Photos of me! Critiques?

[Squirrel Girl]

People are different. I am my own harshest critic. I've been on a photography binge lately. I've had a lot of compliments on some of my (non-cave-related) pictures, but I can tell you what's wrong with each and everyone of them.

Yesterday I bumped into a guy who'd come to a few of our photography club meetings. I asked if his pictures were on the web anywhere where I could see them. He said he didn't think he could stand the criticism so he didn't want them on the web.

As a scientist, I am used to having to defend ideas. If they can't stand up to criticism, then maybe their not right. So to me, criticism is not a bad thing. It's how we improve. Sadly, in my photography club, I've asked for suggestions how to solve some recurrent problems, and not gotten enough feedback!


Re Bob's comments: I don't disagree with his comments (and he's got the experience and skill to make those observations), but I do temper it as well, with the idea, it's better to encourage new folks than discourage them. It may (speaking generally) be tough to find that balance between being encouraging and not having crappy standards.

I very much agree with caveflower: art is in the eye of the beholder. The photos in question have an interesting "mood." But other than that, they are completely uninteresting to me. It doesn't touch me on any level to see a woman in a corset standing introspectively in a cave. Nothing. Doesn't speak to me. Someone else might find it gorgeous. To each their own.

However, if you post up looking for critiques, you mostly *will* get them. If you don't want to be criticized, don't ask!!

[Mudduck]

I made the comment referring to membership based on another topic elsewhere in the forum. You saying you'd rather have quality over quantity is irrelevant and makes implications towards my post and myself or perhaps towards Amy. Then again you may have meant it generically. Any way you want to look at things the course of this topic could have gone in a less destructive direction. I'm the king at dishing out criticism, but I make every attempt to state it with an educational tone while attempting not to sound condemning or overly arrogant. While I agree the topic title perhaps could've been worded differently. The responses(or some) could have been given in a non offensive manner. This kindve goes back to your wife asking "do I look fat in this ?" What would your answer be .? Certainly not the bluntness observed here. If I were a new member or aspiring to such and ran across this topic I might.rethink think things. My apologies forgot quoting other posts but my phone is acting up a bit.

[Squirrel Girl]

I made the comment referring to membership based on another topic elsewhere in the forum. You saying you'd rather have quality over quantity is irrelevant and makes implications towards my post and myself or perhaps towards Amy. Then again you may have meant it generically.
.
.
My apologies forgot quoting other posts but my phone is acting up a bit.

Having tried to post from my phone, I understand not doing the quote thing. On the other hand, it does make it hard to understand which comment who made that you're commenting on, so I don't know if I'm answering the right thing.

It almost puts us between a rock and a hard place. We're in trouble if we critique Amy. But if we're generic, it doesn't belong in this thread because it implies we're criticizing Amy.

One thing to keep in mind... yes there are personalities involved. And that goes *all* the way around. The moderators did watch the thread and did consider various options. Some posters were more strident than others. The whole "looks like she's touching a formation" hit a *very* sensitive nerve. And then there's the matter that while *generically* we might want to encourage newbies, newbies are not "generic." Each is a person and each brings their own plusses and minuses. If a person isn't always supportive of *everything* a newbie does, that's not bad. Sometimes they shouldn't be. I could link to a number of threads where newbies are encouraged quite a bit. It all depends.

Look, I've talked with an expeditionary caver whose been on Cavechat who was told he was stupid by a bunch of people here. That's pretty dumb because he's a way better caver than many of them. It would be nice if we had a larger group of smart/talented/fun people who post here. But we are who we are.

Regardless, to me,Cavechat a tame place compared to the Deco Stop. I posted in there that 4 people I know have died in just over a year, and I was responded to by 2 people saying I should rethink my diving skills and who I call friends. [though they were my friends, I'd only been underwater with one of them, once--talk about callous!]

And Amy's unhappy that not everyone loves her pictures?????? Look, some people will, and some people won't. And the whole *appears to be touching the formation* bit really made things go south. Welcome to the internet.

[Mudduck]

ok, I've talked with an expeditionary caver whose been on Cavechat who was told he was stupid by a bunch of people here. That's pretty dumb because he's a way better caver than many of them. It would be nice if we had a larger group of smart/talented/fun people who post here. But we are who we are.

Regardless, to me,Cavechat a tame place compared to the Deco Stop. I posted in there that 4 people I know have died in just over a year, and I was responded to by 2 people saying I should rethink my diving skills and who I call friends. [though they were my friends, I'd only been underwater with one of them, once--talk about callous!]

