Now, while I just can't get exhilarated over photoSIG bashing and defending, I would indeed like a content focused discussion on the topic. So, anyone feeling capable enough to keep the insults away ;-), please join:

(1) PhotoSIG will, no doubt about that, be visited based on multiple motivations. There are some people how which use want to look at some topic-specific pictures; some people want to be part of a community; some might want to learn about photography in general; some people might want to use this as a gallery, get onto the main page and feel famous and talented; some people might want to be photography teachers. Let's focus not on all of these, but on the people coming here because they are interested in photography, doing photography themselves and want to elaborate on their photographic skill.

(2) Those people come from various background and have already different levels of skills. As I understand here are pros, earning their living with their shots, amateurs, who does this purely as a hobby and have already gathered some experience and then the 'snapshooters' who do think it would be fun to improve their vacation memories.

(3) Now, to improve there are mainly two ways to do this here. You can either look at photos and try to figure out why you like or dislike them. You can read the comments to facilitate this process or even write your own to even further boost the understanding of the determines what makes you think a foto is good which is bad. Or, you can post your own shots, and wait for critiques telling you what you can improve and what you should pay more attention to in the future.

(4) And now the interesting part: Does photoSIG lead us to conformity? Here you will probably encounter most critiques based on the current "mass-liking" which will train you towards "mass-liking".

• Is this something you are aware of and feel beeing a critical issue?
• Can you use PhotoSIG without getting into the conformity-trap? Which measurements do you use?
• Is one of the ways to improve as mentioned under (3) better in respect of this matter?
• How do non-conformatists (please wave the hands) use this site?
• Or is this just about knowing, accepting and time the jump?

Read 2,861 times

Reply 

From revival/Brent (1,278) on May 19, 2005 1:21:06 PM CDT Very quickly: No! I don't think that Photosig leads us to "conformity", by which I presume you mean trying to please the masses not with originality, but certain "templates" that seem to work. We are all individuals, and, as you've stated concerning skill, at different levels of skill. In the very same way, we are all at different levels of age and maturity. With maturity, as in all areas of our life, we learn to be more thoughtful and discerning in everything we do. We bring this maturity into different areas of our life at different times, I think, but it eventually comes to everything we do, and in increasing measure. As pertains to this site and photography, I believe that being here and participating will bring that thoughtfulness and discernment into our photographic endeavors sooner, rather than later. When we bring that mature way of thinking to the table, we are able to make decisions based on our own personal photographic and artistic desires, and, in contrast to your question, individuality and uniqueness. Reply

From aspelin/Oliver (6,590) on May 20, 2005 7:49:35 AM CDT I agree with you that participating here will teach discernment. But what will the discernment be based on? Probably what you see and read here. That is mainly the common view on compositional and technical aspects. How, if possible, can the site facilitate to lead you into individualism? I would claim that usually the way from pure rookie (finding the release button) to individual master (dicussing the hanging on the walls of the museum) is accompanied by two major sequent steps: learn the rules & learn to break the rules. And that photoSIG has a positiv impact on the first step. The second step might need another playground because here you usually do not get the appropriate responds needed. Reply

From revival/Brent (1,278) on May 20, 2005 11:17:53 AM CDT Good questions, Oliver. I don't necessarily think that Sig will in any way push us toward individualism, but will facilitate it in helping to speed up our jouney toward the discovery (which comes with the maturity I was talking about) of what it is that we really want to do with our photography. When we begin to sincerely think about what it is that "I" want to do in photography, then the individualism will begin to take shape. I can't stress enough the need for maturity, however, without which I'd say the real vision we have will be watered down by others opinions. This place helps us to learn to take criticism (most of us anyway :). That we are criticised for this or that "broken rule" won't cause us any harm, if we have matured enough. I think that the fact that we get so much criticism here helps us to be able to stand against it whenever we have the conviction within ourselves that we did such and such for such and such a reason. Reply

From sheena/SheenaWilkie (12,817) on May 19, 2005 1:37:43 PM CDT For people who want to improve their photography photoSIG can play a small role in a larger process. People who blame photoSIG (or any web site) for anything need to unhook themselves from the internet. Reply

From clchick/Cl (3,562) on May 20, 2005 10:10:48 AM CDT Well said, Sheena {planting a big smootch on her rear-end...}. The downfall of some is in viewing PhotoSIG as more than it really is. It is neither the end-all answer to the craft of photography, nor the art of photography. Anything said, or any critique given here should only be viewed in its proper scope. When you lose that sense of balance and begin to consider PhotoSIG as the last word, then it may be time to leave or take a rest. I know, I've seen me do it... ;-) Reply

