Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: ckimmerle on January 06, 2010, 05:39:08 pm
-
In another thread, a side discussion was started on the merits of offering suggestions regarding toning, cropping, etc. A response by JohnR was a bit bothersome to me, so I thought a new thread might be in order. His post:
.....I think we should try not to radically alter the maker's vision, and that is my point. And quite frankly, most suggested changes aren't necessarily better, just different views, crops or different formats. You can't walk into a gallery and say, this is no good, I would crop out this, increase contrast etc. You take it as it is and decide whether you like it or not. Of course doing so as an exercise is not an issue, and we do this consciously and unconsciously all the time.
I disagree with this post for a few reasons, not the least of which is this is a CRITIQUE forum, which means users should be expected, and deserve, honest and useful feedback. It is not a simple show-n-tell forum where such feedback may not be appropriate. The forum title clearly reads "User's Critique. People should be posting photos here to get feedback to help improve future attempts. If such responses are not welcome then, by all means, post elsewhere and state clearly that you're not interested in critical reviews.
And, as this forum IS for critiques (as the forum title clearly states), subjective criteria such as cropping, toning, composition would be appropriate topics for discussion, would they not?
And when commenting, nobody learns a thing with responses such as "I like this" or "good job". That is shallow and useless pandering which offers nothing of substance. Does anyone really think they're helping by such responses? Really? If you like an image, tell the photographer WHY you like it. Share your feelings and reactions. If you don't much care for a photo, be supportive yet honest. Respectfully offer suggestions on how you think it could have been improved during the shoot, and how it might be improved in post, but do so within the confines of the image itself. The original photog saw something worthwhile in the scene they photographed, and we need to respect that vision. That does not mean, however, that there may not be room for improvement.
I once requested a portfolio review by a major photographer whom we all know, but who requested I keep his ID under wraps, for obvious reasons. He was brutally honest at times, but in a way that forever shaped how I photograph. Many of the things he said are repeated every time I make an exposure and during every printing session. If all I had heard was "I like it" or "I hate it", I wouldn't have learned a damned thing.
We have to assume that those posting in this forum want our honest opinions and we owe them to be fair and respectful but, more importantly, we owe it to them to be honest and helpful.
addendum: apologies to JohnR for the slight ambush. I was just using his post to voice some pre-existing pet peeves and frustrations.
-
I agree Chuck.
-
There are several reasons why people post to this part of the forum. I'll try to categorize them:
1. Isn't sure how she/he feels about the photo and wants to know if the photo is any good.
2. Thinks the photo is good and is seeking verification/validation/praise.
3. Has trouble developing the photo correctly.
4. Wants to know how the photo could have been improved.
5. There is some aspect of the photo that is curious / unique and the photographer seeks feedback on that aspect of the photo.
6. Wants to share an experience or event they documented.
Some people may think only one or two of the reasons above are valid reasons for posting. I believe they are all valid to some degree (although all reasons can be abused).
I think John R's response presumes the reason to post is sort of a "display" exercise, similar to reason #2. Hence the comparison to a gallery. If that is the reason for the post, then perhaps he has a point. However, as you point out this is titled "User Critiques." It seems John R also presumes a clear vision that shouldn't be tampered with. I'll be the first to admit most of my photos don't have a clear vision. They might have a style, but the vision is fuzzy. In fact, feedback on vision clarity is a sub of reason 5 above. Many of us have limited sources of feedback. Friends and relatives can't always be trusted for valid critiques. This forum may be one's only feedback, and hence a valuable tool for improvement. Certainly some of the reasons above seek "suggested changes..., different views, crops or different formats."
Sometimes it is not obvious what the reason for a post is. In that case my opinion is that it's up to the photographer to filter out responses that are relevant to the reason for the post. It does waste time and effort, so I think it behooves the photographer to give some direction on the reason for the post. Russ covered this a while ago in his request that photographers state why they post a photo.
Dave
-
There are several reasons why people post to this part of the forum. I'll try to categorize them:
1. Isn't sure how she/he feels about the photo and wants to know if the photo is any good.
2. Thinks the photo is good and is seeking verification/validation/praise.
3. Has trouble developing the photo correctly.
4. Wants to know how the photo could have been improved.
5. There is some aspect of the photo that is curious / unique and the photographer seeks feedback on that aspect of the photo.
6. Wants to share an experience or event they documented.
Whether correct or not, I tend to assume that those who post an image without saying anything else fall into #2 (or perhaps #6) and I treat it as such. Otherwise, the poster usually says what they are looking for.
-
I agree Chuck.
