Res ipsa loquitur - whose judgement is correct?

[The_Traveler]

I was giving a workshop recently to a small local camera club on critiquing pictures. I went through the mechanics of it, did some c/c on pictures from the Intertube and then went through a set of about 40 images submitted anonymously for critique by the members.

A local wedding photog had submitted a picture, clearly thinking he would get encomiums and boost his status even more by being praised by an outsider.
When I pointed out things I thought were deficient, dress and breast being way brighter than anything, head up near top edge, tiptoes clipped and a vignette that looked like the room was on fire, he blew up.
He told me how much the bride and family loved this picture and that they paid lots of money for a big canvas wrap.
My response was that the issues I pointed out were either true or not.
Whether they affected other people as they did me wasn't my affair.

I've noticed here several times that a c/c is sometimes prefaced by 'I've been a' wedding photographer, portrait artist, photojournalist etc. and the writer seems to think that experience has some weight.
Skills and experience do not automatically confer taste, judgement or insight.

I think that, regardless of skills, experience, degrees, etc, what anyone says should ring true with the reader. Thus res ipsa loquitur - Latin for the 'thing speaks for itself.'

That leads to another idea.
Does one have to be a better, or even good, wedding photographer, portrait artist, photojournalist, landscape artist etc. than the poster to have a valid c or c?

I don't think so.
I haven't ever taken a good landscape, wedding or flower picture and yet I generally feel competent to say something about these pictures. Just as most art critics can't paint, most movie critics can't make movies and so on.
If I can construct an opinion that is based on some principles, even my own, I have the right to say it and have it weighed by the reader as to whether it makes sense in their eyes.

So beginners shouldn't excuse themselves by saying 'I'm no pro but...' - as long as they can ferret out why they have that opinion.

An opinion stands alone and if it makes sense then it's good, no matter who says it.

res ipsa loquitur

 

[tirediron]

I agree!

 

[SCraig]

I agree, but with a caveat. For photographic styles I agree completely. I can normally look at a landscape or a wedding shot or a wildlife shot or anything else and determine what I like about it or what I don't like about it. For photographic types I tend to disagree. While I can look at, say, a black and white image or an HDR image and state why I do or don't like it, the reasons may not have any value. I don't shoot B&W any longer, I don't even like it, so I don't feel competent to pass judgement on a B&W shot from a technical standpoint. Same for HDR. I can't stand the majority of it yet I seldom comment on it because my technical knowledge of the process is very limited.

 

[The_Traveler]

I agree, but with a caveat. For photographic styles I agree completely. I can normally look at a landscape or a wedding shot or a wildlife shot or anything else and determine what I like about it or what I don't like about it. For photographic types I tend to disagree. While I can look at, say, a black and white image or an HDR image and state why I do or don't like it, the reasons may not have any value. I don't shoot B&W any longer, I don't even like it, so I don't feel competent to pass judgement on a B&W shot from a technical standpoint. Same for HDR. I can't stand the majority of it yet I seldom comment on it because my technical knowledge of the process is very limited.

I understand but from my standpoint the technical issues only flow from my liking/disliking the shot so while I may not be able to pinpoint the exact technical issue, I can usually say what about the shot bothers me.

 

[Derrel]

Question from The_Traveler: "Does one have to be a better, or even good, wedding photographer, portrait artist, photojournalist, landscape artist etc. than the poster to have a valid c or c?"

My answer is "No, not at all. A fine painter or sketch artist can spot and describe the weaknesses in a photographic composition with ease. A person with some training in the visual arts can easily critique photographs. One need not be super-proficient to spot crappy or sub-par work. The world is full of sub-par work that laypeople are very happy with. The wedding tog who got all bent out of shape with his poor photograph being C&C'd and its deficiencies brought to light--pretty natural, and these days, quite,quite common. Regular people evaluate family and wedding photos based mostly on emotional content and expression; the basics of technique are wayyyyyyy down their list, as are artistic skill and expression.

Does one have to have made a feature-length Hollywood film to say that a particularly shoddy movie "sucks"? Obviously, not. Does one need to be a five-star chef to know when he has been served crummy restaurant food? Again, NO.

 

[Alex_B]

I am not trained to play any instrument ... nevertheless I am trained to hear and listen. Hence I can often tell when in a Vivaldi concert a violin goes astray or in some complex Mahler performance one of the oboists misses the perfect timing ... and I can tell the difference between technical flaws and styles being just not my personally preferred style.

What I wanted to say is, in order to discuss a photographic image, you do not need to be able to perform well in photography, but you need to be able to see!

 

[Overread]

What I wanted to say is, in order to discuss a photographic image, you do not need to be able to perform well in photography, but you need to be able to see!

