----------



## blash

manaheim said:


> That being said, I do _personally_ believe you have to understand the rules in order to know how to break them effectively.  I've seen a lot of evidence of this in a variety of art forms, including painting, writing and music.



Since this seems to be a point of contention: I'm going to take an image from the 1st page of the beginners forum, and show the difference:






Source (also an example of poor C&C "omg I love it type comments"): http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/.../169344-my-first-few-attempts-c-c-please.html

One of the technical problems in this photograph is that the bush surrounding the canon is horrendously underexposed. There is no detail in the shadow to the point where the viewer cannot tell where the brush ends and the beach begins. The underexposure does not lend attention to the cannon, nor does it lend a nefarious tone to the cannon's being - it does not lend anything to the shot. Should the leaves be darkened in relation to the cannon? Yes - but not to that point. [Side note: this is not the only technical problem the photo has - the barbed wire in the top left corner, for example, is out of place and doesn't lend any context - is it there because this is an old war cannon and it is the remnant of an attempt to keep invaders away from the cannon, or is it there as a decorative/framing measure in a real-life exhibit of said cannon? Is it even there as an overly hostile way of telling people, don't touch the cannon? :mrgreen:] Contrast the image above, which has at least a small amount of thought (even if incorrect and untrained) devoted to art-worthiness, to here:

Source for the following 2 photos: JerryPH's blog The Jerry Blog!: #3 - Controlling DOF With Your Flash






This image is technically well-exposed - far side of the tablecloth is a little hot but overall the exposure is fine. However, it's not an artistically pleasing photo - the items (cabinet, stuff to the right of it) in the background are distracting, no real thought is given towards subject placement in terms of composition, the bowl on the far end of the table fights for attention from the viewer, and the image is just plain flat-out boring. There is no artistic value in this photograph (Jerry - I also recognize that there wasn't meant to be, you know where I'm going with this, stay with me).

However, by using a snooted light, Jerry dramatically enhances the artistic value of the photograph. Skipping to the last photo in Jerry's series:






Here, the underexposure of the background and the bowl greatly increase the artistic value of the photograph. Can you see any details in the shadow? There are none - and the bowl can barely be seen at all. However, by making the conscious decision to technically destroy the balanced exposure of the photo, the artistic value increased substantially - there is now a clear subject, and the subject is noticeably framed by the placemats on the table. The far straight edges of the table, indicating the end of the middleground, has become curved to complement the circular design of the table cloth.

Could the poster of the first image have been able to create an image of the artistic value of the last image with little or no training? No - the poster of the first image doesn't understand flash/strobe photography. It's not merely enough to _know_ the rule - i.e., expose your photos correctly, you have to _understand_ the rule - i.e., what does under/overexposure do artistically to your photos and therefore why should you avoid it?, so that you can break the rule - i.e. because snooting light is a kind of underexposure that can enhance artistic value instead of reducing it, snooting light is acceptable from an artistic and therefore actually technical standpoint.



fwellers said:


> Maybe in a training school or something



In regards to the comments about TPF being a "training school" for professional or semi-professional photography, that doesn't mean that many of us are looking for guidance in how to become a photographer who sells his work for money. Such guidance is actually 90% not related to photography at all - professional photographers need much more training in how to effectively run a business rather than a comprehensive 'training program' that would teach the photographer the history of photography (do you know who Ansel Adams was?), artistic critique (what this thread is about), and film processing (which is worthless to the professionals who shoot digital and irrelevant to the professionals who drop their film off at a lab). Otherwise, we would have many more threads on tips to starting a business, proper business practices, tax code, how to advertise, incorporation procedures, etc. 

For better or for worse, the economy has moved us to the point where right now in time, people are flocking to Craigslist to get a high school student who spent $600 on a consumer DSLR to shoot their special occasion for $100 either because they can't afford anything better or they haven't seen the results from an experienced professional to see that they've just hired someone who can't shoot for crap.

What this forum IS trying to do, is to get people to produce professional *quality* work. What matters is not if you've been put on the spot by a relative to shoot her wedding because you just spent $800 on a DSLR - what matters is that you will be able to get a photo that deserves more praise than, "what a cute little kitty!" What matters is that you will understand photography to the point where your work cannot be duplicated by the person sitting next to you in the family room because, through the understanding of art and photographic principles, you have elevated your work to be a point of personal pride - there is no pride in work when the person next to you says, "what a cute little kitty!... I can do that too," and your work has become reliant on the natural beauty of the kitty which anyone can capture with a cellphone and not reliant on how you have made the kitty beautiful through said principles.


----------



## blash

SonnarSphere said:


> musicaleCA said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what don't you like about that thread? You didn't ask for C&C...so this pact dealy largely doesn't apply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "largely" well it either DOES or it DOES NOT. how can you be pedantic and yet vague...
Click to expand...


Now you're the one arguing pedantics.

Fact: you did not ask for C&C. Period, "DOES NOT". Neither "C&C" nor "CC" nor "Comments/Critique" nor "Comments/Criticism" nor any variation thereof is found in either your title the body of the original post. It is merely a picture with a title in the subject line and technical information on what equipment was used to take the photo. Therefore, do not expect people to enter a long-winded diatribe on the merits of your photo. The most you can expect from such a post is "Nice shot," "Interesting colors," or what actually happened, "That looks like a big effing spider."


----------



## manaheim

BTW, kundalini... I was kinda joking when I said "take to the streets" largely because I really WOULDN'T want this to turn into some kind of street gang. As long as it's a list of ideals that people just try to stick to, I think it's a good thing... if it turns into some kind of protectionist racket or something... <shudder>  (not literally, obviously... but I think we're on the same wavelength so I assume you know what I mean)

I have more comments to make, but I'm just up here for a sec and wanted to say HI!


----------



## fwellers

blash said:


> One of the technical problems in this photograph is that the bush surrounding the canon is horrendously underexposed.



The critiquer could have said ... the bush .. is underexposed.
No need to accentuate with an adjective like horrendously. That is unless you are actually trying to get under someone's skin.



> ...(do you know who Ansel Adams was?),



Not sure who this is supposed to be aimed at, but the condescending attitude demonstrated by it, really has no place in C&C.



> What this forum IS trying to do, is to get people to produce professional *quality* work.



That would be one purpose of the forum. 

It's nice to see that you have a passion about teaching photography to others. Not everybody has the same passion for the same aspects of photography as you though. Not everyone even cares to learn how to use a snoot, or is ready to spend time effort and money on the lighting aspect of photography.
I think that the critique you gave obviously took a lot of your time. But I'm quite sure many people would take offense at it and many others would find much of it not applicable to what they want out of photography

There isn't one brand or style of critique that's geared for all. I would think that the more experienced photographers would be able to provide a critique that's a bit more tailored to the individual. It may take a few posts to determine that. Maybe ask a few well pointed questions, based on what you can glean from the quality of the picture, which can lead an experienced person to an understanding of OP.
But the use of words like horrendously underexposed, extremely messy and chaotic, and questions like 'you do know who Ansel Adams is don't you'  are not useful and will lead to contention more often than not.

Don't be brash Blash.


----------



## Garbz

SonnarSphere said:


> @Garbz quote:_ Summary comments along the lines of "I like it!" or "Great job!" or "It sucks!" do no one any good and will be avoided at all costs._
> 
> well this is someone's opinion. and obviously shared by others. but i disagree that
> the positive words of encouragement 'do no good'. we can say encouraging things
> and also give constructive help. there seems to be defensiveness over the 'words'
> of the ideology of this 'pact' and yet an intolerance of k_ind words_ used elsewhere.



No I think we are agreeing on the same thing here. Positive words are all good and fine but WITH the constructive help. That's all. If you know why someone things it's good then you learn a LOT more. Suppose you upload an image and I say "It's great". Now you can either agree smugly while learning nothing, agree and spend an hour trying to figure out why the heck I think it's great, or just completely stare blankly thinking it was rubbish. Now suppose I say "It's great, the converging lines really draw attention to the subject" You get all the praise, and learn something about why someone likes a photo, and in the case of many newbies you may also learn why you yourself really like the photo.

This is the same thing as reading through a photo book and realising something basic like the rule of thirds for the first time. When someone tells you it's great because the subject is off centre and it keeps they eye interested, it's quite a bit different from "it's great", awesome now I don't know how to repeat this greatness.

The words "Great Job" aren't bad, unless they are the only words. Otherwise it becomes a huge guessing game as to what made your picture great, which really sucks if you're learning, trust me I've been there.


----------



## Josh66

I guess I'm one of the ones that reply "It's great", "Great job", "Love it", etc...

Most of the pictures that I give this reply to are clearly so good that nothing I could say will help the photographer improve.  They are already at the top of their game.  They are simply showing off their work.
...And I am just telling them "Yeah, you were right - this is pretty good."

Sure, _everybody_ has room to improve - but everybody can't tell you _how_.


If I feel that there is room for improvement, I say so and offer my advice.


If I think it sucks, I usually don't even reply.


----------



## MBasile

I support the pact!


----------



## manaheim

Garbz said:


> The words "Great Job" aren't bad, unless they are the only words. Otherwise it becomes a huge guessing game as to what made your picture great, which really sucks if you're learning, trust me I've been there.


 
Yeah, the pact says "Summary comments".  I was trying to be brief and using "summary" to mean those words and only those words.


----------



## manaheim

O|||||||O said:


> I guess I'm one of the ones that reply "It's great", "Great job", "Love it", etc...
> 
> Most of the pictures that I give this reply to are clearly so good that nothing I could say will help the photographer improve. They are already at the top of their game. They are simply showing off their work.
> ...And I am just telling them "Yeah, you were right - this is pretty good."
> 
> Sure, _everybody_ has room to improve - but everybody can't tell you _how_.
> 
> 
> If I feel that there is room for improvement, I say so and offer my advice.
> 
> 
> If I think it sucks, I usually don't even reply.


 
Don't worry about it, dude.


----------



## Josh66

BTW, for the most part, I like and agree with everything in the pact.

Forgive me if I don't put a link to it in my signature though...


----------



## blash

fwellers said:


> a)
> 
> 
> blash said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the technical problems in this photograph is that the bush surrounding the canon is horrendously underexposed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The critiquer could have said ... the bush .. is underexposed.
> No need to accentuate with an adjective like horrendously. That is unless you are actually trying to get under someone's skin.
> 
> b)
> 
> 
> 
> ...(do you know who Ansel Adams was?),
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure who this is supposed to be aimed at, but the condescending attitude demonstrated by it, really has no place in C&C.
> 
> c)
> 
> 
> 
> What this forum IS trying to do, is to get people to produce professional *quality* work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be one purpose of the forum.
> 
> ...others would find much of it not applicable to what they want out of photography
> 
> There isn't one brand or style of critique that's geared for all. I would think that the more experienced photographers would be able to provide a critique that's a bit more tailored to the individual. It may take a few posts to determine that. Maybe ask a few well pointed questions, based on what you can glean from the quality of the picture, which can lead an experienced person to an understanding of OP.
> But the use of words like horrendously underexposed, extremely messy and chaotic, and questions like 'you do know who Ansel Adams is don't you'  are not useful and will lead to contention more often than not.
> 
> Don't be brash Blash.
Click to expand...


a)

No dude, that's definitely "horrendously" underexposed. This is "plain" underexposed (the foreground not the sky):





Source: Tim Winterburn Landscape Photography

Reposted for comparison because the original (with source link) is on page 7:





The difference is that "plain" underexposure is simply dark - it could be boosted in Photoshop to little ill effect but very little detail is actually lost. "Horrendously" underexposed, as I used it, refers to wide swaths of the photo that have been blacked out by being underexposed and cannot be helped by Photoshop. Plain underexposed might be fixable, "horrendously" underexposed should have been thrown away in-camera because it is so "horrendous" that it needs to be thrown out.

I see more and more users looking for "honest" critique. The adjective I used was accurate. If someone's work sucks then I will tell them so and not mince words - this is how people get better. Quoth bullet number 5 of section 1,


> I will not hold back critique, even if feelings may be hurt.



b)

You take my words out of context. Neither I nor anyone else is going to ask any poster that question - it's an idiotic question that does not help the poster with their work. I was describing the different components of a full artistic photographical education, noting that only one of them, critique, can theoretically be fulfilled on an internet forum - the Ansel Adams remark is an example of the part of historical photography that you would be expected to know if you were taking part in a formalized photographical education, and not something that can be expected on an internet forum.

Essentially, you read my comment with the prejudice that we are trying to set up a training camp here - I wrote it as showing what we AREN'T doing here. We don't have a "boot camp" for photographers, we don't have a huge business help section, and we certainly do not offer history of photography lessons/articles. If we were such a camp, then we would have business tips, and we would have history of photography, and we would have critique and all this other knowledge available to those who seek it - but we don't. Just because people seek to properly introduce one of those components doesn't mean they want to introduce all of them.

c) Which is why some of us, in the 4,000 posts thread, asked for a separate critique forum. There are probably a good number of people on here who come on and look for nothing more than to feed their ego. They aren't really interested in their photography, in the product of their time, so long as they feel good about it. That's who the beginner section is for. It's not necessarily a bad thing but they're not people I'm going to waste my time on. Being a general photography forum, these people do have a place, for them C&C means that they want to hear people say "I love kitties, nice shot!!!" I don't have a problem with this so long as it is cordoned off.

But there are _also_ people who want to elevate their photography to a higher level. And here's the problem - because they just bought a SLR, or just started a beginner's photography class, or they're an art student who specializes in paint or sculpture and decides to dabble in art photography - people who DO want "honest critique" get mixed in with the people who don't. This is why a separate critique section would help the forum - a "beginner's art section" of sorts to cater to this section of users. However, considering the low level of admin involvement, it's unlikely to happen. 

