Successful Criticism

[Chiller]

First off, Im in no position to be giving critique to anyone, but I will just add my 2 cents.
I think first off, the person doing the crituque should find the positive points in the photo, then break it down, to what could have been done to improve it.
Hertz hit the nail on the head. Help with the photo, not give an opinion on how you want the photo to look.
dEARlEADER...excellent points you made in your comment.

If I was a better photographer, I would gladly offer any tips, or techy advice I have, but untill that happens, I wont be critiquing. And if I did get better, I probably would not be hanging out here, but doing photography for a living. :lmao::lmao::lmao:

 

[kellylindseyphotography]

i think anyone/everyone should give critique.

the concern always for me- is WHEN to take it. And when not to. That should be every photogrpaher on here's concern.

 

[reignmkr]

Shouldn't we take critique as subjective? After all, our photos are an interpretation. Without being too precocious, from reading Galen Rowell's Inner Game of Outdoor Photography, most of his photos were attempts to evoke some kind of feeling rather than superficial eye candy.

When people give criticism, its usually more of an interpretation of what they felt when viewing the photo. Whether is it technical criticism, creative criticism or just flat out "you suck!" it's all-subjective.

IMO, if the photographer enjoys his work that's what matters.

 

[dEARlEADER]

Shouldn't we take critique as subjective? After all, our photos are an interpretation.

To a point yes... but also no...

if the subject photo is a bird but there is a strong distraction in the background .. an extended depth of field... and the bird is out of focus/not sharp... half it's body is cut off and it's underexposed two stops... these would be errors and generally not open for subjective interpretation...

compositional rules can be broken... but not just because.... there are reasons for these rules....

the same picture of the bird without distractions, shallow depth of field, the birds face, eyes, body tac sharp, properly exposed and framed will garner positive results tenfold....

fine art photography or abstract photography is more subjective and has a better ability to break rules while still effectively communicating a point...

 

[abraxas]

Fascinating, and a very good answer in there too.

Now,

What is it that makes your critique of value?

Are you capable of criticising your own critique?

What qualifies your technical opinion?

& Can you accept criticism of your critique skills?

 

[Samriel]

I'm not too much into the critique business on the forum, but I'll give it a try.

How and when should it be done?

It should be done when requested, and as requested. I like it when the artist states what he wants to hear. Even something vague like "What's your general impression?" is usually helpful. Of course, asking for detailed critique of the technique or esthetics and composition might help pin down certain problems with the image even better. When replying within the area of requested critique, be honest, even if it makes you be blunt. When giving critique that was not specifically requested (you insist on giving the artist another view at things he might think he knows better), be diplomatic.

How should it be presented?

I'm not sure I understand this question correctly. Maybe I answered to a part of it in the previous question.
I prefer critique to be a form of communication between the artist and the critique - a dialog, a discussion, or simply put and exchange of opionions. It is two way communication, where both the artist and his critique can learn something. I'm not sure this is possible in a forum though.

When is it successful?

If properly given, presented and taken, always. I'm in a university photo group since March, and once a week we meet to comment each others work. Sometimes you don't get any critique, but when you do, you usually notice something you didn't notice before (for the better or the worse). It happens also if you are giving critique - by discussing with the artist, you learn something new, be it a technical detail, or a difference in perception / interpretation.

 

[Samriel]

What is it that makes your critique of value?

If you could get something out if it, it is of value (reminds of my basic economy and business lectures). If I helped you improve your technical skills, rethink your approach, gave you something which inspired you further or just gave you a creative boost, or even just made you think more about your work, than my critique was of value.

Are you capable of criticising your own critique?

If you mean capable as in able to overcome my ego, then yes. If you mean capable as in able to do so based on my knowledge and experience concerning critisism, then not really (though I try).

What qualifies your technical opinion?

I try to stay away from (too) technical opinions at the moment, since I (usually) have no adequate knowledge base to make one - basically there is nothing to qualify my technical opinion except my limited experience in the subject, and after four months of shooting as an amateur, that's still very limited.

Can you accept criticism of your critique skills?

No problems with the ego here.

 

[dEARlEADER]

Fascinating, and a very good answer in there too.

Now,

What is it that makes your critique of value?

Are you capable of criticising your own critique?

What qualifies your technical opinion?

& Can you accept criticism of your critique skills?

lol ..... my brain hurts.... can i critique your questions?

if i critique your questions, are you technically capable of accepting the criticism? as such, would you then be able to critique your own questions by firstly questioning the question in the second place from the perspective of a third party?

as to your questions in order -

-it only serves value if the information is generally factual and helpful to the op or people studying the thread (btw - this is kind of a loaded question because a critique can serve a factual purpose and/or an opinionated purpose based on the art form) or both

-personally i have no problem of being corrected on a critique.. but i wouldn't say that i critique my critique other than to be positive in my mind about what it is i believe to be right or wrong

-a magic 8 ball .... and a strong believe that a proof is the proof...what kind of a proof? A proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof it's because it's proven..


-yes... you can always be learning

 

[Hertz van Rental]

What is it that makes your critique of value?

Are you capable of criticising your own critique?

What qualifies your technical opinion?

& Can you accept criticism of your critique skills?

