[ QUOTE ]
If you post a critique, and you know what your talking about, it is often apparent by what is stated and how it is stated.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's true that a good critique should be self-supporting, but you're missing the point of the rule.
This is a site for *serious* photographers, or those who wish to *become* serious photographers. That is the main target demographic. Everybody else who wants to participate is welcome for the most part, and so are models, because you need good models to be a serious photographer. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
But if you do not want to post pictures, it does not matter that you may have something intelligent to say in a specific critique, because this is not a site for art critics. It is for photographers[1]. If you are not a photographer, we are not necessarily *interested* in your comments, no matter how insightful, because your point of view is not the one the site is trying to promote.
One of the Twelve Networking Truths tells us:
"Some things in life can never be fully appreciated or understood unless experienced firsthand."
Can you have something intelligent to say about a photograph without being a photographer? Of course you can. And you are welcome to your opinions. But if you are *not a photographer,* there are aspects of the creative process that you simply do not understand, and your insights are not coming from the place that this site seeks to concentrate on. That, in my opinion, is the real reason for the rule. I do not speak for Rolando or any of the owner/operators of this site nor do I claim to. But it's the reason *I* for one do not listen very hard to people who critique my images who are not themselves either photographers or, alternatively, very experienced models.
M
[1] I also include, at least subconsciously, very experienced models in this group, because any model who's good enough to get enough work to get experienced will pick up enough photographic wisdom through osmosis to have the right to be taken seriously on the matter.
|