Why No Critique?

[JTPhotography]

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.

Great point and perfectly stated. I started with a manual film camera and a 50mm lens. Everyone should learn like that, it forces you to learn the craft, you either understand what is going on with the camera and how to expose photos correctly or you quit.

Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do about this "sea change" and it will only get worse. The best thing to do is try your best to not get annoyed by it.

The interesting part about it to me is how it got to this point. I know digital has a lot, if not everything, to do with it, but you also have facebooking and blogging.

And another interesting aspect, how far, as purists, do we go to pimp ourselves (for lack of a better term) and join the crowd in an effort to keep up? I have garnered a large following on facebook and it has been a learning experience. I can post my best, most artistic work and it gets very little attention, but if I hand feed them a sunrise and sunset on a daily basis, regardless of whether the photos are good or not, and they are like first graders who have just been thrown a bunch of halloween candy.

This would be a great topic for a new thread, I would love to hear your thoughts on this, as well as from the other folks on here who have been in the business for a while.

 

[The_Traveler]

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.

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 think that this is a mistake, there is always 'room.' Let me explain why I think that.

This next is a quote from a PM I sent to someone.

I have lately resolved to be more forthright both in my negative comments and the positive ones.

Most artists want to know that people have actually 'seen' their work and appreciate it, not just looked at. Not that anyone expects that their work is perfect but they hope that the idea behind it is meaningful and comes across.

Yesterday I was at a local show in Baltimore (actually before it opened) and went back two hours later to try and meet a couple of the photographers. I was writing a note to leave with the other images and he wandered by. I asked him which pictures were his and told him that I had come back specifically to try and meet him, he was practically in tears. [His work was beautifully seen and composed (although not perfectly finished but I didn't say that)

I am perfectly happy to hear about defects in anything I do but most of all, I want to know that people actually are seeing what I am doing, not just looking. I rarely do decorative work or pretty work which is evident in its success. So when I put up a picture and no one says anything, it is too easy to think that what I am trying to show isn't getting across.

Being disliked or criticized is acceptable because it is a response that gives direction, being passed by or ignored is really painful.

 

[pgriz]

About 5 or 6 years ago, I joined a local photo club, on the urging of my wife (an artist) who thought I could benefit from sharing with other photographers. It's a rather large club (membership ranges from 100-160 people each year), and have a number of very accomplished professional and advanced amateur photographers. It's a club that is very active in encouraging various aspects of the photographic arts (technical, shooting opportunities, exploration of old and new techniques, judging, exhibiting, and competition), with weekly meetings having different subjects (presentations by well-known and/or local photographers, art gallery curators, members describing their specialties, member competitions, member show-and-tell nights).

One of the aspects that gets a lot of attention is cultivating new judges from among the members, with the goal of having all members capable of being judges in any of the competitions the club holds. There is one basic course that is taught by a long-time judge and each judge is encouraged to come up with a set of criteria to use in conducting their evaluation activities. The club deliberately wants a rotation of judging talent since any one judge, being human, has his/her own perspectives and point of view and habits, and these will inevitably colour their perceptions. By encouraging rotation, the judging reactions can never be predicted (or played to by the photographers entering the competition). At the presentation of the competition results, all the images and their scoring are shown, and then the top three and the runner-ups are discussed in detail, with each judge (there are usually three for each competition) discussing on the stage what aspects of the image contributed/detracted from the final scoring. It is traditional to have one of the judges be an "expert" in the field not affiliated with the club, and with the other two being the club members. This allows for a very transparent and clear discussion which explores what attributes of an image contribute to the overall result.

In participating in these competitions, I've come up with a personal checklist that I use in analyzing images to help guide my analysis of the image. This is my checklist:

Subjective:
· What it the overall feeling when you first look at the image?
· What attracts your attention?
· Is there a story or narrative that the image evokes?
· What does the photographer reveal or show to you?
· Is there a specific aspect that makes you want to look at this image again?
Objective:
· Are the camera choices (exposure, aperture, shutter speed, focus position, DOF, focal length, filtering) supporting or detracting from the overall feeling?
· It/are the position(s) of the main subject(s) in the frame supporting or detracting the overall feeling?
· Is the light arrangement contributing positively or negatively to the image?
· Are the post-processing choices contributing to the overall feel or distracting?
· Are the elements that are not the main subject(s) supporting or competing with the main subject(s)?
Bottom line: Is it an interesting image?
​

In competition, it is rare for us to need to refer to the "objective" aspects as most of the images are very well executed from a technical point-of-view. However, in workshops where we coach and mentor other photographers, those aspects are discussed in detail as they are often the reason why an image doesn't work, or at least, not in the way the photographer intended.