NO, no no......you have to tell me WHY you agree
-
I too have gone to many seminars hosted by Professionals over the years, including the well known Canadian photographer, Freeman Patterson; the one who authored the books, "Photography and the art of seeing" and "Photography for the joy of it", and a few others. What I learned from him and others, is that you have to respect the vision of the author and try help the author bring out what they want. As a well known professional, he could have torn apart many of the images he was asked to critique, but instead he simply asked the maker what they thought the image was about and what were they trying to convey. He would then suggest simple ideas to try and improve the image. The image still may not have been that good, but the critique was to help the author to see how he can improve his work and not replace it with his vision of how the image should look. So my point is simply that we can't go around suggesting radical treatments of other peoples images without knowing what they want to convey. Anyone can crop an image and suggest an alternative view. But if one starts to to do radical crops or treatments as critique, it might as well be their image and not the makers. I think the worst critiques are the ones that think anything can be salvaged or corrected in PP, like cloning out whole areas or fences or skies. I am not a purist, but frankly, if you don't learn to crop in the viewfinder, expose correctly most of the time, see and have an idea or vision you want to communicate (comes with time, practice and motivation), or lack some creative impetus or motivation for using photos to communicate with the world, not much will help your images.
But I take your point, this is a critique section. I was trying to move the critiques away from needless radical suggestions. And actually, simple expressions about why people like an image and what they think it expresses is also very helpful. I have no axe to grind, just wanted to express my view.
JMR
-
Whether correct or not, I tend to assume that those who post an image without saying anything else fall into #2 (or perhaps #6) and I treat it as such. Otherwise, the poster usually says what they are looking for.
That's a rash assumption. I have posted quite a few of my images here, usually with only a "C&C?" comment. I expect, and have received, comments varying from simple expressions of appreciation or dislike to suggestions, some very helpful, as to how the image could be improved with judicious cropping, better treatment of highlights or shadows, removal of distortion, going back to re-take the shot and so on.
My aim in posting photos is never to receive simple admiration: I can get that from my mother or my four-year-old daughter. I want to improve my photography and I'm grateful that so many good artists, some professional, spend time on the forum and are prepared to give their opinions (with which I do, of course, as the photographer, feel able to disagree if I wish).
I very much appreciate others' eyes and others' viewpoints. I don't feel the need to direct their comments by specific questions.
To that extent, I disagree with John. That's not to say I don't feel a warm glow when someone simply says "I like it"!
Jeremy
-
A very useful thread. I have went as far as bookmarking it in the hope that some more useful insights are added. I felt initially that John R had gone a little OTT - I expressed this in another similar post - but after his last post I feel that he has explained himself better about the way he sees things. In future when I comment I will make the effort to be more expressive rather than the "nice image" comment. I was a camera club member for six years and the rough and tumble of giving and receiving criticism gives one a good insight - subjective and objective - as how to improve your images. This forum should be the same?
-
> So my point is simply that we can't go around suggesting radical treatments of other peoples images without knowing what they want to convey.
This is a as good observation as has been on this forum. One can’t hope to reasonably answer a question unless one has a sense of what the question is. People tend to be very polite here and that is a good thing, but politeness suggests that you don’t comment at risk of insulting the poster.
From that basis, it reasonably leads to the conclusion that the poster would serve themselves by asking the viewer things such as what can be done to improve this? Or more specifically, something such as
I was trying to bring out the muted colors in this area. Is it to much or too little? Or is there another way of doing it?
My goal was to capture the atmosphere in…
My goal was to capture the motion of…
…the mood of….
…and so on.
Communication is everything. The more one gives for others to work with the more likely the results will be helpful.
-
...my point is simply that we can't go around suggesting radical treatments of other peoples images without knowing what they want to convey. Anyone can crop an image and suggest an alternative view. But if one starts to to do radical crops or treatments as critique, it might as well be their image and not the makers....
.... if you don't learn to crop in the viewfinder....
For the most part, I agree with you. However, I think there are times when suggesting radical crops or toning changes are warranted as the image, as it exists, simply does not work (at least for that particular viewer). The photographer's vision and purpose should be taken into account, as you said, but it MUST be balanced with the viewer's reaction. To work well, a photographer not only needs to convey a message, but needs that message to be both received and interpreted by the viewer. Both parties have a stake.
More importantly, though, an honest and thoughtful image critique, however radical, has implications far beyond any single image. It will, if the photographer finds it valid, have a positive effect how all photos are shot, or printed, in the future (including cropping in the viewfinder), and THAT is what it is all about.
As is the consensus, respect is the key. Respect both for the photographer as a person, and what they are trying to accomplish.
-
... this is a CRITIQUE forum, which means users should be expected, and deserve, honest and useful feedback. It is not a simple show-n-tell forum where such feedback may not be appropriate. The forum title clearly reads "User's Critique. People should be posting photos here to get feedback to help improve future attempts.
And when commenting, nobody learns a thing with responses such as "I like this" or "good job". That is shallow and useless pandering which offers nothing of substance. Does anyone really think they're helping by such responses? Really? If you like an image, tell the photographer WHY you like it. Share your feelings and reactions. If you don't much care for a photo, be supportive yet honest. Respectfully offer suggestions on how you think it could have been improved during the shoot, and how it might be improved in post, but do so within the confines of the image itself. The original photog saw something worthwhile in the scene they photographed, and we need to respect that vision. That does not mean, however, that there may not be room for improvement.
I am in total agreement, and have stated similarly in this forum.
