Why No Critique?

[limr]

In response to basically limr's post above, and also to minicoop's post, I typed this out. Just some thoughts...

So, who is a better photographer? The person who gets great shots with a Leica M6 TTL and three simple Leica primes costing $12,000 total, or the person who gets good shots with a Ricoh Singlex TLs and three crappy 1970's vintage screw-mount prime lenses that were picked up at a garage sale for $25 for all three lenses? Are you saying that the photographer is immaterial if he's shooting with an iPhone? Or that the better the camera, the less important the photographer's skill is? Or that we ought to give a rat's patootie about what ignorant non-photogrtaphers "think"? It's not all that clear to me what kind of preconceptions and biases we're trying to establish here as worthy of eye-rolling.

No, I was saying that all the people raving over the photos taken with the iPhone were actually raving about the phone, and NOT about the photographer. They were the ones who were discounting the skill he showed with the composition. I can't say the skill that he chose with the processing because the app did that.

As for who is the better photographer? *shrug* You don't have to have the top equipment to get good photos. You don't need to have the crappiest, either. It's what you do with the tool. What's different about the iPhone? In the hands of a skilled photographer, nothing. But are you really saying that someone who knows how to use an iPhone but nothing else is going to be just as skilled as a photographer who can get a good picture no matter what the tool is? I'm not willing to say that.

Is the 32 year-old "hipster dude" shooting a Yashica-Mat 124G necessarily going to produce better work with film and his 120 twin-lens reflex than if he were to shoot the same types of subjects with a Nikon D3200 and cropped everything to square-frmat and converted everything to B&W Tri-X emulation using an expensive, well-done software suite? Who are we to "(pre-)judge and (pre-)critique" the work of these fictional people? Especially since we have not even SEEN ANY PHOTOS?

I wasn't talking about either of those groups.
My eye-roll was for the line in the ad that said we should just forget about teaching people how to take better pictures. Let's just make the cameras do it all by themselves! Of course they are doing this to sell more iPhones, but who's buying them? People who don't want to think about taking pictures. What kind of pictures do you really think they would be able to take if they were handed a dedicated camera rather than an iPhone? Are they going to prove themselves as skilled a photographer then?

People who already have skill in photography who take pictures with their iPhones...who cares? I'm not rolling my eyes over them. (Again, my point about the photographer in the show who had iPhone pictures up - people were giving credit to the phone.) People who only take pictures with their iPhones but think they could do just as well with a real camera? Cue eye-roll.

 

[The_Traveler]

The photographer might care about the equipment he/she uses any of a huge number of reasons but the viewer looking at the photo shouldn't make the anything but the photo part of the value/like/want equation.

 

[cbarnard7]

So this thread has nothing about critiquing anymore...

 

[vintagesnaps]

I was just thinking that - what was the question? I've lost track... I don't know, I sometimes make comments but other times don't do more than take a quick look; there are so many photos posted in a day I don't think there's any way to keep up. I've run across a previous thread where someone posted a nice photo that didn't get comments but I wonder how many people saw it or had time to comment before it got bumped down the line. But there does seem to be a good bit of sniping and arguing and everything but critique and discussion going on, maybe it's somewhat the nature of message boards but I think it would be more enjoyable on here with less of it.

Now Derrel you aren't you making fun of my Ricoh Singlex II are you?? LOL The one that took a lens first dive in between seats and a concrete wall at an arena that pushed the lens into the camera just enough to crack the mirror? (Hey, it's still usable... )

 

[Derrel]

>SNIP>Now Derrel you aren't you making fun of my Ricoh Singlex II are you?? LOL The one that took a lens first dive in between seats and a concrete wall at an arena that pushed the lens into the camera just enough to crack the mirror? (Hey, it's still usable... )

Naw...I was more interested in the Ricoh Singlex TLS...Ricoh Singlex TLS - Camerapedia

I had no idea you had a Singlex II...I thought those all conked out sometime after the last ice age...

 

[molested_cow]

I don't really post photos here any more. Actually, I don't really post my photos anywhere except on my own blog, a place no one visits. So really I am just clicking the shutter for my own amusement.

 

[AnimalLover]

I am too busy posting skimpy pictures of myself. Shame on me. I will go start giving critique right now. Thanks for getting me back on track.

You can probably just keep doing that instead :blushing:
Jk! Lol

 

[minicoop1985]

In response to basically limr's post above, and also to minicoop's post, I typed this out. Just some thoughts...

So, who is a better photographer? The person who gets great shots with a Leica M6 TTL and three simple Leica primes costing $12,000 total, or the person who gets good shots with a Ricoh Singlex TLs and three crappy 1970's vintage screw-mount prime lenses that were picked up at a garage sale for $25 for all three lenses? Are you saying that the photographer is immaterial if he's shooting with an iPhone? Or that the better the camera, the less important the photographer's skill is? Or that we ought to give a rat's patootie about what ignorant non-photogrtaphers "think"? It's not all that clear to me what kind of preconceptions and biases we're trying to establish here as worthy of eye-rolling.

