Is there something like "objective critisism"?

[Alex_B]

You have possibly just proved yourself wrong.
If what you say is true then you are being 100% objective so your statement is false. :mrgreen:

wrong, since not-objective does not necessarily translate into wrong It is certainly a true statement from my point of view.

 

[Alex_B]

Well, she is 100% gorgeous so you could be right...

It is up to you to judge if she is gorgeous (I am not competent here) ... but if she was super-human, she would have not reason to waste her time with us mortals on the forum

 

[Hertz van Rental]

but if she was super-human, she would have not reason to waste her time with us mortals on the forum

I am and I do :lmao:

You caught my previous post mid-edit as I wasn't happy with my wording and what I was trying to say. You might want to change your position to stop a tautological implosion in this thread :mrgreen:

 

[elsaspet]

As an ex photojournalist, I totally disagree that you have to always have a bias. I was paid to be an eyeball. And that is how we should approach photography critique.
An no, a mere mortal am I, and aging daily at that. But you made my day Hertz!

 

[Hertz van Rental]

As an ex photojournalist, I totally disagree that you have to always have a bias. I was paid to be an eyeball. And that is how we should approach photography critique.

Of course you have a bias. Choosing a point of view and what to shoot as well as what not to is a selection process. And what you select is informed by personal preferences.
You cannot 'remove' yourself from the equation.
The only way you could be even remotely unbiased is to take pictures with your eyes closed and produce random images.
Only when you accept that you have a bias can you then look for it. Once you know what it is you can make allowances. You won't remove the bias but you can conciously work against it to minimise it.

You still have a lot to learn, oh seductive one

 

[Efergoh]

The only purely objective photos, in my humble opinion, are those found on your driver license. It is nothing more than a description of what a person looks like.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

The only purely objective photos, in my humble opinion, are those found on your driver license. It is nothing more than a description of what a person looks like.

It's a debatable point.
The whole set up that takes those pictures has been designed by someone and as lens and lighting can effect the outcome and these have been chosen according to the opinion of someone...
But that would be splitting hairs.
Such systems, like forensic and medical photography, are designed to be as objective as is humanly possible.
But then you have the problem of the viewer.
Looking at any image is a subjective process - and we are strongly influenced by context. If you removed the image from your driver's license and put it into another context it would change the nature and meaning of the image to the viewer.

 

[hazzayoungn]

finally...somewhere to vent out all my opinions from my english comp class...

so...to open up, a quote from john berger. it's a little harsh on photography, but bear with me. also...sorry if its been brought up already, but this is a really long thread to read...also sorry for my super long reply

"[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The camera isolated momentary appearances and in so doing destroyed the idea that images were timeless. Or, to put it another way, the camera showed that the notion of time passing was inseparable from the experience of the visual (except in paintings). What you saw depended upon where you were when. What you saw was realtive to your position in time and space."

he goes on to say that due to outlets of information (copies of pictures being distributed, videos on tv, books, etc) inevitably brought information from many places to one: the home of the viewer.

<start discussion>now, in art galleries, the piece of work is showcased in a manner not necessarily exactly as the artist intended, but in a way in which external distractions could be rid and the piece of work could be viewed as a singular statement of emotion. (the artist probably did decision because he/she could have chosen to pick a different gallery.) most people who visit said gallery feel the same emotion because they are in the same environment, paid the same fee, and so on. however, when the media is BROUGHT to the consumer, it changes infinitely. rather than feeling what was intended by the artist wanted the viewer to see, the art is subject to the criticisms of the person as well as the environment in which the piece is shown. for example, the dali piece i hang on my wall holds a different meaning because its right next to the bjork poster and the piles of dirty clothing. the meaning of the piece changed for me because my environment and my attitude towards the piece were not the environment or attitude they were meant to be. however, the image cannot lose its context altogether. existence is context in that, the colors, focus, paper weight...all contribute to the image as a whole

now back to the specifics. in the case of photography, when receiving critiques, you cant expect a completely objective criticism. the viewers opinions regarding your/his/their picture will depend on many things (how theyve been taught photography, the mess around their computer, mood, etc). however, you can expect that the person will share their experiences and feelings regarding the piece. (including but not limited technical aspects such as composure and lighting, and feelings regarding the picture such as family life, childhood experiences) if the picture holds a special meaning to you, and all you want to know is how to correct the weird green tinge from the lighting, disregard all the stuff about how their kids did this or that...but if youd like to know what emotions a picture brings about when shown to other people, you have to take the good with the bad. though you may occasionally get a longwinded rant about how "your picture sucks in comparison to one that "i" did when i first got my bessler blah blah blah im amazing at color correction..." you can usually find that most people will share a toned down version of their feelings of the memory they relate to your picture (including their blunders trying to accomplish the same composition.).

imo, photography is about showing and then evoking a certain feeling from a person

...and the occasional myspace-esqe self portrait
[/FONT]

 

[craig]

Berger's "Ways of Seeing" is still floating around my lab somewhere. A mandatory read as far as I can tell.
Love and Bass!
CB

 

[Alex_B]

The only purely objective photos, in my humble opinion, are those found on your driver license. It is nothing more than a description of what a person looks like.

If that was true, then objectively I would look rather unattractive.

So it cannot be true

 

[Efergoh]

I suppose you're right....
I look like a hitman, but clearly, I am not...
...and what was I thinking with that mustache?

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Berger's "Ways of Seeing" is still floating around my lab somewhere. A mandatory read as far as I can tell.

I have a copy on my bookshelf.
It is somewhat dated (written around 1972) particularly in it's Political outlook. It is also primarily concerned with painting and Art history.
Despite that, it is definitely a 'must read', along with Sontag's 'On Photography' and Barthes 'Camera Lucida'.
There is much to disagree with in all of them but you can't even dip your toe in the deep end of Photography criticism without having read them.