C&C

lennon33x

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Jul 28, 2012
Messages
605
Reaction score
49
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Initially, I thought C&C meant "Comments and critique." I've come to find out that it more often means "critiques and criticism." So, I've seen a trend on TPF, and I'd like to get meaningful, constructive, non-obtrusive feedback.

I've seen many, many users offer criticisms that were abrasive, harsh, and sometimes a bit more than what the OP asked for. I've been a bit reluctant to post my own photos, full well knowing that I could get the same criticisms. I guess this more of a thought-provoking post. Those people, who often post such comments, often don't have links or uploads of their own photographs. It seems so easy to judge an image, when tastes vary so dramatically.

I had a mutual friend of mine, who is a professional photographer, abrasively critique one of my photos (early on). I finally sat down to view her work, and was surprisingly disappointed in her photography. Not that she takes bad images. The IQ is there, color saturation, everything is spot on. The problem was the style. The one thing she so heavily critiqued me on, we vastly differed in taste. I've been wanting to throw this out there for a while, and I figured why not now.

Like I said, this is not a post to start a war (because fighting on the internet is one of the stupidest things anyone could do). I guess it's one of those things that I think that if we would pay attention more to "how" we said things (i.e. using "my personal taste..." etc.) versus the content would be taken to heart more. I've found that my own progression improved when the feedback was more positive and constructive.
 
I thought personal taste was inferred from critique, since photographic critique is subjective for the most part.

And critique should rarely be taken to heart.

Now, if someone is just mean, that's a whole different issue, but just giving in-depth, straight forward critique is not the same as saying "wow u should stop taking pics now omg"
 
Hi, reavesce, and this is not intended to be a negative criticism.

"Critique" and "criticism" are the same thing. There is positive and negative criticism, just as there are both positive and negative comments. I have always assumed the "C&C" means comment and criticism or if you like; comment and critique. A critique, if accurate and fair, should include more than merely what's wrong, but also some good things as well.

If your submission garners only negative criticism, and no positive criticism, it might mean either the person offering the comments can't see anything good on which to comment, or it might simply mean that the good parts are so obvious that he doesn't need to point them out. Your choice.
 
I thought personal taste was inferred from critique, since photographic critique is subjective for the most part.

Example: I posted some critique on a photo earlier. The image, in general, was underexposed. Literally. The guy went back and metered later, and blam, instant improvement.

A different example: saying that someone's photo's aren't of "professional quality." What is professional quality, in that instance? If the image is extremely over/underexposed, noisy (causing image degradation), out of focus, then yes, I could (and very well would) consider that less than professional quality. But if an image is correctly exposed, has great IQ, but someone deems the image less than professional quality, where does the subjection come in?
 
Damn, it's not Chat & Comment? I must re-think what I post.
 
I thought personal taste was inferred from critique, since photographic critique is subjective for the most part.

Example: I posted some critique on a photo earlier. The image, in general, was underexposed. Literally. The guy went back and metered later, and blam, instant improvement.

A different example: saying that someone's photo's aren't of "professional quality." What is professional quality, in that instance? If the image is extremely over/underexposed, noisy (causing image degradation), out of focus, then yes, I could (and very well would) consider that less than professional quality. But if an image is correctly exposed, has great IQ, but someone deems the image less than professional quality, where does the subjection come in?

Images can be underexposed judging from a histogram. Photos can be out of focus as well. These are objective observations.

Now, whether a photo is underexposed for artistic purposes or because the photographer forgot to change their f-stop is where the subjection comes in.
 
I thought personal taste was inferred from critique, since photographic critique is subjective for the most part.

Example: I posted some critique on a photo earlier. The image, in general, was underexposed. Literally. The guy went back and metered later, and blam, instant improvement.

A different example: saying that someone's photo's aren't of "professional quality." What is professional quality, in that instance? If the image is extremely over/underexposed, noisy (causing image degradation), out of focus, then yes, I could (and very well would) consider that less than professional quality. But if an image is correctly exposed, has great IQ, but someone deems the image less than professional quality, where does the subjection come in?

The internet is FILLED, literally FILLED with photos that are not "professional quality". In fact, the vast majority of photos are snapshots. Some are memory-shots. Others are for-the-record shots. Others are classic cliche shots, or "postcard shots" if you will. What is happening now is that more and more people with no training in art, design,composition, color theory, posing, photography, or business, whatever--shoot photos and charge people money and think their photos are therefore as a result of money exchanged, "professional quality photos." It does not work that way. A guy who flips burgers and chicken patties at Burger King is not "a chef". The 18 year-old kid with the pimply face who changes your oil and works a grease gun at Jiffy Lube is NOT "a professional mechanic". But the Digital Rebel + kit lens + fake flooring and baseboard strips shooter called herself "a professional photographer." Okay...

It does not work that way. We see the poor framing and bad composition, the cut-off fingers and hands and limbs, the horizontalitis, and so on, all over. People who learn how to SET TH$E CONTROLS OF A CAMERA, and who therefore think that they have "learned photography". This is the trend I see, all the time, all over. These people confuse a good exposure with a good "picture". They have basically proclaimed that what they have to offer is good, and valid. Your example mentioned above shows that even the MOST-basic need, that of a proper exposure, is often neglected these days.

The subjective difference between a professional photograph and a non-professional photo is that one is often poorly-composed, ambiguous, or simply does not hold the interest of viewers who KNOW WHAT REAL professional photographers can accomplish. It's a lot like the difference between a real, experienced professional chef, and a person who SELF-identifies as "a pretty good cook". One has training, and skills, and real breadth of knowledge; the other can manage not to bleed all over the onions when he chops them.
 