Instead, we're trying to create this internal division so that people are more likely to be dealt with correctly. Posters need to understand that if they just want positive encouragement, they should not use a C&C tag or description, instead just titling the post "My kitty" and posting the comment underneath the photo, "What do you think of my pretty kitty?" so that they get responses  like "Nice shot!" and "I love your kitties they look so precious!" However, if they do decide to use the C&C tag, then this is what it means - it means that the kind of response that they receive is accurate, honest critique - and if they get responses saying that their work isn't that good, they should understand how to take such critique with grace and understand that a) such critique isn't personal and b) such critique does not indicate a wish for elitism from the critiquer. 

That's what the Pact means - it's not about getting an army of professional photographers trained from raw newbie recruits. It's about giving proper responses to each individual user, how to get users to indicate which kind of response they would like, and ensuring that follow up comments are not blown out of proportion to the point where a mod has to lock the thread. The Pact indicates an understanding for users who only want, for example, color critique or composition critique, instead of a broader critique - but if "critique" or "C&C" is asked for, then all kinds will be given because that's what "critique" and "C&C" mean to us.

I quote, 3rd from last of section 1 of the Pact,



> I will respect the requestors wishes if specified (such as if they only want technical critique)



which seems very much in line with what you wrote for C.


----------



## Josh66

^^^
I ddin't read all of that...

Why does everyone compare everything to Ansel Adams?
Is that really something to strive for?

The work above does not look anything like anything Ansel Adams ever shot...I don't know why it would be compared to his work...

Yes, Ansel Adams was a great American photographer, but honestly - much of his work is rather boring to me.

One can only see so many landscapes of the Rockies or Yellowstone...


----------



## blash

O|||||||O said:


> ^^^
> I ddin't read all of that...
> 
> Why does everyone compare everything to Ansel Adams?
> Is that really something to strive for?
> 
> The work above does not look anything like anything Ansel Adams ever shot...I don't know why it would be compared to his work...
> 
> Yes, Ansel Adams was a great American photographer, but honestly - much of his work is rather boring to me.
> 
> One can only see so many landscapes of the Rockies or Yellowstone...



Because if you ask someone to name a famous photographer, Ansel Adams is likely to be it (if anyone). The above images aren't supposed to represent Ansel Adams's work, not even in relative quality. I could've used Henri Cartier-Bresson as an example instead, the point is to mention a famous historical photographical figure rather than to point to their work.

The point about Ansel Adams isn't that his work is particularly good (and it is), the point is that the guy went to an extraordinary length to get just the right photo, spending a huge amount of time to scout out the location and waiting all day for just the right time when the perfect light would strike. He is brought up in formalized photographical education not to get people to emulate his work but for people to understand that great art is not simply a point-and-shoot enterprise, that thought needs to be applied instead of just mindless clicking with their Brownies.


----------



## Josh66

OK, now I'm confused...  Was the bit about Ansel Adams an actual quote from TPF, or did you just make it up to prove a point?  (Either way is cool with me.)


I know that your images aren't meant to be a representation of Adams' work - that should be clear to anyone who has ever seen his work.  That's what I don't get though - I see all kinds of photography here compared to Ansel Adams, when it has nothing at all to do with his work.

I have to assume that people are just throwing names out there to add 'prestige' to their post...  That does nothing for me.  If anything, it has the opposite effect - it causes me to loose respect for the offender.


----------



## manaheim

My... _precious_.

Josh, the original pact says "I agree I'm not ansel adams" or something like that.  It was kinda a joke, but kinda saying "I admit I'm not the god of photography", but that's kinda stupid since someone on here may well be.  It was really just to be silly.  I'm silly.  I do that.  Lots.  Yeah.  Stuff.

Don't mind me.  I have 103 fever and can't sleep.  I think I saw a forest pixie dancing on my mousepad earlier.


----------



## Chris of Arabia

manaheim said:


> I think I saw a forest pixie dancing on my mousepad earlier.



Hope you got a candid shot of it, we need something to critique round here...


----------



## manaheim

Chris of Arabia said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I saw a forest pixie dancing on my mousepad earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hope you got a candid shot of it, we need something to critique round here...
Click to expand...

 
We need a critique forum first!!!!


----------



## fwellers

blash said:


> No dude, that's definitely "horrendously" underexposed.
> The difference is that "plain" underexposure is simply dark - it could be boosted in Photoshop to little ill effect but very little detail is actually lost. "Horrendously" underexposed, as I used it, refers to wide swaths of the photo that have been blacked out by being underexposed and cannot be helped by Photoshop. Plain underexposed might be fixable, "horrendously" underexposed should have been thrown away in-camera because it is so "horrendous" that it needs to be thrown out.
> 
> I see more and more users looking for "honest" critique. The adjective I used was accurate. If someone's work sucks then I will tell them so and not mince words - this is how people get better. Quoth bullet number 5 of section 1,
> 
> 
> 
> I will not hold back critique, even if feelings may be hurt.
Click to expand...


Here is a pic of mine I posted in bw section. I can tell you that the forground is extremely underexposed. I did it in pp, because I thought it made the picture look better. Now I'm not asking for your cc, because I know the picture has problems, but I still like it. It's not perfect but it is what it is. My point is that I underexposed parts of it for a reason. And you don't know that when you flat out say subjective things like "it sucks" ( see your own words above ), or "it is HORRENDOUSLY underexposed. 
I think that bullet point should be removed. You should be able to give critique without hurting people's feelings, simply by giving them the benefit of the doubt, and by not using such forcefully declarative adjectives.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/black-white-gallery/169199-clouds.html



> You take my words out of context. Neither I nor anyone else is going to ask any poster that question - it's an idiotic question that does not help the poster with their work. I was describing the different components of a full artistic photographical education, noting that only one of them, critique, can theoretically be fulfilled on an internet forum - the Ansel Adams remark is an example of the part of historical photography that you would be expected to know if you were taking part in a formalized photographical education, and not something that can be expected on an internet forum.


All I know is that you did ask the question in a critique of the original picture in your post. It seems logical to me that you would also ask that question to someone else asking for cc. Whatever. I'm glad your pursuit of bullet number 5 of the PACT does have limits.




> Which is why some of us, in the 4,000 posts thread, asked for a separate critique forum. There are probably a good number of people on here who come on and look for nothing more than to feed their ego. They aren't really interested in their photography, in the product of their time, so long as they feel good about it. That's who the beginner section is for. It's not necessarily a bad thing but they're not people I'm going to waste my time on. Being a general photography forum, these people do have a place, for them C&C means that they want to hear people say "I love kitties, nice shot!!!" I don't have a problem with this so long as it is cordoned off.


Well that is something that makes more sense to me. Even in there however, I wouldn't say "It sucks" even if you then point out what is technically wrong with it in your opinion. Notice I said "in your opinion", because I still say that you can never be sure whether someone centered the subject on purpose, or underexposed a section for a reason, or only focused on half of a face for a reason.  So if you go in there, guns blaring, saying 'horrendously underexposed', 'face way out of focus', 'very poor composition because of no use of rot', etc... you will then be creating contention for no reason. People see different things and want to do different things in pictures. Maybe it doesn't work for you. You can get to the bottom of these things and provide some real critique if you don't dispense with politeness.

To the rest of your post, which seems to say the same thing, that a subforum would be best, I tend to agree with the premise. A CC subforum with the guts of the pact as the first sticky. But I can see that may lead to a lot more reorg of the forum. ( beginners cc, intermediate cc etc... ). We already have sections that separate beginners and intermediate.


----------



## Chris of Arabia

It's worth saying here that a specific "Critique" forum isn't going to make an appearance here any time soon. It has been tried and it wasn't a comfortable ride for the forum Mods who were in place at that time - from recollection, it seemed to be a place jam packed with hot and cold running egos.

What I can though say is that we already have 5 forums where part of the raison d'etre is clearly stated as "Post for discussion & feedback, including general critique" (not overly enamoured of the notion implied in the last 2 words, but it's what we have now). Those forums are:


The Black & White Gallery
Landscape & Cityscape
Nature & Wildlife
People Photography
Photojournalism & Sports Gallery
We also have 'The Professional Gallery' where it should be expected that criticism would be a component of any feedback you get.

N_ote that the Beginners forum isn't one of those mentioned above, where it's not so much critique that's required as tuition in the main functions of a camera and photographic technique as a whole. Personally I'd see that task as rather different to critique._

So aside from having a good working description for how critique should be structured and presented, I'm not sure what else would be needed.

Your thoughts?


----------



## UUilliam

100000000% agree to this, the way we should all be


----------



## javier

Well, I am a newbie here and I must say to see the pact adds a great deal of comfort to me. I like the idea very much. 

One thing that has always bothered me about forums and this would include Christian forums etc is that people tend to forget there are ''real'' people on the other end of the key board. People with real feelings. Ask yourself if you would talk this way with little to no respect if you where face to face with another member, a stranger or even a friend.


----------



## Josh66

javier said:


> Well, I am a newbie here and I must say to see the pact adds a great deal of comfort to me. I like the idea very much.
> 
> One thing that has always bothered me about forums and this would include Christian forums etc is that people tend to forget there are ''real'' people on the other end of the key board. People with real feelings. Ask yourself if you would talk this way with little to no respect if you where face to face with another member, a stranger or even a friend.



I think that's important to keep in mind.

It's easy to become an asshole online.  I try to type as if I were actually speaking to the other person, but I'm sure there are times when I type things I would never say...


----------



## blash

fwellers said:


> Here is a pic of mine I posted in bw section. I can tell you that the forground is extremely underexposed. I did it in pp, because I thought it made the picture look better. Now I'm not asking for your cc, because I know the picture has problems, but I still like it. It's not perfect but it is what it is. My point is that I underexposed parts of it for a reason. And you don't know that when you flat out say subjective things like "it sucks" ( see your own words above ), or "it is HORRENDOUSLY underexposed.
> I think that bullet point should be removed. You should be able to give critique without hurting people's feelings, simply by giving them the benefit of the doubt, and by not using such forcefully declarative adjectives.
> 
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/black-white-gallery/169199-clouds.html



Actually, in the case of that specific photo, from a composition standpoint (so ignoring stuff like it being unfocused on anything), I'd merely suggest that you crop out the bottom 20% of the photo or so in order to follow the Rule of Thirds.

Remember how I pointed out what Jerry did with a snoot? Deliberate underexposure is different from accidental underexposure. He used a snoot to do his deliberate underexposure, and you used Photoshop. What's the difference unless you want to make a poster print? /rhetorical: there is no difference.



> So if you go in there, guns blaring, saying 'horrendously underexposed', 'face way out of focus', 'very poor composition because of no use of rot', etc... you will then be creating contention for no reason. People see different things and want to do different things in pictures. Maybe it doesn't work for you. You can get to the bottom of these things and provide some real critique if you don't dispense with politeness.



No, I'm saying to leave the "guns blaring" for the dedicated C&C forum. For the beginners' ego forum, there would be a rule: "If you have nothing nice to say about a photo then don't say anything at all," because in such a forum either people's feelings matter more than their work or they deliberately weren't trying to apply any thought process at all.

"People... want to do different things in pictures." Well, again one of the points of the pact is to try and create clear divisions so that it's clear who wants what in regards to their photos.


----------



## blash

O|||||||O said:


> OK, now I'm confused...  Was the bit about Ansel Adams an actual quote from TPF, or did you just make it up to prove a point?  (Either way is cool with me.)



Just made it up to prove a point about how TPF isn't about getting people to understand the historical foundations of photography since TPF isn't a place to get a formalized photographical education.


----------



## leighthal

blash said:


> fwellers said:
> 
> 
> 
> c) Which is why some of us, in the 4,000 posts thread, asked for a separate critique forum. There are probably a good number of people on here who come on and look for nothing more than to feed their ego. They aren't really interested in their photography, in the product of their time, so long as they feel good about it. That's who the beginner section is for. It's not necessarily a bad thing but they're not people I'm going to waste my time on. Being a general photography forum, these people do have a place, for them C&C means that they want to hear people say "I love kitties, nice shot!!!" I don't have a problem with this so long as it is cordoned off.
> 
> But there are _also_ people who want to elevate their photography to a higher level. And here's the problem - because they just bought a SLR, or just started a beginner's photography class, or they're an art student who specializes in paint or sculpture and decides to dabble in art photography - people who DO want "honest critique" get mixed in with the people who don't. This is why a separate critique section would help the forum - a "beginner's art section" of sorts to cater to this section of users. However, considering the low level of admin involvement, it's unlikely to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all the 4000 posts members paid for a subscription, including the "serious" newbs you could use the members only forum to hold cc. It is cobwebby dead in there. This way you could avoid all those who you consider a pesty problem.
> When I paid for a subscription (because I was here every day and I always support what I use) I expected the members forum to be a more social/instructive/serious place to hang out. I think it is an undeveloped area worth consideration.
Click to expand...


----------



## manaheim

Really, folks, all you have to do is omit heavily loaded words like "horrendous".  This, however, has NOTHING to do with TPF and everything to do with how not to piss people off in written communication.

Here, I wrote an article about it once... (please ignore the horrific picture) 

http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/2002-02/pdfs/russo.pdf

I mean, really... replace "It's horrendously overexposed" with "It seems a bit overexposed" and you strip the emotion out of it and everyone can chill out and move on with their lives.

Pact or no pact, you have to make some effort to not be a jerk to people online, you know?


----------



## manaheim

Chris of Arabia said:


> It's worth saying here that a specific "Critique" forum isn't going to make an appearance here any time soon. It has been tried and it wasn't a comfortable ride for the forum Mods who were in place at that time - from recollection, it seemed to be a place jam packed with hot and cold running egos.


 
That's just kinda "the net", though, isn't it? 

Regardless, I understand.  I think the request has been formally made, and this is a formal "no, it's not going to happen".  Good enough.  It is what it is.



