# Skieur's brutally honest critiques



## skieur (Nov 8, 2011)

Markw said:


> Post it here. I'd be happy to do it for you. Just make sure to check back to see the critique.
> 
> The method is simple. Just post your photo here the same you would in any other thread, and I'll quote it in my critique of the photo. Be prepared, though. I won't be merciful, no matter the level of beginner.
> 
> ...



To be brutally honest about critiquing the critiques, you are taking a very limited, emotional approach to whether the shot says anything to you. "Professional" critiquing involves the technical side: You did not notice mention of over or under-exposure, camera angle, depth of field etc. and the one suggestion about wide angle would have flattened the shot in a negative way. Only one comment about editing and that was very vague. No suggestions about how to improve any of the images in post. A more thorough critique of the technical side is warranted on some shots.

Composition needs to be evaluated in a more specific way including the visual effect (positive or negative) of shape, colour, texture, lighting etc. or the position of the picture elements and whether a better placement was possible. You did not use the term: centre of interest, either, and the fact that at least one image did not have one and that the centre of interest must have some level of visual impact for the viewer. A clichee shot for example is often one with a boring centre of interest that requires a more original approach from the photographer.

These are just a very few pointers. There are many more.

You provided a few comments but definitely not a critique.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Nov 8, 2011)

matthewm said:


> An opinion on this dirty shot?!


Excellent sharpness. Great use of depth of field to isolate the main subject.  All the components are in the shot: the football, the mud, the feet front and back of the ball and the player.  The framing of the player's face visually with the arms and legs is very effective.  Despite being accidental, you picked the perfect moment to shoot.  The concentration in his expression on the ball comes through clearly as well.  A great shot to illustrate the nature of the game and the visual impact attracts the viewer.  10/10

skieur


----------



## matthewm (Nov 8, 2011)

skieur said:
			
		

> Excellent sharpness. Great use of depth of field to isolate the main subject.  All the components are in the shot: the football, the mud, the feet front and back of the ball and the player.  The framing of the player's face visually with the arms and legs is very effective.  Despite being accidental, you picked the perfect moment to shoot.  The concentration in his expression on the ball comes through clearly as well.  A great shot to illustrate the nature of the game and the visual impact attracts the viewer.  10/10
> 
> skieur



Thanks for the feedback, the main aim i look to achieve in fast paced sports photography is sharpness and impact, which is interesting when most people suggest to set the camera auto focus to release(which captures everything). I prefer focus, as I can't use a soft image...


----------



## skieur (Nov 8, 2011)

JMBriggs said:


> Tear it up! I was trying to get some feed back on a c&c post but no one would tear it apart so I knew what to improve on!



The major problem here is compositional.  What is your centre of interest?  Why did you take the picture?  What were you trying to communicate to the viewer?  Why did you choose to have a washed out white background?  You have not succeeded in giving visual impact to whatever your centre of interest is.  What part of the photo is the eye of the viewer supposed to be drawn to?

From a technical standpoint, the yellow/green cast screams over-exposure and the white washout confirms it.  The rule for framing is to not only NOT cut off part of your centre of interest, but not to even have it at the edge of the frame.  Focus should be used to isolate the centre of interest and it should not look haphazard with no apparent visual reason for some things being blurred and others being in focus.

You need to look at www.photoinf.com or one of the many books available  to get a better idea of what to shoot subject-wise and how to compose the photo within the frame.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Nov 9, 2011)

Again, perspective is off. This subject is one that could actually have been cool, but the position from which you shot it was just not done well. The composition isn't great, there's entirely too much dead space. 4/10 for potential.

Have fun...

The above critique does not really say anything.  "off", "not done well",  "isn't great" etc.  certainly dos not tell any photographer what they did wrong and how they could have improved.

Technically the shot is over-exposed which you can tell from the whites on the side of the sun direction and towards the horizon although there may be some fog mixed in with the haze in that area.  The camera angle (not perspective) creates a flat head-on shot with no visual interest.  It would be better shot from a 45 degree angle or from closer up with a wide angle lens.  Although it is difficult, these kinds of shots are better without tourists in the scene.  The 3 people in this shot can be cloned out in postprocessing.  Software filters in post can also be used to reduce the over-exposed look.

