Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/10/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ellis, The purpose the PAW is to improve our photography collectively and so constructive criticism is definitely encouraged. I personally look at almost all PAWs, and typically my reaction is one of the following: 1) I love the picture but have nothing constructive to say except WOW. In that case I usually send the "WOW" to the poster privately since such praise does not contribute to the discussion on the list. 2) I see something interesting in the picture and have something constructive to say, such as a suggestion for improvement. In that case I make the critique on-list. 3) I find the picture utterly worthless and the only thing I can say about it is that it sucks. In those cases I just keep silent. All of the above of course assumes that I actually have the time to post feedback, whether privately or on the list. So if I do not react to someone's PAW, it does not necessarily mean that it is in category 3 above. Why the inconsistency between (1) and (3)? Because human nature is what it is and I like being nice to people better than telling them that their work stinks. I suspect most of us are that way. In summary, I think that we do need constructive critique, going after the ball, not the (wo)man. Finally, I would encourage you to start posting PAWs, the reaction you get from the LUG may teach you something and help you improve. That certainly has happened to me, and judging by what I see, to many others. Nathan Wariowilly@aol.com wrote: > I'm new to posting, having been a "lurker" for quite awhile due to my > fear of weighing in on various issues and being torn apart (however > well intentioned) by far more knowledgeable members of LUG. But there > seems to be a lack of, shall we say, intensity with respect to review > and comment on PAWs. I'll be blunt -- I've seen a large number of > PAWs that are, at best, mediocre, almost snapshots at a backyard > barbeque that could have been taken with a $70 point and shoot > camera. Yet, the comments for such works include things like "great > shot" or "wonderful image." Even allowing for differences in taste, > the feedback on the PAWs seems remarkably consistent, and > overwhelmingly positive. Sure, its nice to encourage folks, and it > isn't easy to submit anything for public scrutiny, especially by the > extremely talented and knowledgeable people who contribute to this > group on a regular basis. I wouldn't submit my work because, quite > frankly, I don't think it is yet at a level where it should be shown, > nay, inflicted on the general public, let alone the experts here. > > Don't get me wrong, lots of PAWs are amazing -- almost life > transforming -- but others, well, its almost like "point a Leica at > it and submit it." Should we all bite our tongues at the latter sort > and keep silent, or offer encouraging "strokes," or should we be > honest (but always respectful) and honestly present constructive > criticism? Again, I don't want to belittle those who have the courage > and confidence to submit PAWs, but I need clarification -- are we > here to review and critique in constructive fashion, or simply to > validate with hollow "attaboys" yet another submission of someone's > wife or daughter by the pool, or colorful locals sitting around a > cafe in some foreign locale? I don't want to offend anybody, I'm just > wondering what the ground rules are. > > Many thanks to all for the wisdom the have provided, and continue to > provide on this site. > > Ellis Krane -- To unsubscribe, see > http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > - -- Nathan Wajsman Herrliberg (ZH), Switzerland e-mail: wajsman@webshuttle.ch mobile: +41 78 732 1430 Photo-A-Week: http://www.wajsman.com/indexpaw2002.htm General photo site: http://www.wajsman.com/index.htm - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html