Quote:
Originally Posted by skipper954
... The critique section should include both tech and impact. Sometimes the impact is discussed, but not in much detail.
|
I agree Skip that both tech + impact should be discussed, but as I said, without a good technical start to an image, it will not have as much impact as if it were technically sound.
I do not agree that impact is not discussed in much detail. I personally have commented in detail on an effect that a particular image has had on me MANY times in the forums, + have seen others do so too. I think it depends on my previous statement about whether there IS an impact to be had.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skipper954
... We should be able to separate the technical from the emotional.
|
Yes I agree. They are separate, but also inextricably linked. A photo with good technical qualities will have
far more impact than one that is technically flawed. That is not to say that a technically flawed image will not have an impact, but just that it will have
less of an impact than a technically good image.
Most photographers will automatically see a photograph technically before they see it emotionally, whereas non-photographers may only see the impact (emotion) of an image, simply because they do not recognise technical qualities, thus ...
As this site is mainly for and used by photographers, you can't reasonably expect viewers to favour emotional impact over technical detail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skipper954
... So Iwould like CREW to weigh in on this weighty subject, if you please.
|
Crew have already set out guidelines for the use of these threads. I believe the Crew set guidelines for us to follow but use as we see fit, within those guidelines.
It's a good debate Skip, + worth discussing
Crew might want to make a separate thread of this discussion tho', as we've hi-jacked Fiona's thread, sorry Fiona!