Why No Critique?

[hopdaddy]

I agree with a lot of what has already been said here. In addition...

I personally don't comment unless I think there is something I can add, OR if the picture is so amazing I just need to say "wow", and that's usually all I say in those cases.

The reasons I usually don't have much to add are:

1. The picture is so fundamentally bad that the best I could possibly say is "This is a hopeless image and you have absolutely no idea what you're doing. Go read a whole lot of books, spend a whole lot of time looking at and analyzing good photography, go read your camera manual... and then try again." That's not going to be received well by many people, and it represents probably 60% of the images I see here.

2. The picture is fine but just isn't photographically interesting. It follows some "rules", is well exposed, well composed, etc. but just boring. There's no way to help that, so there's nothing I can say... and in the end saying "This just isn't even remotely compelling" just isn't going to go over well.

3. The picture is well thought out and well executed and there isn't room for me to say anything simply because to critique it would be to question the artist's motives and interpretations, and I dislike doing that.

I believe you have said all three statements about my photos to me , in the past . Guess everyone mellows with AGE ?

 

[skieur]

If you will just add why you like it you have a good critique . Actually ,I learned more from giving CC than receiving .

...honestly,quite often i don't know,myself,why a certain image grabs me.whether its an emotion portrayed,the colors or whatever it is that drew me in.I can say technical aspects are at the bottom of my list.So....where do you go from there?Like that shot Pascal (?) shared of "1/39"....what do i like about it??I don't know,but it intrigued me enough to look at it several times.Is it "technically" correct??...beats me,and it doesn't matter.I like it.On the other hand,I couldn't tell you why an image doesn't grab me.Doesn't mean it doesn't serve the purpose they set out to do,and it might be presumptuous on my part to say otherwise.In the wrong hands (like mine) CC can be a dangerous tool.I certainly wouldn't want to discourage anyone because my vision isn't theirs.I do believe CC is a good tool in the hands of someone that uses it effectively.

All fair points. I challenge you to try to think deeper about why you don't like something, even if it's just your opinion. It's all subjective anyway and if you say, "I really don't like B&W images, sorry...I would have like to have seen it in color and blurred." Maybe the OP will have their mind blown and start doing completely different things! Plus, it'll help you put a finger on what you really love/hate to shape your own photography!

If it is properly done there is very little subjectivity in C and C.

 

[manaheim]

-sigh-

If you call not giving people feedback "mellowing", I suppose.

I probably should also say this isn't like some gospel rule I have chiseled in stone. It just explains why I OFTEN don't give feedback, and it's intended as an example, since I know others feel similarly.

That said... sometimes I feel like giving people a thump on the noggin is worth it, even if I think they'll react negatively to it. Perhaps that was so in your case, hopdaddy. I don't recall.

 

[manaheim]

...honestly,quite often i don't know,myself,why a certain image grabs me.whether its an emotion portrayed,the colors or whatever it is that drew me in.I can say technical aspects are at the bottom of my list.So....where do you go from there?Like that shot Pascal (?) shared of "1/39"....what do i like about it??I don't know,but it intrigued me enough to look at it several times.Is it "technically" correct??...beats me,and it doesn't matter.I like it.On the other hand,I couldn't tell you why an image doesn't grab me.Doesn't mean it doesn't serve the purpose they set out to do,and it might be presumptuous on my part to say otherwise.In the wrong hands (like mine) CC can be a dangerous tool.I certainly wouldn't want to discourage anyone because my vision isn't theirs.I do believe CC is a good tool in the hands of someone that uses it effectively.

All fair points. I challenge you to try to think deeper about why you don't like something, even if it's just your opinion. It's all subjective anyway and if you say, "I really don't like B&W images, sorry...I would have like to have seen it in color and blurred." Maybe the OP will have their mind blown and start doing completely different things! Plus, it'll help you put a finger on what you really love/hate to shape your own photography!

If it is properly done there is very little subjectivity in C and C.

And yet there is often quite a LOT of subjectivity in the reception.