In particular, the "WHY" part is key. Those who are genuinely interested in receiving constructive feedbacks for improvement should be open minded and thick skinned. (I blame all my life's failings on my teachers who had not been harsh enough ) For them (perhaps not too many here), I believe that a good critic bears the responsibility to spend time and effort to view the submitted work in detail and provide the best honest comments possible, however subjective, as long as they are supported by "WHYs". As a critic, but not as a teacher, I do not expect that my comments to be agreed, or valued by everyone.
In my web design critiques, I try to provide objective and subjective "WHYs" when possible. The objective "WHYs" would include misspells, broken links, etc., and the subjective "WHYs" would express my personal feelings such as background colors, ease of navigation, etc. The same should apply to image critiques.
Why am I doing this? Aside from helping the critique requesters, I have a few vested interests.
- I happen to believe that if I cannot explain "WHY" I like or dislike a piece of work, I ultimately do not understand it. This apply to my own work. If I can't tell why, I can't expect others to. Forcing myself to come up with answers is really learning about appreciation or lack there of. Besides, it gives me something "insightful" to chat about when attending receptions, etc.
- Critiquing others' work is a great way to improve my own. They remind me how I can apply what I like and how to avoid what I don't like. Whenever I view an image, here or elsewhere, that is within the same genre that I shoot, I would ask myself how I would shoot it given the same opportunity, and WHY. Often, I would come up with something different, in composition, exposure, etc. In my critiques, I would offer such comments. Subconsciously, I file these away, and may apply them when simular opportunites should indeed come along.
- Lastly, I learn to appreciate photography critigue books a whole lot more. A few of these books have taught me far more than the dozens of techniques books combined.
-
For the most part, I agree with you. However, I think there are times when suggesting radical crops or toning changes are warranted as the image, as it exists, simply does not work (at least for that particular viewer). The photographer's vision and purpose should be taken into account, as you said, but it MUST be balanced with the viewer's reaction. To work well, a photographer not only needs to convey a message, but needs that message to be both received and interpreted by the viewer. Both parties have a stake.
The intent and messge of an image may or may not be spelled out by the photographer, and typically are not here. Some photographers do, and some phtographers don't. Some photographers do care that their work's intents and messages, spelled out or hidden, are intrepreted by the viewers the same way, and some don't. Some photographers may not have any intents or messages at all.
I personally believe that critics have a blank check when it comes to interpreting a work's intent and message, either disclosed or hidden.
For those who are interested to learn more about critiques, I would highly recommend "Criticizing Photographs" by Terry Barrett. It is the author's college level book for his course that teaches how to write critiques. In it, he cited two term papers by his students to demonstrate how viewers can have vastly different, yet equally insightful, interpretations of a same body of work by Sally Mann. That's what makes critiques and photography interesting.
-
I disagree with that post, too. When one asks for a critique, it's not just a request for "like" or "dislike" but rather for ways in which the photo might be done differently. A photo I post is my vision of that photo given the limitations of my skill and experience, and if someone suggests a different cropping of contrast or whatever I am glad to consider it. Maybe the result will actually be closer to my vision but something I had not envisioned myself.
-
That's a rash assumption. I have posted quite a few of my images here, usually with only a "C&C?" comment. I expect, and have received, comments varying from simple expressions of appreciation or dislike to suggestions, some very helpful, as to how the image could be improved with judicious cropping, better treatment of highlights or shadows, removal of distortion, going back to re-take the shot and so on.
My aim in posting photos is never to receive simple admiration: I can get that from my mother or my four-year-old daughter. I want to improve my photography and I'm grateful that so many good artists, some professional, spend time on the forum and are prepared to give their opinions (with which I do, of course, as the photographer, feel able to disagree if I wish).
I very much appreciate others' eyes and others' viewpoints. I don't feel the need to direct their comments by specific questions.
To that extent, I disagree with John. That's not to say I don't feel a warm glow when someone simply says "I like it"!
Jeremy
My thoughts, exactly.
-
As you will have gathered, I enjoy posting here on LuLa and find much of interest and a lot of material that inspires comment. However, this particular type of thread, and it is far from unique, seems to fall into a little trap of its own making. That trap seems, to me at least, to be a very simple one where people feel an obligation to second-guess and show how they too could have handled the situation and improved upon the image from the original photographer.
This is couched in praise (sometimes) but ever with the delicate little hint that it would have been so much finer an image had this been done or that; that the critic, basically, knows best.
I have already, in the past, commented that people should just get on with it and do as they please without consulting anyone; unless it's a commercial venture, the world's yours so just do it your way and the hell with other opinions. That's one of the benefits of freedom of expression that you surely find within amateur photography; why sacrifice it on the alter of the camera club seniors or even forums such as this? Post pics by all means, but why invite criticism which, by definition, has to do more than just kiss your ass, and is also about as useful in the general scheme of things.
I believe that a picture show is a picture show, is a delightful device and that people will learn more by looking at other work than by reading remarks about their own. I see exhibitions as just that: picture shows. Of course this 'critique' title invites criticism; my contention is that it would serve a greater purpose having a space within which to display work without the rôle of the critic tossed in for no better reason than that's the way things are generally done in clubs, and this section is a virtual one.
