[Al_Nowak]

Originally Posted by isaiahbrink

As you may or may not know, the main reason behind a critique being taken more seriously, either in favor or against, by somebody who shows their work is that they know how to articulate why it works or does not work as a photograph.

Then, per your position, non-photographers either a) can't articulate or b) can't determine why an image doesn't work.

Sorry. I don't buy either argument. Got any proof to back them up?

According to your position, all magazine photo editors would have to be photographers. I don't think that's even remotely close to reality.

Originally Posted by isaiahbrink

G1 and formerly GG has worked because you have been able to get quality critiques by people who not only could talk the talk, but walk the walk.

A couple of key points here. For starters, "get quality critiques." Just what is a "quality critique?"

Is it one that strokes your ego by telling you what a great photographer you are because you managed to get the image in focus AND have the exposure close enough that the highlights didn't totally blow out?

Or is it one that says you totally blew the image, but the babe in it has fantastic boobs?

Help us out here... just what is a "quality critique" and what differentiates it from any other critique?

"Talk the talk and walk the walk"... Okay let's carry this to its logical conclusion. According to you, only professionals could comment on images since apparently they "walk the walk." So the validity of a critique is based not on the critic's insight, but on how much money he makes taking pictures.

Oh, and only professionals using the same type camera, and lighting gear should be able to comment because they truly walk the SAME walk.

Nope, sorry, I don't buy that either...

Originally Posted by isaiahbrink

Heck, if I wanted to get just basic critiques by people who don't know what they are talking about, I'd just go to this one site that I'll only describe with the same letter repeating.

Why do you assume that possible critics "don't know what they are talking about?" They've got eyes don't they. They know when an image appeals to them, and what they don't like.

Okay, so they may not know an F stop from a bus stop. What possible difference does that make? Photography is about communicating. If your image doesn't communicate with viewers, they know it.

The issue I have with the site you mentioned is the same issue in evidence here. Nobody says anything critical. It's a collection of "I like it..." comments. But at least that site doesn't pretend it's something else.