 

[skieur]

Why no critique?

The answer is simple. Why waste time giving a knowledgeable critique when the rest of the thread is strewn with "Nice pic!, Great" etc. by beginners who have not even looked at the photo very carefully and the OP takes the beginners seriously and ignores or makes a joke of your critique.

 

[robbins.photo]

Rotfl - well, figured now would be a good time to through up a few and see if I could get any type of response. 16 views, not a peep. Too funny.

 

[hopdaddy]

-sigh-

If you call not giving people feedback "mellowing", I suppose.

I probably should also say this isn't like some gospel rule I have chiseled in stone. It just explains why I OFTEN don't give feedback, and it's intended as an example, since I know others feel similarly.

That said... sometimes I feel like giving people a thump on the noggin is worth it, even if I think they'll react negatively to it. Perhaps that was so in your case, hopdaddy. I don't recall.

I would more say ,You were just pointing me in the correct direction ,without the sweet coatings . CC can be harsh without being personal ,I have always respected you for that . May-be you would remember....."Hopper " ?

 

[ratssass]

May-be you could start off with the self question , If it were my photo I would do_______________ . With the tech's ,well that to me is the easy part . inspect the photo just like you were doing the post production . How is the exposure. Are the whites blown out ? Are the blacks blocked ? is there a blue or magenta cast in the whites . How is the contrast ? then I go to "Artistic Choices ". is the photo balanced ? is there a better crop option ? I'm sure for each person on here there will be that many different ways to offer critique ,But I'm always amazed at the things pointed out in my work ,That I missed . I will even allow my stuff to sit a few days ,then go back to see if I missed something before I post it . Most times even after finding even more mistakes ,someone will point out more that I've missed . My point here is ,you can grow much faster with CC than without . Not to mention you also need to cc your own photos with a critical eye

Thank you...you broke things down into smaller bites.With that,you've created even more questions for me.That's a good thing,as that's why I joined this community.
With that,I'll take my questions to the correct tab "Beginners"

 

[lambertpix]

I've seen this on other forums, too. It seems like critique threads go in one of these directions:

* "Nice pic"
* Crickets.
* Nasty feedback that turns ugly.
* Fair feedback that turns ugly.

I hadn't encountered the "take off all your clothes" redirection yet, but that certainly doesn't seem any worse than the others. ;-)

Good critiques, it seems, depend on a fair bit of maturity from both the artist and the critic, and while there's a lot of that on this (and other) forums, it's really, really difficult to count on all parties to be equally mature and constructive. Faced with this, it seems like most people just drift off to a thread that's a little more light-hearted, not to mention scantily-clad.

I've ceased to get my hopes up.

 

[pgriz]

Good critiques take time, and an investment of effort. At the beginner level, there are usually a bunch of technical issues that can be pointed out, and usually these technical issues overwhelm whatever artistic vision the person may have. At the intermediate level, the technical quality is usually very good to excellent, but the engagement of the viewer interest/emotion is still hit and miss (mostly miss). At the experienced/advanced level, the technical issues are usually past reproach, and the person's vision or style tends to come through. If one takes the time to offer a critique, the critique at each level will be different. Having made the effort, the person making the critique will usually see if the OP will understand the points made. If the critique is basically ignored, then the chance of another critique falls very quickly.

Another aspect is the orientation of the image. On one side there is the "pretty" picture, and on the other side an emptionally-gripping one. At least in my experience, the two seldom, if ever, overlap. Yet it is much easier to make a pretty picture than one which affects the viewer's emotions. In some ways, this is the "holy grail" of photography - to create images that touch the viewer. I think very few of us get that far, or do it in any consistent way. One of the complications is that we do not all react in the same way, and we usually have different "hot" buttons. So if your photography can affect some people some of the time, I'd say you've got something good going on. But precisely because the range of reactions is quite varied, it is in fact very useful to give feedback to a photographer indicating whether or not there was any kind of emotional reaction.