Is the 32 year-old "hipster dude" shooting a Yashica-Mat 124G necessarily going to produce better work with film and his 120 twin-lens reflex than if he were to shoot the same types of subjects with a Nikon D3200 and cropped everything to square-frmat and converted everything to B&W Tri-X emulation using an expensive, well-done software suite? Who are we to "(pre-)judge and (pre-)critique" the work of these fictional people? Especially since we have not even SEEN ANY PHOTOS?

The truth is, a person with a talented eye can take a great photograph with just about anything-a Sony Alpha a99, an iPhone, an Android, a Kraft Macaroni and Cheese 110 film camera, a carrot. This is simply fact. Let's say for a second (humor me) that I'm talented with my DSLR. I could take that skill and apply it to my GS3 and get some fantastic photos. What my point is, is that with my SRT-101 or OM-1n, I can claim a lot more credit for assuring proper exposure and the technical end of it. There's something much more gratifying about understanding exposure and composition as opposed to simply pointing and waiting for the little LED light to go off. What you mention between the Yashica-Mat and the D3200, once they're online, I would likely not be able to tell the difference unless someone told me if they were edited closely enough.

What a DSLR does most definitely have over a cell phone camera (for the moment) is versatility. I don't think you can easily mount a 300mm lens to a phone that also happens to have an APS-C or full frame sensor (or, hell, 4/3).

 

[C4n0n.Fan]

And look at the response to this thread....

 

[pixmedic]

The photographer might care about the equipment he/she uses any of a huge number of reasons but the viewer looking at the photo shouldn't make the anything but the photo part of the value/like/want equation.

And here just might be the root of the problem.
how many times do we see someone post a picture for C&C, and before ANY comments on the actual photo are made, good or bad, people are wanting to know what equipment was used. what the exif data was.

Admittedly, that information could possibly be relevant down the road if the discussion turns to how the photo could be improved, but the equipment used is certainly not necessary for someone to look at a picture and decide if they like it or not. Unless you are looking for very specific critique on a photo, I dont think the equipment used should even be divulged until AFTER discussion of the photo has taken place. you dont need to know specifics to tell if a picture is under/overexposed, if cropping is bad, or if colors are off. I honestly think often times we are making some of our C&C decisions based on how we feel about the equipment used instead of the merits/issues of the actual picture itself.

 

[pgriz]

^^^ YES! x100

It should be (IMO) about the image and not the tools. Now if someone said, "Wow! Great image! How did you get it to look like that?" THEN a discussion of the gear/lighting/processing would be appropriate.
In fact, perhaps we should have a "rule" that NO equipment discussion takes place unless the image is obviously suffering from technical flaws and issues.

 

[minicoop1985]

The photographer might care about the equipment he/she uses any of a huge number of reasons but the viewer looking at the photo shouldn't make the anything but the photo part of the value/like/want equation.

And here just might be the root of the problem.
how many times do we see someone post a picture for C&C, and before ANY comments on the actual photo are made, good or bad, people are wanting to know what equipment was used. what the exif data was.

Admittedly, that information could possibly be relevant down the road if the discussion turns to how the photo could be improved, but the equipment used is certainly not necessary for someone to look at a picture and decide if they like it or not. Unless you are looking for very specific critique on a photo, I dont think the equipment used should even be divulged until AFTER discussion of the photo has taken place. you dont need to know specifics to tell if a picture is under/overexposed, if cropping is bad, or if colors are off. I honestly think often times we are making some of our C&C decisions based on how we feel about the equipment used instead of the merits/issues of the actual picture itself.

A few months ago, I got myself an Olympus DSLR and couldn't be more excited about this feature and that lens and this ad nauseum. You guys have taught me over the past two or so months exactly this: Who cares what the photo was taken with? You're right: the photo itself is much more important. Speaking of... Here's a guy that creates amazing forced perspective photos with a $200 point and shoot...

Michael Paul Smith's Imaginary Miniature Elgin Park World

 

[skieur]

We've had an increasing trend toward situations where honest C&C has lead to a very high chance of push-back and really negative feedback being directed at those who give C&C. If the OP, or the OP's circle of friends doesn't like the C&C that's given, there's quite often a series of negative jabs and smarty-alecky posts. Not to mention entirely NEW, separate posts that are usually specifically targeted at issues raised in the original C&C post. The rank beginners seem to be the very best at accepting C&C, while the intermediate level shooters are the ones who post images for C&C, often knowing that there's absolutely nothing that could have been done better or more elegantly or with more artistry.

I agree, but you and I both know that there's a difference between "honest CC" and snide remarks. Too often, it's either borderline, or snide.

I'll see something like, "I think the horizon could be straightened" or "It's underexposed" and that's direct and constructive. But, I'll also see indirect jabs for no reason. I agree with you on those fishing for compliments (they are just sharing their art, I guess) but those who ask for help often rarely get it.

Unless you describe what constitutes "indirect jabes" or "snide remarks" specifically than we must assume that it is all in the "INTERPRETATION".