I suspect that we would see more interesting images were the fear of criticism removed from some sensitive and more inhibited souls; not every artist is a masochist, though it helps.
Rob C
-
This is couched in praise (sometimes) but ever with the delicate little hint that it would have been so much finer an image had this been done or that; that the critic, basically, knows best.
I have already, in the past, commented that people should just get on with it and do as they please without consulting anyone;
A critique is not a command, nor it is a mandate. It is a suggestion. Nothing more, nothing less. As such, the photographer is free to pick and choose that which is valid and that which is to be discarded. The absolutely worst thing ANY photographer/artist can do, whether professional or hobbyist, is work in a vacuum.
And, yes, on the surface, a critique may make it appear that critic knows best, but that's unfairly simplified. We, as photographers, are in a two-way conversation with our viewers, be they family, friends, gallery owners or web forum members. If what we're doing is ineffective, our audience will not be able relate positively to our work. The worst part is that THEY will know this immediately. Without occasional feedback, the only ignorant one will be us.
-
A critique is not a command, nor it is a mandate. It is a suggestion. Nothing more, nothing less. As such, the photographer is free to pick and choose that which is valid and that which is to be discarded. The absolutely worst thing ANY photographer/artist can do, whether professional or hobbyist, is work in a vacuum.
And, yes, on the surface, a critique may make it appear that critic knows best, but that's unfairly simplified. We, as photographers, are in a two-way conversation with our viewers, be they family, friends, gallery owners or web forum members. If what we're doing is ineffective, our audience will not be able relate positively to our work. The worst part is that THEY will know this immediately. Without occasional feedback, the only ignorant one will be us.
This is well put, IMHO.
When I show photographs, I often value feedback even more than sales. Sometimes what I am trying to express in an image may be fairly obscure. The type of feedback I get often tells me something about whether the viewer "got it" (i.e., saw what I saw in the image), or saw something worthwhile that I never noticed, or simply missed anything that the image had to offer. Any of these types of feedback is valuable to me. And in all three cases, statements of why the viewer sees it they way they do or suggestions for how to improve the image give me more of value.
Sometimes I know the image is good, and all I learn is that it only appeals to a very small audience with minds that are warped in ways similar to my own.
Russ Lewis ("RSL") started a threa dhere recently about an Ice Storm in West Texas. I liked the photo a lot, and felt immediately that I "got" what he was doing and agreed with the way he presented the image. Several other viewers suggested various croppings and other "improvements," all of which would have made the image more conventional but much less compelling in my view.
Eric
-
Chuck
I agree isofar as I don't think a vacuum is the ideal space for any artist; that's why I suggested the alternative take of this being a display area without the need for comments from viewers. For example, your site, along with some others, is on my permanent Favourites list; that doesn't imply I seek or need your personal thoughts regarding anything that I might create, but that I do enjoy looking at your work and taking from it the pleasure in what I see, not perhaps exactly what you saw, though I'd be very surprised to learn we were seeing vastly different things in your frames.
Eric
I can't agree with the two-way theory at all. Two ways are only of interest where commerce, at whatever level, is expected. Then there will be a need to accommodate or even pander to the lowest common denominator of public taste: block-buster movies come cynically to my mind. But that is business acumen and not art. Where there is but naked art, as in pure, non-commercial self-expression, I see outside influence beyond what the artist choses to take on board from other visual material that he sees for himself, to be input too far. Comments can stick in the mind, and that would be fine if they came from on high with divine truth somewhere deep in the mix; as they always come from mere mortals, I believe they can do as much harm as any putative good...
Generally, telling another person that he would have done better to weight the shot to the left or right, include or exclude material is all opinion and doesn't come with any guarantee of validity; this can be destructive in its own right, as it can make the author of the artwork doubt himself, the worst thing that can happen to any artist and direct precursor to the dreaded block, something that can arrive perfectly happily of its own accord without any extraneous help required!
Rob C
-
I suspect that we would see more interesting images were the fear of criticism removed from some sensitive and more inhibited souls; not every artist is a masochist, though it helps.
Rob C
Perhaps you should petition Mr. Reichmann for, as Russ Lewis put it, a "User Display" subforum. Until that materializes, however, the current title of this forum speaks for itself.
John
-
Excellent thread. Perhaps I can offer my insight, from the perspective of a new user who joined recently, about why I joined and what my expectations of this forum are.
I have read this website for years, and have put much value into the skills, techniques, reviews, and general information on landscape photography contained herein. Recently, I decided to join the forums and enter the discussion. A large part of that decision was to be able to post images to this User Critique forum in hopes of receiving just that - critiques. I put up images because I want the opinions, criticisms, and perhaps even praise of the (in my estimation) much more experienced landscape photographers that regularly post here. So far, my experience has been great - and I hope to keep posting images and commenting on others' work.
I am not a professional photographer, with no current real aspirations to become one; I have a day job that I like, and I make photographs in my spare time because I love doing so. I live in a small town in the Sierra Nevada mountains, and I am isolated from other photographers (save for a few friends), thus most of the feedback I receive on the images I create is from family and friends who almost always seem to respond with a) "I love it!" or they politely say nothing. never anything like "crop here, burn the grass in more, you should have used a wider aperture," etc. I post here to escape that bias and hopefully get some quality feedback from people that are more knowledgeable and more experienced than me.
