What's new

Photography---is an opinionisitic art form

I've seen some images that have been completely destroyed with no rhyme or reason--just the fact they don't like it...and at times that can be frustrating and can discourage the photographer who took the image. Hell, I've even been guilty of it myself--and I would love to get access to some of the photos to re-crop them or process them differently than the photographer who posted...its a learning experience for both individuals involved--or at least I thought it was.
(Haven't read the whole thread yet.)
A lot of that has to do with the personality of the person doing the C&C. Some people only know how to point out flaws, some people like to tell you how to do it next time, and other people edit your picture (hopefully for the better) and tell you what they did.


If I had to chose one, it would be the 'tell me how to do it next time' group. Pointing out flaws (while necessary) is pointless without also saying how those flaws can be corrected.
 
Creditability.

In the real world, creditability gets you pretty far for someone trying to be a critic. Like some of those 20+ young "critics" on Iron Chef critiquing the work of a master chef who have experience more than the critic had ever been alive.... I don't know where that guy got his creditability from, but I cannot imagine it being from experience. Then there are those who have always been hailed as the master but have not done their trade on a practical sense for decades, but is recognized simply because they keep showing up in PR events to self-promote.

In the cyber space, creditability is pretty non-existent. Anyone can pop by and drop a word. doesn't matter if you really know your stuff, people take it for what's worth to them. In a big way, I think this is more fair. Opinions are less judged by race, age, experience or even "looks".

IMO, people who tend to give "this is not done right, you should have done that blah blah" probably only know one way to do things, therefore only have one type of opinion. People who know many different ways to achieve the result will probably offer more constructive feed backs with more diverse approaches.
 
Very true about this being a drop in critique site, some of the comments are coming from first timers that may or may not have any experience, but they certainly have comments. I can do a critique on an image and that person has no idea what my background is. I am not a technical photographer, first to admit it, I start reading some of the techno geek comments and am just as lost as most of the people reading them. I don't look for the answers in books and then spew out information trying to sound more intelligent, everything I have learned about photography has come from the practical side and being around other photographers for over 35 years. It says I am an experienced photographer, but it is also just one persons opinion. I have been harsh with some comments I've made and offended people over the years, but I try and be fair with what I say.
 
What happened to the photography world and constructive criticism? Is it just a term of endearment now?

How do my fellow photographers and non photographers feel about this issue?

Imho, photography is the only dimension in which lie can be synonymous to truth.
Powerful Ads could be so blinding. We can see what we wanted to see, and if 'constructive criticism' follows an endearment, perhaps we're at the point where everyone wants to see the world in a beautiful way.
 
What makes me laugh is when the harshest critics are poor photographers.
 
The hardest situation is to critique an image when it is an image that does not appeal to you. Just because we don't like a photo, doesn't mean it's not a good photo. I don't generally find photos of flowers interesting whether done by a novice or with a professional set up, but if I can see that they have attempted to get the composition, lighting and exposure right, then it is worth a compliment accompanied by some advice or an idea about how to go about it next time.

And even if it looks like they've just pointed the camera at someone and clicked, there's no point just telling someone, "the composition is wrong, it's too dark and the white balance is wrong". That's no use to anyone, that's just criticism - we need to educate, that is what constructive critique should be about. To educate within a critique, we need to say why the composure is wrong and how an alternative will affect the image, we need to tell people how changing the white balance will affect the colour of the photo. This, in my view, is constructive - Constructive, by definition means improvement, development, building.

Knocking someone down is the precise opposite of constructivity - people who are learning should be helped in constructing their knowledge and ability.
 
So I'm pretty new to the forum--not so new to the photography world. I have been through school got my BFA in photography and have had some pretty amazing opportunities--though there is a question, more like a need for understanding from the fellow photographers that I don't see in this forum

I'm all for abuse and critiquing of my images that I post when asked to do so, I also enjoy seeing other's work as well--but since being a photographer, I've noticed that photography is subjective to every person. One person may like an image whereas the person standing next to them can absolutely hate it--that's just the nature of the beast.

What I've noticed:

When someone asks for a critique, that doesn't mean necessarily destroy the image beyond recognition, but to also teach--isn't it? Isn't that what a critique is? Saying both positive and negative and what could have been done better? Isn't a critique a method of learning?