And for beginners a big part of learning to see is learning to describe what you're seeing - and then come to understand it (one reason I partially despair when people say "I can't say what I think because I'm not experienced yet to say -- you might not be experienced, but everyone has a viewpoint and explanation and expansion of the viewpoint is a great tool for giver and receiver. )

 

[The_Traveler]

What I wanted to say is, in order to discuss a photographic image, you do not need to be able to perform well in photography, but you need to be able to see!

And for beginners a bit part of learning to see is learning to describe what you're seeing - and then come to understand it (one reason I partially despair when people say "I can't say what I think because I'm not experienced yet to say -- you might not be experienced, but everyone has a viewpoint and explanation and expansion of the viewpoint is a great tool for giver and receiver. )

totally agree

 

[nmoody]

Great read The_Traveler, I never actually thought of it that way.

as long as they can ferret out why they have that opinion

And you are completely correct here. Yes there are some hard defined things that are mistakes but most of art in itself is open to interpretation. That being said though there are different styles of tastes that mesh well together and some that don't. Compared to some other forums this one I think has a more mature, natural and classic taste. The highly processed HDR as well as photochopping are not as common here as on other sites.

Due to this forums taste in general some users just don't fit in as well and are sometimes shocked that others don't like their work.

To bring this to a point, its sometimes hard to figure out if the person giving you C&C is not understanding your style or you are making actual mistakes. Since I am new I am just assuming I am making mistakes until I better understand myself and photography in general.

 

[Designer]

As in most things in life, there are degrees of ability and understanding. So the wedding photog who took offense was simply not as far along the path as he thought he was. Meanwhile, someone who has developed a critical eye can easily spot the flaws in his work, but the clients who hired him were apparently not as well educated as he.

So, Traveler, you are correct in that an observer does not have to BE a wedding photographer in order to evaluate one.

Furthermore, some artists are so full of themselves that their main claim to fame is that they simply claim it, often without actually earning it. Likewise, some consumers of art simply do not have the background to be informed consumers. We see this all the time.

 

[pgriz]

OK, how many here can open a bottle of wine, and without knowing anything about where it came from or who produced it, determine if it is an OK wine, a good wine, or a great wine? How many can then back up our impression with a clear explanation of why we have that impression? Probably some, but certainly not very many. Partly because it takes practice of be able to discern the subtleties of the flavor, the aroma and the color, and because it also take time to learn to associate specific senses with the vocabulary that describes accurately what you are experiencing.

On the other hand, give someone a glass of great wine, and chances are very good that they will favor it over a glass of OK wine, even knowing nothing of the vinology vocabulary.

However we usually don't trust our senses, and try to discover what it is that we are drinking so that we can calibrate our response to our expectation. We all "know" that a $126 bottle of wine is much superior to the $6 wine. ( In fact, the cheapest way to make a party last is to decant the cheap stuff into the expensive wine bottles... Most people will happily imbibe thinking that they are drinking the expensive stuff ).


I am sure that the miffed wedding photographer is one who will judge the wine by the pricetag on the bottle.

So if we focus purely on our senses, as THE_TRAVELLER is suggesting, we should be able to determine if WE like the image or not, and if we have the practice, even say why. so "res ipsa loquitur " indeed!

 

[tirediron]

Does the wine taste good? Then it's a good wine. Does the wine taste good and have a reasonable price? Then it's a great wine. Simple really.

 

[HughGuessWho]

I am very surprised and yet a bit confused about this thread and many of the opinions. Most everyone seems to be in agreement with the OP, as am I. However, it is in direct conflict with the huge thread a month or so ago, in which I am pretty certain some participants here were hell bent on the idea that a "noob's " opinion was worthless and therefore should not be allowed as critiques.
I don't believe you have to be able to take an amazing picture to know one when you see one. Much like a sportscaster that knows a sport inside out, yet couldn't play the game if his life depended on it.
Just my $0.02

 

[Buckster]

On the one hand, I agree that it doesn't take a master chef to know when the toast is burnt, and to proclaim it.

On the other hand, much about a final image presented is quite subjective, open to interpretation, and there are degrees of technical and artistic knowledge and ability that often go into a shoot and the final image that, without said knowledge and ability from personal experience, a critiquer is sometimes actually quite clueless and therefore incapable of understanding, so they're just shooting from the lip.

In any case, it's all just opinions anyway, and I think it's important to remember that. Some are educated opinions, some are not. Some are made by people who actually speak from experience, some are made by those who just parrot what they've read on the internet. I take it all with a grain of salt.

When someone offers cc on my shots, I consider what they're saying, and then I will either agree with them or not, point by point. Most times I won't even tell them if I do or don't, I just thank them for having a look and leaving their thoughts, and move on, other times I'll have a conversation with them about it, to give them my perspective as well.

In the end, if I agreed with what they wrote, I try to remember it and take it into consideration on future shots, or I may even go back and edit the shot in question. If I don't agree with what they wrote, I mostly just ignore it and move on.

There's one more thing to consider, I think; The WAY people give critiques. Some people are just plain condescending snots about it. That never goes over well, no matter how true it might be.