Viewing posts for critiquing

[wendell westfall]

Sometimes (too often) when I look at a posted image in order to critique it I cannot see some of the little things others have seen, no matter how carefully I look at the posted image: for example, small dust spots, blown out white specks, etc. Do you "download" images and enlarge them to enable you to do closer criticism, to comment on the histogram, etc.? Do you bring the image into your computer software in order to make your judgments? If so, by what method? I realize my problem may be one of inexperience, but I can't help thinking it is more, and that I am missing one or more commonly used procedures.

Thanks,
Wendell

[Fabs Forns]

Wendel, downloading images and enlarging them for critique is highly discouraged. You need good vision and observation skills sometimes to see everything. I also miss stuff that others see.

[Alfred Forns]

Same here Wendell All observations are from seeing the image as presented !

I get a feel from the image and go from there first looking at the overall picture then moving down to details. Also same for missing some of the small things mentioned.

[Stu Bowie]

Wendell, I think it comes down to 'experience'. You look at an image the way you would have captured it, and by doing that, you tend look for the same things that make up the overall image. Is the subject well placed in the frame, how is the overall exposure and detail. I too, miss things, others pick up.

[Lance Peters]

Its much easier to pickup things in other peoples images than your own!!

[Alfred Forns]

Its much easier to pickup things in other peoples images than your own!!

Very true Lance !!! Sometimes we like a particular image and overlook faults .... like putting on blinders !!!!

[wendell westfall]

Fabs, Alfred, Stuart, Lance: 'preciate your responding. Guess I was wrong about my hunch . . . looks like I have a long way to go yet in order to properly train my critical eye.

[Charles Glatzer]

Wendell,

Fact is a number of viewers do exactly as you theorize above ... rather than viewing the image sized as posted they will copy the image into CS, enlarge and critique.

While it may be discouraged in this post, it is allowed as per #6 in the posting guidelines for "educational" purpose. Personally, I think the image should be viewed and critiqued as posted. I wonder if the board could be configured as follows...should a viewer wish to copy and/or re-post an image it could be allowed or disallowed by a simple check box in the individual posting the image signature profile.

Best,

Chas

[John Chardine]

Wendell- It is best to work with a calibrated monitor or at least make sure your monitor is set up so that you can see all the blocks in the test strip at the bottom of each page. I frankly doubt whether people often enlarge images if they do copy and paste them into Ps. Enlarging doesn't get you very far with an image already being seen at 100%.

[Fabs Forns]

Downloading for educational reposting DOES NOT mean enlarging. I didn't see anything in the guideline that referred to that.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Wendell,
While Chas may not have said anything that is technically incorrect......the blanket statement of "Fact is a number of viewers do exactly as you theorize above" is a dangerous one......and insinuates a lot of unwanted things. Is the number he quotes low?....minority?......majority?......Yes, people do this practice.....by and large, I would say that most people don't use that practice here on BPN. You don't want to get in that habit because as a moderator.....I often make sloppy correcctions on images that I re-work....just to give the person an idea! If you blow up my corrections to a large percentage......you will see the sloppy telltale signs of PP'ing!

Again.....my only disagreement with Chas is that he has no numbers to back up his statement of the first line.......I will admit it does happen........but he does walk a dangerous line to suggest that it is the rule......rather than the exception. Remember......this is supposed to be fun!.....and this is where I agree with him 100%....just judge the image as you see it!

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Wendell I totally disagree with the statement Chas made regarding guideline #6. Will post guideline below. We can not control the practice of downloading/enlarging for critiquing but highly discourage it.

_____________________________________
By posting images to BPN you give the BPN staff, users and members permission to download and modify any image submitted for critiquing. The sole purpose for downloading an image is so that it can be modified for instructional purposes only and then be re-posted in the original thread. The photographer is the copyright owner and retains all rights. Modified images may not be used for any purpose other than for instructional use at BPN.

[William Malacarne]

I agree with #6, but in the process of reworking a photo in many cases it is needed to enlarge it to see what you are doing.

Bill

[James Shadle]

Wendell,

Fact is a number of viewers do exactly as you theorize above ... rather than viewing the image sized as posted they will copy the image into CS, enlarge and critique.

While it may be discouraged in this post, it is allowed as per #6 in the posting guidelines for "educational" purpose. Personally, I think the image should be viewed and critiqued as posted. I wonder if the board could be configured as follows...should a viewer wish to copy and/or re-post an image it could be allowed or disallowed by a simple check box in the individual posting the image signature profile.