Chris of Arabia said:


> What I can though say is that we already have 5 forums where part of the raison d'etre is clearly stated as "Post for discussion & feedback, including general critique" (not overly enamoured of the notion implied in the last 2 words, but it's what we have now). Those forums are:
> 
> 
> The Black & White Gallery
> Landscape & Cityscape
> Nature & Wildlife
> People Photography
> Photojournalism & Sports Gallery
> We also have 'The Professional Gallery' where it should be expected that criticism would be a component of any feedback you get.
> 
> N_ote that the Beginners forum isn't one of those mentioned above, where it's not so much critique that's required as tuition in the main functions of a camera and photographic technique as a whole. Personally I'd see that task as rather different to critique._
> 
> So aside from having a good working description for how critique should be structured and presented, I'm not sure what else would be needed.
> 
> Your thoughts?


 
Well, sounds like the powers that be may be open to some modifications to the FAQ (earlier comment) and to some sort of guidelines on how critiques should be structured, etc.  

What, specifically, do we need to do?  I'm open to volunteering to write something up, but I'd like to know a bit more of the boundries... I just don't want to waste time on something totally out of bounds.

Is some version of the pact appropriate?  Perhaps written to apply more to the gallery areas and less as a personal credo? (we can still keep the credo for those who want to follow it universally, of course)

Give me a bit more detail and I'll try to do something useful. (obviously anyone else would be welcome to do so as well)


----------



## usayit

Chris of Arabia said:


> Your thoughts?



I completely agree.  IMO, there are already enough sub forums to confuse most members at one time or another.  A long long time ago, this discussion came up and the consensus was that it didn't fit the laid back nature of TPF for which set the TPF apart from other photography discussion groups.


----------



## blash

manaheim said:


> Really, folks, all you have to do is omit heavily loaded words like "horrendous".  This, however, has NOTHING to do with TPF and everything to do with how not to piss people off in written communication.
> 
> Here, I wrote an article about it once... (please ignore the horrific picture)
> 
> http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/2002-02/pdfs/russo.pdf
> 
> I mean, really... replace "It's horrendously overexposed" with "It seems a bit overexposed" and you strip the emotion out of it and everyone can chill out and move on with their lives.
> 
> Pact or no pact, you have to make some effort to not be a jerk to people online, you know?



What should we do then, use a number system to indicate just how far from ideal a certain aspect of the photo is in order to strip out all emotion? Because you can start to go up the chain of "well, it's just barely underexposed... slightly overexposed... underexposed... a bit underexposed... really underexposed... very underexposed...." How far up this ladder can you go without pissing someone off with a word? Does "extremely" have an offensive effect? What about "poorly"? "Overdone"? "Unsatisfying"? How about "dry" or "boring"? "Uninteresting"?

How many words do I have to cross out of my vocabulary? Should we restrict ourselves to a small set of pre-determined words that can in no way offend anybody on the planet? Because our problem is no longer giving politically correct critique but original critique. Hell, I'm not even sure if numbers would work because someone could say, "On a scale of 1-100 of how much this photo needs to work on its composition in a reshoot, I rate it 110".

I personally do not find the word "horrendous" to be offensive when used in appropriate critique. What matters is to critique the work, not the person (see: the Pact, page 1). If someone came into a post I made of a photo and said that my photo was so horribly overexposed, it would cause world peace because all the terrorists in the world would think they were seeing the light at the end of the dark tunnel, I'd take that to mean I need to put a little more hellfire in the photo. But if someone came into the thread and shamed me for creating a photo that could possibly reinforce a terrorist's idea that there ARE 72 virgins waiting for him, I'd hit that report button faster than how quick it took Ahmadinejad to declare victory a couple weeks ago.

And then, if I can take that kind of critique and improve on it, how do I know that the guy on the other end isn't the same way? How do I know if the guy on the other end is a sensitive fellow or a direct kind of guy who appreciates honesty over euphemisms?

People have got to realize that critique cannot be taken personally. People have got to learn to take rationalized critique gracefully and ignore it if they find it offensive. If I wanted to piss you off, I'd be more direct about it (and yes manaheim, I read the article you posted... doesn't apply to where I come from, sorry about that )


----------



## manaheim

Ummm, well... hey.  You do whatever you like.  

Next time someone balks at you for saying something is (insert loaded phrase here), you might ask yourself what would have happened if you chose your words a bit differently.

I'm not suggesting you cross words off your vocabulary... I'm suggesting you dig a bit more deeply into the toolbox to find the _right_ words for the job.

But seriously... no skin off my back.  Do whatever works for you.


----------



## tnvol

manaheim said:


> *Really, folks, all you have to do is omit heavily loaded words like "horrendous".* This, however, has NOTHING to do with TPF and everything to do with how not to piss people off in written communication.
> 
> Here, I wrote an article about it once... (please ignore the horrific picture)
> 
> http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/2002-02/pdfs/russo.pdf
> 
> I mean, really... replace "It's horrendously overexposed" with "It seems a bit overexposed" and you strip the emotion out of it and everyone can chill out and move on with their lives.
> 
> *Pact or no pact, you have to make some effort to not be a jerk to people online, you know*?


 
Great post.  I agree 100%  I'm fully aware that I look at my pictures differently than everyone else does.  I dont see things that are wrong because I'm not viewing them with an experienced eye and quite honestly, I probably dont want to see them.  My photgraphy is coming along nicely and I'm happy about that.  When I ask for a C&C I dont need my hand held because I really want to know what I can do to make it better, but at the same time the person giving me the C&C doesnt have to be a dick.  Post count, experience, forum status are all great and they have their place in a forum but they never justify someone being a prick.
Give it to them strait but be nice.  It isn't that hard.


----------



## skieur

Dagwood56 said:


> I posted this link [or one like it] a while back, but I can't find the thread now. Perhaps it will take some of the  question out of "what" critque is and "how" it is given.
> 
> Basic Strategies in Reading Photographs



Formal analysis provides a basic common language in the visual arts.       However, a description of a photograph based only on formal analysis would       be incomplete. Photographers make decisions both about composition       (arrangement of visual elements) as well as content (meaning) when taking       photographs. Consequently, it is important to consider the artist's       intentions for making a photograph of a particular subject. Finally, the       historical and social context in which a photograph was made must also be       carefully considered.

This is the section that I totally disagree with, and I probably have more and broader photographic and visual arts experience than he has.

skieur


----------



## skieur

Chris of Arabia said:


> So aside from having a good working description for how critique should be structured and presented, I'm not sure what else would be needed.
> 
> Your thoughts?



I don't know why you do not use the structure for critique that I was introduced to at age 11 and was still being used by corporations and photographic associations after my 50 years of further experience in the field.

The basis of critique is that a photo MUST stand on its own, irrespective of the intent of the photographer.  What the photographer succeeded at in his efforts is more important than his intentions. Every technique: technical or aesthetic MUST contribute to the impact and the effectiveness of the photo in order to be considered a strength rather than a weakness.

Most of critique is objective.  Dead black space with no detail does NOT contribute to photographic impact.  Portraits that are extremely unflattering of a bride will not build the reputation of a photographer who wants to do a few weddings.  Landscapes that are flat and dull with no centre of interest, will not get a second look from any viewer.  

Critique involves 2 elements.  The technical side.  This is an analysis of whether the photo could be improved at the camera level through for example the use of filters, lenses, flash, reflectors, tripod, shutter speed, aperture, depth of field, camera angle, framing, etc., as well as at the postprocessing level trough  selective brightening, cloning, use of software filters, sharpening, etc.

The second area is the elements of design or compostion, which involve the use of thirds, direction of paths, roads, rivers, angles, shapes, lines, 
curves, use of colour and contrast, isolating elements, texture, design, symbolism, juxtaposition, etc.

In terms of objectivity and consensus, no one has disagreed with me that looking up a bride's nose is not terribly flattering, nor that a distant flat shot of water, the horizon, and a washed out sky is a great sunset.

Those who object share some characteristics.  They have no background in art.  They have seen very few quality photographs.  They have tunnel vision, in that they do not see the small details that make a difference in the quality of a photo.  They cannot tell the difference between a snapshot and a photograph.  

skieur


----------



## skieur

manaheim said:


> http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/2002-02/pdfs/russo.pdfI mean, really... replace "It's horrendously overexposed" with "It seems a bit overexposed" and you strip the emotion out of it and everyone can chill out and move on with their lives.



I think you went too far in the other direction.  "horrendously" overexposed would be more in line with " extremely overexposed" or "very overexposed" rather than simply "a bit overexposed". 

skieur


----------



## manaheim

^^^ yeah, true enough. I grit my teeth a bit when I wrote that, in fact, but couldn't put my finger on why. Kudos. You nailed it. 

I agree with your comments on critque, btw.  Nicely written.


----------



## JerryPH

manaheim said:


> Really, folks, all you have to do is omit heavily loaded words like "horrendous".  This, however, has NOTHING to do with TPF and everything to do with how not to piss people off in written communication.



If a picture is "horrendously over exposed",  there is a better middle ground.  If someone is expecting a CC, they are expecting CC from someone that has something of value to add.  That means that the person doing the CC has to have some small level of comprehension or level of understanding in photography (ie: "The Basics).  Getting CC from someone that has no experience should be taken with a huge grain of salt, and given with the understanding that they're not quite able to give a higher level of CC.

In the end, the person giving a good CC *should* be able to say things not like "horrendous" or "it sucks" but something like "overexposed by at least 2 stops, maybe a little more.  This is a lot in a day and age where we try to get things within a 1/3rd stop or better".



manaheim said:


> Pact or no pact, you have to make some effort to not be a jerk to people online, you know?


I get mad at some people's obtuseness, and as you see me here, in real life, I am even more direct.  

I wasn't brought up in a coddled manner and I don't coddle people face to face and don't expect to be hand held either.  I say it how I see it and I never sugar coat things... that stinks of hypocrisy to me and  real life is not like that.  When you walk into Jiu-Jitsu class, they do not expect to show you what it feels like to be choked to near unconsciousness on a dummy or on someone else, they do it to *you* so you know what it feels in real life and you deal with it.  It's terrifying the first time, but then it becomes common as on average it happens at least 2 times a week.

When offering CC, the person asking for it should be ready to receive a dose of reality whether they like it or not and not cry about it when it is not to their liking... on the other side, the CC doesn't need to be rude, but it can be honest and if a picture sucks, they should not be afraid to say so (avoid the "suck" word, but telling someone this is a poor quality picture for the following 10 reasons and how to make it better),  but they'd better be ready to do a fair assesment.  To do that means they'd better have some knowledge and understanding of the topic.

I personally do not give CC nor with the exception of ONCE, ever asked for it.  My take is that this is my game and I can judge my own shots, and if I do not know how to... I'd better learn.  Some people need that help, I don't, it is just a personal choice.


----------



## fwellers

skieur said:


> Dead black space with no detail does NOT contribute to photographic impact.



This Week in the Digital Photography School Forum


----------



## skieur

fwellers said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dead black space with no detail does NOT contribute to photographic impact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Week in the Digital Photography School Forum
Click to expand...


The three example shots in Digital Photography School Forum above are NOT effective at all and there is not enough detail or exposure to have any visual impact whatsoever.  As for the woman, better exposure over all with more of the face and eyes in the shot would considerably improve the photo.  The snorkler can hardly even be made out in the small shot.

skieur


----------



## blash

JerryPH said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, folks, all you have to do is omit heavily loaded words like "horrendous".  This, however, has NOTHING to do with TPF and everything to do with how not to piss people off in written communication.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a picture is "horrendously over exposed",  there is a better middle ground.  If someone is expecting a CC, they are expecting CC from someone that has something of value to add.  That means that the person doing the CC has to have some small level of comprehension or level of understanding in photography (ie: "The Basics).  Getting CC from someone that has no experience should be taken with a huge grain of salt, and given with the understanding that they're not quite able to give a higher level of CC.
> 
> In the end, the person giving a good CC *should* be able to say things not like "horrendous" or "it sucks" but something like "overexposed by at least 2 stops, maybe a little more.  This is a lot in a day and age where we try to get things within a 1/3rd stop or better".
Click to expand...


Most people, when looking for C&C these days, aren't going to go back and reshoot the shot though. They're looking for advice on how they can improve their photography for future sets and subjects - in which case, from an internet critique standpoint where many/most users are using a camera in some kind of automatic meter mode (whether it be aperture priority, etc.) and will not benefit from being told, "Your shot is 2 stops too dark". What does that even mean? How should a photographer apply that to a totally different lighting situation?

I think it's better not to deal in numbers but rather in relative terms, i.e. if a photo comes along that has a, yes, 'horrendous' amount of camera shake in it, Starting with, "you used a horrendously long shutter speed in this photo as evidenced by the camera shake," I would rather say "so next time try to use a  faster value in shutter-priority mode" than say "so next time, try quartering your shutter speed while widening your aperture by 2 stops."

What's important is not that the entirety of the critique is "Your photo is horrendous!" or "Your photo sucks!" but rather this _part_ of your photo is horrendous and here's how to improve it. Like you said, I'm not one to mince words.


----------



## fwellers

skieur said:


> fwellers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dead black space with no detail does NOT contribute to photographic impact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Week in the Digital Photography School Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The three example shots in Digital Photography School Forum above are NOT effective at all and there is not enough detail or exposure to have any visual impact whatsoever.  As for the woman, better exposure over all with more of the face and eyes in the shot would considerably improve the photo.  The snorkler can hardly even be made out in the small shot.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


So let me just get his right. Are saying that the use of negative space has no positive impact on a photograph ? Or are you just saying that BLACK negative space has positive impact ?


