Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: button on July 05, 2009, 01:39:18 pm
-
We've discussed the nuts and bolts of the critique process here:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=35359 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=35359)
Given how well that discussion went, I thought we might all benefit from a discussion of the nature of critique and what exactly it does for us as (dare I say it) artists. I would really appreciate your comments on this topic, because I think it deserves some consideration. I'll start with my observations:
On the surface, the two questions in the topic title seem easy to answer. For example, "When we allow others to critique our work, the feedback we get helps shape our next photographic endeavors." "We post here because we want to improve." "We offer critique to help others improve."
Simple, right? Well, maybe. However, I'd like to think these questions can serve as a chrysalis for much more meaningful dialogue, perhaps in the form of more questions, like "When do I know when to take someone's critique to heart?" "How much thought should I give another person's work before I comment?" "Can I articulate how critique has specifically helped me grow as a photographer?"
Please give this some thought and post your reply, because I don't see how it can do anything but help everyone.
Thanks,
John
-
John, I have the feeling something specific is disturbing you, but you are talking your way around it. If there indeed is something more, I encourage you to say it direct. Then you might get direct answers. Concerning how to critique, I will cite a faq from CGTalk (http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=31&t=690269), wich pretty much nails it. (I belong to the hobbyists and must confess I have difficulties for myself sounding not too negative with my critique.) Anyhow, here it goes:
The Artist ...
- upon presenting a work to the gallery should expect to have his/her work critiqued by others of varying skill levels.
- professionals - someone who has worked at some capacity in the film, television or gaming industry.
- students - someone who is currently enrolled in academic classes relating to the Digital Arts profession.
- hobbiests - someone who has a strong interest in the field and utilizes their free time pursuing their own personal projects in the medium.
- admirers - someone who just has a strong interest in the artists, their work and the media but doesn't have any experience producing the art themselves.
- John & Jane Does - someone who has randomly stumbled upon the forum and has registered to leave a comment or two.
- should understand that the opinion and critique of each individual mentioned above should be considered of equal value. It does not take a qualified and trained Master Chef to understand when cheese has gone bad. The same principle applies to anyone who wishes to critique an image.
- is not under any requirement to alter their work as suggested by it's critics.
- Apply all critiques - improve your work or muddle it up with the collective opinions of the masses. That is your choice.
- Apply some - maybe you understand the relevance of some critiques but don't want to sacrifice in other areas. That's fine.
- Apply none - Yes, you do have the right to ignore all critique provided or dismiss them as irrelevant to your vision. However, don't be surprised when your critics question your motivation to post in this WIP forum.
- should be courteous and thankful to the critiques provided, acknowledging each critique as helpful (even should the artist choose to ignore the advice provided). Someone just spent 2 minutes or longer writing an opinion of your work. Return the favor by (at the very least) thanking them for their time.
- should not take any critique of the art presented as a personal attack on his/her own character. Please understand that, "this is incorrect" and "you're a douchebag" are two completely different statements. The first being completely acceptable behaviour on the forum, and the later should be immediately reported to one of the Forum Leaders.
The Critic ...
- should understand that their opinion (regardless of how they or others may feel is relevant to the work) is never the final word of absolute truth and knowledge. That privilege belongs to the artist. The artist ultimately knows his/her vision and path that they wish to take to get there.
- may not agree with the artist's decisions or methods, but it is not acceptable to impose yourself upon the work. The correct way to critique work is to offer suggestions that the artist may (or may not) choose to implement in their revisions.
- should remain mindful that artists can be egotists (not trying to stereotype here, but it's a pretty common unwritten fact ). Careful choice of words when providing a critique is often recommended.
- Provide specifics when possible.
- Avoid use of negative words like bad, horrible, wrong, stupid, etc.
- Mention the parts that you like about the image as well as the parts you don't.
- should not argue the opinions or critiques provided by other users. Focus on the artwork presented and allow other users to give their opinion as well (even if you disagree).
-
Christian,
I like your list coming from both the artist's view and the critic's view. I especially like the last statement saying that different posters should not make an OP's topic a battleground of words which can turn nasty. There is always room for respectful discussion of any suggestions/critiques made. I think we all need to heed this last statement so that this can continue to be a worthwhile experience both for the photographer who offers up a photo and the one offering a critique.
-
Christian, either I have had too much agua con gas tonight or the tomatoes in the salad were off, but one way or the other, that list of do/do not do was a send-up, wasn´t it?
Rob C
-
John, I have the feeling something specific is disturbing you, but you are talking your way around it. If there indeed is something more, I encourage you to say it direct.
Nothing's disturbing me at all. I am simply interested in the way by which critique improves us. Since critique is an unscientific process and helps us get better, I had hoped that by posting this thread we could solve some of what I see as mystery involved. I not only realize that everyone has their own style and set of aesthetic values, I count on that fact when I receive critique. I promise you, there's no passive aggression built into my original post!
John
Edit reason: grammatical error
-
>>> "The Artist ... should understand that the opinion and critique of each individual mentioned above should be considered of equal value."
Sorry ... no way. This is not nursery school or a Marxist day camp. All opinions/critiques/critics are absolutely not "equal" or of "equal value" ...
-
Shutterpup, what you say. And I like it too that its about both sides.
Rob, I dont get why anyone would think this is a send-up.
John, ok I see! (As I read your post I thought you meant the recent two threads where Dale Russ and Jeremy where ...arguing. In any case, my question was superfluous.)
All the best!
Christian
-
TOP made a post (http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html) which encapsulates how I think about the subject perfectly.
>>> "The Artist ... should understand that the opinion and critique of each individual mentioned above should be considered of equal value."
Sorry ... no way. This is not nursery school or a Marxist day camp. All opinions/critiques/critics are absolutely not "equal" or of "equal value" ...
While I agree with your sentiment 100%, I think (hope) the point of the statement was that the photographer can learn equally well from the critique of Joe Blow as well as Respected Art Scholar - it will be very different learning, though.
-
>>> "The Artist ... should understand that the opinion and critique of each individual mentioned above should be considered of equal value."
Sorry ... no way. This is not nursery school or a Marxist day camp. All opinions/critiques/critics are absolutely not "equal" or of "equal value" ...
I agree with Jeremy on this. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: People who are going to offer photographic criticism here need to make at least a cross-section of their own work available for inspection. That's the only way I know to judge the value of their criticism. Anyone can claim any kind of background he wants to claim and there's no way to check it out unless the claim is so outrageous that the contrary is a matter of record. But there's one neat thing about photography: you can't fake it. The result speaks for itself. If it doesn't, it's a failure. I'm not sure the same thing's true of painting, considering some of the put-ons that have been shopped successfully in the fine art community.
I also don't agree with "..should not argue the opinions or critiques provided by other users. Focus on the artwork presented and allow other users to give their opinion as well (even if you disagree)." You certainly should allow others to give their opinions, but if an opinion is flat wrong it would be a mistake not to point out the error. On the other hand, arguing on the merits doesn't include ad hominem attacks. Also on the other hand, there can be opinions with which you may not agree, but which are simply different opinions from your own and not egregious errors.
I really like the increase I've seen lately in constructive criticism on here. I see a lot less reluctance to criticize and I see a lot more willingness to accept honest criticism without feeling it's insulting.
-
Small example, a leading german 3D company I know considered their nightshift cleaning womans one of their most valuable critics. They said, when you work 24/7 on some stuff, you sometimes are so drawn in that you overlook the obvious. These cleaning woman where just honest and would point it out directly.
I have some friends like that too, they dont understand anything from photos and graphic, but I value their opinions very much, its just raw and direct.
Either a critique makes sense for the artist, or not. For me its anyway who issues it, be it Karl Marx or Frodo Beutlin IVX. Simple like that.
-
considered their nightshift cleaning womans one of their most valuable critics.
I hope they pay her for that work if they find it so valuable.
Does that mean that the opinions of ALL night cleaning women are "equal"?
Maybe you meant it is possible to get good criticism from anyone, not that all critics and criticism are "equal"?
-
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: People who are going to offer photographic criticism here need to make at least a cross-section of their own work available for inspection... there's one neat thing about photography: you can't fake it.
I think you make a great point here, Russ. Unfortunately for those like myself who don't have a large body of nature/landscape work, this barometer devalues our opinion (not that I take that personally ). I have to rely upon consistent photographic results of my suggestions to validate my responses here.
John
-
I think you make a great point here, Russ. Unfortunately for those like myself who don't have a large body of nature/landscape work, this barometer devalues our opinion (not that I take that personally ). I have to rely upon consistent photographic results of my suggestions to validate my responses here.
