C&C discussion

Mellor

One thing about flickr that always annoyed me was the comments.
I like it when people are hoest, almost blunt. To give an example, i'm regularly on the poker forum, poeple often posts hands for C&C, the eply are harsh blunt and to the point, if somebody made a mistake, they get told. This can be hard to hear the first time, Granted sometimes it is over the top, but in general that adive is the best for the poster to learn from.

Flickr on the other hand, the comments are generall BS. There are plenty of good comment thrown about, but there is to much crap. "excellent shot" is thrown about too much and it takes away from the truely great photos, all those "awards" are meaning less also. Thats why I like posting here are people will be honest about the photos.

That said, comments should be on the technical side of the pic, focus, crop, SS, etc not the subject matter. If you don't like pictures of buildings don't care, If you feel my photo has a crooked horizon, please tell me,

deRanged

Mellor wrote: »

That said, comments should be on the technical side of the pic, focus, crop, SS, etc not the subject matter.

surely the important thing in any photo is the subject? otherwise it's just an exercise in mathematics.

I'd rather see a technically deficient photo of something interesting than a beautifully composed photo of something mundane. It's great to then see comments on how to better display the subject or improve the shot.
If the subject is something I'm not into myself - then I just don't look.

Borderfox

Every picture is different and the reaction from each person is different and c&c should be constructive and not just the usual. Awards on Flickr are the new spam, I seen a guy ask on one of the award sites how he can stop people putting the big Gif's on his shots as he mostly shoots b&w and thinks it spoils them.

Mellor

deRanged wrote: »

I'd rather see a technically deficient photo of something interesting than a beautifully composed photo of something mundane. It's great to then see comments on how to better display the subject or improve the shot.

comments on how bettter to display, such as angle placement are again technical photos not subject photos.
ans the the comments I like to see, if somebody doesn't like the subject matter thats fine, and I can't think of any way there comments are helpful

elven

deRanged wrote: »

surely the important thing in any photo is the subject? otherwise it's just an exercise in mathematics.

I'd rather see a technically deficient photo of something interesting than a beautifully composed photo of something mundane.

But if we didn't care about the photograph beyond what they decide to point their camera at, where's the skill?

I'd rather see a clever and beautiful picture of something mundane that makes you look at life in a different way, than a boring picture of an unusual/exciting/interesting subject. There are too many people that think choice of subject is where the job ends for a photographer... but it's only just beginning, and seems a lot like laziness to me. A lot of people get credit for what they shoot, rather than how they shoot it, and it seems a little backwards to me. If someone can bring emotion to a picture of say, rathgar, or even, hmm, a pepper - then that's a real skill.

It's only an exercise in mathematics if you aren't putting any art into it. If you're just following rules and not connecting with your subject. Then I wonder, what's the point?

Back to the OP though - we are human, and we are wired in to reacting to the subject of a photo instinctively before considering the photograph itself. That's why you find photos of attractive women on adverts everywhere - it's instinctive to be drawn to something you like. But the photographer is making a statement simply by pointing their camera at a particular subject and by commenting on that subject, you are commenting on their choice of where to point the camera. That also has to be a valid consideration.

deRanged

elven wrote: »

But if we didn't care about the photograph beyond what they decide to point their camera at, where's the skill?

What are we looking at though? Are we looking at the photograph itself, or something that the photographer wanted to record, or to show us?
Do you look into or at the photograph ...

FreeAnd..

i thought this thread was going this way...just because a photo is of something interesting then doesnt mean it should be taken badly...I definitely find that people from a non photography background are drawn to images they can identify with rather than whether its a good photo or not...these days I find it hard to look at photos of subjects that I find interesting if the photo is just plain bad...before understanding photography I wouldnt have even noticed that it was a bad photo and would have been drawn simply to the subject..

Some people also take criticism (no matter how valid) badly...I dont see the point in posting just for approval, infact I dont really post as I find it harder to get criticism than just the usual nice photo feedback...If someone doesnt like a photo of mine then fine, if they point out something wrong with it then great...I am often blind to flaws until pointed out then I cant see past them....For someone to obsess over a comment posted publicly from months back in the manner they did then...(its hard to account for somehting like that)

Mellor

FreeAnd.. wrote: »

iI definitely find that people from a non photography background are drawn to images they can identify with rather than whether its a good photo or not...

