totally agree. And often the artist and story behind the exhibition is as interesting as the work. It also allows you to view the work in its context and with a much larger amount of understanding giving it added depth.
Sorry - just my two cents.
Goodness, how did "critique" ever happen before the advent of digital photography?
A real critique takes time, and should be done verbally - in this forum, that means, written. Just because the viewer now has the ability to rearrange pixels to satisfy their own vision of what would improve an image doesn't automatically mean that is THE WAY TO CRITIQUE - and somehow, a photographer who prefers not to have his image rearranged in such a manner is considered the lazy one!
Critique 101:
* A critique is not about pointing out what is wrong with an image. A good critique will analyze the photograph, point out its strengths as well as its weaknesses, and respond to the image from an individual perspective.
* Offer a response to the technical aspects: exposure (over/under/just right), focus (subject in focus, too soft, or perfect for the subject), and DOF: deep, shallow, appropriate for the subject? And lighting: too harsh, soft, is it enhancing or detracting from the shot?
* Offer a response on composition: is the crop appropriate, or should there be more/less back or foreground? Rule of thirds: does the subject placement work? Are there lines that work within the image, lead out, or give a balanced feel? Is there texture, pattern, or shape that is pleasing?
* Mood or feel: can the viewer tell the photographer's intent? Does the mood fit the image - is it successful to you, the viewer? Is it making a statement, telling a story, conveying emotion?
* Accept that your interpretation as a viewer is only ONE interpretation, and it may differ from the photographer's - or the next viewer. Do you really have any insight to offer? If so, will it engage other interpretations?
I don't want my images edited because most of what I post, when I do post, are alternative processes. My images are considered complete when I post them, and while I will always value a real critique, offered in the spirit of support and following the guidelines above, I welcome them. But I will never be happy with anyone who helps themselves to my image to move pixels around and then slap it back on this forum, saying, "There. Better. Now go figure it out, and do it this way if you want to be taken seriously." Which seems to be all that is being suggested in the way of help, with perhaps a mini-tutorial on photo editing software thrown in via PM. Big whoop.
If anyone would like to truly take the time to evaluate a work and offer critique, these guidelines might be helpful. Otherwise, it reads more like children arguing over paint by numbers around here.
Goodness, how did "critique" ever happen before the advent of digital photography?
A real critique takes time, and should be done verbally - in this forum, that means, written. Just because the viewer now has the ability to rearrange pixels to satisfy their own vision of what would improve an image doesn't automatically mean that is THE WAY TO CRITIQUE - and somehow, a photographer who prefers not to have his image rearranged in such a manner is considered the lazy one!
Critique 101:
* A critique is not about pointing out what is wrong with an image. A good critique will analyze the photograph, point out its strengths as well as its weaknesses, and respond to the image from an individual perspective.
* Offer a response to the technical aspects: exposure (over/under/just right), focus (subject in focus, too soft, or perfect for the subject), and DOF: deep, shallow, appropriate for the subject? And lighting: too harsh, soft, is it enhancing or detracting from the shot?
* Offer a response on composition: is the crop appropriate, or should there be more/less back or foreground? Rule of thirds: does the subject placement work? Are there lines that work within the image, lead out, or give a balanced feel? Is there texture, pattern, or shape that is pleasing?
* Mood or feel: can the viewer tell the photographer's intent? Does the mood fit the image - is it successful to you, the viewer? Is it making a statement, telling a story, conveying emotion?
* Accept that your interpretation as a viewer is only ONE interpretation, and it may differ from the photographer's - or the next viewer. Do you really have any insight to offer? If so, will it engage other interpretations?
I don't want my images edited because most of what I post, when I do post, are alternative processes. My images are considered complete when I post them, and while I will always value a real critique, offered in the spirit of support and following the guidelines above, I welcome them. But I will never be happy with anyone who helps themselves to my image to move pixels around and then slap it back on this forum, saying, "There. Better. Now go figure it out, and do it this way if you want to be taken seriously." Which seems to be all that is being suggested in the way of help, with perhaps a mini-tutorial on photo editing software thrown in via PM. Big whoop.
If anyone would like to truly take the time to evaluate a work and offer critique, these guidelines might be helpful. Otherwise, it reads more like children arguing over paint by numbers around here.
oh. you mean like your bus stop photo? I think you should go back and study composition some more. I had asked to edit, have you given permission yet?Goodness, how did "critique" ever happen before the advent of digital photography?
A real critique takes time, and should be done verbally - in this forum, that means, written. Just because the viewer now has the ability to rearrange pixels to satisfy their own vision of what would improve an image doesn't automatically mean that is THE WAY TO CRITIQUE - and somehow, a photographer who prefers not to have his image rearranged in such a manner is considered the lazy one!
Critique 101:
* A critique is not about pointing out what is wrong with an image. A good critique will analyze the photograph, point out its strengths as well as its weaknesses, and respond to the image from an individual perspective.
* Offer a response to the technical aspects: exposure (over/under/just right), focus (subject in focus, too soft, or perfect for the subject), and DOF: deep, shallow, appropriate for the subject? And lighting: too harsh, soft, is it enhancing or detracting from the shot?
* Offer a response on composition: is the crop appropriate, or should there be more/less back or foreground? Rule of thirds: does the subject placement work? Are there lines that work within the image, lead out, or give a balanced feel? Is there texture, pattern, or shape that is pleasing?
* Mood or feel: can the viewer tell the photographer's intent? Does the mood fit the image - is it successful to you, the viewer? Is it making a statement, telling a story, conveying emotion?
* Accept that your interpretation as a viewer is only ONE interpretation, and it may differ from the photographer's - or the next viewer. Do you really have any insight to offer? If so, will it engage other interpretations?
I don't want my images edited because most of what I post, when I do post, are alternative processes. My images are considered complete when I post them, and while I will always value a real critique, offered in the spirit of support and following the guidelines above, I welcome them. But I will never be happy with anyone who helps themselves to my image to move pixels around and then slap it back on this forum, saying, "There. Better. Now go figure it out, and do it this way if you want to be taken seriously." Which seems to be all that is being suggested in the way of help, with perhaps a mini-tutorial on photo editing software thrown in via PM. Big whoop.
If anyone would like to truly take the time to evaluate a work and offer critique, these guidelines might be helpful. Otherwise, it reads more like children arguing over paint by numbers around here.
First, that's your opinion, Terri, not a RULE
Before digital photography, people used cropping angles and grease pencils to teach the uninitiated.
(I still have some scribbled on prints; and I can't remember what the scribbles meant.
This kind of verbal critique works quite well when both the giver and the recipient speak the language, understand the issues and can make that intuitive jump from words to pictures, when the maker is past the stage of making technical mistakes.
This kind of verbal critique is tiring, effort intensive and wasteful to provide this kind of 'counselling' to a new person who would benefit from a visual example of a visual art and isn't yet able to get good composition and is struggling with the basics.
I can just picture a ballet student saying to the instructor,'F... no, don't show me, just sit down and tell me. I want to do it myself.'
Don't you wish you had just CHANGED THE RULES now oh Great and Powerful Oz????**** no.
Changing the rules seems like a nice idea, but anytime you try to change something like that the world will go into a total uproar. In THEORY it's easier to try to educate people and work to swing the culture... however, we can see how effective THAT little ploy has been.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/34/34133-7a1339dcac8b8cda8f7e1e4b6c828ccb.jpg?1734164664)