 

[cbarnard7]

Good critiques take time, and an investment of effort. At the beginner level, there are usually a bunch of technical issues that can be pointed out, and usually these technical issues overwhelm whatever artistic vision the person may have. At the intermediate level, the technical quality is usually very good to excellent, but the engagement of the viewer interest/emotion is still hit and miss (mostly miss). At the experienced/advanced level, the technical issues are usually past reproach, and the person's vision or style tends to come through. If one takes the time to offer a critique, the critique at each level will be different. Having made the effort, the person making the critique will usually see if the OP will understand the points made. If the critique is basically ignored, then the chance of another critique falls very quickly.

Another aspect is the orientation of the image. On one side there is the "pretty" picture, and on the other side an emptionally-gripping one. At least in my experience, the two seldom, if ever, overlap. Yet it is much easier to make a pretty picture than one which affects the viewer's emotions. In some ways, this is the "holy grail" of photography - to create images that touch the viewer. I think very few of us get that far, or do it in any consistent way. One of the complications is that we do not all react in the same way, and we usually have different "hot" buttons. So if your photography can affect some people some of the time, I'd say you've got something good going on. But precisely because the range of reactions is quite varied, it is in fact very useful to give feedback to a photographer indicating whether or not there was any kind of emotional reaction.

Those are some great points, especially if the OP decides to ignore the critique. I have, on many occasions, been critiqued on my work and thoroughly enjoyed the pointers. There comes a point where the OP should realize if it's just a subjective nit-pick or a real, technical flaw. In the case of the OP ignoring help, I simply move on. There are plenty of other times, however, when I'll see someone bump their picture 3x in order to hopefully have someone review their work.

I don't expect everyone to stop at every thread and try to review every photo. It's just that I have seen the forum as a whole slightly "decline" in my short time since I've been on-board. It seems there's more of a crowd hanging out around the banning drama and mud-slinging that happens off-topic.

 

[limr]

FWIW, I generally don't give critique unless I feel it will contribute to the discussion of the merits of the photo. If I see a photo that is fine, what is there to say? "Technically correct, but otherwise it does nothing for me." What does that offer to the person who took the photo? Not much. I mean, does anyone really want to hear, "Meh"??

Even if I elaborate on the reasons it didn't float my boat, is it really constructive? I'm not sure. If the highlights are blown, chances are it's already been said. If the flash wasn't used effectively, what the hell do I know about it? If it's a boring or cliched subject, does that help the photog who just wanted to learn how to take a good technical picture? And if there's no obvious reason to either praise or critique a shot - if it's just fine and nothing to write home about, either positively or negatively - then I just remain mum. I'd rather say nothing than say something meaningless.

Like robbins said, most of us will only pay attention to the genres we're already interested in. I rarely look at Macro for example. I like macro shots, but I don't know enough to comment on technical issues, and they're not so interesting to me that I want to look at a lot of macro shots. Especially since so many of them are of spiders! (What is WITH you macro folks and your insects and arachnids??? )

And yes, sometimes it takes time to give meaningful feedback and I don't always have the time or energy to put into that kind of feedback. I do enough of that at work! Sometimes I just want to look at pictures and move on.

I find myself much more likely to comment if the OP asks for a more specific type of feedback.

 

[The_Traveler]

TBH, I think the number of interesting or challenging pictures has slowed to almost nothing.

if that is the case, then there is room for improvement. So tell them how.

That's a quick and easy response but since I have 10,000 posts perhaps I have a different view of the issue.

During the almost 7 years that I have been posting here, there has been a sea change in the kinds of posters and the kinds of cameras.

Now the much smarter cameras (and better servers) allow even technically and artistically ignorant people to have decent photos.
So there they are, totally ignorant, but at the controls of a superb picture-making machine - and screwing things up.
They are so certain, since they were capable of using their shutter finger, that they are capable of making great pictures without any work.

I'm tired of people who are so ignorant and so lazy.
I am really, really, really happy to work with people who are working at the art.

i don't feel i have enough expertise to give cc.there was a thread once that gave instructions on how to provide the proper cc."I like it" was deemed useless,but thats the best i can do.

