I have noticed that many of the comments on Caedes are nice and polite, but most of the time, not too helpful or criticizng. I appreciate all of the nice comments I get, but it would be nice to get some criticism. So here is my idea:
Instead of having that one comment box for an image, there would be two:
Pros: (text box)
Cons: (text box)
I think this would encourage constructive criticism and give artists more accurate feedback.

No thanks.. I get enough of that already..

At least I am getting honest feedback about this thread...

hmm interesting idea - may make it easier to rationalise comments if its all a little more black and white.

where's the humorous box?

As has been discussed many times in other critique topics ... most people are squeamish about being critical .. they feel that YOU believe you're putting your best effort forward or you wouldn't post.

If you truely want constructive crits .. SAY SO .. but, until you start augmenting your offerings with an external program ... ie .. "Making it your own" .. there is little that can be said .. and, this, from a long time "heat and serve fractal" poster ...

what are you looking for? .. choose a different gradient .. move it to the right

Speaking for myself .. I have a tough time looking at a fractal I just rendered and seriously considering posting it as is ... I HAVE to do something with it .. That's why I render them now .. to use as something else .. that's also why I don't render that many any more

I like your work .. the decision to "move on" artistically is YOURS

Take a look at nathan's gallery if you're in the mood for a good cry .. he blends fractals into other forms all day long, doesn't even break a sweat .. he even had one arm tied behind his back during one TV promotion, but that was for charity .. ;)


I hope this addressed something, but knowing me, it didn't

Good point. But not all images on Caedes are fractals. And for those that are, there are still improvements to be made.

true .. admittedly i thought this was focused on fractals, your fractals, based on the usage of "I"

The c-index just conveys a raw aggregate of opinion .. if the voting system employed, let's say, five categories .. color, composition, appeal, badda, bing .. ;) .. with 5 points after each one you would get actual feedback within the voting block .. kind of a comment within a vote

color [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
comp [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
appeal [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
badda [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
bing [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

with badda and bing filled in when I've had some sleep

My images have a ton of badda .. and almost no bing

I must say I agree with what Keith said about critiquing straight fractals.. there is nothing other than quality problems that I would point out in a comment, since the fractal itself is made how you wanted.

I don't think there is a need for this pro con thing....ppl will say what they want...making them tl you wat they feel is a con...might not be available b/c they do actually like the image and believe it has no flaws...it all depends of personal taste and well...that basically is that.

Exactly my point.. I see no reason to change the way things are done now.. If someone feels they have something to contribute they will, otherwise, I would take it as a compliment they think your work is great as it is..

You could always just say, "No problems" if you felt it was absolutely perfect in every way. I believe that just having it there would possibly encourage people to be completely honest.

Sometimes complete honesty is not a good idea.. I have gotten some serious backlash from complete homesty.

Well, if it was only an honest criticism about an image, and not a personal insult (honest or not), then the "serious backlash" was not deserved. By the way, when I say I want people to be more honest, I am talking about honest opinions about pictures, not people.

You hit the nail on the head MZ>not all of us can comment with any degree of knowledge
on the images we perceive,so if we like it we will give it bouquets,bricbats should be given out by the people in the know.Saying that i feel Caedes has opened up a whole new realm for me.I'm not an expert on art and or photography,but if we don't get critizied for our attempts how are we to learn or get better,but we do not expect to be chastized on a personal level for our short comings.Let's all do what I hope this sight was intended for.Have fun share and most important be nice to one another.....Jim

You know, that's what seems to have changed here the most. There really seems to be a push for artistic analysis, including negative feedback. If I see something I don't like in an image and I really think it would improve the image a lot to change it, I share that with the author, but, if it's more a matter of personal preference, I often don't. I've always tried to help people grow by trying to build on the positives rather than harp on negatives, and that applies to art as well. I figure, if I focus on what is GOOD, the artist is more likely to do more of what he/she gets praise for and will be less likely to do more of what gets little attention. In short, sometimes failing to remark on less desirable parts of pictures (unless they really stand out like a sore thumb), while focusing on the desirable parts, is just as helpful as making a big deal out of negatives. From what I'm seeing, people here are getting plently of negative feedback from the c-index. I'll continue to focus on the positive, for what it's worth. Wen

There is no such thing as constructive critcisim..

Um, yes there is. If on the other hand you just don't like constructive criticism then that is a different issue.

criticism

n 1: disapproval expressed by pointing out faults or shortcomings; "the senator received severe criticism from his opponent" [syn: unfavorable judgment] 2: a serious examination and judgment of something; "constructive criticism is always appreciated" [syn: critique] 3: a written evaluation of a work of literature [syn: literary criticism]

Constructive Criticism:

An excuse to make nasty comments when you don't like someones work.

OK, OK. I find criticism of my works to be constructive, in that it helps me improve my work. I agree with wendy here in that even when I see an image that needs no changes, my criticism will be about what I like about the image in an attempt to define for the artist and others what constitutes good art.

If I were truly getting technical comments or real compliments I would not be posting here.. What I am gettng from these random comments is drivel.. Totally useless, and some of it has been worded to be deliberately hurtful.. If I were truly getting "Constructive Criticism " I would not be posting in these threads..

I am curious to know what comments you find offensive and unhelpful.

I find nothing helpful in "It looks like a plastic plant."

Ah, yes you are right about that one. But that doesn't mean that there isn't alot of constructive criticim on this site and that it is not helpful.

It means I am not getting any constructive comments from the random request, as most of these people have no idea what they are saying.. I would like to see that made a voluntary feature.

I repeat, "Have fun,share and most important be nice to one another."
Principles before personalities......Jim

"Principles before personalities"
That is some good advice, there.

First, it *is* volontary... Then... So one tiny little comment that isn't really *that* harsh in any particular way makes the whole system obsolete??? Interesting conclusion. This guy is 16 (says the profile at least) and have made 3 comments in over one year and have no gallery. My first thought is: Give him some slack... My second is: Just let it go. You should be grown up enough to do that.

Does it matter to you that (much that) he said it like that? Maybe he even had a point but didn't put it that well. You got one more eloquently put comment two rows up on that thread that I think could express more clearly why someone might say that it looked like a plastic plant.

I find it unfortunate that you declare yourself as an enemy of constructive criticism. Without it this place is back to square one. I know this have been discussed before and we will reach no conclusion to everyones satisfaction this time either... I guess that's just how it goes.

Sure, I'm all for saying it nice, but if we're back to only saying good things and patting each others back then I'm not playing on your team... I know I make comment's that can be regarded as "not that smooth" but I'm always doing it with a good heart. (And I'm almost always very keen to point out that it's just a matter of my personal ideas and preferences and that I'm more then fine with anyone disagreeing with me...) If I make a comment and share my criticism it only meant I think your work is looking great but that I believe you could excel if you only tried some more.

Well based on some of the votes I've received, I don't think any of my images are going to end up permanent images. I've worked really hard the past few months to learn Photoshop and Apophysis, and my c-index still doesn't get about 40 most of the time. I'd rather have a pros and cons section just so I know what to do right and what I'm doing wrong..

To Wendykroy:

Most fractals don't make it over 40...so being around 40 should be a good c-index for your fractals in my opinion.

Actually, I've viewed several here that are way about 40... oh well back to the rendering board...

Yes a few are above 40...I'd say those are really good but the great ones are in the 60s and 70s+

true...