John
John, I haven't a large body of landscape or nature work either. In fact, I hardly have a body in those areas at all, since people, their works, and their artifacts are my main concern. I'm not sure how that makes a difference. To me the important thing is whether or not you can see, can compose, and are technically competent in whatever genre you happen to explore. Seems to me a photographer who's serious about his work should be able to draw conclusions about the quality of work in areas other than his chosen ones.
-
I agree with Jeremy on this. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: People who are going to offer photographic criticism here need to make at least a cross-section of their own work available for inspection. That's the only way I know to judge the value of their criticism. Anyone can claim any kind of background he wants to claim and there's no way to check it out unless the claim is so outrageous that the contrary is a matter of record. But there's one neat thing about photography: you can't fake it. The result speaks for itself. If it doesn't, it's a failure. I'm not sure the same thing's true of painting, considering some of the put-ons that have been shopped successfully in the fine art community.
I'm not so sure that this matters all that much to me. It can be useful to look at someone's work and get an idea of where they're coming from, but for the most part I'm going to judge the value of their critiques based on the insight and thought that went into them. And I don't necessarily think you have to be a good photographer to be a good critic. Certainly with other art forms, it seems to rarely be the case that well-respected critics are also accomplished practitioners. Non-photographers, or even photographers that work exclusively in other genres, will likely approach an image from a different viewpoint than another photographer who has been shooting the same stuff for years. Both types of feedback can be helpful.
So while it may be useful (or just interesting) to see commenters' work, I certainly wouldn't want people to feel afraid to offer their opinions here because they don't feel the have the resume/credentials to back them up. If people just lurk because they're afraid to post and make themselves look/feel stupid, that's counter-productive to the forum.
I really like the increase I've seen lately in constructive criticism on here. I see a lot less reluctance to criticize and I see a lot more willingness to accept honest criticism without feeling it's insulting.
I definitely agree. It's good to see the increased activity in this forum, and the postings have mostly been of high quality.
-
1. "When do I know when to take someone's critique to heart?"
2."How much thought should I give another person's work before I comment?"
John,
Question 1. When the response becomes sarcastic and is aimed at belittling the person posting the work. Thankfully, apart from a few instances this is rare on this forum, and I have found most criticism to be constructive and helpful (including several comments of yours John, on some of my own offerings).
Question 2. If someone is going to attempt to offer suggestions on how an image could be improved, probably a fair bit of thought would be appreciated...as in "engage brain before opening mouth" (or keyboard in this case). If the intent is merely to express whether the image "speaks to one" or has some sort of "wow factor", then first impressions would suffice. The second instance would probably apply more to "cleaning ladies" or other untrained photographic points of view....however, I do think that the reactions of these sort of people is a very good indication of how striking an image is, or isn't!
On the "equal value" debate....no they are not!!! I have refrained from commenting on a lot of the work posted here because, quite frankly, there are plenty of people here who are much more qualified than myself that would give better advice. I would hate to give someone a "bum steer" to use the Australian vernacular. In the interests of giving something back to a forum that has helped me out immensely, I have commented where I have felt strongly enough to do so....but it seems bizarre to me to critique work by Russ (whose opinion I have come to greatly respect), and others with years more experience in the field of photography.
Cheers
Brian
-
>>> "The Artist ... should understand that the opinion and critique of each individual mentioned above should be considered of equal value."
Sorry ... no way. This is not nursery school or a Marxist day camp. All opinions/critiques/critics are absolutely not "equal" or of "equal value" ...
What makes you think that your opinion is better than mine or someone elses?
-
Expressing an honest opinion on anything is fraught with danger, whether it's art, photography or one's spouse's new hair style.
It's fairly obvious that 'little white lies", and sometimes 'very big ones', are essential for our society to work smoothly, including photographic criticism on this site and many others.
I sometimes like to fantasize about a world where everyone spoke his/her true thoughts. What would happen? Would we descend into chaos and anarchy?
Perhaps the answer rests on the word 'true'. Do we know what our true thoughts are? Or do most of us just spout second hand opinions we've read about, been exposed to and accept for status reasons and think are cool?
-
We've discussed the nuts and bolts of the critique process here:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=35359 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=35359)
Given how well that discussion went, I thought we might all benefit from a discussion of the nature of critique and what exactly it does for us as (dare I say it) artists. I would really appreciate your comments on this topic, because I think it deserves some consideration. I'll start with my observations:
On the surface, the two questions in the topic title seem easy to answer. For example, "When we allow others to critique our work, the feedback we get helps shape our next photographic endeavors." "We post here because we want to improve." "We offer critique to help others improve."
Simple, right? Well, maybe. However, I'd like to think these questions can serve as a chrysalis for much more meaningful dialogue, perhaps in the form of more questions, like "When do I know when to take someone's critique to heart?" "How much thought should I give another person's work before I comment?" "Can I articulate how critique has specifically helped me grow as a photographer?"
Please give this some thought and post your reply, because I don't see how it can do anything but help everyone.
Thanks,
John
BOY do you think too much.
-
What makes you think that your opinion is better than mine or someone elses?
Um ... where do you get that? I said no such thing. Not even close.
-
Um ... where do you get that? I said no such thing. Not even close.
Post 6 listed above
Quote
Sorry ... no way. This is not nursery school or a Marxist day camp. All opinions/critiques/critics are absolutely not "equal" or of "equal value" ...
Unquote
It appears to me that you consider your opinions to be better than others or should be given more than equal value? Nobody knows the "credentials" of the posters giving their opinions, except for a certain few? Michael, Schewe etc? Therefore the vast majority of posters should have an equal say when replying? There isn't a ranking order on the discussion forum? Sorry your post sounded a bit "superior" to me?
-
It appears to me that you consider your opinions to be better than others or should be given more than equal value? Nobody knows the "credentials" of the posters giving their opinions, except for a certain few? Michael, Schewe etc? Therefore the vast majority of posters should have an equal say when replying? There isn't a ranking order on the discussion forum? Sorry your post sounded a bit "superior" to me?
Read it again ... Not once did I ever say anything about the value of my opinion relative to others'. Nowhere do I discuss how we uncover that inequality or on what basis that inequality rests. Nowhere at all do I mention myself. All I said was "all opinions ... are not equal". Is that so hard to digest or really all that controversial?
Let's try again with a slightly different, but functionally equivalent example:
Someone says: "All coffee makers are the same!"
I say: "No they aren't, all coffee makers are definitely not same ... some are better than others."
You say: "What makes you think your coffee maker is better than mine?"
See what I'm sayin'?
-
BOY do you think too much.
I can live with that.
-
Read it again ... Not once did I ever say anything about the value of my opinion relative to others'. Nowhere do I discuss how we uncover that inequality or on what basis that inequality rests. Nowhere at all do I mention myself. All I said was "all opinions ... are not equal". Is that so hard to digest or really all that controversial?
Let's try again with a slightly different, but functionally equivalent example:
Someone says: "All coffee makers are the same!"
I say: "No they aren't, all coffee makers are definitely not same ... some are better than others."
You say: "What makes you think your coffee maker is better than mine?"
See what I'm sayin'?
Why are you hating on my coffee maker?
-
Why are you hating on my coffee maker?
'Cause you shoot Canon and I shoot Nikon ... wasn't that obvious from my first post? If not, I'm sorry I wasn't more clear ...
-
This topic seems to be a call for creating a social hierarchy within the existing social group. The software that runs the forum already supports a 1-5 star ranking for members. If those stars (or a 1-5 digit) could be displayed next to the name with each post, that would accomplish the task, yes? Then of course, interested persons with multiple 'nyms could trash rankings of members who haven't been ranked by hundreds of other members already (read: nearly everyone could be trashed.) But maybe some other standard could be applied, based on informal membership in The Clique. Haven't heard of The Clique? Films such as Lords Of Discipline, The Firm, Star Chamber and others illustrate how control-centric persons bond together to accomplish their purposes.
What works for most control-centric persons on forums like this is the old time-honored practice of bullying. It can be subtle, skillful, blatant, clever, or even scientific, but it's still the same thing: Keep the "unapproved" people from participating, and/or marginalize them any way possible.
But wait - there may be a way to do this after all. Read the number of posts next to the poster's name. That's a good indication of longevity, personal interest, commitment - in short, they've been here and participated to that extent already. And whatever info is available on their member profile page can be taken with a large grain of salt. And of course, for those persons who like reason and logic, they can always fall back on the best data of all - what the poster actually said.