My professional background is in physical research science, and a large part of my career to date has taken place in the world of peer review. I have always believed that one's work can benefit from all types of criticism - constructive and destructive. It is a nasty world out there, and there are going to be as many people who disagree with / do not like / do not understand what we are all doing as there are fans of our work, in any field. Hearing all of their critiques, and weighing them, makes us all better artists - whether we act on them or not.
It is a rare photographer indeed who would unequivocally state that his or her images could not be improved in some way. Whether it is technique, processing, exposure, framing, artistic intent...etc....etc. - the list goes on - we can all get better. I feel like I am firmly placed in the category of "needs improvement" at this stage in my photographic hobby. So when I post images here, I expect criticism, and I will listen to all of it, good or bad, and use it to try and improve my photographs. Hopefully I can offer the same to others.
-
Since I’ve been on the road for several days I haven’t had time to follow all the discussions going on here, but now that I’m in place in Florida it’s time to get into this one.
I think Dave’s list of six reasons why people post photographs here is quite accurate. I also think you pretty much can tell which reasons are involved by the comments posted with the picture.
Reasons 1, 2 and 6 seem closely related. When someone posts for one or more of those reasons he normally posts the picture with little or no comment. In this case it seems to me that unless some clear way of improving the picture jumps out at you, it’s legitimate simply to acknowledge that the picture is good -- if you feel that way. Some time back Mike made a good point when he said he simply ignores anything the leaves him cold when it’s posted without a request for criticism. I think that's a good approach. For something that’s completely blah, absolute silence seems the best form of criticism.
Posts for the other three reasons usually include comments and either specify or imply that the poster is asking for criticism. For that kind of post I think that if you respond to the picture it’s important to do two things: comment on the picture as it is, and then, if you really think a crop or some other mod would help, say so. Trying to avoid hurt feelings by beating around the bush isn’t going to help the poster, but there’s no reason for gratuitous insults either.
But keep in mind that a good photographer isn’t going to shoot a picture hoping to find other pictures within the original picture, even though some photo classes pull this stunt – perhaps because they can’t think of anything else to teach. It seems to me that if you’re going to recommend a crop it would help if you’d pull down the picture and make the crop. That’s the acid test. I suspect that often when you see the cropped version you’ll realize that the original is better. Realizing that before you respond can save you embarrassment. If the poster thought a crop would help he’d probably have cropped before he posted.
Composition and tone mapping are about the only things you reasonably can criticize from a small JPEG in sRGB presented on a computer screen. Unless you have a carefully calibrated monitor – and perhaps even then – the colors you’re seeing may not be the colors in the original, and almost surely not the same colors that are going to be in a print. Even tone is going to be different in a print from what you see on a monitor.
To me, the best kind of criticism is when someone understands what I’m trying to do and can point me to the work of a master who’s done something similar. No amount of verbal criticism or “how to” lectures can take the place of that kind of demonstration. I think it was Elliott Erwitt who, when asked to teach a photography class, asked: “What is there to teach?” It was a fair question.
-
A critique is not a command, nor it is a mandate. It is a suggestion. Nothing more, nothing less. As such, the photographer is free to pick and choose that which is valid and that which is to be discarded. The absolutely worst thing ANY photographer/artist can do, whether professional or hobbyist, is work in a vacuum.
Exactly right. And the second worst thing any photographer/artist can do, whether professional or hobbyist, is to take criticism so seriously that he tries to become someone else.
Take comments, learn from them at least what other people think, and use their thoughts to help you develop your own style. That's what I try to do and, as I've said, I find the constructive and helpful criticism (and even some of the destructive comments, which are thankfully rare) invaluable.
Jeremy
-
dupe
-
That's a rash assumption. I have posted quite a few of my images here, usually with only a "C&C?" comment. I expect, and have received, comments varying from simple expressions of appreciation or dislike to suggestions, some very helpful, as to how the image could be improved with judicious cropping, better treatment of highlights or shadows, removal of distortion, going back to re-take the shot and so on.
My aim in posting photos is never to receive simple admiration: I can get that from my mother or my four-year-old daughter. I want to improve my photography and I'm grateful that so many good artists, some professional, spend time on the forum and are prepared to give their opinions (with which I do, of course, as the photographer, feel able to disagree if I wish).
I very much appreciate others' eyes and others' viewpoints. I don't feel the need to direct their comments by specific questions.
To that extent, I disagree with John. That's not to say I don't feel a warm glow when someone simply says "I like it"!
Jeremy
Writing "C&C" is enough to know that you're not simply looking for a pat on the back.
While constructive criticism is always best, I don't mean to devalue a simple "good job" either. I think people need positive reinforcement, especially from their peers. Those that claim they don't are either lying to themselves or just to egotistical to deserve it in the first place.
-
I think it was Elliott Erwitt who, when asked to teach a photography class, asked: “What is there to teach?” It was a fair question.
That comment encapsulates the entire thing. Or it would were photography still pre-digital and basically still simple.
