Why don't you post any (more) pictures ?

[kiwi]

After responding with info for another member who has plenty of posts, but not one single picture I thought it might be useful to understand why people do not post any or many pictures to what is essentially a photography centric forum ?

[mrDooba]

I don't post many photos anymore because I receive very little criticism. (that was the whole reason for me posting)

[kiwi]

Looking at your past threads you seem to receive Forum average response, roughly one post for very 20 views

[ricktas]

Will be an interesting poll I feel. If anyone has suggestions (MrDooba), on how we can improve that, let me know. Maybe we need to run another 'best critique of the month'?. Other ideas will be considered. After all, critique is something members need to do to each other, not something I, or the moderators can make people do.

[Russell K]

Mr Dooba you obviously never had Kiwi post cc on one of your threads (no ofrfence meant Kiwi).

Russell K

[mrDooba]

Perhaps the BCOTM would be a nice regular feature. But I guess that means more work for the(already hard working) admin crew.

I know there are some members who consistently offer critical analysis of photos but I guess some people just don't really feel comfortable or confident offering their critical opinion on other people's work. Perhaps some people are unsure of how it will be received by the photographer.

[mrDooba]

Mr Dooba you obviously never had Kiwi post cc on one of your threads (no ofrfence meant Kiwi).

Russell K

I can't recall receiving a comment from Darren but I have seen his comments(relating to photos) throughout the site.

Kiwi is comfortable giving his view on a piece of work.

[Tannin]

I don't post many photos anymore because I receive very little criticism. (that was the whole reason for me posting)

^ What is there to criticise about your pictures, Chris? In your own words, "Very little". You have gone past the stage where a lot of CC can do much for your photography. (At least so far as your birds go.)

[Xenedis]

My view is that people don't post images much (if at all) for any or a combination of the following reasons:

1. they're intimidated by some of the images visible on this site;
2. they don't feel their images meet some perceived standard;
3. they've posted before and received little, unhelpful or no critique; or
4. they're here for other reasons (eg, sharing knowledge, answering questions, etc.).

While the solicitation or provision of critique is to be encouraged, some people simply won't feel comfortable doing either or both.

[porsche 911]

I like the reward system, the more posts that you put out there the more of the site's fun parts you can access, may be a critic counter with benefits might work. Think outside the box as this is what makes this website so much fun. Just a quick idea what if for every 25 cc counts you get to use the HC (Hard core critic smiley) This could then be sent to selected members probably those whom identify them selves as advanced.

[mrDooba]

Yes Tony I am very serious about my bird photography but I am also still learning(and I say that with absolute sincerity).
My photos are picked to shreds on bird specific forums. The competition is fierce!! I'm always amazed at what other bird focussed photographers will see and offer advice or just opinions on. Receiving this criticism makes my work stronger and trains my eye to notice subtle aspects that could be changed for the better.

I might add that looking and commenting on other's work in a very critical manner also strengthens my work

[Tannin]

For my own part, I don't post a lot of pictures here because:

1. I have a website which is the primary place from which I share pictures
2. because my bird work is reasonably well-known here and there isn't a lot to add to that unless I develop a new skill or a new way of conceptualising what it is that makes a good bird picture (there is no great point in just adding more different species, though that can be fun from time to time)
3. because if my eye isn't good enough to know what is good and not so good about a bird picture by now then it never will be and there is no point in soliciting CC
4. because my landscapes sometimes go straight through to the keeper with little more that a "nice shot" or two'
5. because about every second landscape I post elicits a really thought-provoking response from someone (Dtoh and Ricktas both come to mind immediately in this connection, though they are by no means the only ones) and I need time to let that soak in and percolate its way into my work (what is the point of good CC if you read it and say "OK, good point" and then forget about it?). There is no point in posting more before I've got my mind properly around the last couple.
6. because I often learn more from commenting on other people's pictures. Sounds silly but it's true! To comment well, I am forced to think, forced to verbalise and justify my visual instincts, forced to be more disciplined and incisive in the way I look at your pictures, and that flows over into my pictures
7. Probably other reasons that I forget just now.
8. Because I'm too busy writing down a list of the reasons why I don't post many pictures!

