Haram esh-Sharif

[Rob C]

The problem is simple: if you give people just two options "landscape" and "street", than anything remotely "urban" is going to end up in the non-landscape option. People didn't get the intention of the rather specialised showcase category because the categories aren't sufficient as they say.

So, once the forum is cleaned up some time in the future, and the categories sorted out properly, we can probably solve this issue as well. Until that time perhaps rename this showcase section "urban" and be done with it.

I agree with your point about categories, especially about being too wide. That makes it difficult from two perspectives: that of the person who has an image he wants to post somewhere special; that of the reader who has interest in just one or two categories of photography, because he has to trawl through all sorts of stuff that may hold zero interest for him before finding his choice.

Of course, were it technically impossible for the site to handle that, it would just be one of those things, and folks would either sigh and trawl, or say to themselves - screw it, it's not worth the bother. However, as it's only some membership reluctance to observe any such kind of classification that makes life problematic, then the feeling is different, and people can easily get annoyed with that deliberate attitude.

There's no way of knowing, of course, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if relative disorganization has turned some casual viewers right off from joining.

Not for a moment imagine that the difficulty resides only within the unmade bed of street! Other image sections have been allowed to become totally confused, and as Russ suggested, might just as well be lumped together under a single all-things-to-all-men category.

(It's also alive and well on radio, where rock 'n' roll is repeatedly confused with stadium rock from the 70s, mostly another breed of beast altogether. You'd imagine a pro DJ would know that.)

So much potential thrown out with the neighbour's pesky cat.

:-)

[32BT]

Why "urban?" Better yet, get rid of the street showcase altogether and let the stuff fall into user critiques. Street doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "urban."

Yes, that would be an option, but now that the split (landscape vs non-landscape) has been made, might as well keep it that way until the cleanup. Just not call it "street" for all the reasons already vented ad nauseum.

I know you also agree that the "+1" and "well done" comments have nothing to do with proper "critique", so, as far as i'm concerned that would be inappropriate as well. ymmv...

[32BT]

However, as it's only some membership reluctance to observe any such kind of classification that makes life problematic, then the feeling is different, and people can easily get annoyed with that deliberate attitude.

Although you're likely correct with the latter observation, it seems fair to point out that "Street showcase" doesn't have a proper description, and only some of us were part of the threads leading up to its conception.

Clearly, even if you start within that section a thread with proper description, then you still end up with inapplicable content, but at least you have a point of reference in the opening post and not in the hundred years of photographic history.

[Rob C]

Yes, that would be an option, but now that the split (landscape vs non-landscape) has been made, might as well keep it that way until the cleanup. Just not call it "street" for all the reasons already vented ad nauseum.

I know you also agree that the "+1" and "well done" comments have nothing to do with proper "critique", so, as far as i'm concerned that would be inappropriate as well. ymmv...

Critique is a difficult topic because you have to establish the authority of the person making the calls. A person simply congratulating another about a snap is fine, welcomed, too, but that's clearly not critique, as such. Trouble is, authority itself is often suspect, and even when not, strikes me as a very dangerous path to tread: one has no way of knowing the impact that critique may actually have in some borderline cases - it could encourage an idiot or, on the other hand, stifle a young talent still unsure of itself. Apart from the fact that I do not like coming across as a friggin' expert in everything, even in the few places where I am sure of my ground, the feeling is unpleasantly like boasting. Those concerns are why I very rarely do offer opinion on somebody's work if they ask.

It's terribly easy to forget that behind every picture on LuLa lies someone's pride and sensitivity.

[32BT]

Critique is a difficult topic because you have to establish the authority of the person making the calls. A person simply congratulating another about a snap is fine, welcomed, too, but that's clearly not critique, as such. Trouble is, authority itself is often suspect, and even when not, strikes me as a very dangerous path to tread: one has no way of knowing the impact that critique may actually have in some borderline cases - it could encourage an idiot or, on the other hand, stifle a young talent still unsure of itself. Apart from the fact that I do not like coming across as a friggin' expert in everything, even in the few places where I am sure of my ground, the feeling is unpleasantly like boasting. Those concerns are why I very rarely do offer opinion on somebody's work if they ask.

It's terribly easy to forget that behind every picture on LuLa lies someone's pride and sensitivity.

Sure, i agree, but even if one just likes to add praise to selected images, in the user critique section one at least can try to make a general remark about what triggers the praise. A balanced composition? A thoughtful image? Appropriate contrast? Good tonality? A simple remark about the first impression can already go a long way as "critique".