From deleted119173/deleted (3,012) on May 19, 2005 1:45:51 PM CDT I was involved in the, er....discussion, over at DP Review. I'm not necessarily passionate about this, or any site per se, but I objected to the misleading claims and wholly one-sided comments that were being made by certain people about Photosig. One of those people has since been over here to apologise publically, so to a large extent he's conceded that his original statements regarding the alleged pressures to conform at this site were in fact misplaced. Society is crammed to the gunnels with conformists and conformity, so online communities are probably no different. However to many, photography is a form of escapism, so while in life they may toe the line, it's likely that many are slightly more free-thinking when it comes to their images. Then there are people who really feel ill at ease with normality, and these people simply do what the hell they want to, whether it's in life or in their photography. So it's clear that there is likely to be a diverse mix of people here, whether they're outright conformists, or downright anarchists. How Photosig as a site can lead people into conformity is something I don't recognise. I think that people simply arrive here with a view to partaking in some way, and their respective needs are met in due course by the information they glean; both consciously and subconsciously. However it is down to the individuals concerned and their own characteristics / personalities as to how those influences affect their photography. Those who are already conformists in society will undoubtedly be the obvious candidates for conformity in terms of their work, but I think it's deeper than that. People are affected in different ways, and while normally conformist folk might resist the influences to adhere to strict photographic practices here, it could be that radical anarchists will come here and adopt a wholly conformist attitude to their photography. My opinion is that influences exist everywhere. How much the individual is affected by those influences is down to that individual. Blaming, or citing those influences as a reason for that individual's changes in attitude or behaviour is missing the point. Photosig (as a community, not a business) is not responsible for creating a conformity-trap. That is down to the aforementioned individuals, and if it happens and they don't like it, they only have themselves to blame. I feel tired now. Off for a lie down :) Reply

From phildeman/Phil (5,375) on May 19, 2005 3:09:04 PM CDT Amen! Reply

From stanb/Stan (11,096) on May 19, 2005 9:01:00 PM CDT Oh dear Joe, do lie down.... or better still put down quill and pickup magic light capturing box !! :P (sounds a little like a previous life rearing its head here but ne'er a truer word spoke) Reply

From aspelin/Oliver (6,590) on May 20, 2005 8:05:02 AM CDT Yes, influence exsits everywhere. And yes, photoSIG is not responsible for creating a conformity-trap. I'd like to stress that I do not want to comprise the question about responsibility nor a valuation of conformity in my statements. For me it's not about blaming anything or anybody but just about considering some thoughts about the community. My statement is that there is a conformity-trap, and that it is very easily to avoid it just by making yourself aware of it. Reading most of the answers that there is no such thing in the first place makes it even more presumable that people get into it. And I do substantiate the existance of a conformity-trap by the fact that taking the critiques into respect for you work will result in work that of course complies the 'common thoughts' about what's appealing for a picture and what's not. Reply

From deleted119173/deleted (3,012) on May 20, 2005 11:28:54 AM CDT The site is not a conformity trap. The people who use it are the conformity traps. That applies to just about every single influence in existence - it's the people who elect to conform, it's not the influences which dictate that they should... Reply

From deleted89135/deleted (2,385) on May 26, 2005 1:07:30 AM CDT "My statement is that there is a conformity-trap, and that it is very easily to avoid it just by making yourself aware of it" Who are we to speak for the masses and say it is a conformity trap? Yes we see some very cut and paste images here, and at Pbase, and at *those other photo sites* and I don't know if people are trying to conform or is it.... "Hey I really like that image I wonder if someone like myself could do a shot like that?", "That is a really neat idea and I like it except I would have..." and they tweak it that little bit to make it their own. Conformity trap? look as far as the magazines at your local grocer. Reply

From bluetexasbonnie/Bonnie (8,398) on May 19, 2005 3:17:18 PM CDT Capable enough of what to keep the insults away? That sounds rather like a challenge. Who am I supposed to resist insulting, JoeBloggs, Sheena or you? I read a lot of critiques and view almost as many photos, and have even written a fair number of critiques at times. I wouldn't even know what constitutes site aesthetics conformance. There is no "norm". There are some typical technical expectations (focus, exposure, contrast) -- but even those are often missing -- sometimes to good effect, sometimes to bad. If someone thinks there is conformity of thought here, then they are moving in too small of a circle. (Perhaps a circle of one, or maybe a circle of thumbs for everyone.) If someone is seriously in the photo-learning mode, then they can find plenty of challenge, insight and inspiration. If someone is in the 'mildly amusing diversion' -mode, then they can find plenty here who share the same goals. If someone is here for the accolades, then they need to cultivate a circle of mutual admiration friends. They probably won't be real happy overall because others keep accidently critiquing their photos and forget to provide hollow accolades. In a nutshell -- you get from photoSIG a combination of what you put in and what you expect. Reply