I don't think so, not at all actually.
People will be drawn to phots that both look good and where the subject excites them, if it was a bad photo they might not be drawn to it, and if it was good they will, not realising that they were drawn to it.

The best way to highlight this is with an example, two photos of the same subject, shot wel and shot poorly, evey aspect. Next photo challenge prehaps, or even next photo quickie (like the salt and pepper thread)

FreeAnd..

Thats not my point, comparing a bad and good photo of the same subject doesnt shed any light on interest in the subject being the drawing factor. Obviously most people will be drawn to the technically better photo but stating that all people will be drawn to photos that look good and are interesting miss the point of whether it is interest in the subject or a well taken photo that draws the main attention.

My point is if its a bad photo and they have nothing to compare it to you will find that people are still drawn to it simply because of the subject, as with old photos due to nostalgia...photos of friends even if they are blurry or whatever...In these cases they may be bad photos but still draw the interest of the viewer for the reasons outlined. Personally I am not much interested in good photos of uninteresting subjects - but not as much as I f*cking hate great subjects being ruined by being bad photos...I'd love to take great photos of great subjects and thats what i'm practicing for, but on the merits of photography being a great photo should be of more importance to a photographer...once you can nail that consistently then you just need to apply what you've learned when faced with that interesting subject..

Mellor

FreeAnd.. wrote: »

Personally I am not much interested in good photos of uninteresting subjects - but not as much as I f*cking hate great subjects being ruined by being bad photos

I think you are missing my point.
Take this photo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/freeandflickr/146781343/

Now, a wine glass isn't that much of an interesting object, quite common, almost everyday object. Any old photo of a wine glass might not be good, could easily be quite poor, but the above photo is quite good as it is shot well. THe angle, focus etc are quite good. Here is subject has little to do with the actually photo being good, its the technical element.

FreeAnd..

touche on the interesting subjects I think we're half on the same page, a good uninteresting picture is just that, you can look at it and say nice but unless the subject holds you you move on...a good interesting picture is better (obviously a great interesting picture is best) - the problem for me is a bad photo that captures something interesting...these photos can hold and draw people but as a photographer it can be hard to see past it being anything other than a bad photo even if it was of the best subject imaginable...basically I dont think an interesting subject excuses a bad photo

Dades

FreeAnd.. wrote: »

...basically I dont think an interesting subject excuses a bad photo

That sounds kinda like - "you were right there - and that's the best you could come up with?!" - which I often think myself.

Of course that POV is only understood by someone who knows (or thinks they know) a bit about photography.
But ultimately you can't tell someone not to like a photo.

Rojo

C&C on here is more of a show off excercise for most people rather than actually getting feedback. It's rare to see photos that have been posted for C&C re-posted taking the feedback into account...

FreeAnd..

I think Rojo is onto something, would be good to have a section for C&C or something where actual good c&c is given. Maybe only allow people who have given criticism the chance to post and maybe at the end if the photograher agrees/disagrees with the c&C they need to apply it and maybe retake the shot. If they disagree they have to defend it. Could tie in with a challenge, most improved, best C&C whatever...No nice shot comments allowed, could separate a section if people just want positive feedback and praise. I know this wont happen but could definitely add to board here.

Dades

Rojo wrote: »

C&C on here is more of a show off excercise for most people rather than actually getting feedback. It's rare to see photos that have been posted for C&C re-posted taking the feedback into account...

That's not to say that people don't take comments and apply them to their next set. E.g. if someone tells you the horizon is too central in your landscape shot, maybe on you next 'shoot' you include more of the sky or foreground. As long as someone's future shots show an improvement then they have benefited.

And other people's C&C threads are more interesting than "400D or D70????" threads!

Rojo

Maybe so, but for the main part I feel it's used to show off new work and not how to improve it! I think a lot of people do like their ego massaged on here. I do too but I've stopped posting C&Cs...

please don't turn this into a huge argument. I know it's pretty inevitable because we are on a messageboard but I won't be participating...