-
I'm not so sure that this matters all that much to me. It can be useful to look at someone's work and get an idea of where they're coming from, but for the most part I'm going to judge the value of their critiques based on the insight and thought that went into them. And I don't necessarily think you have to be a good photographer to be a good critic. Certainly with other art forms, it seems to rarely be the case that well-respected critics are also accomplished practitioners. Non-photographers, or even photographers that work exclusively in other genres, will likely approach an image from a different viewpoint than another photographer who has been shooting the same stuff for years. Both types of feedback can be helpful.
So while it may be useful (or just interesting) to see commenters' work, I certainly wouldn't want people to feel afraid to offer their opinions here because they don't feel the have the resume/credentials to back them up. If people just lurk because they're afraid to post and make themselves look/feel stupid, that's counter-productive to the forum.
I definitely agree. It's good to see the increased activity in this forum, and the postings have mostly been of high quality.
Jeff,
One thing I didn't point out in that post, though I did in an earlier one, is that it's up to the person who posted a picture for criticism to determine the value of the criticism he receives. How to determine that value also is up to the poster.
Now, there are plenty of posters who will instantly agree with a "criticism" that says, "I really like that! Attaboy!", but few who will hasten to agree with a criticism that says, "It's a reasonably good shot, but..." Yet, the second criticism may be much more to the point and may contain a lot more useful information than the first. If I receive the second kind of criticism, the first thing I want to know is how useful the critic's suggestions are liable to be. How do I determine that? Well, if he's posted his background in his profile, that can give me at least a clue, but very few people on here have given any information about themselves in their profile, and even if there's extensive information in the profile, how do I know whether or not the member has.., well, overstated the case? But there's one thing I can rely on. If the critic is a photographer, I want to see his photographs. That's going to tell me a lot more than anything he can write about his qualifications.
By the way, the fact that in other art forms "well-respected" critics rarely are accomplished practitioners goes a long way toward explaining the descent of modern painting and modern poetry into the pit of unintelligibility. In art there are no assigned "credentials" that mean anything. Your works are your credentials.
-
Your works are your credentials.
Not necessarily. By analogy, if I had to depend on my parents' examples and so-called credentials for my upbringing, I would have missed a lot of important points. Many times it's what they *said* (do or don't do and here's why) that made the difference for their children between success and failure. Someone else's credentials don't buy you anything - the factual information they give you *may* help.
-
I feel bad when I read all this. I feel some of you are fundamentally misinterpreting **exactly the critical parts** of what I posted. It seems to me like some of you are drawing absurd conclusions to abadon the whole text. These rules, read right (wich is really trivial), are fundamental to a large group of artistic communities, and they are ensuring honest verbatim critique and a respectful together. I can tell that from experience. I must say I am a bit shocked this was so largely rejected, even commented with some agression, at least I experience it as such. I wont explain it further, really its not too hard so grasp, if someone cant grasp it, it his or her problem. Now ok! I cant change that! Maybe its really the pro/amateur ratio wich ultimatively decides over the climate in a community. After all, there at CGTalk are mainly artists, and nobody can change the rules wich originate from target group ratios. I want to blame no one. But I say, the more we could apply these rules, the better.
And just one thing. I personally dont need ANYONE warning me about what other persons supposedly are doing wrong. I find this to be very childish behaviour. I have my own brain, Im an adult, I am able to judge for myself. I cant respect someone who tries to push me to a conclusion.
I want to come to my own conclusions. I might not pick up something instantly when it is said to me, I might even reject it in the first place! But the things which are really true - for me - are staying in my head and are developing over time, regardless if sayed once, or if sayed 10 times. And I am sure this is true for every person on this planet. I respect people wich are just stating their opinion and let let me figure the rest.
Also, when I dont like an opinion, if I feel its really wrong, I have the choice either to go personal, to really accuse, expose and humiliate with my very best techniques, along with my arguments. That will bring a foreseeable result. Or instead, I could as well just state my opionion, wich might differ. If I do that politely the other might be pissed off too! But then its really his problem. The recipient ultimatively decides and picks up the opinion, or mixes of opinions, which suits him or her best, and NOT because I have successfully humiliated this other guy with the "wrong" opinion.
And having said all this, I can live with disagreement. If someone should laugh about my opinion, well of course I wouldnt like that, but I certainly respect that your opinion differs!
So, all the best, to all of you. (And excuse me for my bad english!)
Christian
-
One thing I didn't point out in that post, though I did in an earlier one, is that it's up to the person who posted a picture for criticism to determine the value of the criticism he receives. How to determine that value also is up to the poster.
Now, there are plenty of posters who will instantly agree with a "criticism" that says, "I really like that! Attaboy!", but few who will hasten to agree with a criticism that says, "It's a reasonably good shot, but..." Yet, the second criticism may be much more to the point and may contain a lot more useful information than the first. If I receive the second kind of criticism, the first thing I want to know is how useful the critic's suggestions are liable to be. How do I determine that? Well, if he's posted his background in his profile, that can give me at least a clue, but very few people on here have given any information about themselves in their profile, and even if there's extensive information in the profile, how do I know whether or not the member has.., well, overstated the case? But there's one thing I can rely on. If the critic is a photographer, I want to see his photographs. That's going to tell me a lot more than anything he can write about his qualifications.
We may not be so far apart in our opinions, I think it's just a matter of how much weight would be placed on a critic's portfolio as opposed to other factors. For me it might be a point of interest, and maybe help me understand where a critic is coming from, but I wouldn't completely dismiss a critic's comments due to the lack of a publicly-available portfolio (although if they _do_ have a portfolio and I think their work is garbage, that may be something to consider... ).
I just wouldn't want someone to interpret your earlier post as saying "Only established photographers need apply. If you don't have a portfolio you shouldn't be critiquing". I'm reasonably sure that's not what you meant, but could also see some people reading between the lines and maybe interpreting it that way.
-
Christian,
I understood the guidelines you posted to have more to do with setting the tone for civil discussion in what can sometimes be an impersonal medium, and I don't see a problem with having some guidelines for that.
Posting an opinion that is contrary to that of another critic is fine; but directly addressing the other critic's comment, calling them 'wrong' or starting an argument is poor form IMHO. What it basically comes down to for me, is that stating an opinion is fine, while starting an argument is not. If you want to argue with somebody do it in private messages or at least start a new thread.
Likewise, all critiques deserve to be responded to with equal respect and civility, even if the photographer may not choose to value them all equally. Responding to a critique by saying "Sorry Billy-Bob, but you're just a newbie so I don't care what you think" would very rude; even if that's how you feel you should keep it to yourself.
-
Christian,
I understood the guidelines you posted to have more to do with setting the tone for civil discussion in what can sometimes be an impersonal medium, and I don't see a problem with having some guidelines for that.
Posting an opinion that is contrary to that of another critic is fine; but directly addressing the other critic's comment, calling them 'wrong' or starting an argument is poor form IMHO. What it basically comes down to for me, is that stating an opinion is fine, while starting an argument is not. If you want to argue with somebody do it in private messages or at least start a new thread.
Likewise, all critiques deserve to be responded to with equal respect and civility, even if the photographer may not choose to value them all equally. Responding to a critique by saying "Sorry Billy-Bob, but you're just a newbie so I don't care what you think" would very rude; even if that's how you feel you should keep it to yourself.
Jeff,
thank you for answering, I think you summarized it very good.
I dont want to stress the audience, but I want to add one last thing.
I have seen discussions in 3d mailing lists, before web-forums existed. These where other times, but also then there where of course wildly different opinions. But somehow it was different compared to here. The graphics posted where radically turned inside out, to every small bit, covering many aspects. This was always done respectfully, and if some youngsters went arrogant, they where reminded, sometimes also quite direct, by the more experienced people. There always existed different positions, and there where also corrections and disagreements, but that was normal, and contained in the process.
The most beautiful moments I remember where, when in some topics, in certain discussions, sometimes, (after wild discussions!), it eventually became clear that every spoken opinion, different as they seemed had their own merit, and at the end fitted eventually in a big picture, wich contained them all, and wich could not have been formed by a single person.
But enuff said, now Im back to my images.
-
We've discussed the nuts and bolts of the critique process here:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=35359 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=35359)
Given how well that discussion went, I thought we might all benefit from a discussion of the nature of critique and what exactly it does for us as (dare I say it) artists. I would really appreciate your comments on this topic, because I think it deserves some consideration. I'll start with my observations:
On the surface, the two questions in the topic title seem easy to answer. For example, "When we allow others to critique our work, the feedback we get helps shape our next photographic endeavors." "We post here because we want to improve." "We offer critique to help others improve."