I was a lecturer in Photography for some 15 years and I am supposed to be preparing a PhD submission on the subject if that helps. :lmao:

But all critique is just personal opinion and nothing more - though some opinions are more 'informed' than others. That is, all critique is valid but that is not the same as being of value.
The only person who can say if a critique is of value is the person receiving the critique. If it gives them an insight into their work or technique and helps them improve in some way then it is useful*.
This means that a person must evaluate their own work as well as evaluating any crit they receive. Accepting a crit blindly and following advice given slavishly is not the way to self-improvement.
'Good' photography is not simply a matter of technical competence. You can have a technically superb image that is as dull as ditch-water. 'Good' images are a form of self-expression so becoming 'good' is more a journey of self-discovery than of anything else.
What are you trying to say? Who are you saying it to? Why do you want to say it? These are all questions that a photographer must ask themselves at some point. You do not need to be able to put the answer into words for it to be of use (if you could put the answers into words then you would be a writer), just understand that the taking of pictures is the way you explore yourself to find the answers.
Photography is a form of communication so if you do not know (even at the most basic level) what you are trying to communicate then how do you expect anyone else to get anything out of your work?


*Which makes it essential for the person giving the crit to not just say 'do X' or 'don't do Y' but to explain in understandable terms WHY they think what they are suggesting would be an improvement.

 

[dEARlEADER]

Well Hertz makes some very valid points here... well said.. a very Canadian perspective....

 

[LaFoto]

How should it be presented?
I prefer critique to be a form of communication between the artist and the critique - a dialog, a discussion, or simply put and exchange of opionions. It is two way communication, where both the artist and his critique can learn something. I'm not sure this is possible in a forum though.

This is a statement which I like (along with everything Hertz repeatedly says whenever there are questions coming on "What is Critique?" and "How are we to put forward Critique?"), for it reflects exactly what I feel critiquing anyone's artistic expressions (in any form) should at best be like: communication.

And I believe that also a forum such as this one offers exactly this room for communication, and I feel that communication is the major aspect of all internet forums.

Critique should not inherently mean (and sound like it) that "I know better than you do hence I can tell you what to do!" As much as the author of a photo should ask himself "What do I want to express?", any critic should constantly ask themselves, too "Who am I, what do I like, what do I dislike, and WHY do I like this but not THAT?" Since on here both photo author and photo critic consider themselves to be "photographers" (in the broadest sense of the word), they actually are in the same boat, which is why it is equally important for BOTH to constantly try to explore THEMSELVES, so in the end they can better state their own preferences and give reasons for why they prefer one to the other. Either in creating their own work, or in critiquing/commenting on someone else's work.

I often put forward questions in my comments about someone's photos here. This is to engage them in a conversation on their photos, much rather than come down on them like "But you must do it like THIS!" (because that'd be how I want a photo to look like). Often it works nicely ...

 

[abraxas]

Hertz,

I've got to say I learn more about myself, from myself, because of things I've learned from your relatively ~few posts. I believe I'm a better artist for the experience. Thank you.

--

I suppose from this point it's pretty much rhetoric other than saying in earnest, that I enjoy interaction with my friends and others I've come to trust through mutual display and discussion of our photos.

Thanks for your thoughts!

 

[JerryPH]

A critique happens when a critic and a photographer love each other very much.

It should be done when the mood is right and both parties are receptive. Sometimes it's very sweet and loving and sometimes it's rough.

It should generally be presented in private, and sometimes with the lights on.

It's usually most successful when both parties get what they want or need out of it and neither one feels guilty the next morning.

Dude, you critiquing or making love? Either way, after reading it, I needed a cold shower!

--------------

Lately all this critiquing BS needs to be put into perspective. If we truly are at the point where we are evaluating HOW to critique, we are definitely in a bad place.

To the people doing the critique:
Say what you want with the intention of not being hurtful, but concise in your dissertation of the critique. Separate "art" and "opinion" from "technical". Take the time to explain WHY. Without you explaining your WHY, your critique is USELESS. Always, always, always finish on a positive note, on everything else... feel free to pontificate ad nauseum.

To the people asking for the critiques:
If you want the BEST critique that anyone has to offer you, DON'T put restrictions on them, let it flow... good or bad, easy or rough... READ IT, learn from it, thank the person for their effort, ask them to expand on something that is not clear to you, and move on. While you have moved on, take from the critique all that you want/need... and dump the rest. Do whatever you need to do to get better. DO NOT ARGUE OR DISPUTE THEIR POINTS!

If everyone does that, guess what... no more critique BS issues, and everyone is happy.

 

[simulacra2525]

Its very hard to objective about something you have an opinion over, but i think we are capable of seeing talent in an art we dont like much. So i guess its about differenciating. I think eminem is talented but i dont much like his music . . .

 

[abraxas]

Its very hard to objective about something you have an opinion over, but i think we are capable of seeing talent in an art we dont like much. So i guess its about differenciating. I think eminem is talented but i dont much like his music . . .

The more I read this, the more it makes sense to me. I believe I agree. This is applicable on both sides of both sides; differentiating objectivity/opinion regarding my art to me, my art to others, others to me and I think most importantly myself to myself, is the key.

I hope I understood correctly.

Thanks!!!