The subject does not have a great deal of visual impact, so this is where a photographer needs to decide either not to take the photo at all, or figure out how to use techniques, filters and lenses etc. to create an unusual visual point of view to give it more visual interest.  

skieur


----------



## skieur (Nov 9, 2011)

Markw said:


> Fishpaste said:
> 
> 
> > Some people like this style of editing (if you edited it, and it's not a faulty photo). Indeed, it works for some, not for this. The subject, while interesting as far as trees go, really isn't being used well photographically. The muted colors and almost haze toward the top make it very unappealing. As does the clipping of the branches on the left and right. The subject isn't really all that interesting, without a complementary subject, that is. 1/10
> ...


----------



## skieur (Nov 9, 2011)

ghache said:


> Here some random shots for you to critique.



Great sharpness, colour and framing using the tree and the colour leaves. The clouds in the blue sky create a great background too. Lighting and exposure are also perfect. To mention a couple of minor weaknesses, I would like to have seen the golden spaniel? looking at the photographer and I would brighten the eyes of both dogs in postprocessing. It would make a good calendar shot.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Nov 10, 2011)

CMfromIL said:


> I'll play
> 
> 1.
> 
> ...


----------



## dots (Nov 10, 2011)

skieur said:


> As to the subject being not all that interesting, perhaps that is where you should have begun.
> 
> skieur


 Whether something is interesting uninteresting is a personal, value judgement. You're berating other people for inept critique then writing stuff like this (?)


----------



## dots (Nov 10, 2011)

skieur said:


> Again, perspective is off. This subject is one that could actually have been cool, but the position from which you shot it was just not done well. The composition isn't great, there's entirely too much dead space. 4/10 for potential.
> 
> Have fun...
> 
> ...



You're doing just the same as what you dismiss as non-critique. More interesting ..to whom? Better... for whom.

Skieur i guess 

Perhaps the purpose of the image is to show 'tourists' visiting the building. Perhaps the purpose of the image is to show the structure and view on a bearing 260 degrees west. Perhaps someone has researched for years to indentify the place were their relative worked as a light house keeper and finally gets to see it - plenty of visual impact c/w a 'wide angle close up' which does not show the whole building or any context.


----------



## skieur (Nov 10, 2011)

CMfromIL said:


> I'll play
> 
> 1.
> 
> ...



Although somewhat a clichee shot, what is different here is the pollen all over everywhere..including the bee which would bring a smile to some viewers as well as providing some visual interest.  In post, I would probably re-shape the flower by cloning out the parts that are cropped by the frame.  The background is the major problem particularly the orange flower and the wood which are 2 of the major visual distractions.  I would probably suggest a very tight top and right hand side crop to a least reduce the visual problems.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Nov 10, 2011)

dots said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Again, perspective is off. This subject is one that could actually have been cool, but the position from which you shot it was just not done well. The composition isn't great, there's entirely too much dead space. 4/10 for potential.
> ...



You don't understand.  It does NOT matter why the image was shot.  What matters is what the average viewer sees.  If the "purpose of the image is to show 'tourists' visiting the building then it is poorly done because the centre of interest should be the tourists and that is NOT the case in this image.

"more visual interest" to the average viewer, to answer your question.  By the way the building does not have to be "in any context" to make it a shot with visual impact which draws the eye of the viewer.  It depends on the photo techniques used by the photographer.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Nov 10, 2011)

dots said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > As to the subject being not all that interesting, perhaps that is where you should have begun.
> ...



Not personal at all.  A centre of interest in composition is a subject with some visual impact to draw the attention of most average viewers.  What Mark was saying indirectly was the subject did NOT draw his attention.  That is a valid composition related comment and what was meant was that it would not draw the visual interest or attention of MOST viewers.

skieur


----------



## Fishpaste (Nov 10, 2011)

There are some interesting assessments of my photos, and I plan to weigh all of your opinions the next time I go shooting.



> Again, perspective is off. This subject is one  that could actually have been cool, but the position from which you shot  it was just not done well. The composition isn't great, there's  entirely too much dead space. 4/10 for potential.



Not to make an excuse, but the way to the lighthouse was a narrow stairwell and it was difficult to get another angle. I will try harder next time.