From deleted119173/deleted (3,012) on May 19, 2005 4:43:58 PM CDT "Who am I supposed to resist insulting, JoeBloggs, Sheena or you?" Er, me please. Thanks :) Reply

From gui/Gui (6,142) on May 19, 2005 5:32:24 PM CDT If someone thinks there is conformity of thought here, then they are moving in too small of a circle. - I have to start reading someone else's posts, 'cause I'm in conformity with you on this one. Reply

From aspelin/Oliver (6,590) on May 20, 2005 8:19:22 AM CDT Well, I do not see conformity defined as all people having the same thought. It's about a common understanding. Of course there are still some people in a community which states clearly different opinion but in respect of 'evolution' they won't survive. And in this case that means that usually the people in learning-mode will find them selves moving into that common sense - with your circle at maximum dimension. You did state a part of the common sense yourself: 'some typical technical expectation'. I would include compositional basics (which isn't something special for this community but you can read in every single book about photography - at least in plenty of them, written for those in learning-mode), too. And those in seriously photo-learning mode will experience that common sense. The question is for how long will they do that, and, the more interesting, will they still feel their expectations met at photoSIG when they are beyond that point? For myself, I feel beeing inbetween and for the latter part I definitly get much less out of photoSIG than for the first. Than again, maybe I just haven't found the right approach. Reply

From bluetexasbonnie/Bonnie (8,398) on May 20, 2005 9:57:59 AM CDT If by "conformance" you mean that the community in general believes that images are usually better when: Well composed Properly exposed Have pleasing colors or tonal gradations Have a subject Present the subject in an interesting way Avoid elements that distract or lead the eye out of the frame If that is what you mean, then I'll agree that there is a conformity trap here. I just wish I was trapped. Do people reach stages in their personal photographic & artistic development where they need to spend more time looking either inward or outward than they do at photoSIG? Absolutely. Will they later reach a stage where photoSIG again plays a role in their life enjoyment? Probably. Does the fact that photoSIG doesn't meet a particular individual's needs at a certain point in time negate its value for others. No. Do photoSIG while it is enjoyable and valuable to you. Do something else when it is not. Reply

From aspelin/Oliver (6,590) on May 20, 2005 10:10:16 AM CDT Well, conformance is probably also about what 'well' in 'well composed' means, what 'pleasing' in 'pleasing colors or tonal gradations', etc., so it goes a bit further then your definition here. I'm with you at the last two paragraphs. (And of course it doesn't negate value for others - I hope you didn't read that out of my statements.) The question is then wether photoSIG is only valuable as long as you are in need of conformity (i.e. learning the basic rules). Or can it also help you at a latter stage? Reply

From sheena/SheenaWilkie (12,817) on May 20, 2005 10:20:28 AM CDT The question is then wether photoSIG is only valuable as long as you are in need of conformity (i.e. learning the basic rules). Or can it also help you at a latter stage? It depends on the person, how they use the site, and what they want out of it. Reply

From aspelin/Oliver (6,590) on May 20, 2005 10:29:12 AM CDT Go back to start, do not collect money. Reply

From sheena/SheenaWilkie (12,817) on May 20, 2005 10:34:09 AM CDT I've been to the start. Oliver you are the one pushing conformity here, trying to fit all 70 thousand users into one box with your generalist theories. There are as many reasons and motivations as there are people on this site. Reply

From aspelin/Oliver (6,590) on May 20, 2005 10:55:24 AM CDT In my first post I stated on which group of person I am focusing on. My statements do not refer to anybody outside that group, thus I am not trying to "fit all 70 thousand users into one box". I do not feel that I am "pushing conformity" here either but just philosophizing about an issue I think is worthwhile to spend some thoughts on. Reply

From sheena/SheenaWilkie (12,817) on May 20, 2005 10:59:23 AM CDT Sure you are, you are putting anyone interested in photography, doing photography themselves and want to elaborate on their photographic skill into one box. Reply

From aspelin/Oliver (6,590) on May 20, 2005 11:09:56 AM CDT I do not think that these are all the 70 thousand but yes, I do think they are all affected by the statements I made. Reply

From bluetexasbonnie/Bonnie (8,398) on May 20, 2005 11:19:05 AM CDT I think it is nearly all 70,000 folks. That is the target audience for photoSIG. Those who don't show those characteristics when they sign up, either become 'enlightened' or wander off after a bit. Reply

From bluetexasbonnie/Bonnie (8,398) on May 20, 2005 10:23:40 AM CDT There are many later stage artists here, so they must find it either helpful or enjoyable. Unfortunately, I am not among that group, so I can't give you any specifics. When I get there, I'll report back. (Warning: It looks like there is still a long hard journey before me, so don't wait up.) Reply

From aspelin/Oliver (6,590) on May 20, 2005 10:30:04 AM CDT Well, I asked for the waving but there wasn't any waving yet. I would be very happy if they shared their experience with us. But I suspect their are not in the focus-group stated above but here because it's enjoyable for them for one of the other reasons. Reply

From bluetexasbonnie/Bonnie (8,398) on May 20, 2005 11:23:09 AM CDT Actually some of them have already spoken in this thread, but may be a little shy about self declaring themselves as such. Reply

From mudgeon/Del (6,136) on May 19, 2005 3:39:47 PM CDT Point by point: (1) I recognize in myself several motivations, but primarily learning and helping through critiques. My gallery is elsewhere. (2) I agree, and respect this variety. (3) I have learned both by looking at others' work by having mine critiqued. I have also learned by critiquing and by participating in forums. I don't learn from every experience, and some of what I began to learn I forgot immediately on purpose. Making decisions about this is every member's individual responsibility. (4) I have been a member a little over two years, coming to this site with several decades of mostly amateur experience. I feel pretty resistant to any external urge or direction to conform. With that said, in the time I have been here I have seen a refinement of my style, improvement in technique, but a broadening of my subject matter. I am probably not a good subject for a case study in conformity; my genes and life experience simply work the other way. On the other hand, I have noticed other members who have come here with little experience, in life and photography. They are probably the most apt to conform if anyone is. The ones I have noticed (and I am taking care to qualify this) have grown in their work, but not by conforming. I don't have numbers to back this up, but I have noticed a considerable number of members who give the appearance of learning and growing without the appearance of trying to conform to "the Photosig way" (which I do not believe exists) or even to the whim of critics. To your specific points: I am not aware of tendency to conformity, and so don't believe it is a critical issue. I can use this site without getting into a conformity trap; I don't even think of trying to measure this, but I can cite examples if you like. One of the ways to improve is probably better for some; which way varies by individual. I, a card-carrying non-conformist, critique more than I submit, although this has changed during my use. More recently I assist in operation of the site and I try to help others, especially novice photographers, in forums. I don't give a second thought to Photosig and the critique process in deciding what to shoot or how to process it. I have no idea what you mean about timing the jump. I infer from this "out-growing" Photosig; with a community of this size and with the people in it, I can't imagine needing or wanting to do that. One thing to consider is that tendency to conform is more likely to be associated with someone new to photography or beginning a major transition (say, snapshot to advanced amateur). Part of the learning is learning to make decisions on what to pay attention to. Someone who comes here and attempts to discern the Photosig way and conform to it will not learn much. They will not learn much anywhere else, either. Del Reply

From aspelin/Oliver (6,590) on May 20, 2005 8:40:38 AM CDT I am happy to read that you see unexperienced members growing in their work without conforming. And I would be happy if I ended up wrong. Still, the question open to me is then twofold: who did they learn from photoSIG? Was their learning made up just by looking at different submission and getting inspired? Or was it by advices they have got in the critiques? I doubt it beeing from the critiques; looking at the first critiques page at the moment the advices there state: 'head should be sharp', 'horizon placement according to rules of third', 'blurry background (for portraits)'. This, including the hints you'll get from all the other critiques, gives you in summary a framework you can apply to get decent photos. But it's the same framework for everyone. Next step would be to intentionally break the rules in that framework. What must happen with that picture at photoSIG? The mass, will apply the framework they have learned. I haven't really seen a diversity in critiques here yet that would include "good because not in focus/horizont in the middle/..." besides as an exception. And if it weren't an expection than you can really get a framework out of it which makes it hard for unexperienced learners (and it isn't hard, here). PS. For 'timing the jump' I was referring to the approach of quitting photoSIG once you've reached the second step (see my answer to Brent on that one). Reply

From bluetexasbonnie/Bonnie (8,398) on May 20, 2005 10:15:37 AM CDT Oliver, I think you have missed the most important, but secret, facet of photoSIG. The critique is NOT really for the photographer. It is for the critic. It is a vehicle for the critic to examine an image, think critically about how it works both technically & visually and re-enforces those thoughts by coherently writing them out. I suppose that does lead to 'conformance' in a rather convoluted sense -- your own critiques are constantly re-enforcing within you, your own artistic vision & technical sense. Sometimes, when you read the critiques of others, it sparks a new understanding or viewpoint within you. Whether this leads to following in that critics footsteps or just adds a broader dimension to your own vision and bag of tricks is up to you. Reply

From sheena/SheenaWilkie (12,817) on May 20, 2005 10:22:19 AM CDT Oliver one learns the most giving the critiques, not receiving critiques. You're looking at this ass backwards. And in my world, one never stops learning. Reply

From aspelin/Oliver (6,590) on May 20, 2005 10:48:16 AM CDT As the critiques are also rated, the common sense is expressed there, too. It might look a bit different, but at the bottom line the issue is the same regardless of the direction you look at it. And while I do also think, that one never stops learning, this is about what you learn. By writing critiques you learn also from the response you get on that critique. Reply

From sheena/SheenaWilkie (12,817) on May 20, 2005 10:51:48 AM CDT Do you honestly think that people who are serious about improving their photography care about whether their critiques are rated helpful or not? It's the act I learn from not someone rating my act. Reply

From aspelin/Oliver (6,590) on May 20, 2005 11:07:10 AM CDT Honestly speaking, yes. The unexperienced, but eager-to-learn guy we are talking about here will write a critique. At this stage he has learned nothing. He might have practiced to make up his mind about a photo, but he hasn't learned anything new. Nothing in respect of writing the critique would make him change the way he is taking photos. To learn, you do need a reaction from your surrounding. If he, the unexperienced but eager-to-learn guy, now gets the reaction that what he his writing is bullshit (e.g. "no, it doesn't make a photo more mystical to put two fingers in front of the lens, try spot ligthning instead, play with shadows") what will probably happen? He will try to implement what he has learned - if he thought he knewed better, he wouldn't be that unexperienced but eager-to-learn guy. Also if the only reaction would be that all his critiques are rated unhelpful - he will of course think that the content of his writing is wrong and adapt accordingly. Reply

From sheena/SheenaWilkie (12,817) on May 20, 2005 11:15:04 AM CDT If their honest motivation is to improve their craft they will not be relying on a web site alone to do that for them. They will be reading, and discussing and doing, and in short order they will start to separate the bullshit from the diamonds. Give people more credit. People who stop giving red thumbs because they got rated unhelpful may write different critiques but they still know shit when they see it. That's about playing the game, it has nothing to do with photography. Reply

From aspelin/Oliver (6,590) on May 20, 2005 11:21:04 AM CDT Well, how much credit 'people' deserve is a much more complicated discussion... ;-) But yes, I see your point. And still I'm left with one of those questions: can photoSIG help you develop on the second stage? Reply

From sheena/SheenaWilkie (12,817) on May 20, 2005 11:24:15 AM CDT Without sounding too concieted, I am in the "second stage". I am still here, still reading, still critiquing. Reply

From aspelin/Oliver (6,590) on May 20, 2005 11:33:02 AM CDT I cannot tell if that's too concieted, you do not post any more :) Well, I suppose you are. So, why are you still here? Do you still learn from? How? What? Does it help you to progress further? Reply

From sheena/SheenaWilkie (12,817) on May 20, 2005 11:40:03 AM CDT I am still here because: I enjoy the company. I enjoy and learn from the forums. I enjoy and learn from reading other's critiques. I enjoy and learn from giving critiques. One never stops learning but it's up to the individual to make it happen. As I tell my students, you are not empty vessels I pour knowledge into, I prepare the table, you must feed yourselves. People have to take responsibility for themselves. Reply

From aspelin/Oliver (6,590) on May 20, 2005 11:49:39 AM CDT Could you please make it a bit more substantial how you actually learn from critiques when in the second stage? Or is it just that you do not learn from most of them but from those single gems which aren't talking about the 1st-stage-improvement? For myself, I'm wondering, whether I already have developed a 'style'. For now, I couldn't get any response on that out of the critiques / criticizing. Though, it might be I'm just unable to eat. Reply