For me, I like the criticism. If I get 5 comments of things people don't like, awesome, that's 5 thing I can improve on next time. If some of the critique relates to processing per my style and personal preference, consider it, and do what you will with it. It also shows that your style may not resonate with everyone, and that's expected and okay.

As for positive comments, who doesn't like a 'good job' and a pat on the back? However, if you have 10 comments and no one mentions white balance, saturation, composition... Awesome. That IS a positive point, you nailed those things and no one needed to say "ouch, this is way off."

To be super honest, appreciate ANY feedback you get because it isn't always super easy to get C&C around here ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I thought personal taste was inferred from critique, since photographic critique is subjective for the most part.

Example: I posted some critique on a photo earlier. The image, in general, was underexposed. Literally. The guy went back and metered later, and blam, instant improvement.

A different example: saying that someone's photo's aren't of "professional quality." What is professional quality, in that instance? If the image is extremely over/underexposed, noisy (causing image degradation), out of focus, then yes, I could (and very well would) consider that less than professional quality. But if an image is correctly exposed, has great IQ, but someone deems the image less than professional quality, where does the subjection come in?

The internet is FILLED, literally FILLED with photos that are not "professional quality". In fact, the vast majority of photos are snapshots. Some are memory-shots. Others are for-the-record shots. Others are classic cliche shots, or "postcard shots" if you will. What is happening now is that more and more people with no training in art, design,composition, color theory, posing, photography, or business, whatever--shoot photos and charge people money and think their photos are therefore as a result of money exchanged, "professional quality photos." It does not work that way. A guy who flips burgers and chicken patties at Burger King is not "a chef". The 18 year-old kid with the pimply face who changes your oil and works a grease gun at Jiffy Lube is NOT "a professional mechanic". But the Digital Rebel + kit lens + fake flooring and baseboard strips shooter called herself "a professional photographer." Okay...

It does not work that way. We see the poor framing and bad composition, the cut-off fingers and hands and limbs, the horizontalitis, and so on, all over. People who learn how to SET TH$E CONTROLS OF A CAMERA, and who therefore think that they have "learned photography". This is the trend I see, all the time, all over. These people confuse a good exposure with a good "picture". They have basically proclaimed that what they have to offer is good, and valid. Your example mentioned above shows that even the MOST-basic need, that of a proper exposure, is often neglected these days.

The subjective difference between a professional photograph and a non-professional photo is that one is often poorly-composed, ambiguous, or simply does not hold the interest of viewers who KNOW WHAT REAL professional photographers can accomplish. It's a lot like the difference between a real, experienced professional chef, and a person who SELF-identifies as "a pretty good cook". One has training, and skills, and real breadth of knowledge; the other can manage not to bleed all over the onions when he chops them.

You Are Not a Photographer | Exposing fauxtographers since 2011

My sister-in-law has a friend who has a Canon EOS 1Dx and a 70-200 L IS USM II. He uses my niece as a model. A picture he posted, and advertised, used a flash (non-gelled) on her face at sunset. Drastically different white balances. He also took Christmas pictures of my niece with Santa...who had a yellow beard. It's hard for me to keep my mouth shut sometimes.

Regardless, I see your point. I do see people who have put in countless hours in improving their photography and learning the craft, who have no formal training who are excellent photographers and successful business persons. Granted, this example is probably few and far between. I guess the point I get at is more or less offering C&C from the standpoint of "my photography is better than your's, therefore I can judge." It's counter-productive...and it's especially weird to see when I just scan the forums and I'm like a fly on the wall. If I do see it, I offer what I can as far as positive criticism. Positive reinforcement can usually go a long way. I don't offer expertise in areas I'm not familiar with.
 
I always thought it was comments and critique.

To me criticism implies a much wider view of the piece of art or an artist's complete work, how it fits within the genre, in history, how it displays the artist's meaning, how the various techniques are used to advance the piece(s).

What we do here is 'critique.' We look at one or two works, mostly at a technical level and give our opinion how the technical factors or composition could have been improved to make this particular piece better.

To be very clear, the cameras we use today are so smart that, if the user just set them on P and pressed the button, the image would be perfectly well exposed and focused most of the time.
What photographers need to learn is how to instruct this very smart camera to get better without the kind of interference that actually makes the images worse.

At the very least, and at the first, a new photographer should learn composition so he/she knows where to point that glass thing.
As the photographer gets more and more experienced, he/she can take over some decisions from the camera on DOF, shutter speed, iso.

So when someone puts up a picture that is decently exposed and reasonably sharp, most of the time only the credit they can take for themselves is the composition. The camera did everything else and I find it damn hard to gin up some fake praise for something that their camera did. I might as well compliment them for breathing.
 
Last edited:
I thought C&C was C**ts and Cowards, but you have to forgive me for that, as my English is very poor.
 
I thought C&C was C**ts and Cowards, but you have to forgive me for that, as my English is very poor.

:lol:

Your English is far superior to the majority of people who speak it as their native language...


I appreciate the comments people have made on my threads so far. Only one really nasty comment so far. But I see what you mean-it scares people off. I'm not a professional, I take photos as a hobby (well, I have to for work, but that's another story-I wouldn't consider myself a professional photographer), and I do it to please myself. If a bunch of people that want to be hypercritical don't like it, then I really don't care. If people offer helpful critique and offer suggestions to improve photos (Derrel offered some lighting advice that's proven to be quite helpful with other projects in one of my more recent threads, for example), then I definitely appreciate their help. Being a dingleberry isn't going to help anyone-if anything, you may discourage someone from pursuing their interests.
 
I'm not sure what you're getting at but C&C is Carrots and Celery. They're quite common with vegetable platters.
 
If you cannot take critiques that are negative I suggest you quit photography and possibly life.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top