> The above critique does not really say anything.  "off", "not done  well",  "isn't great" etc.  certainly dos not tell any photographer what  they did wrong and how they could have improved.
> 
> Technically the shot is over-exposed which you can tell from the whites  on the side of the sun direction and towards the horizon although there  may be some fog mixed in with the haze in that area.  The camera angle  (not perspective) creates a flat head-on shot with no visual interest.   It would be better shot from a 45 degree angle or from closer up with a  wide angle lens.  Although it is difficult, these kinds of shots are  better without tourists in the scene.  The 3 people in this shot can be  cloned out in postprocessing.  Software filters in post can also be used  to reduce the over-exposed look.
> 
> The subject does not have a great deal of visual impact, so this is  where a photographer needs to decide either not to take the photo at  all, or figure out how to use techniques, filters and lenses etc. to  create an unusual visual point of view to give it more visual interest.



Getting a few filters has been on my to-do list. I can see what you mean about it being over-exposed. It's likely that my light meter is failing, so I'll try to compensate for that next time. Although the tourists may be distracting, I actually clicked the shutter when there were the fewest. I wanted the lighthouse to look populated, but not crowded either. As a personal choice, I would rather use digital software to fix blemishes in the film (I've gotten negatives with dirt on them) than "fix" a lack in composition. However, I do sometimes crop, especially because the eyepiece has a narrower field of view than what is projected onto the film. 



> Some people like this style of editing (if you  edited it, and it's not a faulty photo). Indeed, it works for some, not  for this. The subject, while interesting as far as trees go, really  isn't being used well photographically. The muted colors and almost haze  toward the top make it very unappealing. As does the clipping of the  branches on the left and right. The subject isn't really all that  interesting, without a complementary subject, that is. 1/10



You're right about the clipped branches. I have another shot of this tree-stub which was better in this regard. I didn't edit the photo myself (but maybe some automatic enhancements are done in the lab). What got me into this shot was how small the tree appeared. I'll think about complimentary subjects next time, at least to provide a sense of scale. 



> Not to discourage your critiquing efforts, but I am astounded that you  would suggest that it's not a faulty photo and you don't like the style  of editing (if it was edited.).  It is considerably over-exposed, so it  definitely is a faulty photo and I doubt very much that it was edited to  make it worse.  The subject is a clichee tree/lake or tree/ocean shot  and not interesting.  As to "not being used well photographically", that  is clear as mud in the area of communication.
> The colours are not muted. They are over-exposed.  As to the subject  being not all that interesting, perhaps that is where you should have  begun.



You're right in that it's a bit over-exposed. Again, it could be my light meter. so I'll be more careful next time and maybe jot down what stop and shutter speed I used and ask you guys if I did it right/wrong. I'll work harder on making the subject more interesting. Do you have any suggestions for this one though?

I'll think about investing a few lenses too. Right now I only have one film camera and one lens to go with it. I have felt like I missed some opportunities because I couldn't get the right field of view for a particular shot. However, I want to stick with this one to learn as much from it that I can and to do as much as I can with the limits that are present. 

These are fun to read! And again, great photos here from everyone else! (Photography is _hard_)


----------



## skieur (Nov 10, 2011)

spacefuzz said:


> kundalini said:
> 
> 
> > Taken while standing on the deck of a boat bobbing in the water.
> ...



Agreed, Spacefuzz.  What is very impressive with this shot is the extreme sharpness and texture given the flying bird and the boat platform for the photographer.
The texture of the feathers in the white areas indicates the exposure is pretty close to being right on.  The tale and beak could be slightly darkened in the blue areas in postprocessing but you would need to see the results to decide whether the action was appropriate of not.  The tree trunks in the background are indeed a problem but aside from a master job at cloning or perhaps darkening the whole background, I don't see any other possible solutions.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Nov 10, 2011)

mishele said:


> Let the fun begin!!



Part abstract and part unique view of snow coming into contact with the fall colours. Getting the motion of the snow through a slower shutterspeed  is also a different approach for this kind of scene.  The tree trunk in the upper right, draws the eye of the viewer which might be considered distracting, but could be used to make it clear what the viewer is looking at.  I might consider using brightness and contrast in postprocessing to bring out the colours in this shot, but then you might consider it to be more realistic as it stands.   Overall, it is a very effective shot.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Nov 10, 2011)

GeorgieGirl said:


> I feel like I want a rollicking good ass-kicking with this one...no filter, just major condensation...



When photography went to digital and photoshop, one basic rule came over from television production and special effects.  All kinds of editing and special effects are possible but the viewer(not the photographer or editor) must be able to look at the image and determine WHY the edit or special effect was used and "for fun or experimentation" does NOT cut it.   I don't see an answer to that question here and therefore the edit/cloning does NOT work in that it does not contribute anything to the image.

skieur


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Nov 10, 2011)

Oh Soothsayer....I don't recall cloning at all, and the PS was for salvage for severe temperature condensation...it was not fun....Trust me on that.


