Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/10/29

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] PAW -- Criticism or Stroking?
From: "Joseph Codispoti" <joecodi@clearsightusa.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 22:02:46 -0800
References: <6C66A380-EB9A-11D6-8E13-0050E42E6E0B@shaw.ca> <p05100303b9e4fa94e0a1@[203.208.68.28]>

I think that if the photographer is submitting a photo for criticism, the
submission announcement could/should be accompanied by a form requesting
criticism.
The form, to be filled by respondents, should say, at a minimum:

Title:
Strong Points:
Weak points:
Points to improve:
Overall artistic rating (1-10):
Overall technical rating (1-10):

With such a form (or similar), the criticism would cover much of what a
picture is about. Furthermore, the critic would be compelled to cover all
points and not just "awesome".

While I am at it, I might be the first one to use it to rate Dante's week 36
offering. Since he is Italian, I am sure he will not fall apart if my
criticism is not entirely on target. Dante gave us a sample of the
film/developer he is testing. I will rate the photo irrispective of medium
used.
Title:    Neopan 1600 and Aculux 2 portrait, week 36

http://www.dantestella.com/photo.html

Strong Points:    Good directional pose, firm gaze

Weak points:    Lack of separation between head and background. Ear lit too
prominently.

Points to improve:    Light patterns for portraiture. Short, rather than
broad lighting might have been better for this subject.

Overall artistic rating (1-10):    6

Overall technical rating (1-10):    5

Joe Codispoti




- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from John Collier <jbcollier@shaw.ca> (Re: [Leica] PAW -- Criticism or Stroking?)
Message from Alastair Firkin <firkin@ncable.net.au> (Re: [Leica] PAW -- Criticism or Stroking?)