On 9/18/2011 6:03 AM, Bruce wrote:
tony wrote:

I think it's a little different when you have member-to-member
critiques on a face-to-face basis. Members tend to be more
complimentary and more gentle in critiquing in that situation.


Obviously the members don't want to upset fellow members and risk
receiving adverse comments about their own work. It is mutual
admiration only, perhaps with a slight hint of 'damning with faint
praise'. It is just like actors' praise of each other, which quickly
achieves ridiculous heights, all because of the fear of what might be
said in return, perhaps at a later date.

Of course this can never be called 'critique'. It is about as far
from honest and objective critique as it could get. And this is
precisely where the SI finds itself.


Our critiques are by judges only, and the judges don't know whose
photo it is.


If the judges are truly independent, that's the best (or least worst)
way, but are the judges also members of the club? If so, their
comments will be bound by the same constraints as I described above,
and the whole exercise becomes pointless.


Spoken by one who has no knowledge of the facts. Our club, while
somewhat social, centers around photography. It is far fem a mutual
admiration society.
The comments can, and do trash individual images. It is not done in a
mean spirited manner, or acceptance of crap. they are designed to
educate and improve.
.. For example:
Someone submitted an uninteresting, out of focus image of a ship's bell.
While a judge might say: "lousy image" and move to the next, the
comment was a short mention of focus, lack of interesting subject matter
and how to make sure items are in focus. IOW a bad image was used as a
teaching session. Another poor image of a crowd was turned into a lesson
on subject isolation and composition.
Comments need not be mean spirited. But when an image is bad, the maker
will be told that the image is bad. And more importantly, why.

--
Peter