Flickr Comments and C&C etiquette

PaulieC

Hi All,

I'm not normally given to analysing things like this too much, but something happened over the last week that had me thinking. I posted this pic on Flickr a couple of weeks ago.


Nothing special, just a pic of two of my kids that I took when I was messing about with a lighting setup. Anyway, a comment was posted last week from a guy called Crawford.Dowling. It confused me as it did not appear to have anything related to the photo itself. He followed it up after I asked for some clarification and that was even more confusing. I was thinking about it for a while and it suddenly clicked. His comments were in response to a comment I had made about this photo (or rather the subjects of this photo) FOUR months ago. Instead of replying directly to me to make his point, he chose an oblique (and IMO cowardly) path, expecting that I would immediately remember a comment I had made such a long time ago.

His comments got me thinking. Essentially he took it upon himself to make a judgement about me based on the original comment I had made so I had another look at the picture and reassessed my comment. It's a picture of 4 teenagers in Ballymun, each one has his hood up and face covered and one of them is giving the fingers to the camera. They are obviously trying to make out that they are the hard men and it's their 'manor'. Given all that, I think that my comment, made in a lighthearted way, is reasonable enough. But according to Crawford, it's derogatory and it's unbecoming of me to make such a comment.

So I was thinking about that and also about Barry's photos in general. Baz posts his photos up here for C&C (dictionary definition of critique: "the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc."). Generally the comments are positive, regardless of the quality of the photos. Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of Baz's (sp?) photos and have commented on Flickr to that effect, but they're not all good.

A couple of weeks ago, Oriel commented on some of Baz's photos from Limerick, rightly pointing out that some of the photos were technically deficient and he was asked not to comments on Baz's photos anymore. Surely if you ask for C&C, you should expect to hear honest and constructive feedback, not just all admiration.
Generally I think that people are somewhat unwilling to actually criticise the types of photos that Baz 'specialises' in, I think mostly because they do not want to appear to be criticising the subjects of the photo as opposed to the photo itself. Surely it's possible to make a criticism of a photo (and possibly even the subjects of that photo) without being judged by bleeding heart liberals (some generalisations form me there!) ?

Do we really have to always be so anodine in our comments so as to never offend anyone???

Cabaal

ah my eye's can you add paragraghs please?

Paulw

There is a big difference between constructive criticism and some comments posted about photos. Many of Oriels comments towards Baz's photos and subjects were anything but constructive criticism, and in many ways were very much abusive.

If people post a photo for C&C, then they are looking for comments and constructive criticism - advice on what is wrong and how it could be improved. A comment like "your photo is great" or "your photo is crap" does no good to anyone.

Any comment should be qualified - why do you like it (if you do)? What you don't like about it, why, and what could be suggested to improve the photo.

I generally tend to leave constructive comments on photos. These are just my personal views, and any photographer is free to just ignore what I say. Photography is very subjective.

Cabaal

Its often hard to take bad remarks about your work but if somebody has something to say thats somewhat negatve then they should explain why they don't like your work...instead of "its crap" or something else to that affect

I have to agree with some of what Paulw has said, Oriel and others have made comments that border on abusive and are hardly helpful in relation to Baz's and others photos, which at the end of the day isn't why the posted, they posted looking for constructive comments.

I personally don't like a lot of Baz's work...its just not my type of stuff but the one's I do like I like for there raw emotion and I honestly think Baz is either very brave or stupid (:)) to goto some of the area's he has, but at the end of the day he's gotten photos that alot of people wouldn't take because he's done this.

I'm still not going to belittle the chap when he posts his work, he's still entitled to constructive comments like anyone else.

PaulieC

Paulw wrote: »

There is a big difference between constructive criticism and some comments posted about photos. Many of Oriels comments towards Baz's photos and subjects were anything but constructive criticism, and in many ways were very much abusive..

Agreed, but if I remember rightly there was constructive criticism (see thread here). It did descend into a slagging match, but I think some of the comments were valid.

