Can a critique be positive and critical at the same time?

[Hertz van Rental]

There are different levels of critique for different levels of achievement.
The higher up you go the tougher it gets - and the tougher you'd better get.

If someone gives just the verbal equivalent of a pat on the back or a kick in the teeth then it means nothing more than that they are not really engaging with your work, they are just blowing hot air to strike a pose. And this is most likely because, despite their posturing, they know no more about Photography than you.
If anyone wants my opinion on anything, I'm out chasing squirrels.

 

[invisible]

I personally like ALL the mistakes in a photo to be pointed out (so I can learn), but not in a way that makes the photographer look like useless garbage.

Harsh critique doesn't have to be rude. Being polite when critiquing is what makes a person look like someone helping others improve and not just a pompous ass. (By the way, politeness is a cruelly underrated quality, which is mind-boggling considering it's free and tax-exempted.)

Nothing groundbreaking in this article, but it summarizes what common sense indicates is the way people like their photographs critiqued.

 

[Robin]

They may not know why it's boring. They just know that it is.

If she were someone who knew little to nothing about photography or art, I would agree. But this was a fellow student, someone who already had one degree in fine art and was now very competent in photography. She'd been in countless group critiques and I knew she had the ability to accurately analyze an image and express why she found something wrong with it.

Plus, I happened to know she thought I was in general just not a good photographer (overheard her one day) so I got the impression that this one time she felt she didn't want to waste time on me analyzing what made it boring or what could make it better so she just gave a generic and unconstructive "it's boring".

You might think this just makes me bias against her but it didn't - even after I knew she thought I was a poor photographer, I continued to gladly take on board any constructive criticism she might give me. It was just the one comment that I found very unconstructive and useless. She even gave a little nervous laugh after it, like she knew what she was saying was slightly crossing the line.

 

[Dmitri]

Nothing groundbreaking in this article, but it summarizes what common sense indicates is the way people like their photographs critiqued.

Thank you for posting that article! I admit I'm one of the 'two word' people. Usually it's because I either like or dislike a photo and I don't know why. But I will definitely try to be more helpful with my replies.

 

[MikkiStreak]

Being new to the forum, I've seen several posts where respondents came across as "attacking" and I'm surprised because all it does is make them seem like moody buttheads. It's such a huge deterrent to new people who are sincerely trying to learn/improve.

When I ask for "harsh" criticism, I'm simply asking to not hold back and only pick 1-2 things. If there are 10 things wrong with the shot, I want to hear what was wrong and/or how it could have been done better. But, by "harsh" I am *not* asking for generalized snotty, negative comments that do nothing to help me improve.

I guess I look at it like this---- even if I didn't like the photo, I can offer something positive/constructive about it by evaluating the technical merit (are the highlight, shadow, midtones properly exposed? is it clear what the subject matter is? is the use of color/bw appropriate?). There's nothing wrong with saying the image is liked/disliked, but I think there needs to be something offered to help the shooter develop their skills.

I also think that karma will come and bite these people in the butt.... either it will affect their business (if they are 'pros') because someone, somewhere will read their "jerk" comments and not want to hire them; or they themselves will post an image that opens the door to someone else tearing them down in the same manner they did it first.

 

[Easy_Target]

Yes it is entirely possible to be positive about a photo yet critical at the same time.

Not mentioning what the (the critiquer) felt about the photo is pointless. If there's no opinion provided as to why the person reached that opinion, then there's no value to the critique. There's no point in critiquing to begin with.

I have said "be harsh" during critiques before, perhaps you may have misinterpreted? I know some of my classmates would sugarcoat things and/or speak about their dislikes in a roundabout way during critiques. That annoyed the living hell out of me. I think that perhaps the person you're quoting meant for everyone to be honest and not go about their criticisms in a roundabout manner, rather than "be mean about it."

 

[Miaow]

I think critique can be done nicely and still be constructive - some people need to learn to say things tactfully I think though or sometimes things can come across ruder than maybe they intended.

 

[Bifurcator]

Can someone show me where any of these actually exist here at TPF?

I've either never seen one or can't recognize it.

--
And it's not as if we would be pointing fingers. The person may not even know they're doing it. And if they into direct critique like that it would just look like a critique of the critique. The is the 3rd thread in less than a month on this topic but after reading about 1,000 photo threads here I haven't seen even one I thought was rude.

 

[Robin]

Can someone show me where any of these actually exist here at TPF?

I've either never seen one or can't recognize it.

I think I saw one but it possibly got deleted? Other than that, I haven't really seen any so I too would like an example of what people are refering to so that I don't accidentally do it!

 

[MarcusM]

Can someone show me where any of these actually exist here at TPF?

I've either never seen one or can't recognize it.

--
And it's not as if we would be pointing fingers. The person may not even know they're doing it. And if they into direct critique like that it would just look like a critique of the critique. The is the 3rd thread in less than a month on this topic but after reading about 1,000 photo threads here I haven't seen even one I thought was rude.

Here's a good example right here that I remember recently. The original tactless comment was #3. Unfortunately the original photo is gone but I think the comment speaks for itself:
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=124963&highlight=san+diego

And here's another, #6 (If that's not a perfect example of a rude comment, I don't know what is)
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=122152&highlight=wack

(the search function here is actually pretty good, I'm surprised I found these right away)

I know there are plenty more I've seen but don't remember what they were or how to find them.

 

[Bifurcator]

Hmmm... So basically little one-liners. Digs or meaningless reactionary comments.

Not really critique of any kind. Or like I thought this thread was about, something more like:

"These are total beginner pics! All your shots are centered, and 1/2 are over exposed. Oh my eyes! You need ALLOT more practice. Maybe get a book or something!!!"
​

And etc. Well those are easy enough to ignore. You don't even need thick skin.



EDIT: I'm not excusing comments like you linked to by any means! Just that they carry no weight. They are for sure inappropriate.

 

[Aye-non Oh-non Imus]

Here's a good example right here........

I love it when someone tries to make a point, only to show their true intentions. Post #12 of the first example in this case. Certainly exemplifies the appropiate methodology of a proper response in my mind.

The fact that someone can show extreme immaturity in responding to a posted photo does not exempt the following responder from acting in the same manner.

 

[dEARlEADER]

I love it when someone tries to make a point, only to show their true intentions. Post #12 of the first example in this case. Certainly exemplifies the appropiate methodology of a proper response in my mind.

The fact that someone can show extreme immaturity in responding to a posted photo does not exempt the following responder from acting in the same manner.

what? Marcus spoke to him firmly to knock him back in line..... he later confesses to being rude... this is likely to Marcus setting him straight.... there is nothing wrong with this....

 

[Aye-non Oh-non Imus]

So by calling the guy an asshole, the tone is set. Is that a proper way to get the offender to realize his mistake? More likely than not, the little hairs stand up on the back of the neck. Chances are that any further comments made by Marcus will go by the wayside to that poster, regardless of how chivalrous his initial intent.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.

 

[dEARlEADER]

So by calling the guy an asshole, the tone is set. Is that a proper way to get the offender to realize his mistake?

I'm not sure if there is any saving a person who posts a critique in a gallery like this :

This looks like it was snapped from a water soaked $10 dollar 7-11 camera.

Edit: After much thought, did you take this through a periscope?

The galleries are for learning and these kinds of comments should get a user banned.

I understand your point of an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind but.... I don't think Marcus lost his eye on this one....