----------



## manaheim

skieur said:


> The three example shots in Digital Photography School Forum above are NOT effective at all and there is not enough detail or exposure to have any visual impact whatsoever. As for the woman, better exposure over all with more of the face and eyes in the shot would considerably improve the photo. The snorkler can hardly even be made out in the small shot.
> 
> skieur


 
Seriously?  I mean I found one of them to be a bit underexposed for my liking, but I found all of them to be pretty interesting.

Maybe I should post the link to my thread on "What is art?"


----------



## manaheim

by the way, blash, some people DO try to get the shot again... kinda depends on what you shoot.

The kinds of things I take pictures of don't tend to move out of position... ever.   So I go back over and over and over again until I feel I have it "right".  Obviously you can't always do that.


----------



## blash

manaheim said:


> by the way, blash, some people DO try to get the shot again... kinda depends on what you shoot.
> 
> The kinds of things I take pictures of don't tend to move out of position... ever.   So I go back over and over and over again until I feel I have it "right".  Obviously you can't always do that.



Some people do , yes, but "most" people don't - and it's usually evident from the shot whether or not it can be reshot, either because it's a snapshot/cityscape or it's a landscape/still life. Personally, I do the vast majority of my shooting outside of the house and it's not convenient at all for me to return to where I shot the photo. Stuff like fireworks photos obviously are rather hard to reshoot, for example (not that you would usually if ever give serious critique to fireworks shots... too unpredictable and loose, but it's a fun path off the beaten road to take when it happens).


----------



## Michaelaw

farmerj said:


> that 4000 posts thing is eating at you?
> 
> 
> No pact should be needed if you just do what is right, and do it with courtesy and respect.



With respect I could pitch this argument to the entire state of the planet


----------



## Big

Onion said:


> This is like a bunch of nine year olds playing in a fort.  When is the part where you spit in each other's hands and swear to be blood brothers for life?  Then some kid named mickey reaches under the mattress and brings out a crumpled magazine full of porn.  Somebody yells out freestyle! Then it's all the pacting you can handle.





kundalini said:


> The forum is fine just as it is. Where else can a noob ask basic questions? This pact is silly.


Personally, I don't think talking trash about what a lot of people on this forum believe in is a way to "fit in". When I signed up to this site, I tried to make a point that I'm a good person and will not cause problems. I want people to respect my questions as I would theirs. I completely respect everyone I have talked to so far as well as people who give me helpful information. This site is my holy grail for photography advice since I have no one who I can admire and learn from in person. I would never ruin my chances for that advice by telling members they suck or giving them crap for trying to help noobies...


----------



## farmerj

Michaelaw said:


> farmerj said:
> 
> 
> 
> that 4000 posts thing is eating at you?
> 
> 
> No pact should be needed if you just do what is right, and do it with courtesy and respect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With respect I could pitch this argument to the entire state of the planet
Click to expand...



Pretty much why I don't have "The Pact" in my signature line either..


----------



## RJohnston

Instead of Criticism or telling others what you do not like.  Tell them only what you do like or make no comment and realize you do not have to comment about any image.

When you do, give only suggestions about HOW to improve the work.  Just saying what you do not like is of no value at all.

Example: I really like the subject you have chosen.  You may like it better if you add more contrast. You can do that by going to levels or the histogram and moving the indicators at both ends so they are next to the ends of the histogram.  If you want to change the middle tones move the center indicator left or right until it pleases you....

Many read manuals, but get overwhelmed by the amount of instructions.  
Getting one direction at a time, focuses them on one change and makes it easier...


----------



## PhotoXopher

For me it's easier/faster to explain what I don't like because it's what stands out the most. Granted, if I see a photo I like I'll say so - but generally I think people want to know what they can improve on.

But yes, it's nice to hear what you're doing right as well.


----------



## RJohnston

fwellers said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fwellers said:
> 
> 
> 
> This Week in the Digital Photography School Forum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The three example shots in Digital Photography School Forum above are NOT effective at all and there is not enough detail or exposure to have any visual impact whatsoever.  As for the woman, better exposure over all with more of the face and eyes in the shot would considerably improve the photo.  The snorkler can hardly even be made out in the small shot.
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me just get his right. Are saying that the use of negative space has no positive impact on a photograph ? Or are you just saying that BLACK negative space has positive impact ?
Click to expand...


IMO BLACK negative space has positive impact if used correctly.  In the example of the diver IMO, there is too much space over his head.  Cropping it with some space over the head, then makes that image POP, also brings attention to the reflection under his head much more.  But if the OP did _not_ wish people to even notice that reflection it was better the way he cropped it.  

However improvements in photos are SUBJECTIVE, depending upon what the photographer wants to communicate.  Changing something, just to be technically correct does not necessarily improve communication.  It can change what is being illustrated totally.  

What you like or what I like has little bearing upon the matter.  Photography "rules" are made to be broken, just a rules artists in other media follow.  Picasso sticking the the rules of the Old Masters, would not have pleased those who bought his paintings.  The fact that I don't like his paintings even a little, had no bearing upon how he chose to paint.

As Photographers, it is best if we please ourselves, if others like it that is a bonus.
If we can do what we desire to get the result we want, then we are a success.
Some say my photos are "over-saturated" however, I set my D200 to create more VIVID shots so am accomplishing what I want with stronger colors.  Have not adjusted them in Post Processing to increase saturation at all.  So technically, they are correct.

If others do not like it, they can choose other photos that they do like... 
IF we change it to please those who do not like it, then those who DO like them, will not.


----------



## manaheim

RJohnston said:


> Instead of Criticism or telling others what you do not like. Tell them only what you do like or make no comment and realize you do not have to comment about any image.


 
It's this "say something nice or don't say anything at all" that contributes to everyone feeling happy and joyous, but at the same time contributes to the collective degredation of anything that matters.  It also leads to kids TV shows where the pizza man is a hero because he delivered a pizza.

If people ASK for opinions, then they need to hear the good AND the bad.  People giving opinions should do so without being a horrible jerk about it, but they should be honest.

They then have to have the internal strength to decide which opinions they agree with and which they don't.

If they can't do this, then they shouldn't be asking for opinions.


----------



## DRB022

Very well thought out. I agree with everything on here. People need to be told what they're doing wrong or they'll never progress.


----------



## UUilliam

I Recommend no helping people with 1 post who have came asking "wut camera do i buy" or any others that relate to it...
the only reply to a "1 poster" should be critique on their images or help on what iso, aperture etc.. is but dont help those that are obviously leeching and are gunna just post once, take our advice then run away


----------



## Overread

UUilliam said:


> I Recommend no helping people with 1 post who have came asking "wut camera do i buy" or any others that relate to it...
> the only reply to a "1 poster" should be critique on their images or help on what iso, aperture etc.. is but dont help those that are obviously leeching and are gunna just post once, take our advice then run away



I somewhat disagree - we all start somewhere with our photography and a key starting point is getting the right camera. And of course one thing to do when you have little to no idea of a subject or area is to go right out and find people in that interest and ask them - shopkeepers, clubs, friends and forums all serve this use and its foolish to turn away newblood like that.

Sure many might just make one post and never appear again, others might make one decent thread and then slink away - and some others are going to be gratefull at the help and decide to stick around. Sure they won't answer many questions and will ask all the horrid "What is exposure/Ohh filters or not/etc..." We all do when we are new - we learn, we grow and we oneday are no longer in those beginner shoes.

We can't expect new people to have a reputation with us, a long postcount and many years experience every time - TPF is here for all levels from beginner amateur through to experienced Pro.

*edit* heck my early posts were all like that --- asking questions all over the place -- even kit questions!
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...1428-canon-70-200mm-f2-8-canon-100-400mm.html


----------



## JerryPH

In the beginning, I did not bother even posting... I did something reeeeeeeeeeeealy unique... I did searches and found answers to 99% of my own questions... lol


----------



## Overread

Some talk and some read 

I know people who just can't learn from a book at all - the words have to be directed at them and crafted to their thoughts to get the point over. Also a significant part of searching is having the right question to start with. Google is great, but its not a mind reader nor does it filter info either. 

In all truth almost every question has already been asked somewhere on the net in some form - so by value of that rule we should not have techhelp/kit advice/shooting advice or anything else -- but we find we do.....


----------



## UUilliam

Yeah i suppose... but some of them are really obvious on which are gunna run away after they get the answer.. just use rule of thumb who to give help to and who not to
If someone joins with 1 post and is like "i have looked through many cameras and just cant decide on the last few, im hoping someone her can help make the final decision i'm looking for something i can shoot baseball with, with a decent image quality." - i would help them
But people who join like "I have a product shoot tomorrow which lens should i buy for it and what gear do i need i dont want to spend more than $500"
it's like... uhmn you doing a product shoot but have no idea what your doing...

its all about natural selection

I just find it very ignorant to not commit to a community yet ask them for that sort of advice on a first post
there is atleast 2 - 3 "what camera" threads per day.. they have no excuse to make another one... the answers have all been posted yesterday.. it just starts to get a bit like hog day
The same question over and over and over by the same type of people
E.g. by people looking to make a quick buck without understanding the fullness and the cost of photography, the people who thinks "ill do a wedding for $1000 and all i need to do is point and click and it is easy money for 1 days work"
They dont realise they are going to ruin someones memories, memories that cannot be restored, once its over... its over
they dont understand the post wedding work required, the hours in post processing fixing images, cost of the prints etc...
It is the people who they hope to offer their services to i feel sorry for...
The one i hate most... "Yeah i take images on my phone and my friends all say they are really good i should be a pro photog so i decided i will buy a big professional camera and be a professional photographer but which camera is the best camera i can buy just now? but i only want to spend $200 i cant afford anymore, im only 15."

I will admit... 1 year ago i didn't even know about DSLR's i thought they were all for the REAL pros and the only ones ams used were high grade compacts with the likes of Canon G9 powershot / G10
I didn't know what EV was
Aperture
I didnt even know what Macro ment... 

But i went on google and searched something like "Professional Camera"
Which showed up some results of DSLRs at like £500 and i thought £500!! thats cheap! (no im not rich... i work 4.51 an hour atm but back then i never worked at all... i was one of those people in my "latter" comment.)
Anyways i somehow learned about cameras no idea how tho... it just sorta happens to me (with the exception to Web Coding... just cant get my head around that!!!!)
and I never researched my camera... i just felt it in my soul the 450D was for me...
My main prospect was budget but reliable
The 450D (i spotted it on amazon at £232 for about 1 week then it went back to £450)
My mum had promised she would buy me a Camera but she was wanting to buy me a compact or a bridge (and she said she was gunna photograph weddings.... like the people i mentioned in my former quote...)
But I (maybe stuck up ) was set on the 450D, people tried to side track me from it by bribing me the D40 at only £200 but i wanted the 450...
long story short...
I got a job... worked and saved the pennys and about 3 month of working 39 hours per week at 4.51 and i finally could afford the £473 for my Canon 450d + 18-55mm kit lens... i still remember the feeling i got when i recieved it through the post...
i didn't use it from fear of breaking it for about 3 days 
when i pulled it out the box, i threw the manual away (hate reading those things... bad habbits from them i rather mess around)
set it onto manual and just took shots around the house... i never went outside with it until feburary when i was on holiday, it was my first time outside... i was shooting at f4.5 at 1/4000 on iso 200
the shots weren't terribly exposed but the composition was horrible...
 but it was a awakeup call to research on the functions of my camera
so i read the exifs of people photos to see the general Settings they use and searching what iso was and how to use it etc...

basically i researched everything my self... and i feel i have went a long way since last year.. now i know how to frame an image correctly so it interests the eye, i can use iso, aperture, custom WB, EV, Raw files, Bracketing, Shutter speed, AE Lock etc..


----------



## Overread

UUilliam said:


> Yeah i suppose... but some of them are really obvious on which are gunna run away after they get the answer.. just use rule of thumb who to give help to and who not to
> If someone joins with 1 post and is like "i have looked through many cameras and just cant decide on the last few, im hoping someone her can help make the final decision i'm looking for something i can shoot baseball with, with a decent image quality." - i would help them
> But people who join like "I have a product shoot tomorrow which lens should i buy for it and what gear do i need i dont want to spend more than $500"
> it's like... uhmn you doing a product shoot but have no idea what your doing...



Your somewhat changing the argument here - initially you were saying not to help people with a single "what camera" post but now your changing it to those seeking to use their (in the view of others) have limited or no real experience in working within the field of photography.



UUilliam said:


> there is atleast 2 - 3 "what camera" threads per day.. they have no excuse to make another one... the answers have all been posted yesterday.. it just starts to get a bit like hog day
> The same question over and over and over by the same type of people
> E.g. by people looking to make a quick buck without understanding the fullness and the cost of photography, the people who thinks "ill do a wedding for $1000 and all i need to do is point and click and it is easy money for 1 days work"
> They dont realise they are going to ruin someones memories, memories that cannot be restored, once its over... its over
> they dont understand the post wedding work required, the hours in post processing fixing images, cost of the prints etc...
> It is the people who they hope to offer their services to i feel sorry for...
> The one i hate most... "Yeah i take images on my phone and my friends all say they are really good i should be a pro photog so i decided i will buy a big professional camera and be a professional photographer but which camera is the best camera i can buy just now? but i only want to spend $200 i cant afford anymore, im only 15."



Again your confusing the argument between beginners asking beginner level questions and people seeking to earn off their photography whilst having little to no real world experience of the shooting event. Its a key difference, the two are not the same. 
Also for the bold red - these sorts of people are most likley going to do the shoot anyway if nobody posts to advise them. Maybe they go to another forum or they just got with their gut and do whatever they think is best - its not going to be much of a help or aid to those who are going to be on the reciving end of a lesser quality product and service. On the other hand giving them some leading advice and some guidance as well as some (polite!) cautionary notes (don't do it don't do it! !  ) might just tip the scales a bit. They might at least turn away with an improved end result, ok it won't be "pro" class but it might be better than what they would have done alone; and heck they might even decide to call the thing off and find someone else - not everyone is bullheaded and always out for the quickbuck.