I've seen some images that have been completely destroyed with no rhyme or reason--just the fact they don't like it...and at times that can be frustrating and can discourage the photographer who took the image. Hell, I've even been guilty of it myself--and I would love to get access to some of the photos to re-crop them or process them differently than the photographer who posted...its a learning experience for both individuals involved--or at least I thought it was.

What happened to the photography world and constructive criticism? Is it just a term of endearment now?

How do my fellow photographers and non photographers feel about this issue?

I share your concern, and I no longer post original images on this site, because I almost never get anything useful in return. I was taught that a good critique utilized the PIN principle -- say something Positive, Interesting, and Negative...and the negative should be said in instructive terms. Mostly, these days people just give their unvarnished opinion under the badge of "honesty", as though being cruel and insensitive was somehow honorable. I draw a distinction between honesty and candor, but few people appear to appreciate the difference.
 
Instead of complaining about it, maybe you should critique more images!
Plenty pass through here without comment.
 
So I'm pretty new to the forum--not so new to the photography world. I have been through school got my BFA in photography

This is going to be come off as mean and pretentious, but i have to ask if you really have a BFA in photography, and from where? The work on your website doesn't really reflect the kind of quality out of most 4-year Art School/University graduates. Also, if you dedicated 4 years of your life and wallet to art school, than why didn't you mention it on your site?
 
I may get dumped on for this, having a piece of paper that says "I have a degree in photography or fine arts" doesn't automatically make a person a good photographer. School teaches basics and moves into more advanced areas of photography and that is important, but being able to translate all that information into great work doesn't happen with the the piece of paper. Becoming a great photographer takes time and practical work experience, not just school.
 
And I would agree with that, just because i spend $5000 on a hammer, it doesn't mean i can build a house, it just means i have a $5000 hammer. Photography is not something anyone needs a degree in, but for those who do, 4 years is a significant amount of time to dedicate towards learning a skill, and at the end of those 4 years, you'd have to at least be technically proficient. Now when you look at that website, ask yourself "does this look representative of someone who has been seriously active in commercial-grade photography for (at least) 4 years? Probably not when 15-20% or so of the photos on there are completely out of focus.
 
I haven't looked at the website, but agree with much of what you said, however spending 4 years learning the technical side of photography doesn't necessarly mean that the person is any good at it. How many people go though universities earning degrees but still leave not having understood any of it, and slipping through with just a pass.

Web sites are like a lot of things, what they can do is give average photographers a place to showcase their photos and give them credibility in their own minds. Good or bad, people love to tell other people about their web sites. Some people just can't accept that they really aren't good photographers, and that's fine, because even average photographers come up with good images, these are usually the ones they have on their web sites, but the depth of good images they produce is fairly shallow, and that's what web sites don't show. It just showcases the best they have, and if the best they is average then so be it.
 
I haven't looked at the website, but agree with much of what you said, however spending 4 years learning the technical side of photography doesn't necessarly mean that the person is any good at it. How many people go though universities earning degrees but still leave not having understood any of it, and slipping through with just a pass.

Web sites are like a lot of things, what they can do is give average photographers a place to showcase their photos and give them credibility in their own minds. Good or bad, people love to tell other people about their web sites. Some people just can't accept that they really aren't good photographers, and that's fine, because even average photographers come up with good images, these are usually the ones they have on their web sites, but the depth of good images they produce is fairly shallow, and that's what web sites don't show. It just showcases the best they have, and if the best they is average then so be it.

a lot of generalizations in that paragraph. you come to a conclusion about a ton of people you know nothing about. where's your website ? If you had one would you put your worst images up there ?
 
www.scottgrant.photoshelter.com

It may very well be a general statement regarding web sites, some photographers don't know a good photo from a bad one, especially if they are the ones that shot them. I did take the long way around on what I was trying to say. Web sites don't tell the whole story of how good or bad a photographer is, yes people put up their best images, and there are a lot of average photographers that have managed to come up with 10-20 good images to create the illusion they are better than they really are. I suppose this is a positive for them. If they get hired based on those images, the client may very well be disappointed with the photos they end up with, if they don't match the quality of the work they saw on the web site. It's getting caught in "good photographer fabrication". I made that one up.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom