Printable View
Sometimes I wonder if when we critique an image we are biased by knowing who posted the picture and this affects our critigue. It would be interesting if there was an option to hide the name of the photoghrapher. Please don't take this the wrong way, I have no compalints about the critiques submitted for the images I have posted. They has been very helpful and I have learned a tremedous amount from BPN.
Just a thought
Ray:)
Personally I like the critiques given on this site and I don't mind my name being associated with what I shot. I learn (and sometimes relearn) a lot from the critiques given here.
Ray - I have pondered about the biases too, and although it's probably not realistic, wouldn't mind the option to hide name of the poster.
My personal observation is that the people with the "best" photos get tons of hits and comments while the images that would need the most help sometimes get almost completely ignored.
The reason for this is that it is easier to find the good points that to offer suggestions. And that does not cont for staff, that look for the ones with the less comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Barcelos
I wonder how many images are posted to this site in a day? week? month?
This happens everywhere. Who you are, the species of birds you're posting, good shots/bad shots, the viewer's own personal preferences, etc., etc. And sometimes people just don't know what to say. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Barcelos
There are eight more posted after I did late last night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Lloyd
I sometimes wish the opposite and would like to keep MY name hidden. There are a few and I emphasize few who seem taken back when you make suggestions on improvement as opposed as to just paying lip service.
By knowing the photographer of a given picture, there naturally has to be some bias one way or another. There are bound to be a variety of motivating factors behind many of the critiques offered here and on any other forum, both negative and positive. However, the burden is on us not to allow those biases to cloud our judgment and prohibit us from giving fair critiques.
Whilst hiding the photographers identity will help ensure unbiased critique, and in an ideal world we should take it as given, the good, the bad and the ugly, critiquing on the internet does need consideration too to be effective.
In my view, some consideration is needed as the critique needs to be relevant to the individual author, the viewers too, as well as the image presented; and gauged at about the right level of intensity. (It's as valueless to "gee, wow" as it is to highlight every single flaw, even if needed). Sure that might make the learning curve slower in some cases, but human nature is what it is. Ego's, confidence levels and desire to learn at any price vary enormously between individuals.
Sometimes the people who need the help most don't get it because either they may not have the confidence, or feel they have the relevant skills to comment on others. Maybe. The net result being that those that don't have the courtesy to spend time looking and commenting on others, don't get comments and assistance back for whatever reason. (I'm not making any rules here, but pointing out a fact of forum life, whether here or on others). It's been documented enough here and for very sound reasons and my take being:
1. The poster of the comment is forcing themselves to analyse the image, thus benefiting from compositional arrangements, technical skills etc, etc and accumulating skills that may takes ages to gather in the field.
2. the poster of comment shares their insights to any subsequent viewer thus sharing knowledge further.
3. Plain old good manners, in taking the time to stop by on a colleagues images.
4. Rightly or wrongly, after a while we pick up on people's personalities and styles. That's what makes forums interesting and will directly influence some comments. Agree 100% there Ray. Take it away though and what is left... that thought bothers me.
Those that don't post comments miss out on the best free learning tool around, but like "all teaching", needing to be focussed on the individuals needs.
Personally, as long as it is sincere and with the author's and viewers best interests i have no issues if some critiques are adjusted in light of the author being known. My 2 cents.
participation is a key to these type forums. the more you participate in critiquing others, the more other people are going to reciprocate. i dont think it has anything to do with the quality of ones' images. maybe that person has participated more and been able to learn more from that participation. reaping the benefits so-to-speak.
you reap what you sow!!
Ray...my personal opinion is that this forum does not suffer much from this problem. Yes..more successful photographers' photos will get more comments but thats natural because they get more views too. Everyone is here to learn and you always feel that there is a lot to learn from the top photographers. Hence you open their photos...and once opened, you comment. And we will see less flaws pointed out in those photos...just because there are less flaws. Even if the names are hidden, I doubt if that will change much. I think people are quite honest( in a good way) here. And I also think the moderators do a very good job of making sure photos dont go unanswered. Those are just my 2 cents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabs Forns
I totally agree, we all prefer to say good and encouraging things so it is a bit harder to critique an image that is less appealing. It is also more difficult to point out issues/problems with a photo than praising its strong points since it might upset or discourage the photographer.
However this website is the best overall in terms of number of experts and quality of the work presented and on average you get really good and useful comments.
Another $.02 contribution... pretty soon we can share a cup of coffee!:D (No, I don't have any financial interest in "that company".)
Lots of thoughtful, thought-provoking comments so far; that's what I come here for!