Mellor

Rojo wrote: »

C&C on here is more of a show off excercise for most people rather than actually getting feedback. It's rare to see photos that have been posted for C&C re-posted taking the feedback into account...

I wouldn't agree, i am quite new to photography, and I have only ever started a thread for C&C. I felt it would help me, after taking comments on board, i closed with revised images
many peopld do this also

Rojo

I did not say people do not ever revise images but more often than not, you don't see people doing the same as yoursef!

Calina

Rojo wrote: »

Maybe so, but for the main part I feel it's used to show off new work and not how to improve it! I think a lot of people do like their ego massaged on here. I do too but I've stopped posting C&Cs...

please don't turn this into a huge argument. I know it's pretty inevitable because we are on a messageboard but I won't be participating...

Rojo,

with the best will in the world, this is a slight cop out. If you want to raise this point, well and good, but it's up to you to debate it too...otherwise you are as guilty of a lack of constructive input as many C&C posts.

C&C is largely what you make it. Mostly if I post a shot for C&C, it is also to highlight a technical issue I have and get advice on how I might deal with it. A lot of C&Cs which have popped lately have not included great photographs and are not ego trips per se, but genuine "help me improve" posts from new users.

If you don't post C&Cs, you are in no position to criticise those that do. Only by contributing to the C&C posting here will you have any impact on what gets posted.

I'd also add that if you have a fixed idea of how C&C should happen, then I think you're wrong. Very often if you or any poster chooses to throw something out there, there is no telling how it will progress, how people will respond. I don't think that it's fatal that people don't reshoot C&Cs - in many cases conditions will have changed and quite a lot of photographs may be irreproduceable.

I see nothing wrong with showcasing either for a very simple reason - others can learn a lot from it. I did in the early days. Very often you learn more from seeing what people do right than from being told what people think you did wrong. A case in point were the surf shots which were posted last week which were outstanding and from which any interested party could learn quite a bit.

With respect to the OP's query - without going into the details I would be of the opinion that chopping and splicing debates from one picture into the thread of another is not really a productive exercise in the grand scheme of things. In other words, etiquette wise, keep to the photo concerned and don't bring up arguments from elsewhere there.

challengemaster

Rojo wrote: »

C&C on here is more of a show off excercise for most people rather than actually getting feedback. It's rare to see photos that have been posted for C&C re-posted taking the feedback into account...

Long term is really where it benifits. However, you're not taking into account that people have likes/dislikes/personal taste, really. And 2 people are never really alike. In the end, it comes down to who's taste you want the image to suit - your own, or other peoples?

I think most people process photos to their own liking, then ask for C&C to see if they can improve on the shot/their technique/anything, really. But not to go and change their photo to suit other peoples tastes. Possibly why you dont see it.

What you're saying does have some truth, though. It's almost human nature to want to be noticed/have what we do noticed. Probably the reason why Flickr is so popular.. If against it, then why not only have a private photo collection at home be it printed or on cd's or somesuch, that only you have?

elven

Let's not jump on RoJo as if he was suggesting you don't post for C&C without following all advice to the letter - he made a valid point about people often just looking for attention, and not even that it's wrong, just that it happens.

As it happens the two shots in the meet thread are the only ones I've put online for about a month - I decided to take time off posting to flickr, because I was getting too preoccupied with what other people thought of my stuff and didn't even give myself a chance to decide what I think of it. I'm not sure people really try to look objectively at their own photography very much, beyond checking the list of technical rules: exposure, depth of field, sharpness, composition, colour, things growing out of people's heads - but even then I'm not sure they do that...

Maybe I should split this thread...?

deRanged

challengemaster wrote: »

why not only have a private photo collection at home be it printed or on cd's or somesuch, that only you have?

I do that. I'd say that I have less than 1 in 10 of my own photos on flickr, and I never put up ones I've taken for other people.

I do like C&C threads here and particularly on other more cut-throat boards, and take in the information and act on it.
I'm not often in the business of producing images in the way that other people like , unless I've been asked to photograph something or entering a competition. Usually, my photographs are for me.

Who do you all take yours for?