And Amy's unhappy that not everyone loves her pictures?????? Look, some people will, and some people won't. And the whole *appears to be touching the formation* bit really made things go south. Welcome to the internet.

Absolutely nothing wrong with criticism but outright rudeness I have a problem with(keep in mind I'm not necessarily directing that comment towards you). And yes I've been not welcomed with open arms in other caving forums, so I get that cavechat is the place to be with respect to tameness. But I totally and respectfully disagree with "Welcome to the internet". We as a society, speaking with respect to the world as well as the NSS, decide and dictate how things are on the internet. We ARE the internet. Common courtesy does not end with the push of a power button or stroke of a key. Anonymity is the curse of the internet. I try to act and say things that I'd only say to a persons face. If Amy had been at a caver event and ask those same questions, I doubt that she'd have received that same responses.
As a disclaimer to my griping, I thoroughly enjoy everyone on cavechat and given that this is my only connection to the caving community would and will continue to frequent here as I hope Amy does as well.

[Squirrel Girl]

Mudduck, I agree with you completely, that people get whacky on the internet and say things they wouldn't if they were face-to-face. And I also agree that we'd be better off if people would remember that before they post!

Somehow I don't think you'll get too far with your plea! But nothing ventured, nothing gained! Good luck with your quest!

[pub]

Again, I totally agree with you, Mudduck!

To remind myself and those who either forgot or never knew, I did a websearch on “tact” and “constructive criticism”

Tact:
1. a keen sense of what to say or do to avoid giving offense; skill in dealing with difficult or delicate situations.
2. a keen sense of what is appropriate, tasteful, or aesthetically pleasing; taste; discrimination.

DEALING WITH CRITICISM
Gregg Walker, Dept. of Speech Communication, Oregon State University

Criticism may occur within conflict situations or can foster conflict. Criticism, or the generation of "evaluative judgments," is often painful or difficult to "give" or "receive." If handled appropriately by both the person criticized and the person being criticized, critical feedback can promote constructive growth in individuals and relationships.

Constructive Criticism - Some Assumptions
1. Criticism arises out of interaction, rather than simply action. Evaluation is important to improvement, but criticism should follow a "two way street." Criticism is more valid when all parties involved interact both as the "critic" and the "criticized."

2. Those who criticize need to value and invite criticism. Criticism can be promoted if the critic first invites criticism of his or her own behavior. By inviting criticism, a person can create a situation in which her or his criticism of another is perceived as appropriate.

3. The "Critic" and "Criticized" guidelines that follow are pertinent to all parties involved in "criticism" discussion.

Constructive Criticism - Guidelines for the Critic
1. Understand why you are offering criticism. Feel confident that doing so is appropriate to the situation and constructive for the parties involved. Criticism voiced out of self-interest or competition may be destructive.

2. Engage in perspective taking or role reversal. As you develop a criticism strategy or response, try to understand the perspective of the person being criticized.

3. Offer criticism of the person's behavior, not on her or his "person." Refer to what a person does, not her or his "traits," or "character."

4. Even though criticism implies evaluation, emphasize description. Before offering any judgment, describe behavior you see or have experienced.

5. Focus your criticism on a particular situation rather than general or abstract behavior. "Index" and "date" your criticism, much like a "journalist": deal with who, what, where, and when.

6. Direct your criticism to the present ("here and now") rather than the past ("there and then").

7. Emphasize in your criticism your perceptions and feelings. Indicate what you think and feel about the other's behavior that you have described. Use "I" statements.

8. Invite a collaborative discussion of consequences rather than offering advice. Form a partnership to deal with problems. Do not compete with the other party; compete with the other person against the problem.

9. Keep judgments tentative. Maintain an "open door" of dialogue rather than presenting your "analysis" or "explanation" of another's behavior.

10. Present criticism in ways that allow the other party to make decisions. Do not force criticism on the other. Encourage the other to experience "ownership." People are more likely to comply with solutions that they generate.

11. Avoid critical overload. Give the other an amount of critical feedback that she or he can handle or understand at that time.

12. Focus criticism on behaviors that the other person can change.

13. Include in your critical feedback a positive "outlet." Reinforce positive actions and invite the possibility of change.

14. Invite the other to present criticism of you.

Constructive Criticism - Guildelines for the Criticized
1. Recognize the value of constructive criticism. Such criticism can improve relationships and productivity.