In the C&C on this forum, we also have the challenge that many of the posters have not gone through any kind of formal training in image evaluation, and are learning how to express an opinion on an image. This applies to some of the very good photographers, as well, as making good images is not the same as analyzing and evaluating them. So, the comments made "may" be founded on deep knowledge and practice, or may be the ramblings of a monday-quarterback *** photographer, who may or may not have actually done any photography himself/herself. So when participating in an on-line forum, it pays to hang around and get a feeling from the various posts who knows what they are talking about, and who talks because they like the sound of their own voice.

Personally, if I come across a good critique, I usually try and look up the work of the person offering the critique, to see if there is a body of work which back-stops the opinions expressed, or was just a lucky guess. Then, I can go back and see if the critique is consistent with the principles practiced by the critique-giver. Sometimes the person does not have an online presence, and you get an idea of their abilities from the online postings. The basic lesson in evaluating critiques is to know whether the person actually knows what they are talking about. You don't have to agree with the view/opinion expressed, but you should be able to understand how that opinion was arrived at.

 

[sleist]

This thread = irony

 

[pgriz]

This thread = irony

Why?

 

[baturn]

Well, some of us (me) don't aspire to be artists. I care not a whit if I never see a photo of mine hanging in a gallery. I do not, nor do I ever expect to enter a competition. My photos are for myself and to share with family and friends. To document places I've been and things I've seen, mostly wildlife and the odd landscape. This does not mean I don't want to make the best pictures I can, it just means I don't care to spend every waking moment researching the hows and whys of photography. so a forum with people who have greater knowledge and experience than I should be a place where I can come for a little help from time to time.
Since joining this forum I spent the first few years just reading the threads that held interest for me and not posting either photos or comments. In the last couple of years I have started posting more of both and quite frankly felt mostly ignored. I take this to mean that neither my photos nor my comments are of interest to the majority of viewers especially those who would be the most helpful if they responded.
To be fair the critique and comments I have received here have all been helpful, just not plentiful.
I will continue to post and respond and hopefully improve, although slowly.

 

[amolitor]

I try to critique something almost every day. It's work, though, and my willingness to offer critique waxes and wanes. To some extent what you're probably noticing is simply that several of the more prolific critics are simply in a down phase, I know I am.

Anyone can critique. Photography shouldn't be about making art secretly coded for only people "in the know". It ought to be, to a degree, accessible to anyone. If you have a reaction to a picture, you can simply write that down. It'll help you and the artist if you sit and try to analyze your reaction a little, to understand where it comes from, but your reaction is valuable and useful all by itself.

Sometimes pictures go uncritiqued simply because they got posted at the wrong time of day, when it happened that the only people around weren't in the mood, and the subject line wasn't quite "grabby" enough to make people take a look. There's a large element of randomness, both post-by-post and week-to-week. Don't despair, just post again. Post anything. I post things I like, I post things I don't like.

 

[The_Traveler]

This does not mean I don't want to make the best pictures I can, it just means I don't care to spend every waking moment researching the hows and whys of photography. so a forum with people who have greater knowledge and experience than I should be a place where I can come for a little help from time to time.

In the last couple of years I have started posting more of both and quite frankly felt mostly ignored. I take this to mean that neither my photos nor my comments are of interest to the majority of viewers especially those who would be the most helpful if they responded.

To be fair the critique and comments I have received here have all been helpful, just not plentiful.

You seem to be actively rejecting the idea of being creative or artistic as if that means something special or foreign.

In that context, I don't understand what you mean by 'making the best pictures.'

 

[Derrel]

Some good points have been brought up in the last couple of pages. The_Traveler's post (#43) is interesting and on-target in terms of the HUGE flood of newbies who have rushed to digital, and who focus mostly on the technical...which their fancy new cameras help with to a HUGE degree. Amolitor's comments about time of day and randomness are also spot-on.

 

[pixmedic]

Some good points have been brought up in the last couple of pages. The_Traveler's post (#43) is interesting and on-target in terms of the HUGE flood of newbies who have rushed to digital, and who focus mostly on the technical...which their fancy new cameras help with to a HUGE degree. Amolitor's comments about time of day and randomness are also spot-on.

is focusing on the technical necessarily a bad thing in the beginning?
figure out how to work the camera, how the exposure triangle works, how to get a properly exposed and in focus picture....THEN start doing artsy stuff?
or is it something that should be learned all together?
Im not looking for some debate on this, i am genuinely asking if if makes any difference at all which order you learn things in?
we learned technical aspects first.

as for critique, I notice that people tend to critique more on what they shoot, or are interested in.
for instance, I rarely comment much on B&W. (unless I find it a somewhat compelling image)
same for street shots, or automotive, or to a lesser degree wildlife (i love the cute animal shots)
I comment far more often on people photography because that's what i am most interested in, and those are the types of photos that I feel i can give the most accurate critique on. for most of the other stuff, my comments are generally limited to a "like" or "dislike" simply based on personal taste.
obviously, there is always SOME bit of critique anyone can partake in...even if its just commenting on the cropping, or posing, or angles... and some do.