Also as for answering repeat questions asked over and over on the forums, the Pact makes no say that we must respond to each and every thread nor to judge the person making the post, yet you are asking that we start to make a policy of excluding advice to certain select groups. This is a dangerous move in itself - how long before we extend this bias to say all repeat and beginner threads - and maybe further? I would seriously affect those to the site looking for advice and aid in some basic areas of photography

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/170130-setting-white-balance.html

 - and no that is not a dig at you at all (search my history and you will find many a beginner question there) its reminding you that you also asked those questions and that you also benefited from the replies.

If people are willing to spend time to answer these questions - sometimes over and over - then why stop? Again nobody forces anyone to reply to these threads.


----------



## Bee Bee

From what I have seen so far on the site ( and forgive me because I have only been here a few days), I think the pact is an excellent idea.  In an ideal world there would be no need for it as people would automatically understand all aspects of it, but we do not live in an ideal world and therefore such things are necessary.

Now someone clue me in on how to put the link in my signature....  thanks xxx


----------



## liltimmy1313

I agree with most of what is on the pact, except about the bit where I can't get into heat fights. I think that witch critique will come differing opinions, and if we are all being honest, then fights WILL break out and I, for one, think that it's fine to get a little spice on TPF. This is with respect in mind. Mind your manners, don't start low-balling and calling names (like 4 year olds and politicians). 

That's just my two cents. Otherwise I agree with everything stated, and always assumed that it was a given to leave in depth critique without sucking up or insulting...


----------



## Dagwood56

Bee Bee said:


> From what I have seen so far on the site ( and forgive me because I have only been here a few days), I think the pact is an excellent idea. In an ideal world there would be no need for it as people would automatically understand all aspects of it, but we do not live in an ideal world and therefore such things are necessary.
> 
> Now someone clue me in on how to put the link in my signature....  thanks xxx


 
If you go back through the earlier pages, you'll see where I asked the same question. Jerry was kind enough to post an easy to follow set of instructions.


----------



## Josh66

liltimmy1313 said:


> I think that with critique will come differing opinions, and if we are all being honest, then fights WILL break out and I, for one, think that it's fine to get a little spice on TPF.



I don't think that differing opinions = fighting.

Differing opinions would only lead to fighting if the OP is closed-minded and can't take the fact that there are people that don't like what they've done.
(Assuming that the differing opinion isn't "You suck.  Your picture sucks.  Why do you even bother posting here?" - that doesn't help anybody.)


I have no problems with someone disagreeing with me.

I would _like_ for them to explain to me why, but even if they don't - I don't get all bent out of shape.


I firmly believe that if you want to get better, you have to know what needs imporovement.  You will never find out if everyone is scared to tell you.

"This is what you did wrong, and this is what you should try next time."
People get all offended and pissed off over that, but without it you will never improve.

...OK, maybe you will, eventually.  It would happen a lot faster with _useful_ feedback though.


----------



## Overread

I agree with OIIIIO most certainly, conflict does not have to come from differing views and I would hope that most here are able to conduct themselves in a manner where we can have these differences without conflict. 



O|||||||O said:


> Differing opinions would only lead to fighting if the OP is closed-minded and can't take the fact that there are people that don't like what they've done.



Remember its not always the OP sometimes is the comenters too can cause a fight - often though just missuse of words or a slightly overzealous focusing on the negtive and often a very impartial voice can see very harsh or overbearing when in written words alone.


----------



## Josh66

Overread said:


> Remember its not always the OP sometimes is the comenters too can cause a fight - often though just missuse of words or a slightly overzealous focusing on the negtive and often a very impartial voice can see very harsh or overbearing when in written words alone.



True.  I think that the type of comment that I'm sure you're thinking of are better left unposted though.

If all you have to say is "it sucks", I would rather not even see it.  On the other hand - "I don't really like it...  It's too soft, try stopping down a little next time" actually is helpful.  ...Even without the part about stopping down.

If you don't like it - say _why_.  You may not know how to make it better, but if you say exactly what it is that you don't like, the person that took the picture at least has an idea of what they did wrong.

That being said - just because one person doesn't like it doesn't mean you did _anything_ wrong.  Maybe that person just isn't in the right mood, or it isn't their style.

If _nobody_ likes it, you may want to find out why.


I think most of us are of the school that "if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything".  That helps avoid confrontation, but it doesn't help the photographer improve.


When I come across a picture I don't like, I usually don't comment on it.  If I think I know a way to make it better, I do comment though.

I think it's a fine line you have to walk.  Do you tell them that you don't like it, and maybe offer tips for improvement - or do you just move on to the next thread...?  For me, I just move on unless I think I can offer help.

Which is better?

Would you rather know that there were a few people that didn't like it (and hopefully get a few tips), or only see the positive feedback?

If you really feel that it's good work, it can be hard to find out that other people think differently.  I think it helps you grow though.



Just an idea -What if...

If you view a picture, you MUST comment on it, no matter what you have to say...?  Try to offer tips, or at least say why you did or didn't like it.

I think that would help a lot, but some people will get hurt feelings over it.


----------



## mooimeisie

O|||||||O said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just an idea -What if...
> 
> If you view a picture, you MUST comment on it, no matter what you have to say...? Try to offer tips, or at least say why you did or didn't like it.
> 
> I think that would help a lot, but some people will get hurt feelings over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This would be a very interesting way to go.  I agree with you.
Click to expand...


----------



## manaheim

I personally try to comment as much as I can, unless I think the commentary would require SO much of my time as to almost not be worth it.  (in other words, if it's REALLY far off the mark IMO)  I try to keep the comments constructive and I try very hard to offer something more substantive than "it sucks" or "I like it!".

But then, I wrote the pact, so really my commenting on the thread in this way is almost completely useless. 

In other words, "Hey Chris, your comment sucks!"


----------



## mishele

manaheim said:


> I personally try to comment as much as I can, unless I think the commentary would require SO much of my time as to almost not be worth it.  (in other words, if it's REALLY far off the mark IMO)  I try to keep the comments constructive and I try very hard to offer something more substantive than "it sucks" or "I like it!".
> 
> But then, I wrote the pact, so really my commenting on the thread in this way is almost completely useless.
> 
> In other words, "Hey Chris, your comment sucks!"




I dont like the way you treated him!! I m going to report you!


----------



## DRoberts

This post is for the comments of people starting fights over critiques.
There should be no arguing over a critique...after all what is a critique? It is an individuals *opinion *on a specific aspect. If I critique a photo and state "it seems alittle over exposed". That is my opinion based on what I like in a photo...arguing with that statement would be just as foolish as arguing with the fact that I don't like the taste of cooked cabbage.
We should not even worry about other peoples critiques other than not repeating what has been said over and over. The post is to critique the photo(s) of the OP, not to critique other peoples opinions. To me that is where the problem really is. People who just have to comment to prove their superior knowledge and greatness over others.


----------



## Wyjid

Dagwood56 said:


> I'm not crazy about clicks [wrong spelling I know] either and to me, this pact, will be yet another offset group that is going to draw fire from many others on the forum.


 
so sorry... with all due respect, while the guidelines are practical the pact is not. the people who will sign and agree to follow are the ones who would follow it without having read it. as it stands the problem is no closer to a solution because those who don't care... don't care. what's more, as mentioned above, it is something that will draw fire like that given by onion early in this thread. i also agree about the personal "send me your stuff to be critiqued by me" threads. this is pointless because it's what the forum is for in the first place. if you want to critique... go do it on normal threads. all this does is further factionize the forum and fuel egos. 

calling people on offensive posts... productive 
giving insightful comments... productive
giving encouragement... productive
trying to impose guidelines for expressing opinions on a GLOBAL _*INTERNET* FORUM_... futile.


(by the way, i like this smiley, i think more people should use it hahahahaaa)


and maybe this one too, hehe...
:addpics:
hahahahaaa! smilies make everything happy!
more pics less talk!


----------



## manaheim

^^^ It's awfully easy to criticize an attempt to make something better without proposing a constructive alternative, isn't it?


----------



## Wyjid

manaheim said:


> ^^^ It's awfully easy to criticize an attempt to make something better without proposing a constructive alternative, isn't it?


 

i do appreciate the attempt, however it's the same pattern that has been attempted through several thousand years of human history, most notably and prolifically since the introduction of the court system. a social problem is seen, and the reaction is to impose detailed guidelines on proper behaviour. unfortunately this means fails to address the underlying social issues. it's a band aid. secondly as mentioned previously in the case of the pact, it's a band aid that has been placed on the thumb when the toe is where the bleeding is. societies have never really adressed social issues, they just refine laws to cover more detailed scenerios (ie the pact's bold type revisions). the fundemental issue of people lacking decency and good sense remains at large and largely untouched. the soloution is not one that can be implemented by voluntary signing to a code of conduct. if it was there would be no crime in the world, and no debate as to the practicality of the pact. the only way that people who want those guidelines to be followed by all will get their way is for it to be included as part of the sign up procedure, then strictly enforced. but since this is an open forum, it's rather difficult to start restricting opinions. you start doing that and you have the reaction of earlier last year when there was complaining by some who felt the some mods were playing favourites (im not comenting on wether or not this was so,or correct, simply outlining the problems that arise with strict enforcement and the hurt feelings that invariably ensue). the only way to have an open forum that doesn't feel autocratic is to exercise patience and concern one's self with one's own comments. creating political movements rarely creates peace, only more divisions. in the end you end up with the same issues wearing a slightly different face. in the end, everyone has to be their own filter and solve the problems on the true battleground... their own mind. 

having said all this, i must admit, this thread has at least been very entertaining. perhaps we should start a new forum. "broad spectrum intellectual/philosophical (depending on your inclination) discussion" no photo's allowed. could be fun!


----------



## manaheim

^^^ no doubt, but...

1. There won't ever be any actual level of enforcement here.
2. It's hard to really pick what to enforce anyway, without getting into some foolish police state.
3. Therefore, there's no real way to fix the toe.

So, overall, the best anyone can do is hope to raise some kind of awareness... well, and hope that I'm raising awareness to the "right thing" or a "message that makes sense".

When given the option of choosing between doing nothing and doing something that is nearly hopeless but MAY make a tiny impact... I'll choose the latter.


----------



## Wyjid

:blushing: aww.


----------



## manaheim

Don't you just wanna take me home and cuddle?!?!??!


----------



## JerryPH

manaheim said:


> Don't you just wanna take me home and cuddle?!?!??!



Uhmm, no, you're not really my first choice for a cuddle, but thanks.   

Would you settle for a manly high-five? :lmao:


----------



## manaheim

fine, fine...


----------



## Wyjid

yes, i do. idealists make me feel all warm and fuzzy. :meh:


----------



## PhilGarber

Overread said:


> UUilliam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I Recommend no helping people with 1 post who have came asking "wut camera do i buy" or any others that relate to it...
> the only reply to a "1 poster" should be critique on their images or help on what iso, aperture etc.. is but dont help those that are obviously leeching and are gunna just post once, take our advice then run away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I somewhat disagree - we all start somewhere with our photography and a key starting point is getting the right camera. And of course one thing to do when you have little to no idea of a subject or area is to go right out and find people in that interest and ask them - shopkeepers, clubs, friends and forums all serve this use and its foolish to turn away newblood like that.
> 
> Sure many might just make one post and never appear again, others might make one decent thread and then slink away - and some others are going to be gratefull at the help and decide to stick around. Sure they won't answer many questions and will ask all the horrid "What is exposure/Ohh filters or not/etc..." We all do when we are new - we learn, we grow and we oneday are no longer in those beginner shoes.
> 
> We can't expect new people to have a reputation with us, a long postcount and many years experience every time - TPF is here for all levels from beginner amateur through to experienced Pro.
> 
> *edit* heck my early posts were all like that --- asking questions all over the place -- even kit questions!
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...1428-canon-70-200mm-f2-8-canon-100-400mm.html
Click to expand...


I agree a 100%. I asked questions like "What is RAW?" and "OMG! This pic I t00k is SOO AWESOME"! Then, as I become more advanced, I stopped asking those questions and stopped thinking my photos were gifts of god. It's a learning process.


----------



## Village Idiot

Crap...this is the first time I've ever read this page. Can I get a pass on this?



> Anyone who acts shoddily on this forum is a detriment to this community. I will take it upon myself to make polite comments to those people and *(in extreme cases) *report them to the moderators if appropriate.


----------



## manaheim

^^^ a pass?   A pass on what?  You don't want to make polite comments?


----------



## MelissaMarieImagery

I will add this to my sig


----------



## Nolan

This is a great pact to follow. I will be sure to adhere to it and link to in in my signature.


----------



## Canosonic

I'll put it in my sig. No offense , i hope.


----------



## manaheim

hehe, this thing still lives I see.

Haven't you heard that this is just an egotistical rant?