No, that isn't.
That is turning away from the very activity that will make you a better photographer.
If you don't know what makes you like someone else's picture, you don't know how to change what you are doing.

When you see something that you like, think that 'I like that' and then try to parse out what about the picture you like and that is pleasing.
There is no shortcut to getting better, there is only work.

This Lew Lorton Photography | Getting to a Final Image - some words on editing photos for a new photographer is an article I wrote that gives a helpful (I hope) list of factors you can consider when you are trying to understand why you like a picture.
What it doesn't give are answers, but only questions and you must find the answers within yourself.

 

[astroNikon]

On a similar note in regards to C&C,
I used to do music competition judging, where all you are doing is C&C
But it used to vary dependent upon the skill level, age and request of the organization doing the event.

On the National caliber players you critic, you nit-pick on the most minor things.

On the really young ones you are there to support and offer positive criticism so that they don't just quit.
And of course everything in between.

Many times I had to think of the type of instrument (quality, string quality, bow or other things that actually held the player back and make appropriate changes in what I'm thinking). Players families that could not afford a $4,000 violin and instead had a $400 one, there are obvious differences in everything about it excluding any player differences. I took into account everything that I could to help support the development of the young players.

One year they had a string judge that was a top notch international player. He virtually destroyed the young players in his critique but then you don't expect an 8yr old to play stuff from a college level. This drove away the players from the event organization, and apparently some players just quit.

I've seen some newbie photographers get slaughtered. Of the C&C I've tried I have tried to be positive in things unless there were obvious issues. Granted, you take a picture of stars and I'm gonna like it .. in focus or not But sometimes the C&C has to be at the level of the person presenting the photo to help them evolve.

I'm grateful for the C&C I've received and I've actually gone back and made adjustments based on the C&C and posted back those adjustments. Very good criticism in my book. But truthfully I also know my limits and some newbies don't.

 

[mmaria]

This question bugged me as well so I'm really glad that you've asked and I've enjoyed reading replies.

I wanted to post a photo for critique yesterday and I thought about it, is it worthy to do that and simply gave up, because there is plenty of posted photos here, without c&c recieved.

On the other hand, I gave some of the critique few times and I was completely ignored by op or misunderstood. I'm taking the blame for not having enough time to really go to details. But again, on the other hand if someone wants to learn they'll google more about issue.

I like people, posing, food, sometimes landscapes and know a bit about color.
When giving critique f.e. I think I know few thing about posing. I'll say don't use that angle on such and such people, hands are not posed pleasantly etc. If op asks Why? and clearly show that wants some details I I'll be glad to give them much more then those statements. But usually, those things are ignored.
On some posed photos I tried to say something about girl wearing certain color but I was completely ignored.
That is when I give critique.


When I post a photo for c&c I want that anyone say anything at all.

I would like to hear one of these ... manaheim, you should do copy and paste

1. The picture is so fundamentally bad that the best I could possibly say is "This is a hopeless image and you have absolutely no idea what you're doing. Go read a whole lot of books, spend a whole lot of time looking at and analyzing good photography, go read your camera manual... and then try again." That's not going to be received well by many people, and it represents probably 60% of the images I see here.

2. The picture is fine but just isn't photographically interesting. It follows some "rules", is well exposed, well composed, etc. but just boring. There's no way to help that, so there's nothing I can say... and in the end saying "This just isn't even remotely compelling" just isn't going to go over well.

3. The picture is well thought out and well executed and there isn't room for me to say anything simply because to critique it would be to question the artist's motives and interpretations, and I dislike doing that.

Also, I would like to hear "^above" "I like it because" "I don't like it because" "I agree with what is already said" .... because then I know that more then one person feels the same way.... And, have to add that I had few meaningful and great reads in c&c of my photos. Thank you guys

I would like to hear anything because a forum is the only place I get critique of my photos. Everything I learned and know about photography I learned by myself (online courses, articles, books...) and from people on forum.


And I'll go now and post some c&c