From sheena/SheenaWilkie (12,817) on May 20, 2005 11:55:08 AM CDT Every time I look at a photograph, any photograph, if I review and analyze what makes it work, what makes it fail, why that is so, how I think it happened, what they could have done differently, what would I have done, what the photographer was trying to accomplish, I learn something. It's like taking that photo over again in my head and making it mine. Reply

From aspelin/Oliver (6,590) on May 20, 2005 12:04:28 PM CDT But then you're kind of outside photoSIG, aren't you? You can achieve this in any museum, reading any photobook, look at any gallery. You do not need the critiques any longer. You do not need to write them down, you can (as you said) achieve the same result just by thinking it over again in your head. You do not need the feedback. Reply

From sheena/SheenaWilkie (12,817) on May 20, 2005 12:07:20 PM CDT Of course I don't need photoSIG, no one needs photoSIG. photoSIG is a tool, there are many of them, use what works for you and don't worry so much about everyone else. Reply

From aspelin/Oliver (6,590) on May 20, 2005 12:14:00 PM CDT Oh, I am not worrying about anything at all. I'm just philosophizing. And I probably didn't state the last one in the right way: It's not about saying that you do not need photoSIG. I'm asking whether photoSIG can be a tool at the second stage to improve your work. Is it a more sophisticated tool than only a gallery with lots of picture to analyze in your head? Or is it only a sophisticated tool in the first stage? I state the latter. Reply

From sheena/SheenaWilkie (12,817) on May 20, 2005 12:17:47 PM CDT For me photoSIG continues to help me improve my photography. That is valuable to me. Will it be that way for everyone, no. It depends on how you approach it and what you put into it and what you expect from it. Pretty much like it was when I first came here. I don't think it changes that much as you become a better photographer. YMMV Reply

From bluetexasbonnie/Bonnie (8,398) on May 20, 2005 11:13:55 AM CDT I guarantee that if you try to follow the advice every critique marked as helpful on this site that it will not lead to conformance. It will lead to incoherent babbling. Reply

From aspelin/Oliver (6,590) on May 20, 2005 11:18:28 AM CDT Well that's for sure. No, you cannot do that, you'll have to try to filter out something you would agree to. Beeing unexperienced you would look for majorities. And you'll end up with that 'common sense' of the community. Reply

From bluetexasbonnie/Bonnie (8,398) on May 20, 2005 11:46:39 AM CDT So you figure the photoSIG masses are smart enough, discerning enough and independent enough to distill the 'common sense' of the sight -- i.e. separate the sh*t and shinola, but incapable of distilling that further to find their own personal truths and visions? Actually, as I read all of the discussion here, I sense that perhaps you are finding the paths you are taken are too well trod, but are uncertain as to which way to go next. Where you step off the path and where that leads you are in your hands. However, do not dispair. We will keep the beacon of common sense and conformity glowing at photoSIG. You can always find your way back -- be it just for a visit, or to stay. You will be welcomed and many will be ready to learn from your new wisdom and see the shots from your travels. Reply

From aspelin/Oliver (6,590) on May 20, 2005 11:57:44 AM CDT Well I thought it might just be interesting to share some thoughts about the topic which was brought up in the dpreview forum without the bashing context. But maybe you are right, and the deeper sense of my interest is the own pathfinding. Anyway, I do believe 'common sense' is not actively, intentional filtered but subconscious procedure steering every human community. Therefore I do not feel the incoherence you stated in the first paragraph. Reply

From bluetexasbonnie/Bonnie (8,398) on May 20, 2005 1:37:34 PM CDT I knew it was time to step off the path, when there was not a single photo posted that I wished was 'mine'. There were great photos that I could admire & appreciate, but nary a one that I wanted in my camera. (Unfortunantly, 'nary a one' is usually how many I have in my camera that I want.) I still lack good technical control (yeah, yeah, I can say & explain the stuff all day -- but it is so much harder to do than say). I need better post processing skills to bring things closer to what 'they should be.' I don't translate that nebulous feeling 'this will make a good picture' into a good picture. I often have trouble identifying the underlying emotions and feelings the scene evoked in me -- and as a result they usually don't come thru clearly in the photo. Sometimes I will randomly critique photos, concentrating mostly on the technical end of the world. Other times I'll concentrate more on the emotion end of the spectrum -- often picking photos that I might have taken and analyzing why they are so emotionally flat. Will this ultimately make me a better photographer? I hope so, but it is too early to tell. Reply