[kiwi]

People don't post pics, people don't post critique, I get that. I do. But the lifeblood of a forum are pictures, not discussions about carbon tax or gear etc.

Sometimes yes, you get to a point where you might not get a lot of critique or comments as you post excellent photos, but surely you get lots of admiration and people who aspire to achieve the same results.

[old dog]

a very interesting view from you guys. For my part, I just want to learn and most of all to have a good time doing it...having fun. One can`t lose sight of that

[Xenedis]

I like the reward system, the more posts that you put out there the more of the site's fun parts you can access

Personally I'm not keen on the use of a reward system for offering critiques, as it's open to abuse; ie, people could post critiques (of varying or even NO quality) to gain points.

For my liking, I post critiques because I have something to offer. It's not about rewards for me. If someone gains something useful from what I have to say, then that's my reward.

I'm a firm believer in quality over quantity. I'd rather read a dozen insightful critiques than scores of "nice shot" posts or otherwise useless critiques. Of course, we all like to hear that we have produced a nice shot, but informed critique is ultimately more useful than an ego boost.

[kiwi]

Nice shot comments are better than zippo.

[Xenedis]

because I often learn more from commenting on other people's pictures. Sounds silly but it's true! To comment well, I am forced to think, forced to verbalise and justify my visual instincts, forced to be more disciplined and incisive in the way I look at your pictures, and that flows over into my pictures

That's very true. Analysis of someone else's work can definitely help with your own.

You may instinctively know what makes an image work or what makes it appealing, but there's more to be learned (both as the giver and recipient of critique) by analysing an image and verbalising its strengths and weaknesses.

Listening to judge commentary also has the same effect (on me, anyway).

[Xebadir]

I'm going to post a bit of C&C in here. Recent. I decided to post some comments on a photo:
Me:
"Sorry, not a fan. While I agree the tree is great for masking the buildings (though still a little visible through the tree though) it dominates the frame such that I get the feel it is a shot of the tree as opposed to being a sunset shot of Uluru. By the same token the washed out feel to the rock unfortunately is overpowered by the relatively saturated foreground, and without the colour in the sky or the rock my eye is drawn straight back to the tree. Where it makes it hard is the length of exposure (due to the relatively small apeture) has meant you have seen a bit of movement in the tips of the tree as well, meaning its going to hard to have it as a tree with Uluru in the background either. My personal suggestion would be trying a B+W conversion and seeing if you can make more of the available subject matter with the obvious lighting contrasts. If that doesn't give something a little more pleasing I am at a loss as to an approach to fixing it."

Other
"What Xeb says is technically correct, I suppose, BUT (and I sometimes BUT in) I like the resulting colours and applaud your effort in presenting an somewhat problematic subject. You went, you saw, you took. Good for that."

Now the image that was the subject isn't important, but heres my point: its those other type comments that make me not bother tbh as I gain little from that, and I see the photographer gaining little from that, it doesn't tell them what went wrong, how it could be improved, or just a real opinion (which is what asking for a comment and critique is really about). I would prefer my photos were taken apart...there are a few members on here that I love the critiques of for this reason....the other thing I see in general is that composition is far from being a technical point IMHO...but it seems to be the one quantity people shy from critiquing...the list of listless panoramic and landscape images springs to mind.

Personally when I post images I generally do so to share them with forum members, and perhaps sometimes a few more boundary pushing images/experimentals which I think are worth getting critiqued. Perhaps I don't post enough images (I am generally a very harsh critique of my own work), but I generally try to offer C&C where possible.

[kiwi]

John, you often get a worm with an apple, but youll still eat the apple if you're hungry

[mrDooba]

John, you often get a worm with an apple, but youll still eat the apple if you're hungry

I ate a worm in an apple. I wasn't hungry after that