Simple, right? Well, maybe. However, I'd like to think these questions can serve as a chrysalis for much more meaningful dialogue, perhaps in the form of more questions, like "When do I know when to take someone's critique to heart?" "How much thought should I give another person's work before I comment?" "Can I articulate how critique has specifically helped me grow as a photographer?"
Please give this some thought and post your reply, because I don't see how it can do anything but help everyone.
Thanks,
John
"When do I know when to take someone's critique to heart?"
I think every opinion ultimately assists us to have a clearer vision. Some opinions we immediately reject perhaps because they really feel off base, but perhaps they may be too close to the truth and we refuse to acknowlege them. Regardless, our concequent choices are still shaped by those opinions - we decide not to do what is suggested, and our clarity is developed.
Some opinions we may immediately take on board because they support one's own individual vision (however narrow/broad that may be), or because they have been expressed by a person who has articulated a clear argument or has in the past articulated clear arguments, is in a respected position in the field, or themselves demonstrated some good examples of their own work. When the advice or suggestion is taken on board, clarity is once again established with ones own work.
Which advice to 'take to heart' depends on the maturity of the artist concerned fist and foremost. It is the ability to discern and process information given which ultimately contributes to the development of better/more meaningfull/enjoyable work - whateverr the purpose is for the artist.
Secondly, there is no one set of crtieria which I think can be used to determine the 'value ' of the opinion expressed. Everything is subjective, and we all see things in a different way, regardless of one's credentials.
I think the underlying premise that discussion should be honest, civil and respectful is the basis for the development of one's work is paramount. Only then can opinions be examined and become meaningful.
Now to come back to the 'maturity of the artist'. If someone is for example a 'newbie', then yes, it is difficult to discern which advice to take to heart, but it is about developing that discernment which ultimately develops our maturity with our own vision and practice. I think it is important to try things, or take notice of opinions across all spectrums, and then come back to yourself to reflect and determine which advice has actually worked. This then helps us to refine our practice and ability to discern which advice to take notice of in the future.
This applies even when one is a mature artist, and advice is given left right and centre. The ability to give consideration to others opinions and then discern the best advice will always be a process, and can sometimes be as difficult, because patterns and style are established, and clinging on to those established ways can sometimes limit expansion and developemnt of vision.
I think too often we forget our own responsibilities as artists/photographers/individuals and want a prescription of who has the 'best' advice. This can at best only be arbitrary even with the most discerning guidelines and criteria. Ultimately it is about us learning to be open to listen, experiment, determine ourselves, and develop our own innate ability to decide for ourselves whether the product of our focus satisfies our vision for it.
Julie
-
Very beautifully said.
-
I just wouldn't want someone to interpret your earlier post as saying "Only established photographers need apply. If you don't have a portfolio you shouldn't be critiquing". I'm reasonably sure that's not what you meant, but could also see some people reading between the lines and maybe interpreting it that way.
Jeff, You're right. That's not what I meant. Let me state it a different way: If I post a picture that someone criticizes, it may be that the criticism is valid on its face. In other words, the critic may point out something I overlooked. In that case, the critic's status as a critic is meaningless and his criticism obviously is valid. But if the critic brings up something obscure enough that it's not immediately obvious I'd want to know how familiar the critic is with the subject he's addressing. In other words, I'd want to know whether or not he knows what he's talking about. Looking at the critic's portfolio at that point would help me make up my mind. But I'd be stupid to ignore his criticism summarily simply because he doesn't have a portfolio. At that point, unless his suggestion were absurd on its face, I'd probably consider it and maybe try what he's suggesting to see if I agree.
It all comes back to what I said at the beginning. The person posting a picture and receiving a criticism is the one who's going to have to decide whether or not the criticism is valid. No one else can decide that for him. I think Christian said the same thing in a somewhat heated way. Julie also said it in a quite elegant way.
-
But if the critic brings up something obscure enough that it's not immediately obvious I'd want to know how familiar the critic is with the subject he's addressing. In other words, I'd want to know whether or not he knows what he's talking about. Looking at the critic's portfolio at that point would help me make up my mind.
The problem here is the portfolio may or may not provide useful info, and can even be wildly misleading. I've seen several examples in the forum where person A assumes person B is completely unqualified to speak authoritatively on a topic, then when they explain why they believe that, person B responds with the information that person A was missing when they made their erroneous judgement. This shouldn't have to happen, but does because some people make assumptions they shouldn't.
In all my time here, I've looked at one or two people's profiles, and neither time had anything to do with their qualifications or credentials. I consider those to be social networking look-sees rather than valid research. If I really felt I had to know more about someone's qualifications, I'd email or message them personally, and more importantly, research them through the Internet.
-
I've seen several examples in the forum where person A assumes person B is completely unqualified to speak authoritatively on a topic, then when they explain why they believe that, person B responds with the information that person A was missing when they made their erroneous judgement. This shouldn't have to happen, but does because some people make assumptions they shouldn't.
That's a fair enough point.
-
The problem here is the portfolio may or may not provide useful info, and can even be wildly misleading. I've seen several examples in the forum where person A assumes person B is completely unqualified to speak authoritatively on a topic, then when they explain why they believe that, person B responds with the information that person A was missing when they made their erroneous judgement. This shouldn't have to happen, but does because some people make assumptions they shouldn't.
Yes, I have seen such examples here and elsewhere. But, I think that this is a case which does not necessarily discredit the value of forum users offering up online galleries of their work. The problem of Person A and B that you have presented addresses the error of making hasty judgments, but hasty judgments on another's claim are sometimes made even when there are no credentials (photos) offered, or when a person offers credentials and the other person does not bother to look at them. But I do think you're making a valid point about human stupidity, and online forums would benefit if people practiced a little restraint before making quick assumptions based upon their own ego or upon limited information at hand.
If a forum user claims that submitted landscape photo 'x' has a poor composition, and that it would be better if object 'y' was not so close to the border, it is useful if the forum user has publicly available photos which demonstrate strong composition, etc. It might not even matter if they are people shots, or still life shots- if the forum user has shots which demonstrate good composition skills, it is reasonable that this information would make a forum user's critique more persuasive. If a forum user does not offer some sort of credentials, this certainly doesn't give them that particular chance for persuasion- but that does not necessarily mean that the critique is off the mark. In my opinion, a critique is successful if someone is won over by the critic's argument, hopefully the person who has submitted the photo. If the critique helps someone improve their own work, and the critic's own credentials helped 'win over' the submitter to that end, then credentials are one of the useful tools for "measuring" critiques.
I consider those to be social networking look-sees rather than valid research. If I really felt I had to know more about someone's qualifications, I'd email or message them personally, and more importantly, research them through the Internet.
That's entirely reasonable. I enjoy looking at the galleries that other forum users offer up on their profiles, more often than not I've been impressed with the talent of the users around here.
-
Does the forum posters think that a system of giving points out of ten along with their comments a good thing? It happens in camera clubs. If a poster gives a negative comment about an image they could also "redeem" themselves with a "never the less an 8 out of ten" score or something similar? There isn't such a thing as a perfect image and fault can always be found? I have seen very good images "spoilt" by something that couldn't be avoided but shouldn't detract overall from an excellent image.
-
>>"... it may be that the citicism is valid on its face ..."
The text I posted quitely assumes in large parts that the issued critiques more or less makes sense.
Jeff, You're right. That's not what I meant. Let me state it a different way: If I post a picture that someone criticizes, it may be that the criticism is valid on its face. In other words, the critic may point out something I overlooked. In that case, the critic's status as a critic is meaningless and his criticism obviously is valid. But if the critic brings up something obscure enough that it's not immediately obvious I'd want to know how familiar the critic is with the subject he's addressing. In other words, I'd want to know whether or not he knows what he's talking about. Looking at the critic's portfolio at that point would help me make up my mind. But I'd be stupid to ignore his criticism summarily simply because he doesn't have a portfolio. At that point, unless his suggestion were absurd on its face, I'd probably consider it and maybe try what he's suggesting to see if I agree.
It all comes back to what I said at the beginning. The person posting a picture and receiving a criticism is the one who's going to have to decide whether or not the criticism is valid. No one else can decide that for him. I think Christian said the same thing in a somewhat heated way. Julie also said it in a quite elegant way.
Russ,
now I feel I am at a point where I can talk. I agree in some parts with you, and in some not. Lets start.
Im not so sure about the general necessarity of that background thing. I say, a sentence clearly can always be dealt with regardless of its origin.