I believe that all one can teach is the mechanics or, rather, electronics of the thing. All else is either inside the photographer or it isn't and never will be. I would love to be a musician - I can neither sing, play an instrument (despite guitar lessons at age eleven) nor even whistle a tune properly. Oddly, I can tell at once where a singer loses it. Knowing all that, wishing it were different has not an iota of impact on the reality; why should wannabe artists in photography or painting expect it to be different?
So, IMO, one can certainly learn how to operate systems and make images fit within electronically indicated parameters but as to creativity - sorry, that's something else: a gift.
Rob C
-
I am not a very experienced photographer. I am an experienced artist. I am a sculptor and a WC artist and a photographer. I can not usually help with tech or operational stuff but I know art. I'm beginning to think I should just be listening and watching and not saying when I like or dislike something. I can't tell you what might be wrong technically with a photograph but I know a vision when I see it. I do try to say why I like it. I have a vision in photography, I am however still in the toddler stage on the tech side. I appreciate all the help I get here, whether you know I am there or not.
How did you feel when you first came to this site. Did you jump in and give and take? Did you stand back in awe of the others here? Are you afraid to comment on someone's art because you thought your opinion did not matter? I can not believe you would not wet yourself if you got a favorable critique from some of the professionals here.
I don't think I take up too much space when I say I like something. I am not one to stand back. I can only give what I know. It's all I have.
-
I am not a very experienced photographer. I am an experienced artist.
Well, IMO, it's the artistic aspects that need more said about them - it is easy peasy to find tutorials on every technical aspect and then some, but much harder to come up with your own way of seeing. So, your views are valuable. IMO, as I said.
-
That comment encapsulates the entire thing. Or it would were photography still pre-digital and basically still simple.
I believe that all one can teach is the mechanics or, rather, electronics of the thing. All else is either inside the photographer or it isn't and never will be. I would love to be a musician - I can neither sing, play an instrument (despite guitar lessons at age eleven) nor even whistle a tune properly. Oddly, I can tell at once where a singer loses it. Knowing all that, wishing it were different has not an iota of impact on the reality; why should wannabe artists in photography or painting expect it to be different?
So, IMO, one can certainly learn how to operate systems and make images fit within electronically indicated parameters but as to creativity - sorry, that's something else: a gift.
Rob C
Rob, Exactly. All you can teach is the mechanics.
As far as camera mechanics are concerned, as HCB pointed out in Images à la sauvette, you can learn these simply by reading the instruction manual that came with the fine leather case. True, there are more instructions for, say, a Nikon D3 than there were for the early Leica, but both cameras required that you read and then try in order to learn how things worked. None of the mechanical fine points can teach you anything at all about making worthwhile photographs.
As far as the complexities of post-processing are concerned, I don't think digital has made much difference. If you processed your own film and did your own darkroom work surely you remember the complexities that were involved -- especially if you practiced the zone system and were a follower of Ansel's instructions in his three books on the subject. I remember even mixing developer variations for different sheets of B&W film exposed under different conditions. Color was even more complex and required a really advanced lab setup and advanced technical expertise. Photoshop may have more complexities than an equivalent darkroom, because it includes features for prepress work. But Lightroom gives you the equivalent of a dry, light darkroom where you can do the same things you could do in a darkroom with a lot less work and less complexity.
In the end, it all comes down to HCB's aphorism: "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything." The only way I know to teach someone to look is to point to the work of the masters -- not just masters of photography, but masters of visual art in general. That's not really teaching.
-
It's funny, I think a thread like this crops up at least once or twice a year. Maybe it's due to turnover in participants, I dunno.
I was pretty active here for a while, then kind of drifted away the last few months. Decided to check back in and I'm glad to see more participation than ever. Lots of good work, and the feedback seems to of a high quality; maybe not everyone would 100% agree with that last part, but I think most would agree the feedback is better here than in most picture-sharing forums on the net.
Not everybody is looking for exactly the same type of feedback. But as long as the feedback is earnest and constructive I don't see a problem. You can always take from the feedback whatever you want (even if that's nothing).
-
I am not a very experienced photographer. I am an experienced artist. I am a sculptor and a WC artist and a photographer. I can not usually help with tech or operational stuff but I know art. I'm beginning to think I should just be listening and watching and not saying when I like or dislike something. I can't tell you what might be wrong technically with a photograph but I know a vision when I see it. I do try to say why I like it. I have a vision in photography, I am however still in the toddler stage on the tech side. I appreciate all the help I get here, whether you know I am there or not.
How did you feel when you first came to this site. Did you jump in and give and take? Did you stand back in awe of the others here? Are you afraid to comment on someone's art because you thought your opinion did not matter? I can not believe you would not wet yourself if you got a favorable critique from some of the professionals here.
I don't think I take up too much space when I say I like something. I am not one to stand back. I can only give what I know. It's all I have.
I personally believe that critiquing requires practice, like anything else. So, when I found this forum, I just said "to hell with it," and jumped right in. Why not? Yes, there are some really accomplished artists here, but that doesn't scare me, and it shouldn't scare anyone else.