The reason i like an additional critique section on LuLa btw is that it would be useful for threads to stay on topic. I otherwise love the way topics can meander all over the place here on LuLa, and i know that's not everyone's cup of tea, but that's just the way good conversation goes. However, in a critique section it seems appropriate to stick to the image offered and the potential concerns a poster may have.

[RSL]

I think you nailed it, Oscar.

[Rob C]

Sure, i agree, but even if one just likes to add praise to selected images, in the user critique section one at least can try to make a general remark about what triggers the praise. A balanced composition? A thoughtful image? Appropriate contrast? Good tonality? A simple remark about the first impression can already go a long way as "critique".

The reason i like an additional critique section on LuLa btw is that it would be useful for threads to stay on topic. I otherwise love the way topics can meander all over the place here on LuLa, and i know that's not everyone's cup of tea, but that's just the way good conversation goes. However, in a critique section it seems appropriate to stick to the image offered and the potential concerns a poster may have.

Absolutely; remove that, and conversation withers on the vine and, like a sick grape, shrivels into nothingness, its pourriture noble going the wrong way in the dampness.

It's strange; flexibility in staying on topic with words is one thing, but its close visual cousin, staying in the right genre, is quite another. The reasons are manifold, of course, but still something I observe with some light wonder.

Rob

[JNB_Rare]

Temple Mount - Jerusalem

For me, the image is metaphorical – peace/God (symbolized by the "dove"/pigeon) against the backdrop of a location considered holy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam alike. That juxtaposition is what makes the image special. I realize that some viewers will not see anything but a flying pigeon, and that others will have very different interpretations depending on beliefs and perspectives. That openness to interpretation is also what makes the image special.

For me, it doesn't matter if any of what I've interpreted was intended (or seen now) by the original photographer. It also doesn't matter if it classified as "street" or not. To me, the image says as much about humanity as many images featuring human interaction do.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

For me, the image is metaphorical – peace/God (symbolized by the "dove"/pigeon) against the backdrop of a location considered holy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam alike. That juxtaposition is what makes the image special. I realize that some viewers will not see anything but a flying pigeon, and that others will have very different interpretations depending on beliefs and perspectives. That openness to interpretation is also what makes the image special.

For me, it doesn't matter if any of what I've interpreted was intended (or seen now) by the original photographer. It also doesn't matter if it classified as "street" or not. To me, the image says as much about humanity as many images featuring human interaction do.

Well put. My thoughts exactly.

[Rob C]

For me, the image is metaphorical – peace/God (symbolized by the "dove"/pigeon) against the backdrop of a location considered holy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam alike. That juxtaposition is what makes the image special. I realize that some viewers will not see anything but a flying pigeon, and that others will have very different interpretations depending on beliefs and perspectives. That openness to interpretation is also what makes the image special.

For me, it doesn't matter if any of what I've interpreted was intended (or seen now) by the original photographer. It also doesn't matter if it classified as "street" or not. To me, the image says as much about humanity as many images featuring human interaction do.

Yes, that's where a special photograph comes into its own.

My own feeling about it is also based on religion - unavoidable due to the structure and symbol atop - the bird (burd, if I may indulge in the unexpected Glaswegian vernacular for a nostalgic sec.) being the ultimate triumph of nature over the self-destructive inclinations of mankind, never more apparent than in its religious expressions, where, for me, the reality of a God form is subverted to human power games.

Divorced or not from those sentiments, it's an outstanding example of travel atmospherics, where colour would have made it very attractively marketable - at least, once upon a time.

You see just how helpfull I always try to be?

Rob

[Telecaster]

I do agree that if Street Showcase had a sub-heading something along the lines of "People Out & About In Public Places" there'd be less room for judgmentalism, and reaction against same, to creep in. Then, along with a clearer idea of what sort of pics to post in the first place, we could maybe even have some purposeful critique.

-Dave-

[Paulo Bizarro]

This is an excellent photo. I really don't care where the specialists want to pigeon-hole it (see what I did there?).

Perhaps it should be categorized under "Air showcase"?

[Ivophoto]

Sure, i agree, but even if one just likes to add praise to selected images, in the user critique section one at least can try to make a general remark about what triggers the praise. A balanced composition? A thoughtful image? Appropriate contrast? Good tonality? A simple remark about the first impression can already go a long way as "critique".

The main reason a picture gets a like or a comment is about ‘who’ placed the picture.
It is close to no exceptions.