Of course if someone has a site or not, and the quality of his works tells volumes. And of course I might dismiss the point of a text without a background. But then, is this my problem? I think, no. Instead it is the problem of the guy making his statement. He is in responsibility to make his assertion as foolproof as possible. Its not me being responsibe finding out about someone. And even then a background is only useful so much. For example, maybe someone makes brilliant art, but still he might talk rubbish. Or, someone says something I dont like, maybe a background INDEED helps me to understand him, but I STILL might not like it. What now? And in a talk face to face I also cannot interrupt it to make research about the other person. Ok, I might ask.
So while wanting to know a background can be perfectly reasonable at any point, it is not a requirement for anything. The one who makes an argument is instead responsible to invest some care and let his statement stand on its own. If not he runs into the risk being misunderstood. And of course I am challenged to assume good faith also in an ambiguous statements.
And that leads me to the next point, and Im sure we agree here: Of course, if I feel someone has indeed stated something very funny, its only fair to point it out, or to ask about a qualification to be able to make sense of an information, no question about that. When something doesnt make sense, it should be pointed out direct and in all honesty, but at the same time civilised and with respect. And of course then I should expect that I will be questioned the same way, and that should I have dismissed something, it will be pointed out as well, be it only the slightest point.
The problem with this I see here in this subforum (I only want to talk about HERE), that these type of discussions arent really happening. Instead they are quickly escalating, turning into weird shows where everybody seems to misunderstand each other and cant give an inch of his territory finally leading to some types of, I hate to say it, public humiliation. The arguments often heated right from the start, and I have rarely seen someone just acknowledging someone other is right.
I must confess I dont know how to solve that. I can only say generally: If I issue critique, I should also expect to swallow some, fair is fair. I have to be open to critique if I frequently critique other people or I loose credibility. I should be always open to compromises and never totally set on an issue. And if I see someone doesnt agree in the long term, its better to leave the person alone, to respect that. I have to respect everybody as he is. Ultimately, I cant change anybody, and I also can easily confess I have my problems with some of the issues too. No one is better than anyone regarding this I guess.
All the best
Christian
-
Russ,
I want to say one more thing because it doesnt make much sense to talk around it and I feel its the right moment. First, you are a knowledgeable guy with a big background in photography, and I have gotten great advice from you. But sometimes I experience you a bit as if in fear giving in or loosing territory, insisting. This in my eyes influences how you are viewed and partly depreciates your otherwise very good, spot on and extensive advice. And Im mentioning because your voice here is important to the public.
(Oh well I should not have written it, now Im in fear getting my comment too!!! )
Nevermind!
Christian
-
Russ,
I want to say one more thing because it doesnt make much sense to talk around it and I feel its the right moment. First, you are a knowledgeable guy with a big background in photography, and I have gotten great advice from you. But sometimes I experience you a bit as if in fear giving in or loosing territory, insisting. This in my eyes influences how you are viewed and partly depreciates your otherwise very good, spot on and extensive advice. And Im mentioning because your voice here is important to the public.
(Oh well I should not have written it, now Im in fear getting my comment too!!! )
Nevermind!
Christian
Christian, Your English is excellent considering it's not your first language. I wish I could do anywhere near as well with Spanish, French or Thai. But I'm afraid you lost me on this one. No one should be in fear of giving a comment.
I think what you're saying with this: "...a bit as if in fear giving in or loosing territory, insisting" is that I have very positive views. Yes, I have, and I won't make excuses for that. I've been doing serious photography for 66 years in the United States and in Asia. I've been selling prints out of galleries for many years. I have a collection of books of photographs that covers a wall in my house, and I'm into one or the other of them most evenings. I'm familiar with the history of photography. I teach photography at a retirement community in Florida during the winter, and lecture on photography to other groups from time to time by invitation. Once a year I judge a photo show by the photographers in an art league in central Florida. That's the background from which I make my judgments.
None of this means I'm always right. I make mistakes just like anyone else does, and when I'm offering an opinion, it's just that -- an opinion. Think about the embarrassing oversight John (Button) caught me in on failing to convert my pictures to sRGB before I post them here. That's an absolutely fundamental thing I should have caught right off.
Remember, the main point I've been making in this discussion is that the poster who receives criticism is the one who has to decide the value of the criticism. It's just as reasonable to reject my criticism as it is to reject someone else's criticism. But though you, or anyone else may reject the idea, as far as I'm concerned the real test of a photographer is his photographs -- not what he says about them or about himself.
To me the real problem is that there are people who are excellent artists but nearly incoherent writers, and there are people who are eloquent writers who can't make a decent photograph to save their souls. When I'm looking at criticism I'd really like to know how well the words fit the competence of the writer. Sometimes I'm surprised, but usually not.
-
Criticism, like photography, can be an art in itself. For me, the number one rule when critiquing someone's work is to be polite. And if you can't be polite, don't critique. That doesn't mean that you can't say you don't like a picture. But if I don't care for a picture, I don't just say I don't like it--I say what doesn't work for me and offer suggestions on how I might have done it differently. But as others have said, it's just an opinion, not gospel. The number 2 rule is don't pontificate. No one has been appointed God in these forums and no one needs to be lectured by anyone else. I prefer to think of this as a forum where we can all learn from each other.
Praise, on the other hand, is always a good thing--especially when you really mean it. I praise effort when I think it deserves praise. I critique when I think I have something constructive to offer. Sometimes, a picture gets some of both.
User Critiques is by far my favorite forum here. Even when I'm not participating in it, I'm perusing it. It's really exciting when you see someone who's been posting for a while really start to show improvement as a photographer.
That's my two cents.
-
I read this section on and off - seldom post. The reason? I simply don´t believe criticism - or critique, if you prefer - has a legitimate part to play in the life of a photographer or painter or, for that matter, musician.
In my mind, these are artistic endeavours that belong to the artist. To say that something would have been better if only... is, ultimately, only to say what the critic might or might not have done in the same circumstances and worth nothing in real terms.
I learned early on that one of the worst mistakes I could ever have made was to have paid attention to two critics, the first a head honcho in a camera club I´d joined simply to get using a darkroom (I was trying to get darkroom experience): there was a "competition" where one had to make and show a print on any subject at all. I did a still-life of a mandolin, an old Chianti bottle and a third item I´ve forgotten. The remark? Far too commerical - not good. As I already knew where I wanted my life to go, I was amused if pissed off. The second event was in night school where on mentioning that I was a fan of David Bailey, the "lecturer", who worked in a local studio, informed the class at large that if he shot like Bailey he´d quit photography. Yes, right. I quit the night schol instead and never looked back, Bailey or not. Oh, that studio eventually folded...
So in my mind, I think it an error to subject one´s work to the opinions of another. Whether he likes your work or not is HIS problem; it´s your work and if you like it, that´s good enough. As Russ has pointed out - I think it was he - there are too many people around in positions of influence who simply don´t have the ability to practise what they preach which, again for me, makes their opinions worthless if not downright dangerous. The painter paradigm suits beautifully, too.
If you are new, then fine, everybody is at some stage. My suggestions for self-improvement? Simple: look at a lot of work in magazines, browse through libraries and bookshops, cruise the web of an evening, form your own private list of heroes but never, ever ask somebody else anything about aesthetics. Ask about technical matters for sure - saves a lot of time and the LuLa is an excellent resource where I have picked up a lot of information and a lot of direct help. The same is true for small, private groups. But what you put INTO your image is your business.
Never forget that the world is as full of wannabe gurus as it is of wannabe photographers. Hell, you can make a career of both!
Rob C
-
...look at a lot of work in magazines, browse through libraries and bookshops, cruise the web of an evening, form your own private list of heroes...
Rob C
Yes! This above all! This also is the way you learn to compose properly on the camera.
-
Yes! This above all! This also is the way you learn to compose properly on the camera.
So what do you do when you're perusing those high-fashion mags and the models are walking at a 30 degree angle to the floor? I've always wondered why they do that (the composition, not the model).
On another note, Nat'l Geog. is putting a new magazine in the stores, title is something akin to "photos by you" - photos submitted to NG by readers. Now this would be really cool, except it's $11 u.s. and rather tiny. And there are millions of websites. Which to choose? That's why I like this forum - instead of skimming the canned sites, here you can observe the struggling photographers first-hand, and even participate.
One of the things that makes finding material difficult is identifying a so-called genre, where I can get a much better hit rate so to speak, so I'm not spending a lot of time looking through images I have no interest in. I haven't dug into that issue deeply in photography, but I have in the field of music. And in pop music, to this very day, there is no acceptance or even acknowledgement of my favorite genre in any media I can find. That's why the original Napster was so great - you could find a tune you liked, then expand that user's list, listen to other tunes and see which other users had them, then expand their lists, and so on.