2. Engage in perspective taking or role reversal. Try to understand the perspective of the person offering criticism.

3. Acknowledge criticism that focuses on your behavior. Attempt to transform criticism that seems directed at your "person" to specific behavioral issues.

4. Listen actively. Even though criticism may hurt, seek to understand accurately the criticism being presented.
a. Paraphrase what the other is saying.
b. Ask questions to increase understanding.
c. Check out nonverbal displays (check your perceptions).

5. Work hard to avoid becoming defensive. Resist any tendency to want to dismiss criticism or retaliate.

6. Welcome criticism; use the criticism appropriate to improve.

7. Maintain your interpersonal power and authority to make your own decisions. Criticism, when directed at one's "person," may weaken one's resolve. Focus the other's criticism on your actions. Seek ownership of solutions.

8. Seek constructive changes to the behavior that prompted the criticism.

9. Insist on valid criticism. Valid criticism: (a) addresses behaviors, (b) is timely, and (c) is specific.

10. Communicate clearly how you feel and think about the criticism and receiving criticism. Use "I" messages.

[Anonymous_Coward]

Face it, internet forums are an inherently TOXIC form of communication. Topics like this one will ALWAYS veer directly for the gutter and end in hurt feelings. No one should really be surprised by this anymore.

Never in real life have I been so consistently and completely misunderstood as I have been on cavechat and other forums, and offline some people consider me to be a halfway decent communicator. There is something about this format that encourages conflict and misunderstanding. This is why many of us have a love/hate relationship with this site and tire of constantly having to re-explain ourselves here. I have to take frequent extended breaks from cavechat or I would have to cancel my subscription outright. The whole place has become a hotbed of rabble-rousing ridiculousness. I compare it to the town hall meeting on the illegal aliens episode of South Park where there is the constant noise of "rabble, rabble, rabble" in the background and occasional shouts of "They took our caves!"

In spite of all that, I agree that cavechat is one of the tamer forums out there. The canyoneering one that I frequent is rife with outright accusations and name-calling and decade-old vendettas. I have heard that the climbing forums can be even worse. At least we are a bit more civil here.

But to think that someone would post photos, ask for critiques, and then get upset over nearly every comment is a little much in my book. No one forces anyone to put their personal life or image on the internet. When you do, you are literally putting it out there for everyone. It is also acceptable to post images without specifically asking them to be critiqued.

You get what you ask for, and on cavechat the result is predictable. Every time.

[innermostphoto]

I totally agree with you, Andy!

To her credit at least they were not shots of crickets or salamanders!

bob biddix
Innermost Imagery
http://www.innermostimagery.com

[self-deleted_user]

Just to clarify - I asked for critques and I meant it. As a scientist I am used to dealing with very harsh criticisms and from people who's basically job it is to make you feel like bullshit that the work you just did for your thesis and you whole life the last /years/ is a waste. I also attended art school for a bit, and am used to art critiques.

I NEVER ONCE had issue with the CRITIQUES. Suggestions of lighting, of better angles, of model poses, etc. I would quote posts but I think you are all smart enough to know which posts and sections of posts I mean.

My issue, is rather, being constantly told i did something I didn't do . I even took down the offending photo after it became clear it was a widespread feeling and not that of one or two people. Even after that the complete falsehoods continued to be spread, and that was the focus. That is NOT a critique. That's just being shitty. And that is what I take issue with.

Additionally what is not a critique is "I don't like this". Okay...no one is asking for "I liked this" "I didn't like this". It's not helpful. Whether or not you are a fan of the subject matter as a whole is an opinion, personal likes/dislikes, not a critique.

Now, to say "I don't like these photos because they constantly have poor lighting" - now that is a critique and helpful.
To say "I don't like these photos because I don't like corsets" - that is a personal like/dislike and unhelpful.

Make sense? good.

I hope this clears things up.

[caverdan]

Whether the formation is actually being touched or not (I'll accept it is not), it certainly appears as though it is being touched. What is the objective of the photo... to appear to be touching a formation? It's difficult to give critical feedback on the lighting, exposure, balance, etc. when the subject is so controversial.

I don't understand why you guys find this picture so controversial. There's clearly an angstrom of space between her fingers and the formation. Anyone looking at the picture should understand she would never even appear to touch a formation.

A picture is worth a thousand words.....