Best,

Chas

Chas said
"While it may be discouraged in this post, it is allowed as per #6 in the posting guidelines for "educational" purpose."
Here is an excerpt for Guideline #6 "By posting images to BPN you give the BPN staff, users and members permission to download and modify any image submitted for critiquing. The sole purpose for downloading an image is so that it can be modified for instructional purposes only and then be re-posted in the original thread."

I wrote the guideline and it neither states nor implies anything about allowing magnified viewing.

"Personally, I think the image should be viewed and critiqued as posted."
So do I.
"I wonder if the board could be configured as follows...should a viewer wish to copy and/or re-post an image it could be allowed or disallowed by a simple check box in the individual posting the image signature profile."
The board could be configured that way, however it won't be. We are not a showcase / great shot forum. If that's what someone want's they won't have to look very hard to find one.

We are a critique forum and we understand that it is not for everybody. The re-post policy has been a great aid in helping visual learners understand the point being presented.

With your experience and talent I would love to see you offering critiques on BPN!

[Arthur Morris]

Yes Wendell, As above, we discourage folks from looking for flaws by enlarging the posted JPEGs. Sometimes when I am preparing a repost I enlarge an image a bit and when I do I only comment favorably if the image shows high quality. I will never comment negatively on what I see when viewing an enlarged image. Some folks like Axel, however, have eagle eyes :)

[Charles Glatzer]

Hey Gang,

I am sure the number of participants/members/viewers that copy images for re-posting is low, you need only look in the image forums. And, I highly agree images that are re-worked and re-posted for the betterment of the poster are educational. I still think there are a fair amt of viewers that copy and check posted images for flaws (enlarged or not) without reposting and again I have no problem with this as long as your guidelines are followed. I am not referring to printing images, simply making the images bigger for review. If the viewer wants to copy and enlarge the image in CS to "better" view I care not. But, I do think it more prudent that images should be viewed and critiqued at the size posted, as this is how the image was intended to be viewed.

James, I have addressed and answered thousands of image critiques and discussion web forum questions over the past 10 years. In fact, as you know another party and myself started the Nature on-line magazine format that this and others now emulate. I comment on images in the Wildlife Forum, as this is what I typically shoot, but I am more in the Discussion Forums when time allows. Moreover, when I do post images I always make it a priority to state the methodology behind the exposure, offer tips when applicable, and more. I offer critiques when I feel I have something to contribute. I will be home for most of Aug, my longest at home period in 5 years, and will try my best to contribute additionally in the image forums.

Best Regards,

Chas

[James Shadle]

I will be home for most of Aug, my longest at home period in 5 years, and will try my best to contribute additionally in the image forums.

Thanks Chas!
I'm looking forward to it.
James

[Lance Peters]

Cant say I had ever even considered downloading a image to enlarge it to look for flaws - anytime I have commented on a flaw or image quality it has been from what I see in the post.

[Dave Mills]

I never enlarge an image to look for flaws after downloading. Like Lance didn't consider it...

[John Chardine]

Exactly Dave. Why would you? All you get is a pixelated rendition which IMO will not show any more than the original at 100%.

[John Chardine]

Hey Gang,

snip

James, I have addressed and answered thousands of image critiques and discussion web forum questions over the past 10 years. In fact, as you know another party and myself started the Nature on-line magazine format that this and others now emulate.

snip

Best Regards,

Chas

OK, I am not aware of this one. Could you provide a link. I would like to compare with BPN.

[WIlliam Maroldo]

As to Wendal's original question; the most important thing is the monitor (and size of screeen) that the posted image is viewed on. Enlarging the viewed image in the browser is easy, especially in firefox, but as John pointed out enlarging a small image just leads to pixellation. I very recently purchased a new laptop, and I've noticed a problem that relates to the subject. It makes images appear better than they really are, especially when printed. It has has a screen that is more like the glass of a CRT monitor, and images look like "glossy" prints, as opposed to more of a "matte" look as in LCD monitors. The major problem for me is that for some reason the visibility of digital noise is lessened considerably, and a few other things, and essentially it makes any image look better than it really is. regards~Bill

[Charles Glatzer]

OK, I am not aware of this one. Could you provide a link. I would like to compare with BPN.

;)

John,

see your PM

Chas