To do this in photography, you would need shared images, or shared lists of URL's that link directly to specific images, so that you could quickly do as I described above with the old Napster program. That means when I see an image I like on Joe's site, I check the other images, and for the ones I also like, I can look those actual images up on other people's sites, then expand their lists, etc.
Chances of that ever happening? No, we seem to be living in a closed-in paranoid world where there's a deathly fear of someone stealing our stuff. Watermarks should have alleviated that, but apparently haven't.
-
Well, I have a suggestion. Rather than submit images for critique, why not create a forum for simple exposition of images where people can leave comments if they wish. Limit the images to three per week per person so as not to inundate the forum. The Critique forum will remain and be separate and the new forum will be for people to share their images with other photo enthusiasts. How about that? I do think the Critique forum is overly critical, as if we are all trying to produce top professional quality images. Most people just learn as we go and do the best we can while enjoying photography and sharing with others.
JMR
-
Well, I have a suggestion. Rather than submit images for critique, why not create a forum for simple exposition of images where people can leave comments if they wish. Limit the images to three per week per person so as not to inundate the forum. The Critique forum will remain and be separate and the new forum will be for people to share their images with other photo enthusiasts. How about that? I do think the Critique forum is overly critical, as if we are all trying to produce top professional quality images. Most people just learn as we go and do the best we can while enjoying photography and sharing with others.
JMR
If you're going to do that, just join a Flickr group. Just my .02
I personally like the style of the Critique forum here. I can at least get honest feedback and information I wouldn't get in a forum that is similar to Flickr.
-
as if we are all trying to produce top professional quality images.
JMR
I thought that was the idea...
John
-
If you're going to do that, just join a Flickr group. Just my .02
I personally like the style of the Critique forum here. I can at least get honest feedback and information I wouldn't get in a forum that is similar to Flickr.
I agree....and I for one would be a very happy man if anybody ever said my work was professional quality.
-
I personally like the style of the Critique forum here. I can at least get honest feedback and information I wouldn't get in a forum that is similar to Flickr.
I agree entirely. I don't want uncritical adulation: I want someone to tell me why he (or she) thinks that a shot I consider good doesn't work for him and I'd like him to suggest how it might be improved. I won't necessarily accept all that he says: I'll look at his other posts and his other critiques, and I'll look at any of his photos that I can easily find and then form my own view of his artistic tastes and abilities and how much credence I should give to his views.
Being told that a shot is good, while gratifying, doesn't help my development as a photographer. Being told why it is good, though, helps enormously. When Alain Briot explained why one of the shots I'd posted here worked (for him, at least), I learned something very useful and my eye became a little more trained.
That, for me, is what critique is about.
Jeremy
-
Well, I have a suggestion. Rather than submit images for critique, why not create a forum for simple exposition of images where people can leave comments if they wish. Limit the images to three per week per person so as not to inundate the forum. The Critique forum will remain and be separate and the new forum will be for people to share their images with other photo enthusiasts. How about that? I do think the Critique forum is overly critical, as if we are all trying to produce top professional quality images. Most people just learn as we go and do the best we can while enjoying photography and sharing with others.
JMR
If one is going to have a space for hanging out the pics, then your suggestion seems better than most, but I would still rather folks didn´t comment. It might be easy to say yes, please, kick my butt, but in reality, the plea is: love me!
If you go to a real, physical gallery, unless you have attracted the eye of a selling person, nobody is going to fill your mind with their way of thinking: you just go, see and decide for yourself if the emperor is in full uniform or otherwise. And your opinion counts most.
The trouble is, as with so much in life, that people expect to find paths, ready-made pathways to the stars. These, generally, don´t exist. It happens in all sorts of directions, from the kid in school who imagines that the teacher will teach him without his having to learn, to the person just starting a business and expecting the clients to flock to him of their own volition. Nobody can do it for you - you start with a talent, a burning desire or you just forever drift in the fog. Why bother with the babel of others when the answers lie within you?
Rob C
-
If one is going to have a space for hanging out the pics, then your suggestion seems better than most, but I would still rather folks didn´t comment. It might be easy to say yes, please, kick my butt, but in reality, the plea is: love me!
If you go to a real, physical gallery, unless you have attracted the eye of a selling person, nobody is going to fill your mind with their way of thinking: you just go, see and decide for yourself if the emperor is in full uniform or otherwise. And your opinion counts most.
The trouble is, as with so much in life, that people expect to find paths, ready-made pathways to the stars. These, generally, don´t exist. It happens in all sorts of directions, from the kid in school who imagines that the teacher will teach him without his having to learn, to the person just starting a business and expecting the clients to flock to him of their own volition. Nobody can do it for you - you start with a talent, a burning desire or you just forever drift in the fog. Why bother with the babel of others when the answers lie within you?
Rob C
Rob
I can understand exactly where you're coming from with all that....But I would still rather folks did comment. You've got a point about people expecting to find a ready made path to the stars, but I think this mostly applies to the current younger generation (god, now I sound like my dad). Anyway, that's not why I disagree with your view people shouldn't comment.
I love your line about talent & burning desire, because without either you are totally wasting your time with anything you are serious about in life. Photography is something that I have only got passionate about in recent years because my career in another industry consumed my life before that....and thats the way it should be if you want to be successful. All of the successful people I have met in my life have had that same drive, and believe me, I've met and remained friends with some heavyweight and wealthy people. In my career I started at the bottom, with no experience and zero contacts in the industry (a lot of others were 2nd, 3rd & 4th generation). Nobody knew me from a bar of soap, but with that burning desire and enough talent, I made it to the elite level of my profession.
The point I want to make though is I had a lot of help along the way, and without it I wouldn't have reached the level I did. There is still a learning curve that comes from those with experience and I hope that you will be kind enough to share yours. I've seen a lot of people with natural talent never amount to anything because they never had the mentors or just plain refused to listen to anybody.
So in reality...yeah, it would be great if you loved my work, but I might need you to kick my but so I can get there!
Cheers
Brian
-
For myself, the reason I started posting photos here was a curiosity about the quality of my shots. I felt that my friends and family were selling me a bag of goods when they said how good the photos were. I wanted some opinion from folks who don't know me, and from folks who could dispassionately comment on my pictures. This is not a panacea for me; it's not a "please tell me I'm wonderful" place. It's a please tell me your opinion and let me consider it.
-
I agree....and I for one would be a very happy man if anybody ever said my work was professional quality.
Show your work to your Mom.
-
Artists show their work to others for one of two reasons: 1) to seek adulation, 2) to irritate. As I type this I am wearing my cap on which I had the word "antipodal" embroidered.
-
Artists show their work to others for one of two reasons: 1) to seek adulation, 2) to irritate. As I type this I am wearing my cap on which I had the word "antipodal" embroidered.
What about a deep-seated need to communicate through their art work? What about a desire to improve?
-
...
I think what you're saying with this: "...a bit as if in fear giving in or loosing territory, insisting" is that I have very positive views. Yes, I have, and I won't make excuses for that. I've been doing serious photography for 66 years in the United States and in Asia. I've been selling prints out of galleries for many years. I have a collection of books of photographs that covers a wall in my house, and I'm into one or the other of them most evenings. I'm familiar with the history of photography. I teach photography at a retirement community in Florida during the winter, and lecture on photography to other groups from time to time by invitation. Once a year I judge a photo show by the photographers in an art league in central Florida. That's the background from which I make my judgments.
None of this means I'm always right. I make mistakes just like anyone else does, and when I'm offering an opinion, it's just that -- an opinion. Think about the embarrassing oversight John (Button) caught me in on failing to convert my pictures to sRGB before I post them here. That's an absolutely fundamental thing I should have caught right off.
Remember, the main point I've been making in this discussion is that the poster who receives criticism is the one who has to decide the value of the criticism. It's just as reasonable to reject my criticism as it is to reject someone else's criticism. But though you, or anyone else may reject the idea, as far as I'm concerned the real test of a photographer is his photographs -- not what he says about them or about himself.
To me the real problem is that there are people who are excellent artists but nearly incoherent writers, and there are people who are eloquent writers who can't make a decent photograph to save their souls. When I'm looking at criticism I'd really like to know how well the words fit the competence of the writer. Sometimes I'm surprised, but usually not.
Russ,
I purposefully let pass for me a day to answer so please dont wonder this seems a little bit late. To put it even more simple I just was pissed off by you repeating important things a tad too much - thats all. I also tend to be a bit nervous when I have to disagree somewhere, so much about my last both lines. But thats all my thing! Your response, your view on the other hand is well taken. You obviously are much more knowledgeable than me, for me it was not about that part, after all. At the end I feel when we discuss details, or when I read you here explaining details, I agree in many, if not most things. Also I fully agree to your last stanza (if stanza right in this context).