[Squirrel Girl]

Amy, assuming you didn't actually touch the formation, do you not understand the following:

1) It LOOKS very much like you did

2) Touching formations has been shown to damage them. Possibly due to oils in people's finger, possibly due to dirt, whatever; it harms the growth of the formations

3) Commercial caves all across America forbid visitors from touching their formations

4) Photographs that for all intents and purposes appear (if not in fact) to illustrate the touching of a formation can lead some people to think, "Well she did it, so it must be OK"? And while we sometimes must touch formations because there's no other way around, it's a last resort. In your picture, it *appears* to be a gratuitous touch of the stal in order to make an artful photograph. You certainly could have posed for the picture without appearing to touch the stal. Had you done that, most of this hubbub wouldn't have come to pass.

I would ask you how you faked the appearance of what looks like touching the formation because I would love to learn those Photoshop skills. It's obvious there was more to it than the example posted of a hand up against the Leaning Tower of Pisa. That one clearly is a fakey, fun shot to pretend to hold up the tower (touching buildings doesn't harm their growth, so it's not it a conservation no-no). In yours, there's a tight shadow around your hand and on the stal that is much more realistic than the Pisa shot. I don't know how to do that, and I would ask for instruction, except that I agree with the sentiment that it's not something that anyone should encourage: *appearing* to be touching the formations.

Instead of taking personal insult at some people not believing you didn't touch the formation, you can take that as a compliment to your skill at deception. However, I think what the harshest criticism expressed herein comes from, is that you don't appear to understand the behavior the picture condones. If you really think it's OK to pretend to touch formations, you will indeed have a lot of people angry at you. No, it's not as bad as breaking a formation and taking it home with you, but it is non-conservationist.

As far as your desire for only some types of critiques and not opinions on subject matter. It's the nature of the beast. Some people like some things, other people like different things. If you ask for a critiques amongst the public, most people who respond won't say, "Let's see, does she want my viewpoint on this or that? Will I be in trouble if I say 'non-interesting subject matter'?" People aren't mind readers and they won't know what you're sensitive about until after they express their opinions. They're liable to simply express their opinions.

As far as the complaint of some of the people about harsh language.... the moderators have monitored the thread. I urged some of the worst of it be edited and a message sent to that poster. Personally, I think that kind of language is self defeating. If you piss someone off, they're not likely to listen to you. But then who ever listens to me?

If I were to come away with two take-aways from this thread, they would be: 1) Don't post something that appears to be anti-conservationist, quibbling whether it was or wasn't in fact, and 2) Public request for critique is liable to go beyond the bounds originally intended (ask people privately for the types of information you want in return).

Night, night everyone. Dreams of borehole....

[self-deleted_user]

I understand the concern with the *looks* of touching one, it was not something i thought about prior to posting. I do now, I think that is clear with my taking of the photo down and it is NOWHERE online whatsoever. Additionally it was the worst of the five in my opinion anyway and it's in backlogs of my files somewhere still but that's about all.

But yet, even the post above you still is implying I am lying, it is a pointless post that has been beaten to death and yet continues to try and pull that tangent of the thread through.

I will say for one thing, this thread has taught me a lot. I have been a forum-user for many many years (since about 2000) and other than an instance of someone getting jealous of me and stalking me in real life (rabbit breeder back in '06), I've had really great forum experience until this forum. So...anyway. Maybe people will think twice before posting now (I know I will...) who knows. I thought the idea of critiques was standard, that people understood the difference between critique and opinion. I usually think the best of people, and as such assume people think the best of me. I thought wrong in many cases.

And I still maintain there is some double standard. In the latest NSS News for example, there is photo of someone climbing on an ice formation. There are two photos of barefooted girls standing on flowstone. And these are colour center fold area photos. So which is it? It's a rhetorical question, I do not wish to reopen debate, just provide some "food for thought". As said any caving we do impacts caves. We must just do our best to minimize our effects.

[Chads93GT]

Amy, im goin to quote the above.

"an instance of someone getting jealous of me and stalking me in real life, I've had really great forum experience until this forum. So...anyway. Maybe people will think twice before posting now (I know I will...)"

Good, IM glad you will think twice. Think before you post. The internet is forever.

[Mudduck]

It keeps getting brought up. Touch the formation or not is somewhat irrelevant. As recreational cavers we touch formations to travel in caves. This has already been mentioned in a previous post. To keep going on with it is ohborder line hypocrisy. A recreational caver by definition is someone who caves self gratuitously, therefore a choice is made at some point to touch that "unavoidable " formation. Let's just let this go and get back to complaining about wns closures.

[Gumby]

Damn...I go underground to get away from the drama.