Getting back to Ray's initial wondering about critique bias resulting from knowing the identity of the image's author... I know my comments are (quite consciously) influenced by it, but I hope not negatively. I see it as tailoring my comments to the individual. At the same time, I try to make comments that will be helpful to a wide range of experience levels among all the other viewers. Instead of just saying "Wonderful!", I try to analyze why I like an image, and explain that. If I think there's room for improvement, I also try to explain why. Articulating exactly what I think is good or what could be better, and why, helps me to learn as well.
If the image belongs to one of the many accomplished photographers here (how's that for chutzpah - a hobbyist critiquing folks who actually make a living at this!;)), I feel free to offer suggestions regarding even very minor points, knowing that the photographer isn't going to have his/her feelings hurt. And maybe some of the less experienced viewers will learn a finer point, without the emotional impact of having their own image "picked on". And maybe someone will explain why I'm completely off base :p, and I'll learn even more.
On the other hand, if the image is post #3, and has obvious technical and/or compositional problems, indicating a beginning photographer, I'm going to start with finding one or two encouraging things to say, and then offer one or two basic suggestions for improvement. I'm not going to list every single flaw. My intent is to encourage the individual to learn and enjoy photography and help with that process: "honest critique done gently".
On the gripping hand, on that very rare occasion when I notice someone who responds to any comment other than lavish praise with defensiveness, I conclude that person isn't interested in learning, and I just don't comment on that individual's images.
One other comment: I've judged a few camera club photo competitions, in which the images are presented anonymously, and have entered many such. As an entrant, the advantage is that no one but me knows that awful picture was mine:o. As the one commenting/critiquing ("judging" is such a harsh term) I don't feel the anonymity really affects my comments; I approach it pretty much as I do here, with the overall quality of the image telling me a lot about the photographer's experience level. There's one significant difference in approach: time constraints in such competitions leave only 10-15 seconds for evaluating and commenting on any one image. I much prefer the BPN forum environment, where I can spent half an hour thinking about an image if I want to.
But what about other participants? As an example, some do for some reason only comment on images by posters who have commented on theirs previously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Starbuck
As far as hiding the name of the poster is concerned, I don't think you can argue that the comments made would not be less affected by factors other than the image itself. Hiding the name of the photog may also even or increase the chances that anybody's image would get commented upon.
Just my opinions on hiding the name of the poster; I'm not suggesting that it needs to be done.
Desmond, this is quite a large community and if you are new to it, as I am, there is a tendency to look for and respond to people you have gotten to know recently, sort of like being an introvert at a huge party! This is a very warm and welcoming place, and its amazing how much I have learned, but it can be very intimidating to the amateur hobbyist. There was a directive in the recent past, to please post x number of times for each photo you post, and I took that seriously. However, as I am really only competent in judging basic compositional things, I haven't got much to add, except of course when someone really completely blows me away with an incredible image. When that happens, I can not resist making a positive comment that is not completely technical. I don't know if that's acceptable or not, but I do know that part of making art is appreciation. There is nothing quite like this website as a place to learn and have fun at the same time.
Sure, I have noticed not very many people respond to my photos, but the ones that do respond (thank you, you know who you are) have done an amazing job of encouraging and teaching me!
ke
And let's not forget that many accomplished photographers post to share rather than get critiqued, take away the name, take away the motivation to post.
Just a small reality check.
I'm guilty of receiving but not contributing many critiques. There is a reason for that which is, perhaps, not uncommon among members who are guilty as well. The reason is that I do not feel competent to judge the work of other photographers, and especially that of the many very fine photographers who display their images here.
I have never received a critique that I thought was not meant to be helpful. Some that I have received are not very detailed, but generally those are encouraging, and encouragement is also helpful.
For the site to be a community, I think you have to show names. That said, sure there is bias, but nothing I really find offensive. I recall an image posted on another site a few years ago that was getting one negative comment after another until a prominent photographer said something like "No, you guys are missing the point of this image. It is a great image because....." The stream of comments made a 180 and immediately turned positive. :)
Kent for critiquing all you need to do is say what you like about the image and don't like about the image, you will be surprised at what you will come up with !!! Your feedback will be appreciated and it makes you look harder at the image so you will get more out of it. You tend to get more into the image as others make comments !! A win win !!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Wilson
The bias I see here, (and all forums tend to do this) is to gravitate towards a sameness in style. The avian forum for example has a certain clean but often sterile look. Images often look staged. Natural background tends to get cloned out.
Hi Ben - The issue being that natural backgrounds (and settings) tend to be overpowering, distracting, and at times obscuring. When someone can produce a complementary natural background w/ large DOF, we can have a unique and outstanding presentation. It's just not easy to do. On the other hand, it is easy for example to produce a shot of a Cardinal in a Maple tree with obscuring and OOF branches or a Mallard on an uninspiring pond.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Egbert
I myself love a great and well-composed "birdscape". The "sterile" look is a safety net for mundane and unflattering wildlife settings, not to mention shallow DOF in itself can be used in many creative fashions.