Its only natural: If there is a break between what someone writes and his pictures, one gotta object to it. In fact, one main difference between pro- and amateur-forums I observed: The pros talk much less, and what comes out is much more precise. Amateurs tend to rave more, tend focus more often on unimportant details and are maybe, just maybe less able to appreciate a hidden beauty. Also they put sometimes more effort in correcting someone elses work than their own - wich is also a bit suspicious. To say the least.
Ok thats as much as I have to say to it. I finde the athmosphere here now in this thread very good, much better than in other discussions and I would wish it stayed like that And by the way, I also liked what Rob C, Kikashi and Byork said.
Cheers,
Christian
PS: I find it funny that you seemed to see this ProPhoto/sRGB save thing as embarassing. (I wanted to comment in the other thread but prefered to wait until I was sorted here, but now I will say it). Maybe its obvious to know, but I dont see such things no longer as embarassing. (Ok I admit I was a bit amused you didnt knew it!) But, I have at some times seen the most keen pros missing such small, or even bigger bits. Thats not embarassing at all, it shows only the obvious fact that we all learn. And by the way, I knew this thing, yet I forget it sometimes too. And in one case it lead me straight to a better image. And after all its my experience that errors often lead to entirely new looks and effects and views.
-
What about a deep-seated need to communicate through their art work? What about a desire to improve?
It could be all of those things. What does it matter? I have recieved many awards in the past in Camera clubs, but in the end I just keep shooting because of "a deep-seated need to communicate through (my) their art work." Most others in the clubs felt the same way. It is a passion. I have posted several images in this forum, knowing more or less what I thought about the images, even what others might say- good bad or indifferent- hot spots, rocks in the way, too bright or dark, the oft repeated "lacks tonality," elements that disturb the balance of the image, etc. Pentax has a forum where members can simply post and show their images. People are very excited about their new cameras and lenses and creating new images. It's only drawback is that there are too many postings and people are not limited so that everyone has a chance to show or see other people's work before it vanishes into some long forgotten posting. There is a separate critique section, which is less used. It was just a thought and suggestion. Frankly, if I was going to sell my images in a serious way, I would not bother with posting for critiques.
JMR
-
Why bother with the babel of others when the answers lie within you?
I get where you are coming from.
Even though the signal-noise is low, there's still some signal ... faint, but there ... and it does help me get better.
For me, it is all about technique. I've got the "vision" thing. It's in my blood and it can't be taught, forgotten - or hidden from, as I've learned.
But technique is about trial and error and learning ... and mistakes. And sometimes, even when you have the vision ... you make a mistake.
But your pride of ownership and the underlying vision can make you try and overlook the mistakes, minimizing the perceived impact they've had on the vision.
And sometimes ... other practitioners - without the pride of ownership - can point out the damage of these mistakes ... and there is nothing like having your mistakes pointed out to you if you'd like to stop making them.
-
In my mind, these are artistic endeavours that belong to the artist. To say that something would have been better if only... is, ultimately, only to say what the critic might or might not have done in the same circumstances and worth nothing in real terms...
Rob,
I agree with that statement, to a point. Too many people offering critiques offer suggestions on how THEY would have shot the photo, which is often worthless input. I've heard many comments, mostly unsolicited, over the years about cropping, horizon placement, rules-of-thirds (ugh) etc that were little more than an ego stroke for the person giving the critique. A way for them to say that they know better than I. Most of those were by people with just enough experience and knowledge to make them dangerous.
On the other hand, critiques by experienced photographers can be life altering...in a good way. One particular very well-known photographer, whom I cold-called a few years ago asking for a critique (I cannot say who, by his request), offered suggestions and insights that helped improve my work a great deal. Simple things. Things I had, due my over familiarity with my own work, overlooked. I gleaned more in that 1/2 hour conversation than in most of the week-long workshops I have ever attended. I am forever in his debt.
Critiques can certainly help elevate ones work to another level but, as Russ has pointed out, we need to know where the critique is coming from, both in terms of experience and of talent. Without such information, the critique has no foundation for which we can judge validity. That IS a big problem for forums such as this one.
Lastly, we all have the final say with regard to our own work. If we listen to, and are compelled to change, due to poor advice, the blame rests squarely on our own shoulders. The critiquers are, while perhaps ignorant and selfish, blameless.
-
Rob,
I agree with that statement, to a point. Too many people offering critiques offer suggestions on how THEY would have shot the photo, which is often worthless input. I've heard many comments, mostly unsolicited, over the years about cropping, horizon placement, rules-of-thirds (ugh) etc that were little more than an ego stroke for the person giving the critique. A way for them to say that they know better than I. Most of those were by people with just enough experience and knowledge to make them dangerous.
On the other hand, critiques by experienced photographers can be life altering...in a good way. One particular very well-known photographer, whom I cold-called a few years ago asking for a critique (I cannot say who, by his request), offered suggestions and insights that helped improve my work a great deal. Simple things. Things I had, due my over familiarity with my own work, overlooked. I gleaned more in that 1/2 hour conversation than in most of the week-long workshops I have ever attended. I am forever in his debt.
Critiques can certainly help elevate ones work to another level but, as Russ has pointed out, we need to know where the critique is coming from, both in terms of experience and of talent. Without such information, the critique has no foundation for which we can judge validity. That IS a big problem for forums such as this one.
Lastly, we all have the final say with regard to our own work. If we listen to, and are compelled to change, due to poor advice, the blame rests squarely on our own shoulders. The critiquers are, while perhaps ignorant and selfish, blameless.
These are excellent points. It doesn't take great genious to see that relatively few people post in this section and fewer still render critiques. So we are dealing with mostly the same people most of the time. And there appears to be a lot of fighting and mud slinging and some bad blood, and that is one reason I suggested a 'Post it' only section.
JMR
-
For myself, the reason I started posting photos here was a curiosity about the quality of my shots. I felt that my friends and family were selling me a bag of goods when they said how good the photos were. I wanted some opinion from folks who don't know me, and from folks who could dispassionately comment on my pictures. This is not a panacea for me; it's not a "please tell me I'm wonderful" place. It's a please tell me your opinion and let me consider it.
Your photos are as good as your family and friends say they are. But they're not as good as "the very best ever" with which they're compared to by some elite thinkers on photo forums. So if the comments you get here are specific as to certain details, that will help you. If the comments you get here say anything about your quality and other nebulous items, you can probably ignore those.
-
Artists show their work to others for one of two reasons: 1) to seek adulation, 2) to irritate.
Free test marketing.
-
Your photos are as good as your family and friends say they are. But they're not as good as "the very best ever" with which they're compared to by some elite thinkers on photo forums. So if the comments you get here are specific as to certain details, that will help you. If the comments you get here say anything about your quality and other nebulous items, you can probably ignore those.
Quoting myself, there is one other teeny, tiny thing many folks may have missed. If you say something negative about a piece of current gear being hawked by one of the big mfr's, you may get slammed, insulted, and otherwise castigated by one or more of their not-so-secret agents who monitor these forums for such heresies.
-
Quoting myself, there is one other teeny, tiny thing many folks may have missed. If you say something negative about a piece of current gear being hawked by one of the big mfr's, you may get slammed, insulted, and otherwise castigated by one or more of their not-so-secret agents who monitor these forums for such heresies.
That's usually being done by people who either own that gear or want to own it. They seem to take criticism of the equipment as a personal affront. To me that seems ridiculous. After all it's only a camera, not your mother.
-
For myself, the reason I started posting photos here was a curiosity about the quality of my shots. I felt that my friends and family were selling me a bag of goods when they said how good the photos were. I wanted some opinion from folks who don't know me, and from folks who could dispassionately comment on my pictures. This is not a panacea for me; it's not a "please tell me I'm wonderful" place. It's a please tell me your opinion and let me consider it.
I also think that (since you are comparing you images anyway to whats around) everybody has a feeling about the level where he is at. Family and friends may just see the positive part of whats there, also in technically bad images, they just dont give you so much technical relevant critique. So, if you have an image, where you are like "Hey, that just ROCKS", well then you have a good image, regardless if it is conventional or whatever. But when you are not so sure about it, then usually the image *as is* is just not as good. At least thats how I would view it.
Quoting myself, there is one other teeny, tiny thing many folks may have missed. If you say something negative about a piece of current gear being hawked by one of the big mfr's, you may get slammed, insulted, and otherwise castigated by one or more of their not-so-secret agents who monitor these forums for such heresies.
