Photo School Critiques

[skieur]

Let us keep in mind that we talking about "live" or real time critiques. Web crits are very different.

That being said where were those thoughts when I was in college! Students were literally reduced to tears weekly. Not saying that was a good thing, but it certainly got us thinking . Strangely enough I know for a fact that it made me a better photographer.

Love & Bass

Yes, I don't think that false positive comments ever got anyone thinking seriously about their photos.

skieur

 

[craig]

You are correct sir!

Love & Bass

 

[igot2n0]

I posted the same question on another forum and got a good answer that I would like to share.

Critique is a good thing, and can be a powerful influence in peoples' work.

Keep in mind your students are looking for your approval. They desperately want to have created an image you like. The shots they show you may well be the best work they've ever done.

Presenting good critique can be a fine art in itself; take the time to do it well.

I prefer the "Oreo Cookie" approach: Say something good, drop in the "it could be better if..." stuff in the middle (the really helpful stuff), and finally point out the good qualities (so they feel good about the critique session). End on a positive note.

Looks like a good approach. I may use it in the future.

I don't think I was very rough with the student and his profile did not impress me as being hyper-sensitive: 51 years old, biker who rides a Harley, shaved head, big belly, tatoos... No offense to bikers, but I did not know that they had such a sensitive side.

True story.

 

[skieur]

QUOTE
I posted the same question on another forum and got a good answer that I would like to share.


Quote:
Critique is a good thing, and can be a powerful influence in peoples' work.

Keep in mind your students are looking for your approval. They desperately want to have created an image you like. The shots they show you may well be the best work they've ever done.

Presenting good critique can be a fine art in itself; take the time to do it well.

I prefer the "Oreo Cookie" approach: Say something good, drop in the "it could be better if..." stuff in the middle (the really helpful stuff), and finally point out the good qualities (so they feel good about the critique session). End on a positive note.
Looks like a good approach. I may use it in the future.

I don't think I was very rough with the student and his profile did not impress me as being hyper-sensitive: 51 years old, biker who rides a Harley, shaved head, big belly, tatoos... No offense to bikers, but I did not know that they had such a sensitive side. ;-)

True story. UNQUOTE from IGOT2N0

I think posters are missing the very important point that you can NOT say something good about a work and sound CREDIBLE and HONEST unless the work is at a minimal level of quality and the good points outnumber the bad points, and that is most often NOT the case with new photographers.
As a matter of fact it might take a considerable time before it becomes possible.

Of course, those that go ahead and issue false or questionable praise in order to be delicate, sensitive etc. end up destroying their credibility and the value of their future critiques. Then, if you are a teacher you have lost the respect of your students.

skieur

 

[DRoberts]

I completely agree with that quote Skieur. Crit is supposed to be a helpful tool, not a bashing weapon. So many times on these forums and others I see people, and have asked myself, for C&C on photos only to have countless post that say "I don't like that." or "You Suck!" (paraphrased of course) I don't mind these opinions, but tell me why.
I for one log my settings and conditions with my shots, so when I ask for C&C I can take that information with my log and more determine the changes I need to make. If it is all bad then I need to change it all, if there are things that are correct, then I need to know that as well. I believe that is all anyone would ask for or expect from a C&C request.
For anyone who can't take crit, then they are not truelly wanting it when asked for. All they want is for someone to affirm their own ego.

 

[monkeykoder]

I think for a new photographer some level of self critique can be had. I remember the first roll of pictures I got back when I first started shooting (hey it wasn't all that long ago a little over a year). I had all the errors, no clear subject, poor exposure, plain uninteresting, etc. I looked at that roll of film and said to myself "I wonder what the heck I was taking a picture of here" and worked through the "Well if I made the subject bigger in the frame I might be able to tell what it was" and "Hrrrrrrm I probably shouldn't take pictures of a forest (or an individual tree in a forest) unless there is something to set it apart" After that and figuring out my camera (now cameras) I was able to take some pretty fair pictures in pretty much every frame since then I knew what my subject was at the very least and I've taken lots of fair-good pictures since. I guess the next step is to find a place to post pictures for a real critique.