My OP was more about not honestly reviewing emotive subjects for fear of being perceived as some kind of far right nazi. It seems that some photography cannot be criticised, no matter how good or bad, because the subject is sensitive - e.g. Travellers, inner city youths, alcoholics, homeless etc etc. An awfol lot of comments that Baz gets are more related to his willingness to go to deprived areas and emerge alive rather than the actual photos taken.

gandalf

Back to the original event that triggered this thread. That guy must be some obsessive if he waited 4 months to come back like that.

On the photo itself, I love it the harseness works so well with the 2 children and especially the expression on the girl on the right and the colours.

I expect comments to be constructive, if I post a piece of crap shot I expect to be called on it but also told what is wrong with it.

PaulieC

gandalf wrote: »

On the photo itself, I love it the harseness works so well with the 2 children and especially the expression on the girl on the right and the colours.

thanks! it really wasn't meant to be that harsh - I wasted high key, but I olny had one flash, so I hade to bump up the exposure to try to eliminate the shadows and then the colour saturation to compensate a bit...

Borderfox

You should cut them out and put them into different scenes around Dublin and teach them something about each area they appear in It a great shot and the expressions work really well

sheesh

THats hilarious 4 months and he still didn't let it go.

Are the kids in your picture hiding their faces?

is one of them giving a gang sign ?
no . so no they probably are not future jail birds.

Whereas the young fellows in his picture by virtue of the fact that they seem to be a members of a gang, I believe it might be reasonable to
form the opinion that they might be more likely to end up in prison as your 2 girls.
Your mans stuff is really good in fairness and maybe he is taking his role as a recorder of 'real' Dublin a bit seriously.

IMHO of course:D.

Etiquette: if some one puts up a photo for C+C they must expect some people to come up and criticise it, sometimes just for the sake of being critical. Some people are mean and won't let a chance to get a dig in pass.
Comments should be dealing with the photograph and generally should be couched in a positive way where you have to make a negative comment just point out that it is your view.

FreeAnd..

i just realised that the comment wasnt even on one of that guys photos...Seems to have issues alright, to go into a social semi rant in those circumstances seems weird, bit of a chip somewhere maybe...i'd say he must have came across your photo and only then linked back to yours...anything else and I would be worried...

Mellor

sheesh wrote: »

THats hilarious 4 months and he still didn't let it go.

The guy complaining about the comments isn't the owner of the originals, he only seen the photo of the young lads last week, and then he left a comments a few days later

thebaz

cambo_gueno wrote: »

A couple of weeks ago, Oriel commented on some of Baz's photos from Limerick, rightly pointing out that some of the photos were technically deficient and he was asked not to comments on Baz's photos anymore. Surely if you ask for C&C, you should expect to hear honest and constructive feedback, not just all admiration.
Generally I think that people are somewhat unwilling to actually criticise the types of photos that Baz 'specialises' in, I think mostly because they do not want to appear to be criticising the subjects of the photo as opposed to the photo itself. Surely it's possible to make a criticism of a photo (and possibly even the subjects of that photo) without being judged by bleeding heart liberals (some generalisations form me there!) ?

Do we really have to always be so anodine in our comments so as to never offend anyone???

i don't give a monkeys if people don't like my work , but when they attack the subject , yeah i have a problem . Many here didn't like the press photograph of the year , american soldier in Afghanistan , i did , thankfully some of us have different tastes. I had forgotten my beef with oriel, so why drag it up ?

PaulieC

the reason I 'dragged' it up was in reference to a comment made by me about one of your photos. What I was trying (and generally failing by the looks of it) to start a discussion on was the fact that people do not comment negatively on photos where the subject is from a lower socio-economic background, which just happens to be probably 70-80% of what you do, right?

I made a lighthearted remark about the kids in one of your photos and was then commented on myself, with the implication that I was some kind of monster because I was positing myself as being better than those in the picture. People are uncomfortable about criticising these pictures because they think it makes them look like fascists and leaves them open to attack from liberal-minded 'pinkos' who want to see everyone as being equal, whn they are not.