----------



## skieur (Nov 11, 2011)

GeorgieGirl said:


> Oh Soothsayer....I don't recall cloning at all, and the PS was for salvage for severe temperature condensation...it was not fun....Trust me on that.



You mean there were 4 telephone booths side by side!  Well, you certainly got me on that one.  I wrongly assumed that there was one and you cloned the extras.
Oops! Sorry about that.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Nov 11, 2011)

GeorgieGirl said:


> Oh Soothsayer....I don't recall cloning at all, and the PS was for salvage for severe temperature condensation...it was not fun....Trust me on that.



This image elicits a lot of questions. There appears to be fog/mist and low lighting which does not seem to contribute to the photo.  Complicating things further the eye of the viewer tends to wander throughout the image looking for a centre of interest.  Since the background is in focus, what is relationship between the building and the phone booths?  Four booths create a balance visually, so if the booths are the centre of interest then an odd number such as 3 is often used to direct the attention of a viewer.  I might be inclined to put a model in one of the booths and use an off camera flash to create a different sort of shot.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Nov 11, 2011)

TCD photography said:


> http://www.flickr.com/photos/26411561@N05/6189940386/
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Spider shots may be common but the position of the spider hanging from the plant makes this one visually different.  Diagonal lines and positioning which are part of artistic composition are used well here with the leg of the spider and the thread of the web.  The frond and one of the other legs are creating diagonal lines toward the other side of the image. Colour and sharpness are excellent and depth of field is used well to reduce the background distractions.  The problem I see is that the ground cover and the sky? are visually splitting the spider.  Some cloning might be done to reduce that.

skieur


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Nov 11, 2011)

skieur said:


> GeorgieGirl said:
> 
> 
> > Oh Soothsayer....I don't recall cloning at all, and the PS was for salvage for severe temperature condensation...it was not fun....Trust me on that.
> ...


----------



## camz (Nov 11, 2011)

Dude Over, I know it's Friday but kick back on the gonja! 

This is now way more confusing with the multiple threads separated from one.


----------



## kundalini (Nov 11, 2011)

Okay, so are we loading up photos in this thread for skieur to C&C?  Or are photos being plucked from Marks and then pasted here?

BTW, the effort of skieur is much appreciated from me.


----------



## Overread (Nov 11, 2011)

Single thread by Mark where you post the photos (the original thread) - then separate critique threads by Mark, Skieur and anyone who wants to start one. Basically letting each person give the crits without falling over each other in the single thread. 

Posts are simply quoted in this thread to show the pics - but the photos themselves are posted in the other thread - so as to keep this purely about the crits


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Nov 11, 2011)

When I put my photos up last night it was still Marks title, but at some point yesterday, duing the day I believe, skieur became Mark's alter ego and Mark disappeared. I don't know what it all means.


----------



## camz (Nov 11, 2011)

kundalini said:


> Okay, so are we loading up photos in this thread for skieur to C&C? Or are photos being plucked from Marks and then pasted here?
> 
> BTW, the effort of skieur is much appreciated from me.



I heard back from Cloud, but neither Mark or Skieur have CC'ed mine. I think Skieur missed mine and Mark's the slacker of the crew =P


----------



## kundalini (Nov 11, 2011)




----------



## camz (Nov 11, 2011)

Overread said:


> Single thread by Mark where you post the photos (the original thread) - then separate critique threads by Mark, Skieur and anyone who wants to start one. Basically letting each person give the crits without falling over each other in the single thread.
> 
> Posts are simply quoted in this thread to show the pics - but the photos themselves are posted in the other thread - so as to keep this purely about the crits



Over so we're posting pictures on one thread and having critiques(word based) on the other individual threads? 

How will we now if we've gotten CC'ed if the crit will be on multiple different threads? I see four right now, Derrel's, Mark's, Cloud's and Skieur's.


----------



## Overread (Nov 11, 2011)

Only 2 running threads at present - Cloud has mostly pulled out for the moment, though his thread is still listed. Mark and Skieur;s are running and - well you just check them no different to when it was all in one thread, save that now the they are not falling over each other. 
Derrel's thread is mostly the result of posts that didn't fit into either the photo thread nor the crits thread (its only "Derrels" because forum software moves posts chronologically and thus his post trumped mine which started that thread).