Admit it Dale, you secretly want a P65 + complete lens set too!
-
I read this section on and off - seldom post. The reason? I simply don´t believe criticism - or critique, if you prefer - has a legitimate part to play in the life of a photographer or painter or, for that matter, musician.
In my mind, these are artistic endeavours that belong to the artist. To say that something would have been better if only... is, ultimately, only to say what the critic might or might not have done in the same circumstances and worth nothing in real terms.
I think criticism can be of value if it's constructive and not used as an ad hominem attack. It's an unfortunate characteristic of web forums that they so often degenerate into flamewars that only end up pissing everyone off.
Any artist who puts their work out there for people to see is inviting criticism. It's unavoidable. Everyone has opinions and everyone's a critic. So artists who exhibit their work need to be prepared for that and not allow themselves to be discouraged by negative responses, and conversely not let praise inflate their ego unduly. Either can poison the creative process. Ultimately, if you don't beleive in youself as an artist no matter what anyone else thinks, you're lost.
Presumably, everyone who posts their photos in the User Critiques forum is actively looking for feedback on their work. It takes some guts to do that, and I think those of us who offer feedback need to respect the artist even if we don't care for the art.
-
What about a deep-seated need to communicate through their art work? What about a desire to improve?
A deeply-seated need to communicate is based upon a model of human interaction for which there is little evidence and is often accompanied by essentially delusional thinking. As others have pointed and, going about soliciting critiques from the qualitative equivalent of the rush-hour crowd in Grand Central Station is a dubious path to improvement. It's best to be an individual with a strong sense of self.
-
A deeply-seated need to communicate is based upon a model of human interaction for which there is little evidence and is often accompanied by essentially delusional thinking. ...
Well I would have thought communication and socialisation is one of the most essential things in life at least if I judge from myself. Maybe a misunderstanding?
-
Well I would have thought communication and socialisation is one of the most essential things in life at least if I judge from myself. Maybe a misunderstanding?
Let me explain my position in a bit more detail. We send and receive signals to and from others. But, I am convinced that what is sent cannot ever be precisely what is received. The frames of reference and internal neural connections of each of us is unique so each interpretation of a message has nuances of greater or lesser degrees of difference from that of the message that was sent. For simple messages the disparity doesn't create practical problems. For more complex messages, such as embodied in artistic products as well as those for messages for which the frames of reference are strongly colored by emotional and instinctual components, the chances of isometric conformance are nil - this is true even when there is "agreement" between the sender and receiver. Like the song goes, we just hope that we are "close enough for love". So the assumption that there is a unanimity between two people is a delusion, which is revealed when the ground conditions undergo alteration (think: divorce, contract lawsuit, an artwork being unmasked as a "fake", etc.) Too often, I believe a "desire for communication" masks an urge to impose ones own frame of reference on another, however it may be dressed in altruistic garb. Given what I have outlined as the ultimate essential failure of communication, I do agree that our mucking around in this territory is one of the most important things we attempt and that we should, of course, continue. We also hope not to have to confront traumatic events that reveal the underlying disconnect.
-
Russell, that took me a while to decipher! But now I get (without wanting to trivialize) that you just emphasize that we are for various reasons different persons and that communications mostly means manipulation for our own goals. Now thats perfectly true. You go on and say for yourself that we still get pleasure from it... and I believe that Shutterpup just emphasized that in #56 but then Im not sure.
-
Admit it Dale, you secretly want a P65 + complete lens set too!
Actually, you'd make a good mind reader. Very close anyway - I was taking a long look at the Leica S2, and you know how that goes. By the time it's available I should be able to skip enough meals to pay for it.
-
Let me explain my position in a bit more detail. We send and receive signals to and from others. But, I am convinced that what is sent cannot ever be precisely what is received.
I think there's a good possibility for passing useful critique information here, but many of us don't have a lot of time for that and we tend to minimize our comments, sometimes leaving out a bit of data that's necessary for other people to understand the points better. Like someone might say "I'd crop that on the right side quite a bit", but not say exactly why, or in enough detail. Then we can ask for a clarification, and that doesn't always work, but if it's important, I'd recommend it. Some people might feel they're being too demanding to post followups that way, so they adopt a general rule of not doing that.
Funny thing is, I'd like not only to improve my own photos, but also be better at critique. Not intending to be a a photo-art expert, but just be able to express more clearly and concisely what I see in various images, so I'm not wasting other people's time.
-
I think there's a good possibility for passing useful critique information here, but many of us don't have a lot of time for that and we tend to minimize our comments, sometimes leaving out a bit of data that's necessary for other people to understand the points better. Like someone might say "I'd crop that on the right side quite a bit", but not say exactly why, or in enough detail. Then we can ask for a clarification, and that doesn't always work, but if it's important, I'd recommend it. Some people might feel they're being too demanding to post followups that way, so they adopt a general rule of not doing that.
Funny thing is, I'd like not only to improve my own photos, but also be better at critique. Not intending to be a a photo-art expert, but just be able to express more clearly and concisely what I see in various images, so I'm not wasting other people's time.
I have no idea why something does or does not work in a picture, so I don't try to explain it. I just know if it works for me. If someone offers a suggestion on how to make one of my pictures better, I try it. If the result works for me, I run with it. If not, I discard it.
-
Show your work to your Mom.
Okay....who let their kid play with the real computer?
-
This is my latest print, on my Epson 7600. I'm thinking of giving it as a birthday present to someone. Not sure, though.
It's a composite of two separate shots. Please feel free to criticise it to your heart's content. Don't hold back.
A bit of background. The monk on the left has been dead for 30 years. The beauty on the right is a bloke. Canon 5D.
[attachment=15232:Monk___K..._22x16_5.jpg]
Let all the poisons in the mud hatch out.
-
This is my latest print, on my Epson 7600. I'm thinking of giving it as a birthday present to someone. Not sure, though.
It's a composite of two separate shots. Please feel free to criticise it to your heart's content. Don't hold back.
A bit of background. The monk on the left has been dead for 30 years. The beauty on the right is a bloke. Canon 5D.
[attachment=15232:Monk___K..._22x16_5.jpg]
What are the feng shui rules for decorating with dead monk knick knacks? I'm betting Pier One doesn't stock them.
-
This is my latest print, on my Epson 7600. I'm thinking of giving it as a birthday present to someone. Not sure, though.
It's a composite of two separate shots. Please feel free to criticise it to your heart's content. Don't hold back.
A bit of background. The monk on the left has been dead for 30 years. The beauty on the right is a bloke. Canon 5D.
[attachment=15232:Monk___K..._22x16_5.jpg]
What are you trying to say with that particular pairing?
-
What are you trying to say with that particular pairing?
I'm not precisely sure. Isn't that the point of all art?
There are intimations here of reincarnation. A 30 year old dead monk who perhaps became a monk because of his female tendencies which were strongly disapproved of. His female spirit, upon physical death, was reincarnated into another male, who had the courage to change sex rather than become a monk.
Just speculating!
-
I have no idea why something does or does not work in a picture, so I don't try to explain it. I just know if it works for me. If someone offers a suggestion on how to make one of my pictures better, I try it. If the result works for me, I run with it. If not, I discard it.
That's my "problem" as well, which is why I find it very interesting when someone does explain why a picture I like (whether take by me or someone else) works. It helps me towards that understanding, which I think is likely to help me to take more picture which work.
I take the same approach to suggestions that you do. Who wouldn't?
Jeremy
-
This is my latest print, on my Epson 7600. I'm thinking of giving it as a birthday present to someone. Not sure, though.
It's a composite of two separate shots. Please feel free to criticise it to your heart's content. Don't hold back.
A bit of background. The monk on the left has been dead for 30 years. The beauty on the right is a bloke. Canon 5D.
[attachment=15232:Monk___K..._22x16_5.jpg]
Let all the poisons in the mud hatch out.
Hi Ray
It´s a funy thing, criticism: for example, I feel obliged to ask the chapess on the right why it picked the specific boob shape that it did. I´d have thought, from critical observation of all the wonderful artificial women that grace our screens day after day, that any lad hoping to go there might have considered the failure of that particular shape.
The natural, gravitational disposition of a real boob is otherwise, regardless of the hemisphere (of the world, I mean) in which one lives. Something which reminds one of nothing but a halfed tennis ball with a raisin on it is, to say the least, counter-productive. Does the mango not grow in those parts? Now there would have been a better datum line from which to start - astute sections sliced from one - excluding the horrid bone, of course, far too hard to represent silicone - could have provided much-needed practice formats. But that´s the trouble with critiquing - impossible not to be either too hard or too soft.
Rob C