I think we could all benefit from your comments, especially given your background. So what if you don't think of yourself as an accomplished photographer? Post something. Say something! I think way too many people worry way too much about screwing up. No one's going to dock your paycheck for making a less than stellar observation here. I don't mean to sound sarcastic or flippant- I mean every word. By offering your opinions, you'll not only help us, you'll help yourself. Maybe you're the best damned artist that ever graced the pages of this forum. If you don't participate, though, we all lose.
John
-
My limited experience in this forum includes several photographs that improved from the comments I received: someone saw the photographs, understood what I was trying to accomplish, and gave me pointers to process them in a different manner. I followed that advice when it seemed sound to me; and I must admit those photographs are closer to my own view now.
I guess such advice fails into the "mechanics" category, but I am really thankful for it.
-
The most productive advice I get for myself is the first sentence out of the viewer's mouth. The first thing that strikes them. It's the only honest thing they will say. Many people say nothing. That's out of insecurity more than how they really feel about your work. Some people will see the how of it and analyze that, some will see the beauty, some the dream and some really get it. And then some just have a mean spirit and like to stir shit. Haven't met any of those here though.
I have a hard time learning all the technical stuff, but my vision is clear and I am here to talk about both. If there is no art discussion, I am only getting half what I need.
This is the least turmoiled forum I have ever been in. I think staying on topic is important, and I guess we get to choose the topic. I like a little camaraderie too. I keep my opinions out of the threads that I don't belong in, I just read. One day I will be able to put in my two cents.
One thing, intermediate photographers like me are who buy all the tutorials.
-
Opps.
-
I'm afraid that the best I can deduce from this is that people really do believe that they can either buy success or even have it thrust upon them from the outside; that the single thing they do NOT seem to believe is that they really need to have the seeds of it in their own genetic makeup.
Best of luck.
Rob C
-
I'm afraid that the best I can deduce from this is that people really do believe that they can either buy success or even have it thrust upon them from the outside; that the single thing they do NOT seem to believe is that they really need to have the seeds of it in their own genetic makeup.
Best of luck.
Rob C
Rob, You know I agree. I've said it before on this forum. My wife had a gallery for ten years. As a result I used to see the work of all sorts of local artists, including potters who worked in a teaching studio at the back of the gallery. There are two potters I remember especially. Both had gone through the same art schools and both were technically expert. Both were very experienced, and both taught classes. But their work was very different. One was an artist -- loose and creative. The other was a technician -- tight and conventional. These two guys were living proof of what you're saying. I see the same thing among professional photographers and fine art photographers. Though I won't name names, I can think of more than one who doesn't deserve the fame he's (and in one case especially, "she's") acquired, even though he (or she) is very expert technically. Politics often seems to have something to do with it. When you say that people can't "buy" success, whether or not that's true depends on what you mean by "buy" and what you mean by "success." In politics people "buy success" all the time.
But... Even those of us who haven't inherited the creative genes needed to produce fine art can enjoy photography and painting and sculpture and printmaking. Sometimes the simple act of "making" is more important than the idea of "success."
-
I'm afraid that the best I can deduce from this is that people really do believe that they can either buy success or even have it thrust upon them from the outside; that the single thing they do NOT seem to believe is that they really need to have the seeds of it in their own genetic makeup.
Best of luck.
Rob C
Rob, maybe I'm missing something, but I can't help but distill from many of your posts a sense of pessimism at best, and hopelessness at worst. I personally believe that anyone can learn to do anything... maybe not very well, but anything nevertheless, given enough motivation and work. I think we all have some inate ability, and it's just a matter of developing it. Why be discouraging?
John
-
All you can teach is the mechanics.........The only way I know to teach someone to look is to point to the work of the masters .....
I don't quite understand. If all one can teach is simple mechanics, why study anyone's work? What possible benefit could it have?
I will simply not accept the idea that studying the work of other photographers is beneficial, yet a critique, from whomever it may come, is useless and irrational drivel. As I've said before, I'm a better photographer for the critiques I have received. Am I the lone exception to this concrete rule? Is it really that cut and dry? Did John Sexton, Mark Citret, Alan Ross or Ted Orland learn nothing from assisting Ansel Adams other than darkroom techniques and the zone system?
-
Sometimes the simple act of "making" is more important than the idea of "success."
Amen, brother. I'd say that, in all things creative (as long as your livelihood doesn't depend on it), the act of making is ALWAYS more important than success. This is supposed to be fun!
John
-
I don't quite understand. If all one can teach is simple mechanics, why study anyone's work? What possible benefit could it have?
I will simply not accept the idea that studying the work of other photographers is beneficial, yet a critique, from whomever it may come, is useless and irrational drivel. As I've said before, I'm a better photographer for the critiques I have received. Am I the lone exception to this concrete rule? Is it really that cut and dry? Did John Sexton, Mark Citret, Alan Ross or Ted Orland learn nothing from assisting Ansel Adams other than darkroom techniques and the zone system?