----------



## camz (Nov 11, 2011)

Got it :thumbup:


----------



## TCD photography (Nov 11, 2011)

skieur said:


> Spider shots may be common but the position of the spider hanging from the plant makes this one visually different.  Diagonal lines and positioning which are part of artistic composition are used well here with the leg of the spider and the thread of the web.  The frond and one of the other legs are creating diagonal lines toward the other side of the image. Colour and sharpness are excellent and depth of field is used well to reduce the background distractions.  The problem I see is that the ground cover and the sky? are visually splitting the spider.  Some cloning might be done to reduce that.
> 
> skieur



Thank you!  I was prepared to be ripped apart.  I didn't notice it so much until you mentioned it, but now I definitely see how the light and dark background is "splitting" the spider.


----------



## skieur (Nov 11, 2011)

A very professionally done model shot.  Many photographers would have had trouble with a dark background but the superbly done edge lighting from the back, combined with the hair and front lighting separate the model from the background.  Exposure is excellent with texture in the white top and a natural skin colour.  The shoulder/hip angle pose is also classic and works well for this model.

The problems I see include the jeans.  Style-wise the jeans drastically contrast with the fancy top and the matching dressy high heels. The bottom front area with the white object near her left shoe, the crack through her standing position in the concrete? and the reflection of the light between her feet is somewhat distracting.

I would do some post work in the front lower area, but otherwise a well-done model shot.

skieur


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Nov 11, 2011)

Huh???


----------



## Overread (Nov 11, 2011)

skieur - it might help to slip in the name of the photographer or even direct quote the post itself from the other thread (you can click quote in the other thread and then edit the quoted content in the text box to omit any parts you don't want - then just copy the whole of the text and paste it in here - quotes, even with the numbers and name that auto link back to the original post - can be made across different threads.
Ps you might also want to edit your first post in this new thread (even if just to refer back to the starting thread as to where the photos are coming from. 

GeorgieGirl- its a photo by Ganch from the photo posting thread: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-brutally-honest-critique-your-photo-huh.html


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 11, 2011)

Well, this is working out handsomely, isn't it?


----------



## Overread (Nov 11, 2011)

Oh stop being Mr. Negative today  Give it a little while (and not a Friday evening) and it will all work out.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 11, 2011)

GeorgieGirl said:


> Huh???



What the ...


----------



## Fishpaste (Nov 12, 2011)




----------



## GeorgieGirl (Nov 12, 2011)

Derrel said:


> GeorgieGirl said:
> 
> 
> > Huh???
> ...




What do you mean?? Do you mean... What the huh?

I am lost (suprise!)...have no idea where this photo came from...but then there are just too many threads like this to choose from...


----------



## skieur (Nov 12, 2011)

Overread said:


> skieur - it might help to slip in the name of the photographer or even direct quote the post itself from the other thread (you can click quote in the other thread and then edit the quoted content in the text box to omit any parts you don't want - then just copy the whole of the text and paste it in here - quotes, even with the numbers and name that auto link back to the original post - can be made across different threads.
> Ps you might also want to edit your first post in this new thread (even if just to refer back to the starting thread as to where the photos are coming from.
> 
> GeorgieGirl- its a photo by Ganch from the photo posting thread: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-brutally-honest-critique-your-photo-huh.html



Overread: Do I need to report again a certain comment that I would like removed from another related thread? 

skieur


----------



## skieur (Nov 13, 2011)

skieur said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > skieur - it might help to slip in the name of the photographer or even direct quote the post itself from the other thread (you can click quote in the other thread and then edit the quoted content in the text box to omit any parts you don't want - then just copy the whole of the text and paste it in here - quotes, even with the numbers and name that auto link back to the original post - can be made across different threads.
> ...



OK, by not answering, you are indirectly telling me that if someone does not like my critique then we can start arguing over who is full of sh*t, to quote the other post.

Why should I waste my time???

skieur


----------



## Overread (Nov 14, 2011)

I didn't answer because I wasn't here to answer - check the profile and the last login/action time thingy (surprisingly I do have days off from my volunteer modding  ).


----------



## Kerbouchard (Nov 14, 2011)

This seems to be a perfect example of why we need a critique sub-section instead of 4 different threads and cross-posting.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Nov 14, 2011)

or just critique peoples posts as they are posted and viewed lol.


----------



## skieur (Nov 14, 2011)

Overread said:


> I didn't answer because I wasn't here to answer - check the profile and the last login/action time thingy (surprisingly I do have days off from my volunteer modding  ).