From mudgeon/Del (6,136) on May 20, 2005 1:01:20 PM CDT Absolute nonsense. While I have a lot of years of experience, there was a long hiatus from photography that was ending when I started at Photosig. So, I began here having learned some technique and forgotten a lot of it. I never looked for majorities, I looked at each critique one at a time. I evaluated them to see what they had within that I could learn from. Some were useless and thus discarded. Some addressed a point different than what I had in mind in the picture; discarded unless they prompted me to think about my picture differently. Some were incorrect in what they said by my evaluation; discarded. Some were pushing their own agenda; discarded. MANY had a point (sometimes I suspect different than what the author intended) that I found useful; I learned. Several critics (not MANY but still quite a few) provided well reasoned criticism that I could tell, from the depth of the critique and sometimes from the quality of their work, was valuable. I made note of these people, looked at their work, sometimes sought them out for criticism. Through all of this I was learning, refining technique, and establishing a style and concentration of subjects, both within and outside Photosig. In one of your other replies you mentioned (I paraphrase) that many critiques focus on mechanics rather than creativity. It is my belief that creativity follows mastery (to at least some credible level) of technique. Those mechanical, technique-oriented critiques (rule of thirds, placing the horizon, avoiding flatness, etc) are useful to a beginner. Here is one way you might have a point. We have had a few folks here who appeared to move immediately into "creativity" without mastering technique. I well remember one who posted oddly composed out of focus works, saying it was her style. But, in looking at them, it was clear that she was mistaking photographic creativity with whim. Was it art? Maybe; some unusual things happen in the name of art. Was it photography? I think not. Photosig tends to drive that kind of beginner away, because they ignore or can't stand the criticism they get. In my view that is a good thing when the member refuses to accept the criticism offered; they will be happier elsewhere. Does this phenomenon reinforce conformity? Only to the idea that mastery precedes artistic creativity in photography. If you want to disagree with that, and fit it into your analysis, go ahead. There is room for disagreement here. I see your point about the "second stage" and making the jump. I too think I am beyond rank amateur, in two senses. I am comfortable with my creative decisions based on knowledge and use of technique, and people pay for my work. I am still here, still learning, but using Photosig in ways different than how I began. There is room for that, too. Del Reply

From dazedandconfused/Peter (1,426) on May 26, 2005 12:18:36 AM CDT I have been coming to photoSIG since late 2002. I can say that I have seen a lot of people change in the style and content after posting pictures here. I have seen people come and go after not liking the responses given in critiques. Now as for me. I would name the people that I have learnt from but it is against the rules. I will say that I only post the photos that I think need some advice on. Many more have been taken that I feel happy with. So many times I also see photos that where similar to mine and I (if I can) go back and use the same technique or style saw and then modify it to my own. If I was ever to become even a semi-semi-semi-professional, I would still post here so I can get a viewpoint that I could not get in the digital darkroom or from people that might not want to offend. Oliver, please have a look at some of the critiques I have given and you will see that I do not have the technical talent to explain the photo but I do give a critique in my own simple language. When I receive them, I have to sometimes use the net to findout what was offered. I do not know if this is what you were looking for but me, photoSIG has been a place that I come to daily and will continue to for a long time yet. Reply

From bluetexasbonnie/Bonnie (8,398) on May 26, 2005 6:06:23 AM CDT You can name names when being positive -- its the flip side that gets you in trouble. Reply

From matt/Matt (4,949) on May 19, 2005 3:53:09 PM CDT Take your last shot as an example. Everyone who critiqued it made the same points. I didn't. I saw something else, and hence commented on my views. Does this mean I don't conform? Yup. I've given plenty of main page shots red thumbs- not because I resent their position on the main page [I've been there myself and it really, really doesn't change you] but because I thought the photographs were poor, and I saw someting which noone else seemed to. I think sometimes the accumulation of 3tu on a photo can be likened to "yeah i think so too" comments when showing photographs to friends. Is that the best way to learn? Probably not, but it's probably not a want to not help that these 3tu's come, it's a natural thing. If people are used to joining in and giving praise then they don't see it as wrong. What I also find is that people are more than happy to accept two identical "great, good lighting, cool pose, good sharpness, overall superb" 3tu critiques, but much less willing to accept to similar "not sharp, out of focus, wb off" 1td critiques. In fact lots of debate usually comes from said critiques. I don't think what I'm saying has any logic, so I shall stop. Reply

