so you think this place is disfunctional of the dysfunctional?

Its seems you have once again confused your tooth paste with your Preperation H because everything you have said thus far smells like ass...



Have a nice day!!

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
.....so I am out on another photo site giving a critique. No big deal but out of respect I thought I would show an image. I mean that is the ethical thing to do right?

Wrong, it appears that if you post an image you are trying to upstage or grandstand.

Reminds me how we make issues up to have issues because we can't function without disfunctional issues and even that can lead to having issues that are dysfunctional ....

Sometimes we really need a life!

J T



[/ QUOTE ]


Oh I so totally [censored] agree!!!

That's one thing I appreciate about GG's posting rules, when it comes to critiqueing images,...because it pretty eliminates the dumbasses from posting dog [censored] replies like... "this picture sucks"......ahhh duuuh!! and then you look to see just how incredibly awesome they are,...and once you do,...you've now wasted all that time looking at some dumb [censored] with a camera's perspective of what makes for a quality image.. God,...that just drives me Nuuuuuuts!!!!!!!

Thank you for reading! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

JP

[ QUOTE ]
I've never really understoond why anyone would post one of their images along with a critique. Unless that photo were illustrating something in your critique. Personally I'm not too keen on posting one of my pics along with a critique.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally understand where you're coming from there Mike.. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Yep!

JP

[ QUOTE ]
Who gives a rats ass about your pet peeves after you acted like a child in dealing with Rolando in open forum yesterday! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

If you post a critique, and you know what your talking about, it is often apparent by what is stated and how it is stated.

I have never put a picture in a portfolio on here, but do intend to someday.
Just because you can post pictures on line, that does not make you a "photographer". That makes you a "poster".
I believe this site should be about quality, rather than quantity, but it is obvious that we disagree on that point. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus christ,...let's just hijack the thread you dumbass!! Grow some balls & post too!!

JP

[CoreyMarcello]

Great shot by the way. Love the dicothomy of lines. Well done.

[StMarc]

It's always fun to watch the difference between critiques here and critiques on other sites.

I posted a pinup with a *very strong* backshadow for critique here and on another site that shall remain nameless.

*Here,* people who didn't like the shadow said, "I don't like the shadow, it's too strong/sharp." Coolness. You don't like it. Thanks for your opinion, I appreciate it.

*There,* people who didn't like the shadow said things like, "You got any where the light is about TWO FEET HIGHER?" Thus implying that the shadow was the result of my *incompetence* at placing lights. Well, I may be incompetent, but I *meant* to be, and your little remark is highly Amusing, especially considerng that one of the pictures in your portfolio is of a model standing on a wronkled bedsheet with a shadow that is obviously the result of simple lack of attention to detail. You don't get to lecture me on shadow placement with that picture in your port. You. Just. Don't.

*smack*

Sorry. Got carried away. I do that.

M

[StMarc]

Last time we had this discussion, my impression was that we had by and large agreed that if you have pictures in your GG port, that is sufficient to meet the "you must post an image to critique others" requirement. If I want to attack your critiquing credentials, I can easily post one of the pics from your port or just refer to it in my rebuttal.

M

[StMarc]

[ QUOTE ]
If you post a critique, and you know what your talking about, it is often apparent by what is stated and how it is stated.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's true that a good critique should be self-supporting, but you're missing the point of the rule.

This is a site for *serious* photographers, or those who wish to *become* serious photographers. That is the main target demographic. Everybody else who wants to participate is welcome for the most part, and so are models, because you need good models to be a serious photographer. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

But if you do not want to post pictures, it does not matter that you may have something intelligent to say in a specific critique, because this is not a site for art critics. It is for photographers[1]. If you are not a photographer, we are not necessarily *interested* in your comments, no matter how insightful, because your point of view is not the one the site is trying to promote.

One of the Twelve Networking Truths tells us:

"Some things in life can never be fully appreciated or understood unless experienced firsthand."

Can you have something intelligent to say about a photograph without being a photographer? Of course you can. And you are welcome to your opinions. But if you are *not a photographer,* there are aspects of the creative process that you simply do not understand, and your insights are not coming from the place that this site seeks to concentrate on. That, in my opinion, is the real reason for the rule. I do not speak for Rolando or any of the owner/operators of this site nor do I claim to. But it's the reason *I* for one do not listen very hard to people who critique my images who are not themselves either photographers or, alternatively, very experienced models.

M

[1] I also include, at least subconsciously, very experienced models in this group, because any model who's good enough to get enough work to get experienced will pick up enough photographic wisdom through osmosis to have the right to be taken seriously on the matter.

[R_Fredrick_Smith]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are not a photographer, we are not necessarily *interested* in your comments, no matter how insightful, because your point of view is not the one the site is trying to promote.

[/ QUOTE ]

From your post it sounds like you're saying that only photographers can offer critiques of photos. That seems to exclude a major portion of the members of the site, namely the models and the MUA. Don't they have a right to critique photos? Will they have any photos to post along with their critique that proves they are a good photographer? In most cases not.

But the idea that this site is only for photographers is just plain silly. There are tons of models that are members of this site and they are an extremely important part of the site and the whole business of glamour photography.

Many times a model can offer a better critique than can a photographer. Why? Because they see thousands of photos and have to choose those that best represent them, so they have lots of experience in judging photos.

But the whole idea of only photographers critiquing photographers and having to prove they are photographers is suspect. No other art requires that. Major film critics for the most part have never made a movie. Major writing critics for the most part have never written a book. And so on.

In fact the editors that work at many magazines and decide which photos will be used in their magazines have are usually not photographers and have not been photographers. Yet they do a great job of picking the best photos.



Cheers,
rfs

[hipchildreth]

I wasn't in on that one but it makes sense. It's the spirit of the rule that matters. To me, it's a courtesy... kind of like saying here, I just critiqued you, feel free to critique me as well if you like. Having portfolio images serves the same purpose.

Chip