One simple question: Irrespective of excuses, is swearing at a critique giver or for that matter any member, acceptable on this site? 

Communication must be a problem, because the impression I am getting is yes, with a "good excuse".

That being the case, why would anyone give honest critiques?

skieur


----------



## dakkon76 (Nov 15, 2011)




----------



## unpopular (Nov 15, 2011)

I don't understand why either of these blokes think that they are remotely qualify to hold an exclusive critique forum where they take center stage, as if their opinions are more valuable than anyone else's.

It's just in bad taste.


----------



## kundalini (Nov 15, 2011)

unpopular said:


> I don't understand why either of these blokes think that they are remotely qualify to hold an exclusive critique forum where they take center stage, as if their opinions are more valuable than anyone else's.
> 
> It's just in bad taste.


There may be several philosophical areas in which I disagree with skieur, but I give credence to his abilities and expertise in offering an unbiased critique on a photo posted.  You've only been here for six months and likely have not read many of his posts yet.

What is in bad taste, or rather bad judgement, was to remove the critique forums that were present before you joined TPF.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 15, 2011)

I don't doubt that skieur is capable, it's the exclusivity that bothers me. I'd be annoyed if it were Ansel Adams who took it upon himself to offer his invaluable wisdom.

If Adams or Skieur were invited to give a critique session, or if someone started a critique thread that invited everyone to participate that would be one thing, but to just start one up on your own behalf seems a bit arrogant.


----------



## kundalini (Nov 15, 2011)

unpopular said:


> I don't doubt that skieur is capable, it's the exclusivity that bothers me. I'd be annoyed if it were Ansel Adams who took it upon himself to offer his invaluable wisdom.
> 
> If Adams or Skieur were invited to give a critique session, or if someone started a critique thread that invited everyone to participate that would be one thing, but to just start one up on your own behalf seems a bit arrogant.


I suggest you take it up with Overread then.  skieur did not start this thread.


----------



## camz (Nov 15, 2011)

Yep it's the mods that diverted these sub threads from Mark's original thread.  Got nothing to do with skieur.  skieur's just a loud voice that's all lol: Offcourse there's more to skieur then just that)


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 15, 2011)

unpopular said:


> I don't understand why either of these blokes think that they are remotely qualify to hold an exclusive critique forum where they take center stage, as if their opinions are more valuable than anyone else's.
> 
> It's just in bad taste.



I voiced similar sentiments in the original thread, as had others, and all that was removed, put in a seperate thread and locked. :thumbup:


----------



## unpopular (Nov 15, 2011)

lol.

Looks like we can agree on something after all.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 15, 2011)

I am not sure if where overread hails from that the American military term "cluster-phuk" is translatable to the vernacular of his corner of the U.K. But, seriously, this entire "brutal, honest critique" thing has turned into a giant "cluster-phuk". I am not blaming Overread for the end result, even though he might have started the moderating action, there WAS a specific, publicly-stated request by Markw for other forum members NOT to offer their opinions in his thread. Anyway...instead of just letting the thread die a natural death, Overrread plowed ahead,and took much time and effort to disentangle and re-construct multiple threads, in an effort to satisfy multiple masters....and he created *Frankenthreads!!  *


----------



## unpopular (Nov 15, 2011)

Yes, but in America we spell it differently


----------



## camz (Nov 15, 2011)

Derrel, that's about the funniest thing I've heard you say!


----------



## memento (Nov 15, 2011)

dakkon76 said:


>



over all it seems to be composed fairly well.
not sure about the exposure.. seems a little noisy.


----------



## sm4him (Nov 15, 2011)

Derrel said:


> ...there WAS a specific, publicly-stated request by Markw for other forum members NOT to offer their opinions in his thread*...*



Yes, but that's kinda what I don't really GET about these "my critiques and ONLY my critiques" threads...well, it's ONE part of what I don't get, anyway.  I get that it was the thread that Markw started, so that rather than post your photo for everyone who wanted to C&C them, you could instead post them in HIS thread, for only MarkW to C&C...let's ignore the fact that I don't really get why you'd want to do that. Even if I highly value his C&C (and honestly, I have no opinion on that...haven't read enough of them to know), wouldn't you want to post your photo ONCE for lots of people to C&C?? 