Let me re-interate Baz, I wasn't attacking or criticising you or your photography (just see my comments on a lot of your stuff to know that I like a lot of it), more the PC-police who pick up on innocuous comments and turn them into grist for their own mills

thebaz

cambo_gueno wrote: »

Let me re-interate Baz, I wasn't attacking or criticising you or your photography (

i'm not above criticism , and view constuctive criticism as a necesary aid in developing , and improving .... none of us are perfect here , even oriel himself , thats my whole philosophy ... just didn't want to drag the whole oriel thing up again , i made my peace at my end , and me myself am a long way from being at the standard i want to get to

Fenster

Why the discussion? Why so serious? I just call them arseholes and then block them.

Immature but effective.

Monasette

cambo_gueno wrote: »

the reason I 'dragged' it up was in reference to a comment made by me about one of your photos. What I was trying (and generally failing by the looks of it) to start a discussion on was the fact that people do not comment negatively on photos where the subject is from a lower socio-economic background, which just happens to be probably 70-80% of what you do, right?

I made a lighthearted remark about the kids in one of your photos and was then commented on myself, with the implication that I was some kind of monster because I was positing myself as being better than those in the picture. People are uncomfortable about criticising these pictures because they think it makes them look like fascists and leaves them open to attack from liberal-minded 'pinkos' who want to see everyone as being equal, when they are not.

I know you meant it as a joke, but your Flickr comment had nothing to do with the photo as a composition or the technical aspects of it - it was a joke about the four kids in it - to which your commenter took offense. And presumably if a stranger left a mildly derogative comment about your kids in the shot above, you'd be irked too (love the shot, btw).

As to your general point about people not criticizing pictures where the subject matter is less well-off due to PC-related fears , I don't agree but that's a just a personal view.

Jokes - or criticism - don't transfer well over the internet, unfortunately.

Gavin

I don't see the big deal. You made a comment. Someone (perhaps overly sensitive) was looking at the photos, saw the comment and found it offensive, intended or not.

He clicked on your link to see what sort of photos you take, and made a comment. His comment wasn't aggressive, he then explained why he made it in what seems to me to be a fairly rational manner. I don't see how it was 'cowardly'.

If you had a problem with him, then send him a message on flickr, why bother spread it overs the boards, publishing his flickr pseudonym without allowing him to defend himself?

Dades

Verb wrote: »

If you had a problem with him, then send him a message on flickr, why bother spread it overs the boards, publishing his flickr pseudonym without allowing him to defend himself?

To be fair - if the other guy had a problem he should have sent a message first rather than posting a cryptic comment on a completely unrelated image.

Handbags at dawn!

TelePaul

Of COURSE he wanted to get you back. Payback is human nature.

rahtkennades

Monasette wrote: »

.......
Jokes - or criticism - don't transfer well over the internet, unfortunately.

Of course they don't. Hence the emoticon .

Oh wait, I meant .

Or was that....:rolleyes:





Anyway, you get the idea, right?

Dades

Rojo wrote: »

please don't turn this into a huge argument.

Um, okay.

bradnailer

I've been involved in various different forums for a few years and I reckon that the internet (although it's brilliant) is one of the worst places for interaction when it comes to normal rules of manners,courtesy etc.
I posted a comment on pix, saying how much i liked the shot and asking for some detail on the location ( it's a public building in Scotland ) went back to see if there was a reply only to find that my comment had been deleted. I guess I'm just not in the right core group to merit a reply, in a normal day to day situation I wouldn't allow anybody to blank me like that but what can you do on the net you just got to let it slide.

Thirdfox

Anonymity does give many people an (ill-founded) courage to do and say things that they would never say or do in actual life. Just don't get baited by the trolls I guess.

I am slightly in the opposite group - someone comments on my picture in pix and I feel almost obliged to reply (like in real life) but often the people are there to leave a comment without wanting a response. So I'm slowing getting used to only responding when asked a question.

Placebo

i thought this would be about,''hey why do my photos get 5 comments and some other **** gets 532 comments''. Its true. HOW ?

ThOnda

If I post some image, I could expect opinions. It's good to listen to them but more important is to make some conclusion for myself.
If some comments are not relevant - ignore them. If they are intrusive - delete them.

And my commenting is simple:

• I like - and why.
• I think it could be differnt (=better) - and why I think so.

With honesty and simplicity of an old man with lots to loose and nothing to gain.