----------



## lvcrtrs

manaheim said:


> I'm going to make a bit of a rogue suggestion here that we write up a bit of a pact for people dedicated to some level of quality in the halls of TPF. This is just a draft, and I'm very open to edits. Consider this revision 1.
> 
> My thought is that those of us who are into this commit to the pact by signing this and putting *a big bold link to this in their sig*, and this becomes our modus operandi, regardless of whether or not it will make "everyone happy".
> 
> Maybe this is too extreme. I dunno. It seems like this is the way the forum ran before, and it seems like people want it back that way, so I figured I'd take a shot at it... as stated in the pact... be direct and honest with your criticism.
> 
> 
> 
> Giving Critique
> Critique is given to help people become better photographers, artists, and occasionally business people.
> I will offer honest critique when it is asked for.
> I will critique the work, not the person.
> I will not hesitate to be direct.
> I will not hold back critique, even if feelings may be hurt.
> If a shot has fundamental flaws, I will not hesitate to say so.
> I will offer both technical and artistic critique when possible.
> I will respect the requestors wishes if specified (such as if they only want technical critique)
> Summary comments along the lines of "I like it!" or "Great job!" or "It sucks!" do no one any good and will be avoided at all costs. Opinions must be expressed with reasons and analysis.
> Lastly, I will make a reasonable effort not to hurt feelings, but not at the cost of sacrificing the aforementioned statements.
> 
> Accepting Critique
> Critique is given to help people become better photographers, artists, and occasionally business people.
> I will accept critique graciously.
> I may not agree with or use all that I receive, but I will still but I will still take into consideration all critique provided.
> I will actively and openly discuss critique so received.
> When appropriate, I will challenge those who critique me to gain a better understanding.
> I will not attempt to discredit or insult those who would take the time to provide any form of critique.
> I will not discount opinions without serious consideration.
> 
> Know Theyself
> I hereby acknowledge that I am not Ansel Adams.
> I will be mindful of my own skill level when speaking with others and actively point out where I am speaking of things I am not totally certain of.
> I acknowledge that no matter how good I am, there is always going to be someone better out there, and there is always going to be something else to learn.
> 
> A Committment to Community
> I am a part of this community and therefore a stakeholder in it and will act as such.
> Anyone who acts shoddily on this forum is a detriment to this community. I will take it upon myself to make polite comments to those people and (in extreme cases) report them to the moderators if appropriate.
> I will actively participate in trying to redirect discussions to improve the quality of discourse.
> I will actively suggest and promote changes to the community to make it better.
> 
> Response to Smarm (Antagonism/Ingratiation/etc.) (I like the word "smarm")
> If someone rails at a response where I am adhering to this pact, I will point them to this pact and suggest that they read it.
> If someone rails at me and I deserve it, I'll apologize and correct my behavior.
> I will do my best not to get involved in flame wars.
> I will give everyone at least one chance to take back what they said or correct their approach.
> If all else fails, I will actively employ the ignore feature and move on with my life.
> 
> Did I miss anything?


 
I like the way this is written. As some of you know by now, I am about the humanistic approach to all. This is done in a nice non-commanding rules or else fashion. Straight forward, non-cult, emotion removed informational piece. A well presented guidance document.
Vote yes x1.


----------



## The_Traveler

I just came across this thread and actually read parts of it. I infer the site was sold to new people and many of the moderators that were here when I was active 2006-2007 have since disappeared.

I left here (and became a mod elsewhere) just because of the very problems you are discussing, the lack of good c&c, the problem with beginner photographers and rudeness to other members.  

My conclusion was then, as it is now, that you can't have a forum for 'experienced' photographers that has a large and constantly changing proportion of relatively new photographers. The quality of their pictures and the comments just dilutes the value of the better work.  

The site where I am a moderator now was started by a bunch of pretty experienced photographers and we have a low percentage of inexperienced members posting and the generally high level of the posts is intimidating to newer photogs - and this works out well.  We welcome new people but it is clear that we are committed to photography and not to the social aspects of the group. (although it is a chummy group, all one has to do to join is to post pictures and make comments.)  Every picture is there for C&C.

We have very few rules and most of them are procedural dealing with image size, etc.; the prime rule about behavior is that posters and comments must be respectful to other members and their posts - and the mods enforce this. In general, our behavior is in alignment with the idea in your 'pledge' - and we don't tolerate members who violate our rules. 

If the mods don't help to form the site by encouraging C&C and not tolerating abuse, IMO, you will have a continuing problem. These are the same arguments I made before I left and nothing happened then.

In any case, good luck to you.

Lew


----------



## The_Traveler

Quote-----------------
---Quote---
 high level of the posts is intimidating to newer photogs - and this works out well.
---End Quote---
What a horrible thing to say! Elitism is a terrible trait to pursue. 

Should you not be encouraging more people to enjoy your hobby? Should you not be excited about new people seeing your work? You can't have it all one way.
Quote-----------------------------------------------

This was posted and sent to me but then deleted but it deserves an answer. 
What the writer is saying that we shouldn't have a small and skilled bunch of photographers because that is 'elitist.' That we should be a kind of social service agency bringing photography to the masses of beginners.

So we shouldn't be a high school for photographers but a kindergarten, primary, middle and high school all in one room - because to do otherwise would be elitist. Well, isn't that what you have here?  How well is that working for the high schoolers?

To be honest, I, and probably most of the other members at that site, couldn't care less about getting useless praise from lots of beginners who don't know a good photo from a bad photo. I enjoy praise from people whose own work I admire. 

The reality is that our average photographer is completely technically competent and is trying, not to learn where the WB button is, but to extend their photographic 'art'. This, in itself, is intimidating to beginner photographers because they don't see countless numbers of baby and pet photos - in focus but completely standard, they don't see pictures that they themselves would or could take and so most don't feel comfortable posting. The few 'beginners' we have who post are very serious about their work, are helped and accepted and they improve enormously quickly.

I do miss lots of the personalities I met here, many of whose screen names I remember quite well, but I've found a place where I am in the bottom half of technical and artistic capability and I can learn a tremendous amount. What I do miss is helping people make the transition from knowing little to knowing some more and so I stop at other places to give comments where I think I can be of help. However I always go back to my home - where I can get help and inspiration.

Lew


----------



## usayit

Hi Traveler.. 

I understand where you are coming from... (definitely... and seriously understand)

but

Just as there is no such thing as a town/city in which 100% of its residence are honest, there is no such thing as a online community in which 100% of its members are contributing properly.  It gets increasingly worse as said community grows.  To move an online community in that direction and maintain it would be to have a strict guideline of membership which is more of an exclusive club rather than a "community".  A notion that seems counter to the TPF from the original beginning.  So in essence... the TPF is a victim of its own success.  To be an active member here, you have to be accepting (I have to certain extent... just as I have accepted my nosey neighbors next door).

As for me, I get my fix for for serious discussion about photography elsewhere... I remain here for the community aspect with both the good and bad alike.  I do realize its easier for me than most. I gave up the notion of taking ~my~ photography too seriously because professional photography is in my past and photography as a hobby is my future. 

There are amateurs that pretend to be professionals...  I am an amateur that pretends to be an amateur. 


I am glad that you found another place to call home, learn and foster your interests.  Drop by once and in a while (if you can)... as I recall you had a lot of good contributions.


----------



## The_Traveler

Thanks, usayit, for the understanding.
Can you point me to any thread that tells me about the new owners and policy?

And what is this "Thanked x times in x posts."


Lew


----------



## usayit

The_Traveler said:


> Thanks, usayit, for the understanding.
> Can you point me to any thread that tells me about the new owners and policy?
> 
> And what is this "Thanked x times in x posts."
> 
> 
> Lew



My memory isn't great but  I don't believe there was an official one.... the whole transition was done very quietly with a few members hanging around for a while then leaving shortly afterwards  (HelenB being one.. bummer).  There was a thread about it among members when someone noticed some changes in moderator assignments.  It eventually lead to this thread from Chase:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/off-topic-chat/146404-tpf-updates-changes.html


The whole Thanked thing is a way for members to register their thanks for a helpful/thankful post.  Unfortunately, it is being abused to a certain extent.  I personally don't really care for it.  Oh well.... one of those "community" things..


----------



## The_Traveler

usayit said:


> Hi Traveler..
> 
> Just as there is no such thing as a town/city in which 100% of its residence are honest, there is no such thing as a online community in which 100% of its members are contributing properly.  It gets increasingly worse as said community grows.  To move an online community in that direction and maintain it would be to have a strict guideline of membership which is more of an exclusive club rather than a "community".  A notion that seems counter to the TPF from the original beginning.  So in essence... the TPF is a victim of its own success.  To be an active member here, you have to be accepting (I have to certain extent... just as I have accepted my nosey neighbors next door).



We don't exclude anyone either by design or with requirements.  It's sort of like a running club that is started by a group of good runners. Poor runners can't keep up or don't want to put in the effort and fall away - and that is the way it should be. The original core members wanted a higher than average level of ability and it is perpetuated.


----------



## usayit

The_Traveler said:


> We don't exclude anyone either by design or with requirements.  It's sort of like a running club that is started by a group of good runners. Poor runners can't keep up or don't want to put in the effort and fall away - and that is the way it should be. The original core members wanted a higher than average level of ability and it is perpetuated.



Yup.. I understand..  just simply pointing out the difference of the "community" of the TPF versus a "club" that seeks a little more exclusiveness.   Nothing wrong with that... just got to accept both as is.  

To turn the TPF into something that some would prefer would mean turning the "community" into more of a club... with guidelines that well... sound like... "The Pact" in the previous posts of this thread.


----------



## pbelarge

erose86 said:


> But... but... I *am* Ansel Adams!!!!
> 
> :lmao:


 

This is not the make a wish thread...:mrgreen:


----------



## manaheim

Yeesh.


----------



## skieur

More like necro! :lmao::lmao:

skieur


----------



## Parago

Ok I have two questions

1. What in the world has happened to this forum..?
2. Why doesn't manaheim sport his own brainchild signature link anymore?

:meh:


----------



## Overread

What happened in condensed form:

1) Case sold the forum to new site owners - from the outset this was a fiancial move by them to use the site as an income source rather than from a desire to own a photography forum in general. This caused one or two people to jump ship, but at the time nothing major really happened

2) New site owners made quite a few promises (including an overhaul to the paid members features) but as yet many of these have not been fullfilled

3) Site owners opened a new NSFW gallery subsection - as a result of this this subsection actually became quite popular. Replies were respected and in general it was going along very well

4) Site owners closed the NSFW section and banned NSFW photos from the site without consulting members (nor the moderators either). In the end we've never had any offical reply back from them regarding this so we are left to assume one of the site advertisers showed an objection. Further several suggestions were made to allow a restricted access NSFW section to be allowed - again no reply

To summaries the forum runs but without anyone at the head of the ship with an interest to photography nor to the users of the site. As a result (as well as a few other things) two splinter groups (at least) formed away from TPF though I have to say most of the uses in them also still use TPF as a main site. 
The downside is that it means we have lost many of the more experienced contributing members of the site and as a result of this (plus a healthy influx of new photographers) we have a somewhat bottom heavy community with a lot of new beginners and fewer more established members.


----------



## Parago

Overread said:


> What happened in condensed form:
> 
> 1) Case sold the forum to new site owners - from the outset this was a fiancial move by them to use the site as an income source rather than from a desire to own a photography forum in general. This caused one or two people to jump ship, but at the time nothing major really happened
> 
> 2) New site owners made quite a few promises (including an overhaul to the paid members features) but as yet many of these have not been fullfilled
> 
> 3) Site owners opened a new NSFW gallery subsection - as a result of this this subsection actually became quite popular. Replies were respected and in general it was going along very well
> 
> 4) Site owners closed the NSFW section and banned NSFW photos from the site without consulting members (nor the moderators either). In the end we've never had any offical reply back from them regarding this so we are left to assume one of the site advertisers showed an objection. Further several suggestions were made to allow a restricted access NSFW section to be allowed - again no reply
> 
> To summaries the forum runs but without anyone at the head of the ship with an interest to photography nor to the users of the site. As a result (as well as a few other things) two splinter groups (at least) formed away from TPF though I have to say most of the uses in them also still use TPF as a main site.
> The downside is that it means we have lost many of the more experienced contributing members of the site and as a result of this (plus a healthy influx of new photographers) we have a somewhat bottom heavy community with a lot of new beginners and fewer more established members.



Wow, well first of all thanks for the quick and concise response. I have to say I'm rather shocked. I've never been extremely active on here or anything but always regarded TPF as one of the best online communities for professionals as well as beginners out there.

Now, the whole forum has this air of elitist snobbishness (is that even a word..? Oh whatever.) to it and this so called "Pact" reminds me of some kind of fascist frat codex. Awful. 

Well.. I'll be looking around a little more in the subforums since I haven't been here for over a year but as of right now this is not a place I want to come back to, to be honest. Arrogance is toxic in a place that is supposed to embrace curiosity, creativity, and a sense for community.


----------



## Village Idiot

Parago said:


> Well.. I'll be looking around a little more in the subforums since I haven't been here for over a year but as of right now this is not a place I want to come back to, to be honest. Arrogance is toxic in a place that is supposed to embrace curiosity, creativity, and a sense for community.


 
I wouldn't bother. The only forum here that gets used is the beginner's forum. 

What can I say? It's a ship of fools caught in a current that keeps taking us in one big circle.

Now maybe if the people that owned the key to unlock the wheel hadn't jumped overboard, then maybe things would be a bit different.


----------



## manaheim

The Pact was just an attempt by me to try to establish some kind of code the membership could live by to try and bolster up the forum a bit.

One interpretation of it is that it is elitist or snobbish or whatever.  I don't see it, but then I've also found over time that people who are in a defensive position for whatever reason find most kinds of alternate suggestions as arrogant.

I'm sure that will be interpreted as arrogant.  It probably is.  The real sad truth of it is I can't even myself live up to my own pact anymore.  I've grown too tired of candy-coating everything all the time to keep people from getting their hackles up.

It is what it is.  I tried.  *shrug*


----------



## Parago

manaheim said:


> The Pact was just an attempt by me to try to establish some kind of code the membership could live by to try and bolster up the forum a bit.
> 
> One interpretation of it is that it is elitist or snobbish or whatever.  I don't see it, but then I've also found over time that people who are in a defensive position for whatever reason find most kinds of alternate suggestions as arrogant.
> 
> I'm sure that will be interpreted as arrogant.  It probably is.  The real sad truth of it is I can't even myself live up to my own pact anymore.  I've grown too tired of candy-coating everything all the time to keep people from getting their hackles up.
> 
> It is what it is.  I tried.  *shrug*



LOL wow.. I hope you feel sufficiently sorry for yourself. 