 

[skieur]

I completely agree with that quote Skieur. Crit is supposed to be a helpful tool, not a bashing weapon. So many times on these forums and others I see people, and have asked myself, for C&C on photos only to have countless post that say "I don't like that." or "You Suck!" (paraphrased of course) I don't mind these opinions, but tell me why.
I for one log my settings and conditions with my shots, so when I ask for C&C I can take that information with my log and more determine the changes I need to make. If it is all bad then I need to change it all, if there are things that are correct, then I need to know that as well. I believe that is all anyone would ask for or expect from a C&C request.
For anyone who can't take crit, then they are not truelly wanting it when asked for. All they want is for someone to affirm their own ego.

I was certainly not suggesting or defending emotional or blatantly personal opinions. Way back somewhere here, I suggested that the professional approach to critique is to use technique: as in the technical side of how the particular photo was taken and composition: the artistic side with its guidelines and rules to form a more objective basis for critique.

However, anyone can characterize statements that there is no centre of interest, the colour balance is off toward the green, there is no detail in the shadow area, the background distracts from the subject, the shot does not flatter the person, etc. as being "bashing". If it is accurate, it is critique and should be accepted as such. If the original poster does not understand any part of the critique, he or she should ask questions.

skieur

 

[hiointernat]

Balanced critique however sounds very phony and silly on forums, such as

"I like the way you got it in focus but unfortunately it was not worth taking a picture of in the first place, it is over-exposed, framing is sloppy, and you got all kinds of visual distractions in the background."

or

"I really like this shot, but I would suggest that you pick a different main subject, take the shot on a cloudy day when the shadows are not as harsh, use a different camera angle, and convert it to black and white."

Now, please....does this sound believable and credible because the negative part of the critique suits some posts.

skieur

I think you are missing what I was trying to say. In order to fully critique to improve upon something, you need to work with the person and find out what they were going for, not simply tell them what they did wrong. When you point out the negative, you explain it and why it takes away from the work, you don't just scold the person, because that is not effective for making the work better...if someone changes something because you said so, are they really learning how to improve?

 

[skieur]

I think you are missing what I was trying to say. In order to fully critique to improve upon something, you need to work with the person and find out what they were going for, not simply tell them what they did wrong. When you point out the negative, you explain it and why it takes away from the work, you don't just scold the person, because that is not effective for making the work better...if someone changes something because you said so, are they really learning how to improve?

The main point however is that it should be obvious from the photo what the person was going for. The viewer can only critique what he/she sees. You did not read my previous posts. You cannot advise someone on how to make a work better, if it is at a level, where all the improvement in the world would not make it a quality photo. A flat, boring, technically poor photo with no centre of interest can NOT be improved or made better. Throw it out and start all over, after you learn a lot more of the basics.

Telling a person what is wrong is not scolding them. Anyone who believes that is acting childish to say the least. If I suggest that something be changed and they do it, then they are learning, IF they make the change and in looking carefully at the result, decide that yes indeed it does look much better. :thumbup:

Critique is based on "seeing photographically" which means the advantage lies with those that have some artistic talent OR lots of photographic experience. At the same time however, even with experience, I have listened to some "unique" suggestions for improvements from some talented newbies and made the changes. In some cases, I have had to admit that the results are better and an improvement. No one is beyond improvement but hopefully those with experience accept and respond more openly and less emotionally to critique, and that newbies learn from example.

skieur

 

[Overread]

when someone posts a photo or submits one to a teacher some thought process has already gone on on the part of the student/photographer to assess their own work and to make a choice about which photo to show. This is part of the self assessment process and is why its often good to have people show only a few (2 or 3) photos of a set.
Now when someone has done that it means that there is something about those photos that made the submit them - part of critique is understanding the photo you are looking at so you have to understand what it is in the photo that the person is trying to show or say. As such there is nearly always some positive factor you can say about the photo even if its just that you like the subject matter.

I think its always very important to balance out your comments - making sure that along with the bad and the critical that you include the positive side. Some are saying that this is false or removes the credibility of the critique, I can't see why it should do so. While you might argue that some people will just read the praise and ignore the advice (and critique should always include advise as to how to "fix" the errors - provided that the person giving the comment knows the answer - if not they should say that they don't know it) those sorts are going to ignore the critique no matter what anyway.


Some people I have seen (especially on line) post very good critiques which are impartial, direct to the point and overall focus on the negative aspects - and nearly every time I see that I see a 2 page argument follow. The reason is that such comments feel very harsh to a person (especially when they are new) which causes them to challenge the critiquer and their view - ironically sometimes the critiquer then shows thin skin and gets hurt - then we have a fight and no one benefits.
Some good comments (what I just consider good manners or being polite to others) can help even if they are not much since it shows that the person commenting has seen (possibly) what made the photographer select those photos.