Thirdfox

Placebo wrote: »

i thought this would be about,''hey why do my photos get 5 comments and some other **** gets 532 comments''. Its true. HOW ?

Are you a semi-attractive female? (or at least a female?)

Just like the engineering course in Trinity a female in this hobby is vastly outnumbered by men. So we pay more attention/compliments to the opposite sex.

Not trying to be flippant but that is certainly a big reason where some "mediocre" images are given vast amounts of compliments. Ego-massaging is not my thing but if some people like it then that's okay with me.

So in conclusion - if you are female, make sure everyone who comes to your site knows it. Throw in some melodrama about you don't think you're a good photographer and it all seems so hard and you'll be sure to find knights in shining armour riding to your aid (many genuine nice people who want to help and many more who seem to want to "chat" to a "pretty" girl). Me, cynical? Nope, I'm a realist

I'm sure men who are good latin dancers have plenty of women complimenting them on how good their moves are etc. Just natural in many ways...

Placebo

damn, im just a boy ! maybe a pregnant boy would be better ! :rolleyes:

Thirdfox

Hmm...a boy you say... well if you don't mind having a guilty conscience then you could always google for a picture of a busty blonde and pretend to be her... I guarantee you that more people/men will comment on your photos this way.

thebaz

Placebo wrote: »

i thought this would be about,''hey why do my photos get 5 comments and some other **** gets 532 comments''. Its true. HOW ?

I'm not the greatest commenter in flickr, if something really strikes me I will.
anway last week , I got an email saying , i was basically aloof , cause i didn't comment back , the sender , had a very high comment count --- yes its nice to comment , but quality over quantity .....

sheesh

Mellor wrote: »

The guy complaining about the comments isn't the owner of the originals, he only seen the photo of the young lads last week, and then he left a comments a few days later

oooh makes a bit more sense

AnCatDubh

Paul, I think you'll find the answer to what you ask basically will boil down to human nature and the individuality of each of us - i mean just look at the variety of replies you've gotten to this (including this one). A lot of wisdom there too.

Some people also find the anonymity / distance that the internet has to be very empowering and will be quite happy take a pot shot at anyone they like even without context.

Unfortunately as is endemic in flickr with your original post, the context wasn't there i.e. that it was only intended as a quick quip - the individual won't have realised that you have interaction at a different level with Barry here on boards and i guess that you hit a nerve of someone that you have no idea what is actually happening in their lives, their circumstance or with their spirit. Their context isn't available.

IMHO Flickr is a terrible place to take comments - you have someone who finds your photo, has no idea as to the photo's context (unless you specifically post it), and comment. Apart from the majority of flickr comments being of the 'jolly good show ole chap' or the 'i'd like to show you what i can do with my 500mm lens' :eek: the comment facility will probably never be anything better because the context isn't there.

Boards on the other hand is the other end of the spectrum and while still you get bruised ego's and chests being beaten from time to time, generally the two way with an audience interaction seems to work far better. This coupled with the fact that forum boards such as this are moderated (smile towards all the mods ) makes it far better to curb some of the chest bashing stuff.

So i think its something you accept when getting 'into' flickr. Is that anyone can (and will) comment without knowing the context of either your picture or a previous comment left elsewhere.

Best regards.

thebaz

sheesh wrote: »

oooh makes a bit more sense

Paul , i was a bit confused myeslf, i thought you just started re-hashing an old beef i had , i didn't check that the link was actually to one of my photos, only realised when i saw the count for the ballymun shotgoing up :rolleyes:

So sorry for being a bit snappy. Its been one of those weeks too, where my stress levels are being tested on all fronts.

Barry.

PaulieC

thebaz wrote: »

Paul , i was a bit confused myeslf, i thought you just started re-hashing an old beef i had , i didn't check that the link was actually to one of my photos, only realised when i saw the count for the ballymun shotgoing up :rolleyes:

So sorry for being a bit snappy. Its been one of those weeks too, where my stress levels are being tested on all fronts.

Barry.

ah Baz, you were always a bit snappy as I remember . Can't blame everything on the exbibition!!!

@anCatDubh - that makes complete sense...