Critiquing Photos

[PNA]

Just a thought….in the “Photo Critique” thread wouldn’t it be great if the poster would include the original for comparison to the shot they are requesting help with. In fact, make it a requirement, then it becomes a true critique with lessons to be learned from experienced replies.

What say you????

 

[woodsac]

I think your intentions are good, but I don't see the point?

If I post in the critique section, I'm looking for critique on what I consider to be my finished image. It doesn't matter what the original looks like, it's what I was trying to achieve, or the message I was trying to send to my audience.

I shoot all my photos with the in camera setting turned almost completely off. That way, I have total control over the image, beginning with my RAW processing. All of my originals are flat, soft and dull

 

[Corry]

I think your intentions are good, but I don't see the point?

If I post in the critique section, I'm looking for critique on what I consider to be my finished image. It doesn't matter what the original looks like, it's what I was trying to achieve, or the message I was trying to send to my audience.

I shoot all my photos with the in camera setting turned almost completely off. That way, I have total control over the image, beginning with my RAW processing. All of my originals are flat, soft and dull

Woodsac said it better than I could. I totally agree with his assessment.

 

[LaFoto]

Well, to be honest, I don't see the point, either. For what is "an original"? It is the image that the camera managed to produce but may definitely not be the image the photographer meant to achieve. Therefore there may well be photos that have gone through some sort of post processing show in the Photo Critique just in the way that particular photographer thought would be best. And critique may then go on from THERE. Asking for critique need not necessarily and always lead to critiquing a certain method of post processing. That CAN be a point of critique but need not be. The question can also be about other aspects. Composition, lighting, emotions, all that.

I do agree that if critique is being asked with regards to some specific post processing methods, it might be helpful to add the unprocessed original for comparison. But if critique is being asked for something else in a photo that the poster considers his finished work, then why show us the image said poster started out with?

 

[Alex_B]

wouldn’t it be great if the poster would include the original for comparison

I see a problem as in what actually the original would be?

- If you shoot film and then scan the film, your "original" would be the film, but that cannot be displayed here.

- If you shoot film and then scan the print, the "original" would be again the film, or maybe the print, both cannot be displayed here.

- If you shoot digital in RAW, the "original" would be the RAW data, which cannot be displayed here.

The JPG file which comes out of any of the three above is certainly not the original anymore as it has undergone many manipulations, be it automatically, or manually ...

So your suggestion only works for people who use a digital camera and let the camera produce the JPG (but again after some settings beyond aperture and exposure time).

Sorry to wreck your idea, which sounds interesting on first sight ...

 

[Alex_B]

Therefore there may well be photos that have gone through some sort of post processing show in the Photo Critique

well, it does not matter if we talk about post processing or not, as all image neccessarily went through processing anyway. And as processing can be done in many ways, giving very different results, the term "original" simply becomes obsolete in this context.

 

[PNA]

Well said by all of you……however, when asking for a critique I believe it’s important and interesting to know where the photo started from…the original as shot. Is it only the final product that need critiquing? The question is, what did the poster do to get to the point where they are requesting a critique; not just to improve on the posted effort. And this takes in consideration composition, lighting…etc. Not every critique posted is looking for something specific, there are many points in every photo to be critiqued.

Good discussion.....

 

[PNA]

My use of "original" is an unpost processed shot regardless of film or digital.

All posed photos must be in jpg format anyway so why not include the "as shot" shot as well.

 

[Alex_B]

My use of "original" is an unpost processed shot regardless of film or digital.

All posed photos must be in jpg format anyway so why not include the "as shot" shot as well.

but some people do everything in the processing, which other people do in the post-processing.

usually the only post processing I do before posting an image on here, is reducing size and sharpen a bit to compensate for the loss in sharpness due to the resizing.

Everthing else has been done in the process of producing the JPG image.

 

[Alex_B]

one thing where I coud see some use in a before and after thing is cropping / straightening horizons and such.

but for colour, contrast and all that it makes no sense really.

 

[PNA]

OK, OK...like I said, just a thought..........................

 

[Big Mike]

That would work...if it was a 'critique my post processing' section (check out a Photoshop specific forum, they do that all the time)...but as it is now...it's just a 'critique my image' section.

 

[Alex_B]

OK, OK...like I said, just a thought..........................

don't get me wrong there, i like the idea behind it. as in how much postprocessing was applied and how did he or she do it.

but i just think it would not really work for the reasons I mentioned ...

 

[PNA]

That would work...if it was a 'critique my post processing' section (check out a Photoshop specific forum, they do that all the time)...but as it is now...it's just a 'critique my image' section.

Would it be of value to set up a thread specific??? I guess that's really my point.

 

[Big Mike]

Would it be of value to set up a thread specific??? I guess that's really my point.

I don't know if there is all that much of a demand to justify making a new section for it...but we will certainly take in under advisement.

In the mean time, you can certainly post your own originals and edited shots...either into the critique forum or maybe into the Graphics Programs forum.