From deleted119173/deleted (3,012) on May 19, 2005 4:39:08 PM CDT ¦¬o I had a lie down earlier. Worked wonders for me... Reply

From tsujesh/Sujesh (882) on May 19, 2005 4:42:42 PM CDT I too read the dicussion on DPReview and I disagree with most of what the Anti-SIG person was stating over there. However the issue of conformity that he brought up was regarding beginners who unknowingly end up taking the critiques here as objective truth and becoming cookie cutter photographers. The only certain way to eliminate this risk is to completely isolate oneself from any kind of social contact (not just PhotoSIG). Some amount of conformity isn't a bad thing and the originality of the artist will shine through despite undue pressures to conform. If you travel to another continent than where you live, sometimes you will notice that you have more in common with the anarchists back home than the common man over there. Reply

From deleted119173/deleted (3,012) on May 19, 2005 4:55:33 PM CDT "The only certain way to eliminate this risk is to completely isolate oneself from any kind of social contact (not just PhotoSIG)." Or to possess the tiniest amounts of character and independence, perhaps..? No single influence in the world puts any pressure on anyone to conform. If people do conform, then it's because they choose to... Reply

From tsujesh/Sujesh (882) on May 19, 2005 5:07:08 PM CDT All conformity is not necessarily a conscious decision. That was what I tried to point out with the example of far separated cultures. (and.. yeah.. I was being sarcastic about the whole 'separating from society' thing :-) But the main point of my post was that all successful artists have had the character and independence to transcend most of these peer pressures and so I guess we agree, Joe. Reply

From deleted119173/deleted (3,012) on May 19, 2005 5:23:31 PM CDT Splendid :) Reply

From aspelin/Oliver (6,590) on May 20, 2005 8:44:00 AM CDT Well I do think that are other ways to cope with conformity. Be aware of it, would be one. I do believe that a community like this one evolves a common sense, which can help some, and don't help some others. Reply

From tsujesh/Sujesh (882) on May 20, 2005 10:22:14 AM CDT True. I guess by reading or being part of this thread, we have all become aware, and that's a good thing. Reply

From deleted24315/deleted (9,900) on May 19, 2005 10:15:30 PM CDT Sig will lead you to the dark side of mass liking if you have a weak mind. Reply

From baba/David (33,005) on May 20, 2005 7:31:19 PM CDT Impressive young Slidewalker, but you are not a Jedi, yet. Reply

From deleted194386/deleted (54,540) on May 26, 2005 11:45:45 PM CDT I feel that SIG-ness is already suffering from conformity badly. So many questions but this stands out and noticed a deficit of creative thinking on this site by the critquers. Why i think is is thus...and not self promoting its just how i see it (come see my pics!!!!). So i shoot macros but not in a conventional manner...sorrta half abstract blended with beauty and enough reality for an earthbase. People are constanly critquing, condesendingly suggesting use F22 and get everything in focus...um hello?...so F22 is the only place to take a pic on? Like a picture lives and breathes and if it wows you and sends you off happy thats the general idea. This "flatworld" concept not the only way to shoot a pic...in fact there is no formula. Laws are only guidlines and don't apply in every case. What does apply is your perception and acceptance of radical concepts. Usually happens anyway, and not to blame anyone BUT feel the problem lies in feeling you need to say something negetive in a crit to make it valid...or make your one thumb award justified perhaps. Not really so, as sometimes the unsaid says more...some pics just don't do it and they need to stand on their heads and spit quarters to attain a 3tu. Yet some feel one thumb is some punishment they need to justify...naw, gimmie 1's all day long soon i have one million...its all good in other words. Like i have a theory that on these sites nothinbg ever needs to be "demoted"...only premoted. If another discussion i would suggest changing all red to green also and making one thumb "thanks for posting...have a nice day"...and go up from there. Remove blame and punishment from the equation and theres nothing left but better and better. Thats more conducive to creativity which is unbounded so now its a one way street. Some people once told me i wasn't allowed to say anything bad about their picture. At first was rediculous in theory, it was an eastern thing...as time goes by it seems they were right. A person presents their version of beauty well their pic can never be repaired but their concept of beauty can be modified by simply not attaining the beauty status thats invisioned in their mind and nobody elses...cause it sucks. But thats ok they have entered the realm of creativity so will naturally move forward....sumthin like that. Oh (edit) forgot where does it lead us....towards perfection. Or mastery of the force-ness. Reply

Return to forum