I think that many people are also not comfortable commenting on or critiquing photos in genres that they themselves have little or no experience with.
I often find myself in this category.
I think another problem might be with peoples expectations from the forum. we expect that when we post a picture that people will comment on it, and when/if that doesn't happen, we are disappointed. maybe we think that something is wrong with the photo, or that we arent part of the "in" crowd. Far more likely i think, is that we have simply caught the forum on a bit of a slow day. sometimes, simply bumping the thread a day or two later is all it takes to get things moving.
we cant expect every shot we post to get the attention we THINK it should be getting. all we can do is post, hope that it gets some notice, and hope we can learn something from it. other than that, just keep shooting and move on to the next picture to post.

 

[Overread]

On the time of day even the day of the week affects it. Weekends are the worst time to post anything because people are up and out and not slaved to the computer. Weekdays people are more likely to be surfing whilst at work; in a lunch break or when they come home are relaxing an thus not up and around.

 

[limr]

Some good points have been brought up in the last couple of pages. The_Traveler's post (#43) is interesting and on-target in terms of the HUGE flood of newbies who have rushed to digital, and who focus mostly on the technical...which their fancy new cameras help with to a HUGE degree. Amolitor's comments about time of day and randomness are also spot-on.

is focusing on the technical necessarily a bad thing in the beginning?
figure out how to work the camera, how the exposure triangle works, how to get a properly exposed and in focus picture....THEN start doing artsy stuff?
or is it something that should be learned all together?
Im not looking for some debate on this, i am genuinely asking if if makes any difference at all which order you learn things in?
we learned technical aspects first.

I can't think of no answer other than, "it depends."

I think back to when I first started being interested in photography and try to remember what I wanted to accomplish. I remember distinctly trying to get a certain artistic effect - the blurred foreground and sharp subject in the background. Did I have any idea how to do it? Beyond just "try to focus on the subject," no - I had no idea. At the time, I had a point and shoot film camera. I tried again and again to get an artistic effect and I failed miserably. It took me a little while to realize what was happening: I wanted to take a kind of picture that my camera was not suited to. I didn't know why it wouldn't, but I just knew somehow that I had reached the artistic limits of that camera, and I needed one that gave me more control. That's when I got my totally manual SLR and started learning the technical stuff.

You could say that I couldn't achieve my artistic goals without the technical proficiency, but without the desire to be artistic, I would never have any reason to learn the technical stuff. So which was the chicken and which was the egg? Or is it just an itch to learn one - art or technique - that creates the itch for the other?

So no, I don't think it's a bad thing to focus on the technical aspects of photography to start with, but I also think that the person behind the camera should have an awareness of why he or she is taking the picture.

 

[cbarnard7]

This thread = irony

I see why'd you think that (and it is a little ironic, being a side conversation and all) but it needed to be brought up. Most of the conversations on here are based on different variations of (or lack of) critique, so it's nice to hear why people do/don't.

 

[minicoop1985]

Here's my thought. I'm always willing to tell people what I like about something, and what could be better, though I do try to preface it with HEY BRO I'M NOT EVEN CLOSE TO A PROFESSIONAL AND PEOPLE PROBABLY LAUGH AT ME. I appreciate the feedback I've been given here-people seem to be able to critique positively and have been a huge help. There's only been one comment on any of my numerous threads (I've slowed down with them for fear of going overboard here and also not having as much to post) that didn't sit well with me. I understand why the C&C seems to slow down, as perhaps it's being perceived that moderators are cracking down with numerous recent bans, but I would surmise they still want to encourage positive critiques; things like "Oh hey, you know, the lighting could be helped by..." or "If the subject were ___ this would work a little better" as opposed to "YOUR EYE IS DEAD LIKE YOUR DREAMS," etc.

 

[limr]

"YOUR EYE IS DEAD LIKE YOUR DREAMS,"

I actually snorted as I laughed.

This thread = irony

I see why'd you think that (and it is a little ironic, being a side conversation and all) but it needed to be brought up. Most of the conversations on here are based on different variations of (or lack of) critique, so it's nice to hear why people do/don't.

I think what this thread also proves is that you'll get more answers when you ask directed questions. This goes back to Overread's point about there being better ways to get more feedback, and more importantly, useful feedback. If people put more attention into what they want to know/ask, then maybe more people will be willing to respond.