Anyhow, after seeing more of what's been happening on here since the last time I logged in, I, too, shall find me some other place to *network, learn, play, and exchange ideas and advice*. This here sure isn't the place for it anymore.

Good luck.


----------



## manaheim

^^^ statements/attitudes like that are a big part of what wore me down on this place, though in truth I think it's just an artifact of any large internet community.

Again... *shrug*.


----------



## Petraio Prime

> Know Thyself
> I hereby acknowledge that I am not Ansel Adams.



For this we should all be most grateful. One of him was one too many.


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> Know Thyself
> I hereby acknowledge that I am not Ansel Adams.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For this we should all be most grateful. One of him was one too many.
Click to expand...


We all know that you don't want to be around or acquainted with photographers.... So why are you still here?


----------



## white

Internet forums are srs bsns.


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Know Thyself
> I hereby acknowledge that I am not Ansel Adams.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For this we should all be most grateful. One of him was one too many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all know that you don't want to be around or acquainted with photographers.... So why are you still here?
Click to expand...


I don't want to be confused with the typical photographer or bourgeois thinking about photography.


----------



## manaheim

^^^ LMFAO

Boy did you just paint a big target on your head, mr. non-typical photographer hanging out on a big mainstream photo-forum.

I SALUTE THEE!



(I'm still trying to figure out how a typical photographer is bourgeois...)


----------



## SrBiscuit

i came back for the lulz.


----------



## smokinphoto

This was  a good laugh. Thank you very much.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Know Thyself
> I hereby acknowledge that I am not Ansel Adams.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For this we should all be most grateful. One of him was one too many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all know that you don't want to be around or acquainted with photographers.... So why are you still here?
Click to expand...

He's here for the chicks.


----------



## manaheim

Hm.  I saw someone on the forum still had this in their sig.  I decided to go read it.  I figured after all this time I might look back on it and actually agree with some of those who cried so violently against it, but I don't.  I really do think this is something worthwhile.  I shall put it back in my sig.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Circles.


----------



## manaheim

hahahah... hey when you have been here like 7 years you'll likely do the same thing.

Good lord, man... 10k posts... in 3 years?


----------



## o hey tyler

manaheim said:


> Good lord, man... 10k posts... in 3 years?



Does that make BJ the "Postmaster General?"


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

manaheim said:


> hahahah... hey when you have been here like 7 years you'll likely do the same thing.
> 
> Good lord, man... 10k posts... in 3 years?



In that time, how many times have you left and come back? LOL


----------



## cgipson1

manaheim said:


> Hm.  I saw someone on the forum still had this in their sig.  I decided to go read it.  I figured after all this time I might look back on it and actually agree with some of those who cried so violently against it, but I don't.  I really do think this is something worthwhile.  I shall put it back in my sig.


+

I actually like the idea! But you would have to update it to include some clauses to cover all of the friggin MWACs! As in "I promise not to charge people until I can actually take a decent photo!"


----------



## Overread

cgipson1 said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hm.  I saw someone on the forum still had this in their sig.  I decided to go read it.  I figured after all this time I might look back on it and actually agree with some of those who cried so violently against it, but I don't.  I really do think this is something worthwhile.  I shall put it back in my sig.
> 
> 
> 
> +
> 
> I actually like the idea! But you would have to update it to include some clauses to cover all of the friggin MWACs! As in "I promise not to charge people until I can actually take a decent photo!"
Click to expand...


You can only add that clause if you can fully, and without exception, define a decent photo


----------



## cgipson1

Bitter Jeweler said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> hahahah... hey when you have been here like 7 years you'll likely do the same thing.
> 
> Good lord, man... 10k posts... in 3 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that time, how many times have you left and come back? LOL
Click to expand...


I am seriously considering leaving.... and don't know if I will come back or not! The forum seems to have fewer and fewer people on it that want to LEARN just for photography! And way too many people that just want to learn the basic beginner stuff to justify the fact that they charge for crap, and call themselves PRO's! (They still post in the Beginner section though.. asking silly question's about "How do I improve my focus"... and my personal favorite (paraphrased):  "I am too stupid to use flash.. so I am a Natural Light Photographer!"  

I do not shoot for money anymore.. only for fun! So my bitterness toward these MWAC's and GWAC clowns... is not financially motivated! *I hate what they are doing to a profession that I once loved dearly*! They are lowering standards everywhere! I don't care that they serve the low end market (the only market they could serve!)... and that they are not really competition for a decent photographer!

I basically refuse to even try to help anyone on here anymore... because several people I worked with extensively in the past went "PRO"... against my advice. They had improved immensely... but definitely are not anywhere near PRO level!   I also hate that they are almost encouraged by some people... who are either too nice to say the work is crap, or too stupid to recognize it! 

Then there is the HDR "It's Art no matter how bad it is" crowd...  Whatever! When noobs with little education (much less education  in art) start trying to define standards like that, it hilarious!

I haven't really been here that long... but at over 6K posts in that period.. I think it is fair to say that I tried to put a lot into it!


----------



## DScience

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> I am seriously considering leaving.... and don't know if I will come back or not! The forum seems to have fewer and fewer people on it that want to LEARN just for photography! And way too many people that just want to learn the basic beginner stuff to justify the fact that they charge for crap, and call themselves PRO's! (They still post in the Beginner section though.. asking silly question's about "How do I improve my focus"... and my personal favorite (paraphrased):  "I am too stupid to use flash.. so I am a Natural Light Photographer!"
> 
> I do not shoot for money anymore.. only for fun! So my bitterness toward these MWAC's and GWAC clowns... is not financially motivated! I hate what they are doing to a profession that I once loved dearly! They are lowering standards everywhere! I don't care that they serve the low end market (the only market they could serve!)... and that they are not really competition for a decent photographer!
> 
> I basically refuse to even try to help anyone on here anymore... because several people I worked with extensively in the past went "PRO"... against my advice. They had improved immensely... but definitely are not anywhere near PRO level!   I also hate that they are almost encouraged by some people... who are either too nice to say the work is crap, or too stupid to recognize it!
> 
> Then there is the HDR "It's Art no matter how bad it is" crowd...  Whatever! When noobs with little education (much less education  in art) start trying to define standards like that, it hilarious!
> 
> I haven't really been here that long... but at over 6K posts in that period.. I think it is fair to say that I tried to put a lot into it!



So you no longer help people, and constantly bit** about all photogs that aren't elite pros, and dislike the forum.

Good riddance !


----------



## Overread

Personally I wouldn't bother getting worried about people doing stuff I don't want them to do - esp when it is just photography. I mean its not like they are heading out to become serial killers or anything.

Asides which if you keep looking only at the entry level and only at the lower ends of course you'll see the bad bits. It's like going to the movies to see bad films and then lamenting that all films are bad as a result


----------



## cgipson1

DScience said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am seriously considering leaving.... and don't know if I will come back or not! The forum seems to have fewer and fewer people on it that want to LEARN just for photography! And way too many people that just want to learn the basic beginner stuff to justify the fact that they charge for crap, and call themselves PRO's! (They still post in the Beginner section though.. asking silly question's about "How do I improve my focus"... and my personal favorite (paraphrased):  "I am too stupid to use flash.. so I am a Natural Light Photographer!"
> 
> I do not shoot for money anymore.. only for fun! So my bitterness toward these MWAC's and GWAC clowns... is not financially motivated! I hate what they are doing to a profession that I once loved dearly! They are lowering standards everywhere! I don't care that they serve the low end market (the only market they could serve!)... and that they are not really competition for a decent photographer!
> 
> I basically refuse to even try to help anyone on here anymore... because several people I worked with extensively in the past went "PRO"... against my advice. They had improved immensely... but definitely are not anywhere near PRO level!   I also hate that they are almost encouraged by some people... who are either too nice to say the work is crap, or too stupid to recognize it!
> 
> Then there is the HDR "It's Art no matter how bad it is" crowd...  Whatever! When noobs with little education (much less education  in art) start trying to define standards like that, it hilarious!
> 
> I haven't really been here that long... but at over 6K posts in that period.. I think it is fair to say that I tried to put a lot into it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you no longer help people, and constantly bit** about all photogs that aren't elite pros, and dislike the forum.
> 
> Good riddance !
Click to expand...


I thought you said you were leaving!  Guess not... I have yet to see you say a single nice "Untrollish" thing since you came back...... so why do you stick around?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler




----------



## mooimeisie

Good one Bitter.  :lmao: :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## SCraig

cgipson1 said:


> I am seriously considering leaving.... and don't know if I will come back or not! The forum seems to have fewer and fewer people on it that want to LEARN just for photography! And way too many people that just want to learn the basic beginner stuff to justify the fact that they charge for crap, and call themselves PRO's! (They still post in the Beginner section though.. asking silly question's about "How do I improve my focus"... and my personal favorite (paraphrased):  "I am too stupid to use flash.. so I am a Natural Light Photographer!"
> 
> I do not shoot for money anymore.. only for fun! So my bitterness toward these MWAC's and GWAC clowns... is not financially motivated! *I hate what they are doing to a profession that I once loved dearly*! They are lowering standards everywhere! I don't care that they serve the low end market (the only market they could serve!)... and that they are not really competition for a decent photographer!
> .....


I can understand your frustration, Charlie.  I've mentioned this several times, but when I was a kid I worked in a camera store part time.  At the time there were two professional photographers in my town, excluding the reporters for the local newspaper, both with established studios.  I looked on Google last year and in the same town, whose population has probably increased by 20% since those days, there are now in excess of 200 "Professional" photographers.

I've worked for enginering companies for 45 years and have been around  registered professional engineers that entire time.  I KNOW what being a  professional means, I KNOW that there is more to it than just giving  yourself a title.  I've never ahd any urge to pursue photography as a career because I know that there is more to it than being able to get a decent exposure most of the time.  But, as long as there are no specific requirements for  being a true professional photographer that is never going to change.  There are no scholastic requirements, there are no experience requirements, there are no legal requirements.  All one has to do is purchase a business license and they are an Instant Professional Photograher, ready to take someone's money for producing mediocre results at best.

These people do not understand what is required of a professional phorographer.  A true "Pro" has to have the knowledge, experience, ability, and equipment to get the shots that the client wants, under any conditions, under any circumstances, at any time.  They feel that if they don't get the results on the first try that an "I'm Sorry" is a sufficient excuse.  They feel that it's acceptable to be a "Fair Weather" photographer or a "Natural Light" photographer or a "Limited" photographer.  They think it's OK to take money for performing a service and not have a business license, insurance, or pay taxes on the income.  This is not the case however it is the way that this profession is headed.

It's a sore spot for me to because, much like you, I've seen it happening for a long time.  Unlike you, and a few others here, I watched it from the outside but I watched nonetheless, I've done it for a very long time, and I don't like what I see.  It is frustrating to see a profession ruined in such a manner but that is what is happening.

Sorry, perhaps this doesn't belong in this thread but after seeing some of today's posts I felt it was pertinent.  If one of the mods wants to remove it then go ahead and do so.


----------



## manaheim

Can we seriously not turn this into a pro vs non pro discussion?  Seriously.


----------



## cgipson1

SCraig said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am seriously considering leaving.... and don't know if I will come back or not! The forum seems to have fewer and fewer people on it that want to LEARN just for photography! And way too many people that just want to learn the basic beginner stuff to justify the fact that they charge for crap, and call themselves PRO's! (They still post in the Beginner section though.. asking silly question's about "How do I improve my focus"... and my personal favorite (paraphrased):  "I am too stupid to use flash.. so I am a Natural Light Photographer!"
> 
> I do not shoot for money anymore.. only for fun! So my bitterness toward these MWAC's and GWAC clowns... is not financially motivated! *I hate what they are doing to a profession that I once loved dearly*! They are lowering standards everywhere! I don't care that they serve the low end market (the only market they could serve!)... and that they are not really competition for a decent photographer!
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand your frustration, Charlie.  I've mentioned this several times, but when I was a kid I worked in a camera store part time.  At the time there were two professional photographers in my town, excluding the reporters for the local newspaper, both with established studios.  I looked on Google last year and in the same town, whose population has probably increased by 20% since those days, there are now in excess of 200 "Professional" photographers.
> 
> I've worked for enginering companies for 45 years and have been around  registered professional engineers that entire time.  I KNOW what being a  professional means, I KNOW that there is more to it than just giving  yourself a title.  I've never ahd any urge to pursue photography as a career because I know that there is more to it than being able to get a decent exposure most of the time.  But, as long as there are no specific requirements for  being a true professional photographer that is never going to change.  There are no scholastic requirements, there are no experience requirements, there are no legal requirements.  All one has to do is purchase a business license and they are an Instant Professional Photograher, ready to take someone's money for producing mediocre results at best.
> 
> These people do not understand what is required of a professional phorographer.  A true "Pro" has to have the knowledge, experience, ability, and equipment to get the shots that the client wants, under any conditions, under any circumstances, at any time.  They feel that if they don't get the results on the first try that an "I'm Sorry" is a sufficient excuse.  They feel that it's acceptable to be a "Fair Weather" photographer or a "Natural Light" photographer or a "Limited" photographer.  They think it's OK to take money for performing a service and not have a business license, insurance, or pay taxes on the income.  This is not the case however it is the way that this profession is headed.
> 
> It's a sore spot for me to because, much like you, I've seen it happening for a long time.  Unlike you, and a few others here, I watched it from the outside but I watched nonetheless, I've done it for a very long time, and I don't like what I see.  It is frustrating to see a profession ruined in such a manner but that is what is happening.
> 
> Sorry, perhaps this doesn't belong in this thread but after seeing some of today's posts I felt it was pertinent.  If one of the mods wants to remove it then go ahead and do so.
Click to expand...


:thumbup:


----------



## cgipson1

manaheim said:


> Can we seriously not turn this into a pro vs non pro discussion?  Seriously.