In the end good manners helps a lot in acceptance of critique and makes for a more informal and conversational (some would say debate and discussion) atmosphere

 

[skieur]

I think its always very important to balance out your comments - making sure that along with the bad and the critical that you include the positive side. Some are saying that this is false or removes the credibility of the critique, I can't see why it should do so. While you might argue that some people will just read the praise and ignore the advice (and critique should always include advise as to how to "fix" the errors - provided that the person giving the comment knows the answer - if not they should say that they don't know it) those sorts are going to ignore the critique no matter what anyway.

You don't get it, because you are naively assuming there IS a positive side.

1. There is NOTHING positive about a photo that is techically and
compositionally poor with NO subject.

What do you suggest be said: "Well it was great that the autofocus worked on your camera, but it could be improved with if you pointed the camera at something else, learned how to set it properly and stuided how to chose a subject and frame it in the viewfinder.

These kinds of "positive" balanced comments sound absolutely silly.

This is certainly NOT the case with all photos but it is certainly true of an increasingly large number of shots from new camera owners in all web sites including this one.

Be realistic, honest, direct, and straightforward with comments or the whole practice of critique becomes silly and loses all credibility.

skieur

 

[Overread]

What I am saying is that you have to first get into the mind of the original photographer and see the bonuses in the image from their point of view. The photo has already been composed, taken and posted (might or might not have been edited) so you can't correct any of those stages for the existing photo (barring the possible editing).
Seeing what the original photographer sees and what they might have been aiming for in the photo and commenting thus tells them that you do understand what they are aiming for and are not just trying to smother them in your own view of the photo (even though that is what you are doing).
From there you can explain where the weaknesses are and how one might improve upon the photo. There will be those that listen and those that don't you can't force anyone to listen (especially online) but my experiences in life are that if you hang a carrot in front of a donkey it goes forth much more willingly than if you beat it with a stick

 

[skieur]

OK! Try your "balanced" but complete critique of this one and let's all see how it is positive, not bashing, serious, credible etc. Perhaps you have the language and diplomatic skills to pull it off.....but do most?

skieur

 

[Overread]

arr tricky since I really don't do architecture photos so have less experience working with them - but anyway enough with excuses here is what I would say
The building - which I take to be the main focus of this photo - defiantly has an interesting shape and bold colours to it, and your exposure of the shot is good - I don't see any major blown highlights - though there are a few, they are not overly distracting to the main image.
Firstly, however, I think you need to step back and assess the lighting in this - from the angle you have chosen you have gone for a shot at the entrance to the building which work compositionally, but the light at this time is trick to work with. Personally I would have moved to the left more to get more of the sunlit side of the building in frame - the alternative would have been to wait and see if the sun would illuminate the front on its own though sometimes waiting is not an option we get
From there I would also either zoom in or heavily crop the shot - there are big areas which are distracting from the overall view - the wires overhead, the boats and bench to the far left and to the right - these are distracting from the building image (IMO) and not really adding to the shot, so best to lose them.
Now I am not sure how you shot this shot since you don't say, but if you were shooting handheld I would say your shutter speed was too slow, since there are areas of the shot that look blurry/soft. A tripod would really help here in letting you use a slower shutter speed and a smaller aperture (bigger f number) which is often desirable with landscape type shots. This would also help you with the horizon in the shot, which should really be straight rather than leaning (it adds an odd aspect to a photo to see the sea apparently flowing upwards into a corner). This will help you take into consideration the background more as well - since that is also a key part to a shot.
For the person in the shot its more tricky, I will take it that you intended them to be in the shot and as thus I would say you really needed to up your ISO to get a better (faster) shutter speed to freeze the motion - flash might also have been an aid
In the end you have selected a good subject, but need to spend more time composing and thinking about the shot - however most of what I have said is small things to improve on - alone they are not enough, but add them all together and the effect can be dramatically improved



**note - I said more than I tend to since I am treating the student in this case as being a keen learner (which I take it you are Mr Skieur ) some backing story to the shot and settings used are also things that I might request

 

[abraxas]

I'd say you were ready to take a class in a real school and get a real classroom critique.