Critiquing the Critics

[abraxas]

The rules aren't imposed - they are just there. If you think you are ignoring them or breaking them, then it just turns out you are conforming to some other rules you didn't know about.
It would be better to say: forget about the rules and they will take care of themselves.

Like spitting into the wind?

 

[gizmo2071]

When ever i critque it's always going to be personal opinion, so as Hertz van Rental said near the top of the thread, how do you tell the difference between critique and personal taste?
I can tell you why you havn't followed rules of lighting or composition... but they are not what makes me like a shot. I like a shot and if I don't I can only tell you ways in making it an image that I like.

At college today we were just showing images off that we took the other week. Everyone loved my images, but they were forced into giving critique to say how i could improve the images. I personally knew exactly how I could improve the images, but theres a difference in knowing how and being able to.
As other people have said, i'm my own personal critique. As soon as i get my images home, i go through them and know exactly how I could have improved on images.
Then it's always nice to see what other people think.
Photography is very subjective, even when following the "rules".

 

[mysteryscribe]

Well I think it might be best if you knew what to do, but chose to do something different. Otherwise I agree. Also if people didn't break the rule, there would be no need for the rule.

The main problem with rules is people are the ones who make them up and then different people interpret them.

In my opinion, which I admit is worth next to nothing... There is classic composition which pretty much follows rules, then there is the new stuff I don't pretend to understand but other people seem to get. The truth is I'm going to go with, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

I am lenient with myself, because I don't really have a point of view these days. I just shoot film to have something to do. Remember I just wanted to finish those last two frames sort of thing.

 

[motcon]

The main problem with rules is people are the ones who make them up and then different people interpret them.

that is largely incorrect. backing the rules are thousands of years of practicing 'rules' that are inherent in nature and how the mind views the world. the most well known 'rule', the 'golden section', is hundreds of years aged and it is rooted in nature. the golden spiral, golden triangle, harmonic triangle, golden sections, etc. are all rooted in what we see everyday in nature.

examples:

http://iluvkids.myweb.uga.edu/nature.html

http://www.goldenmuseum.com/0602PentagonSpirals_engl.html

http://www.halexandria.org/dward103.htm

it's very scientific and rooted in how we really do see things in everyday life.

one of the best books ever written on the subject:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Art-Visual-Perception-Psychology-Creative/dp/0520243838/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-8714834-9005447?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178674516&sr=8-1"]art and visual perception[/ame]

 

[mysteryscribe]

Nothing worse than someone interjecting facts into a discussion to take the fun out of it... ROFLMAO

The tyrany is in the interpretation of number not in the number itself I suppose. Scientific method not withstanding the world will not stop spinning on it's axis if i put the eyes of a portrait on the center line. I might not sell it, but the composition police wont shoot me, will they?

 

[motcon]

....but the composition police wont shoot me, will they?

these days? more than likely not. just found this in the current issue of art in america (had to blur the last word for obvious reasons):

 

[Christie Photo]

...the person giving the crit has to know not only what they are talking about but what they are doing.

I think this is really the original question restated. In all fairness, I suspect it's a goal here at TPF to get folks involved... to encourage people to post, expressing thier thoughts and taking part in discussions. As a result, photographers at all levels of competence, with widely varying credentials might make absolute statements that have no value or are just outright wrong. We just have to weed through the mess to find the posts that offer real substance and direction.

What you should do is establish what the photographer was hoping to achieve. Then you can see if he has succeeded, is a bit off or has failed completely.

Funny. I've been thinking lately how titles of posts affect my reaction to an image. This often times is the only clue I have about the makers intentions. And not just titles, but also the forum the photographer chose for the image. I usually just pass on through when I find a snapshot of family members posted in the Portrait Forum, or if a post, for example, is titled "Abandoned," and the image is of a new bicycle left on the driveway.

Pete

 

[mysteryscribe]

I guess in the end it is best for people like me to stay out of the critique gallery and I do. See I don't really have a point of view or a statement to make. Hell most of the shots I make are to test some junk camera I built. I post them mostly in alternate forum because home made or cobbled cameras are mostly considered alternate.

Someone said earlier that they posted their pictures to be seen and didn't really care what others thought. I find a lot of truth in that for myself as well. With what I do it isn't like digital. When I shoot a test roll I have to develop it.

At that point it becomes more than a simple image. It is tangible. So to throw it out unseen by others seems a lot like buying a hamburger then tossing it in the trash. Yes it might be more healthy to do that, but not many of us could.

So a lot of what I shove on these galleries isn't really about learning or improving my skills it's a pure ego trip. It is for me that's for sure and I suspect a lot more.

Somewhere there needs to be a line drawn between, Look what I can do ma and someone still learning the craft. I know we all pay lipservice to we are always learning. I'm not so sure. Yes I learn something now and then but most likely I don't. Not that I know it all by any means, I just don't want to know a lot of the information floating around here. I know that makes me narrow minded.

Now the line seems to me to be in the critique gallery and those who actually ask for critique. For those I would suggest you listen to all the critique. Now here is the problem with critique does the guy giving it to you know more than you do. Forget age and experience here, because trust me you don't want my critique on digital imaging. It would be worse than useless. My digital advice would probably cause your computer to explode and your camera melt.

Just think about what the person said, maybe try it and see if it really does look better. Remember in the END it is YOUR image not theirs. You want advice you can use.

This post is way to long feel free to edit or junk it mods.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

I've been thinking lately how titles of posts affect my reaction to an image. This often times is the only clue I have about the makers intentions.

If you give a picture a caption or a title then the picture ceases to be a picture in it's own right but becomes merely an illustration to the words. This is because our society privileges the written word over the visual image.

 

[Christie Photo]

If you give a picture a caption or a title then the picture ceases to be a picture in it's own right but becomes merely an illustration to the words.

Well said.

 

[abraxas]

Interesting how this thread went a bit astray.

How much stock does one put into the presentation of the critique by the critic in consideration of the analysis?

 

[JohnMF]

This is because our society privileges the written word over the visual image.

Unless the visual image is a naked woman.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Ah but the porno novel is a thing of beauty...... lol

 

[Puscas]

This is because our society privileges the written word over the visual image.

on a side note: could you elaborate on this, because IMHO it's exactly the other way around.








pascal

 

[abraxas]

on a side note: could you elaborate on this, because IMHO it's exactly the other way around.

Together they form a more expressive communication. There's no sense in separating the two when combined by the author/photographer. Text without photography is as limiting as photography without titles or captions.

Why separate one from the other when both can be more effective together?