Sorry... I just thought that it was a pertinent issue for your PACT! I apologize if you consider it a hijack!


----------



## cgipson1

Bitter Jeweler said:


>



hahaha... I can only HOPE that since DScience is in Denver, that I meet him someday!


----------



## Josh66

You'll come back for the action.  And the laughs.

No other photography forum has either quite like this one.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

They all come back, don't they Josh?


----------



## manaheim

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> Sorry... I just thought that it was a pertinent issue for your PACT! I apologize if you consider it a hijack!



Thread hijack or no, it's a topic that's been covered ad nauseum and leads to the kind of negativity and hostility that (I think) is very much counter to the spirit of the idea.


----------



## IByte

I see no problem trying to have standards even in cyberspace, thankfully some people care..sign me up!


----------



## AgentDrex

Is a positive response to this thread considered good enough for signing "The Pact" so I can use this is my sig?  I feel I've been on long enough now to be considered for this and also will make more effort in the future to prove more meaningful critiques.


----------



## Derrel

manaheim said:
			
		

> Giving Critique
> 
> 
> 
> Critique is given to help people become better photographers, artists, and occasionally business people.
> I will offer honest critique when it is asked for.
> I will critique the work, not the person.
> I will not hesitate to be direct.
> I will not hold back critique, even if feelings may be hurt.
> If a shot has fundamental flaws, I will not hesitate to say so.
> I will offer both technical and artistic critique when possible.
> I will respect the requestors wishes if specified (such as if they only want technical critique)
> Summary comments along the lines of "I like it!" or "Great job!" or "It sucks!" do no one any good and will be avoided at all costs. Opinions must be expressed with reasons and analysis.
> Lastly, I will make a reasonable effort not to hurt feelings, but not at the cost of sacrificing the aforementioned statements.
> 
> Accepting Critique
> Critique is given to help people become better photographers, artists, and occasionally business people.
> I will accept critique graciously.
> I may not agree with or use all that I receive, but I will still but I will still take into consideration all critique provided.
> I will actively and openly discuss critique so received.
> When appropriate, I will challenge those who critique me to gain a better understanding.
> I will not attempt to discredit or insult those who would take the time to provide any form of critique.
> I will not discount opinions without serious consideration.
> 
> Know Theyself
> I hereby acknowledge that I am not Ansel Adams.
> I will be mindful of my own skill level when speaking with others and actively point out where I am speaking of things I am not totally certain of.
> I acknowledge that no matter how good I am, there is always going to be someone better out there, and there is always going to be something else to learn.
> 
> A Committment to Community
> I am a part of this community and therefore a stakeholder in it and will act as such.
> Anyone who acts shoddily on this forum is a detriment to this community. I will take it upon myself to make polite comments to those people and (in extreme cases) report them to the moderators if appropriate.
> I will actively participate in trying to redirect discussions to improve the quality of discourse.
> I will actively suggest and promote changes to the community to make it better.
> 
> Response to Smarm (Antagonism/Ingratiation/etc.) (I like the word "smarm")
> If someone rails at a response where I am adhering to this pact, I will point them to this pact and suggest that they read it.
> If someone rails at me and I deserve it, I'll apologize and correct my behavior.
> I will do my best not to get involved in flame wars.
> I will give everyone at least one chance to take back what they said or correct their approach.
> If all else fails, I will actively employ the ignore feature and move on with my life.
> 
> Did I miss anything?



So, you want to put a link to a four year old post in your sig file??? Yeah, go ahead. Why not!!


----------



## AgentDrex

Yes, I do.  It seems like something I could adhere to.  It makes sense for a guy who has been here for almost five years to start to finally provide some meaningful critique.  This seems like a legitimate way to show that I adhere to these principles, cultish as it may seem to others.  It also serves as a reminder to myself to continue to provide critiques that are both polite but firm.  This was/is an idea I can stand behind.

EDIT: This thread is that old?  Ha!  I made a thread that went sixteen pages in one day.  Not too shabby.  Probably wasn't the best way to get that but not the worst either.


----------



## thetrue

Will there be a new wave of Pact members??


----------



## The_Traveler

Some of us actually were sort of Pact-ers (not teh being cordial part) before Mannheim went into his drug and alcohol induced fit and produced it.


----------



## mishele

What a great walk down memory lane....lol


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

mishele said:


> What a great walk down memory lane....lol



Oh yeah. I still laugh every time I see "I support the pact" in someone's sig. :roll:


The pact. LOL.   :chatty:


----------



## Mully

Does the pact give out merit badges??


----------



## Steve5D

Looks like I missed this thread the first few times it came and went, so I'll opine now. And, the only reason I'm responding is because the OP is still an active member here.

"Critique" has always been a pet peeve of mine. Honestly, I believe a majority of people d_on't k_now how to give it.

With that in mind, some thoughts on some of what's been proposed:

Honest feedback is a great and wonderful thing, but it's rare. You say you will critique the work, and not the person. Later on you state that you'll offer critique even if it hurts someone's feelings. Well, if you hurt someone's feelings, whether you're aware of this or not, you're no longer critiquing the work. If there's a chance that a critique is going to be construed as personal rather than technical, it should be avoided, _*regardless of the intent*_. This is where arguments start, and it takes only a matter of nanoseconds for any value that _might _have been present in your critique to vanish.

There used to be a guy in the HDR forum who offered "direct" critique". He was viscious and vile, and his critiques often included idiotic nuggests like "This is horrible" or "learn your camera before trying to do this" and often ended with "if you can't do it right, you shouldn't do it at all". Not once did I read a post by him in which he actually tried to help someone. If memory serves, he no longer enjoys a membership here. As a result, the HDR forum is a much nicer place to be. 

Some more random thoughts:

- Sometimes "I like it" is sufficient. It conveys to the photographer that, whatever he did to create the image, it's appreciated. This would further suggest that the photographer should continue on that path. These are very different from the "It sucks" comments, which offer nothing in the way of assistance to correct a perceived deficiency. Basically, "I like it" is fine. "It sucks" is not.

- Understand that not everyone who posts pictures is going to be as advanced as you, and that those who may excel in some areas may be complete neophytes in others. 

- Understand that people who ask for critique are doing it so they can improve. Anything said which does not serve that end is unnecessary and will be avoided.

- This is the big one: If you're going to offer a critique of an image, you should be _required _to offer suggestions to correct what you see as deficiencies. *Period*. It's far too easy to be critical of something when you don't have to offer any thoughts on how to fix it. Don't just say "This picture is too dark". That would be meaningless and, in all honesty, probably obvious. Say something like "This picture is too dark. You could correct that by _____________". Such critique could be quite helpful when there's more than one way to correct something. I believe that people who fail to do this should, for the good of the forum, be put on a six month hiatus from the forum. Those who come back and do it again get a change of address. Period.

I don't believe that I would agree to adhere to any pact which didn't include the above. 

After all, if we're going to do this, let's man up and do it right...


----------



## manaheim

Oh god...


----------



## Steve5D

Or, I could just critique the original idea in its entirety and say that it's stupid...


----------



## AgentDrex

I still stand behind the idea.  Perhaps it needs to be fleshed out a little, added to here, subtracted from there but the general idea is there and is one I find compelling.  If one is just going to say, "nice picture," without any explanation to why it is liked, how does that help anyone? It is no more useful to say something vague but positive than it would be to say, "that photo doesn't work for me" and not say anything else.  Neither way promotes what TPF is here for, to help each other grow. 
I understand where you're coming from though.  At least the person knows that someone likes their photo (or doesn't like it) and they may be on the right path (or the wrong path).  Of course my friends say the same nice things about my photos but most of them have no interest and/or usable knowledge in photography.  I would expect more from a forum tailored to photographers of all levels (from the beginning enthusiast to the professional) than to just dollop gravy on mashed potatoes without caring whether the potatoes are cooked well or at all.

Everyone benefits from full-fledged critiques.  The ones asking for such learn a little bit and the ones critiquing learn a little bit.  Someone new to photography may keep their opinions meek (a simple I like it and a simple why, the colors are beautiful, etc.) and the elder photographers can give more detailed critiques (while stating that whichever the critiquee wants to work on first is fine).  

I see nothing stupid behind the idea of people calling attention to the fact that they play by certain rules.  There are so many groups out there in the world that do this same thing (jaycees, MADD, church groups, etc.) that to say that some people getting together here is akin to a cult is plain silly.  No one is asking for anyone to give up all their worldly possessions, follow around a guy with a white robe and chant mantras while flailing themselves to sleep with a cat-o-nine.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Talk less about how to critique, and go out and give more critique.

What a De Ja Vu moment. Haven't we been down this road before?


----------



## Derrel

Bitter Jeweler said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a great walk down memory lane....lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah. I still laugh every time I see "I support the pact" in someone's sig. :roll:
> 
> 
> The pact. LOL.   :chatty:
Click to expand...


Especially if one knows the circumstances surrounding it...

Pot. Kettle. Absence of reflected light.


----------



## AgentDrex

I understand your sentiment Bitter, however have I not been doing so?  I only critique on that which I feel comfortable about my ability to critique.  It may not be as much as the next guy but its not like I spend one hundred percent of my time coming up with ways of critiquing instead of just doing so.

Thanks for the chuckle Derrel...I'm remembering the pot kettle thing...hilarious...


----------



## manaheim

Steve5D said:
			
		

> Or, I could just critique the original idea in its entirety and say that it's stupid...



Therein lies the crux of the problem.  It was a very well-intended idea and a lot of people saw nothing but blood.  I've never seen such impassioned hatred over a thing here.  The idea that people would spout such vitriol over an idea intended exclusively to create a volunteer membership in a certain basic set of ideologies totally baffles me to this day.



			
				AgentDrex said:
			
		

> I still stand behind the idea.  Perhaps it needs to be fleshed out a little, added to here, subtracted from there but the general idea is there and is one I find compelling.  If one is just going to say, "nice picture," without any explanation to why it is liked, how does that help anyone? It is no more useful to say something vague but positive than it would be to say, "that photo doesn't work for me" and not say anything else.  Neither way promotes what TPF is here for, to help each other grow.
> I understand where you're coming from though.  At least the person knows that someone likes their photo (or doesn't like it) and they may be on the right path (or the wrong path).  Of course my friends say the same nice things about my photos but most of them have no interest and/or usable knowledge in photography.  I would expect more from a forum tailored to photographers of all levels (from the beginning enthusiast to the professional) than to just dollop gravy on mashed potatoes without caring whether the potatoes are cooked well or at all.
> 
> Everyone benefits from full-fledged critiques.  The ones asking for such learn a little bit and the ones critiquing learn a little bit.  Someone new to photography may keep their opinions meek (a simple I like it and a simple why, the colors are beautiful, etc.) and the elder photographers can give more detailed critiques (while stating that whichever the critiquee wants to work on first is fine).
> 
> I see nothing stupid behind the idea of people calling attention to the fact that they play by certain rules.  There are so many groups out there in the world that do this same thing (jaycees, MADD, church groups, etc.) that to say that some people getting together here is akin to a cult is plain silly.  No one is asking for anyone to give up all their worldly possessions, follow around a guy with a white robe and chant mantras while flailing themselves to sleep with a cat-o-nine.



I gotta say that none of the the nasty comments and hatred back further in this thread have done more to discredit the original idea in my mind.., than your support of it.

Oh the irony.  You could cut it with a knife.


----------



## manaheim

I just re-read the first 10 pages or so... It's interesting.

First, I find I'm a way less defensive person than I was when I suggested this.  It's interesting to see how defensive I was being and what a negative impact it had on some folks who I very much respect and their support (or lack thereof).  I swear TPF is like the mirror I never wanted to look at.  Lol

Second, a lot of the vitriol was mostly from people who were just being um... Grouchy.  Not really anything substantive.  Were I taking my own advice I would have just ignored it.

Good intentions, but clearly put forth by someone not really qualified to be the spokesperson of the idea.  It really needed someone like  Overread or Corinna... People  who are GENUINELY a 100% positive force for TPF would have been a better choice.

Ah well.


----------



## rexbobcat

I can never think of the word pact again without thinking of that pregnancy pact between those high school girls a few years back. That whole debacle ruined the word for me.


----------



## AgentDrex

> I gotta say that none of the the nasty comments and hatred back further in this thread have done more to discredit the original idea in my mind.., than your support of it.
> 
> Oh the irony. You could cut it with a knife.




That's fine, I see nothing that I said that would lead to the original idea being discredited more from my support than the non-support of others, but so-be-it.  It was still a good idea on your part no matter how you slice it.  I'll stand behind it regardless.


----------



## thetrue

I'd be in but I'm too new, I mean it's not even been two whole months yet, who the hell do I think I am?


----------



## Mully

"All for one and one for all"


----------



## Steve5D

manaheim said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, I could just critique the original idea in its entirety and say that it's stupid...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therein lies the crux of the problem.  It was a very well-intended idea and a lot of people saw nothing but blood.  I've never seen such impassioned hatred over a thing here.  The idea that people would spout such vitriol over an idea intended exclusively to create a volunteer membership in a certain basic set of ideologies totally baffles me to this day.
Click to expand...


Well, when you consider that your "idea" would allow people to spout vitriol when giving critiques, instead of just having them give critiques, it really shouldn't surprise you...


----------



## manaheim

No it wouldn't.  My idea neither enabled or limited anyone from spouting negativity.  They can do that perfectly well either way.

Your inexplicable interpretation, however, was not uncommon.


----------



## Steve5D

manaheim said:


> No it wouldn't.  My idea neither enabled or limited anyone from spouting negativity.  They can do that perfectly well either way.
> 
> Your inexplicable interpretation, however, was not uncommon.



Only to someone who's intent on not thinking it through.

If you do not endeavor to curtail something, you are then, by default, allowing it to occur. That's an inescapable reality...


----------