Chuck, I don't think anyone's saying a critique is "useless." Someone may be able to improve someone else's photograph with a bit of judicious cropping or a change in tone mapping. But does doing that make the someone else a better photographer? Possibly from a technical point of view, but I doubt it does from the standpoint of art. What you learn from that kind of critique is "rules." The second potter I talked about in my earlier post knew all the rules, and that made him a guy who could throw pots that were correct in every technical way. They sold quite well. In fact, he's still making his living with his pottery. But what he was turning out wasn't art. To understand the difference all you had to do was look at the other guy's pots.
What Rob and I both are saying is that to be an artist you simply must have the right genes, though, I'd add, I think it's a matter of degree. The same thing's true with music, mathematics, the ability to do computer programming, and a number of other things. I used to have a friend who was a concert pianist. She was a superb technician. But when she played Gershwin she simply couldn't interpret the music with the kind of emotional result as could, say, Oscar Levant. If you've ever listened to Levant do Gershwin you know that he was pretty sloppy. He sometimes missed notes, but the way he handled the music could bring tears to your eyes.
I'm not sure what Citret, Ross, Orland, Sexton learned from helping Ansel, but I do know that it wasn't how to produce fine art. As far as your doubt that studying the work of the masters is beneficial, I'll say what I said a couple months ago in a different thread: "Anyone who aspires to do fine art photography must get his head around Looking In, the catalog for Robert Frank's show at the Metropolitan. If you go through that book -- especially the "extended" edition with contact sheets -- and don't learn anything about photography as an art, you're not paying attention.
-
I'm not sure what Citret, Ross, Orland, Sexton learned from helping Ansel, but I do know that it wasn't how to produce fine art.
Teaching, critiquing, and viewing prints have nothing to do with "producing fine art". Their sole purpose, working together, is to enlighten the photographer/artist to new ideas as well as call attention to technical and aesthetic considerations of the final product.
I do agree that we are each born with certain innate artistic abilities, as I think Rob pointed out, that will carry us only so far to artistic success. However, that's not saying we cannot improve within the constraints of those innate limitations. Can we make an Ansel out of a Chuck? I seriously doubt it, no matter how many workshops, critiques, or print viewings are offered. However, that's not saying that any insight proferred will not help me realize my vision beyond what currently exists.
And to be clear, I'm not saying that viewing the prints of my predecessors is not beneficial. It most certainly is. I was only inquiring why some folks were arguing that print viewing is good, but critiques/teaching is bad. To me, they're both branches of the same tree.
-
I'm afraid that the best I can deduce from this is that people really do believe that they can either buy success or even have it thrust upon them from the outside; that the single thing they do NOT seem to believe is that they really need to have the seeds of it in their own genetic makeup.
Best of luck.
Rob C
Rob, aren't you leaving out those who have the desire to create (and maybe but not necessarily, the genes), but lack the technique to do so?
-
I feel 'C&C Welcome' is a simple yet useful thing to put along side a photo. Whenever I post a photo, which isn't too often I'm looking for honest and constructive feedback, good or bad.
One thing to remember - before posting a photo in this section, will you get offended by negative remarks. If so then it isn't worth posting.
I believe no one on this forum goes out of their way to be negative without offering good advice.
I would much rather someone tell me a photo I have posted is sh*t and offer me the reasons why.
I am far from professional so to gain input from such a wide and varied group can only be a positive in my opinion.
-
ARD, that sounds good.
-
I feel 'C&C Welcome' is a simple yet useful thing to put along side a photo. Whenever I post a photo, which isn't too often I'm looking for honest and constructive feedback, good or bad.
One thing to remember - before posting a photo in this section, will you get offended by negative remarks. If so then it isn't worth posting.
I believe no one on this forum goes out of their way to be negative without offering good advice.
I would much rather someone tell me a photo I have posted is sh*t and offer me the reasons why.
I am far from professional so to gain input from such a wide and varied group can only be a positive in my opinion.
Precisely.
Jeremy
-
Rob, aren't you leaving out those who have the desire to create (and maybe but not necessarily, the genes), but lack the technique to do so?
Eduardo, I took that into consideration when I made my point about my failure with music; I have all the desire in the world to be able to play a Chuck Berry riff even once; I have the talent to carry a guitar, preferably in a case.
It's just how it is: some can do some things well and others can do other things well, but none of us can do it all and making images in any medium is no exception to that inconvenient rule.
However, if there is pleasure in trying, then go for it. But remember, knowing where to find E, A, D, G, B and E guarantees nada!
;-)
Rob C
-
I feel 'C&C Welcome' is a simple yet useful thing to put along side a photo. Whenever I post a photo, which isn't too often I'm looking for honest and constructive feedback, good or bad.
One thing to remember - before posting a photo in this section, will you get offended by negative remarks. If so then it isn't worth posting.
I believe no one on this forum goes out of their way to be negative without offering good advice.
I would much rather someone tell me a photo I have posted is sh*t and offer me the reasons why.
I am far from professional so to gain input from such a wide and varied group can only be a positive in my opinion.
Love your avatar; but aren't you a little young to be posting?
Rob C
-
Love your avatar; but aren't you a little young to be posting?
Rob C
LOL - you're never too young to start posting.