But, anyway....so, MarkW starts a thread, inviting folks to submit photos for him to C&C...then someone else, shockingly, disagrees with Markw's assessment and offers an alternate C&C on the same thread, and he requests for that to not happen anymore.  Now, here's the second part of what I don't get...since when does the OP get to run strict controls on how "their" thread is to work, and what sorts of replies are acceptable for their thread?  Isn't it *reasonable* to assume, in a PUBLIC forum, that the PUBLIC has the right to reply to your posts?  So, the OP could C&C other's photos all he wants, I just don't really get why he gets to keep other people from disagreeing and offering alternate C&C on the PUBLIC forum thread that he started...

But, that's just me...

All I know is, if I want a photo C&C'ed, I believe I'll just start my thread requesting such...


----------



## dots (Nov 15, 2011)

??? Switched channels for some BHC..and i find _a load of yakkin. _Is this Crossfire? My TV guide says this should be SBHC (?)..


----------



## dots (Nov 15, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand why either of these blokes think that they are remotely qualify to hold an exclusive critique forum where they take center stage, as if their opinions are more valuable than anyone else's.
> ...



Da! Comrade Jeweler ... although as you would be i'm sure, aware; in complete accordance with Dictat 28 regarding the suppression of counter information, prejudicial to the doctrine of The People's Union of Critical Collectivisation.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 15, 2011)

sm4him said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > ...there WAS a specific, publicly-stated request by Markw for other forum members NOT to offer their opinions in his thread*...*
> ...


----------



## skieur (Nov 15, 2011)

unpopular said:


> I don't understand why either of these blokes think that they are remotely qualify to hold an exclusive critique forum where they take center stage, as if their opinions are more valuable than anyone else's.
> 
> It's just in bad taste.



Certainly NOT my decision. Space Fuzz came on with his critique.  No problem for me.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Nov 15, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand why either of these blokes think that they are remotely qualify to hold an exclusive critique forum where they take center stage, as if their opinions are more valuable than anyone else's.
> ...



If I interpretted things correctly, Bitter suggested rather sarcastically and with a dry sense of humour that the whole site was set up wrong and we should have a chaos of individual critiquers with their own threads.

I indicated that I liked his comment...as in what I sensed as humour and sarcasm.

It seemed that both he and I were taken seriously, which I don't think either of us, expected.

Have I got it correct, Bitter?

skieur


----------



## usayit (Nov 15, 2011)

I have no opinion on how the critiques are managed......  everyone has an opinion...


My problem is when a few voice their opinion over and over and over insisting on being a prick....


My four year old does that when he whines...  i usually send him to the corner... and guess what ?   He shuts the f up.


----------



## skieur (Nov 15, 2011)

usayit said:


> I have no opinion on how the critiques are managed...... everyone has an opinion...
> 
> 
> My problem is when a few voice their opinion over and over and over insisting on being a prick....
> ...




Trying out your profanity, eh?

skieur


----------



## Overread (Nov 16, 2011)

Mark started a thread where he offered to give his input specifically on peoples photos that they chose to post into that thread itself. There was no limitation or restriction on those people posting those photos elsewhere on the site to get input - but Mark's thread was made for him to give his insight specifically. Now when others started to weigh in to give their input the thread quickly started to become a mess - you had multiple people giving advice on the same shots whilst also having new photos being added - people chatting and other things. 
Thus I split the thread into several subthreads only to try and allow the others to give their insight into the photos posted whilst also not having people falling over each others feet in a single monster thread. 

We've had these threads where one person gives their input to multiple people before and nobody has ever complained nor fallen into disagreement about them - however for some reason Mark's has attracted this negative attitude.


----------



## usayit (Nov 16, 2011)

Overread said:
			
		

> We've had these threads where one person gives their input to multiple people before and nobody has ever complained nor fallen into disagreement about them - however for some reason Mark's has attracted this negative attitude.



hmmm I wonder why?    Not your fault but to me the problem is clear as day.


----------



## Nickhadad (Nov 24, 2011)




----------



## skieur (Nov 24, 2011)

Nickhadad said:


>



Excellent sharpness and very effective lighting.  The lighting also separates the dog's head from the background as it should.  Clean background and good use of depth of field.  The expressive eye of the dog makes a great centre of interest and the highlight in the eye works very well too.  The edge lighting on the nose and the whiskers add texture to the shot as well.  The overall shot brings out that it is an interesting dog with personality.  Although I much prefer colour, this is an excellent black and white shot.  10/10


----------

