Re: A critique suggestion

The composition techniques in photography are mere guidelines to help beginners capture eye-catching images

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_composition

And here I'm also picking up the point that Dan has just made.
Things such as the Rule of Thirds and The Golden Mean aren't rules and they aren't guides. I've written on this previously. They are the outcomes of centuries of observation about how brains create meaning. Some meaning appears to be innate and some is probably culturally acquired, for example some responses may depend on whether we are used to reading left to right or vertically.
Some things have nothing to do with composition as such. What impresses person A undoubtedly impresses them. Person B with more experience will not be impressed because they recognize the same thing as a cliche. Does person A have anything to gain by swapping notes with person B? Or is it enough for A to dismiss B as "thinking they know better."
A person familiar with the development of impressionist painting is likely to think about sharpness in a photo in a different way to someone without that experience.
Picking up symbols or references (intended or not by the artist/composer/writer/photographer etc) changes the response of the person receiving the input. People viewing a Christian Church or a Muslim mosque appear to see the same thing but internally "see" quite differently depending on the cultural experience they have of what the eye is seeing.
Anyone who has read Ansel Adams or Cartier-Bresson on photography (and they have a completely different point of view) is likely to have thoughts tucked away in their head that influence what they see when they look at photos.
These examples are only scratching the surface of the subject. None of them are rules that any artist must follow. Many of them have changed over the years. It's probably closer to think of this kind of experience as something like "awareness."
Yes, I agree that we all see different things when what we see, gets to the brain. Being content with this is the mindset of stagnation. What gets interesting is when we are open to build our awareness in sharing and discussing images (or any other art form). That's where experience comes in. It may be, but doesn't have to be, from formal courses. I suggest that the pleasure a photographer gets from images is considerably deepened by building the awareness.

You can call them what you like but people use them as guides to help guide an image element to one of the intersection points to help create an interesting composition.

That is a generalisation that is undoubtedly not true in all cases.

Obviously it depends on the image and the taste, preferences etc etc of Person B.

I have no reason to believe Person B will always be not impressed by images from Person A.

In any case what if Person A receives opinions from other more experienced people than just Person B?

Are seriously saying that all of those other people will definitely be not impressed?

As per usual Dan, you are taking things out of context in your desperation to convince yourself that you have won a point. Just read the rest of the paragraph you selected your first point from. Of course these things can be used as guides, it's why they work that is being considered. If you don't have your head around the "why" you wont get the point of how the "rules" might be advantageously broken when appropriate.
In the case of your second point, it is much the same as a previous soap box you hopped onto with regard to the use of "we." I'm quite sure you know exactly what is being said despite your pompous literalist spin on the example.
It's what makes any attempt to have a discussion with you ultimately a waste of time and I see no point in going back down the same old rabbit holes.

Then you should not have referred to my post or said they are not guides because to many people they are guides.

I haven't taken anything out of context because you could have explained the source/origin of the guides without saying they are not guides.

[edit]
I have added the rest of the paragraph MIke said I left out in my earlier post. It does not change my comments at all.
[/edit]

The source of the guides is just additional information (and widely available on the www for anyone interested) but does not make them anything other than guides for people to use when it suits their aim for the image.

In your opinion what do you think would be a more appropriate collective noun to describe them if they are not guides?

You leave many of your posts wide open to a large range of interpretations.

For example: someone seeing Dprev for the first time in your posts, it could justifiably be unclear to them if you mean dpreview or dprevived.

A very wise man once said:

"Say what you mean and mean what you say."

The less clear you are the higher the probability people will interpret what you say in a way you didn't intend.

Agreed.

This is the OP of this thread and we have deviated significantly from it.

The derailment started here:

dprevived.com/t/re-a-critique-suggestion/6527/post/89549/

That is fairly easily implemented using a bit of HTML and JavaScript.

But i suspect admin would prefer Misago to implement it because any customisations like this by admin would be lost or have to be reimplemented when the next software update is installed.

Did a wise man actually say it, let alone a "very" wise man?

I doubt it as it's a nonsense saying steeped in confirmation bias. The pretext is pure invention but presented as fact, and it's purpose is only to create the illusion that the saying is truth.

Nobody is arguing against you "right" to form your own opinion about photographs and photography, or your right to believe it's valid. Both are enshrined under your right to free speech. But that right does not automatically make your opinion fact, informed or even valid. Free speech does not endow opinion with the property of truth. For that you search objectively, find a "very"wise man and listen to what he actual says rather then saying something and adding the pretext because you sure that if there was a wise man then it would be something he would say...

Yes, it was my Year 10 maths teacher.

All of that applies to everyone, especially in forums like this.

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion and everyone else can take it for whatever it is worth to them.

It's a piece of advice I was given many, many years ago now.

The advice is to be clear and not vague in what you say and to stand by what you say.

No problem with "...clear and not vague..", but not so sure about "...stand by what you say" without any caveats. What if you subsequently learn something new and realise what you said may not have been completely correct?

Tim

And my opinion is that studying, learning and practicing has been invaluable to me in giving me a more objective and open minded approach. I have learnt just how blinkered a dogmatic opinion can be, and just how much confirmation bias and the desire to confirm a viewpoint as absolute truth literally reduces the range of vision to the limits of a viewpoint. It doesn't make me more superior, just allows us to see the nature of the human condition and gives us a glimpse of how people really see photos and just how abstracted that view can be compared to the photo itself.

It is still nothing more that a justification for confirmation bias.

We'll just have to disagree on this one.

I take it to mean stand by what you say at the time of saying it.

Heard and agreed.

GB wrote: Especially true is that posting corrections to others' incorrect responses (either in part or full) is absolutely "unnecessary" and unwanted. In short, correcting misinformation is no different than spam since, as already stated, everyone already knows, anyway.

I quite like that. So, if someone posts "false" information and if everyone or, say 95%, of us knows the truth, rebutting the perp is a waste of time and effort!