Upper California Coastline

[Chris Calohan]

Any critique or comment (and this is the critiques and comments part of the forum) made with honest intent helps the OP in one fashion or another. I don't think Russ meant anything in a malicious way and nor did I construe my retort as a way of admonishing his opinion; it was merely one person's opinion vs another's. I did like that cjogo was able to make the connection to Baer and Weston and though there was no overt attempt to emulate them, their style of photography given my own background in photography will always have an influence. My challenge is to be able to get down to the same level where they shot in a much narrower time frame.

I realized the moment I began to download my images, I had to go back and spend a week, likely on that beach or others like it to really become immersed in getting "that" shot. And in Russ's sense, it was indeed a tourist shot as it was shot from high and not down on the beach where it needed proper attention.

I guess my only complaint and I would think this will hold true with other members is being ignored. There isn't a photo on this forum that isn't worthy of something positive and more than a few that could stand a slap or two (and usually don't get one). For instance, I posted a shot in the "Clouds" section yesterday which is really an outstanding shot and as good as many others posted in that section...yet no comments at all. In some ways it really makes posters reluctant to post. With few exceptions, there aren't five people on this forum who consistently produce outstanding images, yet, for the most part, they are fawned over like they were some kind of photographic gods.  You may not think of me as a fine art photographer, but I didn't post this in the fine art section; I posted it where I thought I might get some constructive criticism. I cannot improve, grow or get better in PP without feedback. I think Isaac's comment was exceptionally rude but in my eye, until he posts shots of his own, his opinion is pretty much baseless. And so it goes.

[RSL]

I understand it to be self-satisfied damning with faint praise when it's too much effort to think of something useful to say ;-)

Astonishing!

Suppose I were to say that Gene Smith's picture of Doctor Ceriani with a cigarette and coffee, staring off into space after losing a patient is a nice tourist snap? Would anyone on LuLa accept that evaluation as straight criticism? I'm beginning to wonder.

No, Chris's shots of the Northern Cal coastline aren't in the same class as that Gene Smith classic, but they're obviously not tourist snaps either.

Maybe I'd better start using those kindergarten-level "emoticons." From Chris's "poke in the eye" comeback I'd guess he's not one of the people needing an emoticon to "get it." Calling something "a nice tourist snap" is a legitimate critique when the picture is a nice tourist snap. These pictures, very obviously, aren't.

[Isaac]

I guess my only complaint and I would think this will hold true with other members is being ignored. There isn't a photo on this forum that isn't worthy of something positive and more than a few that could stand a slap or two (and usually don't get one). ... With few exceptions, there aren't five people on this forum who consistently produce outstanding images, yet, for the most part, they are fawned over like they were some kind of photographic gods.

otoh I agree.

otoh Useful critique is time-consuming hard work, and that makes it too much to expect.

[RSL]

Oh, come on, Isaac. How many pictures have you seen on here that would require "time-consuming hard work" to critique? Either the picture's good or it's not good. These pictures of Chris's have very good composition, good exposure and excellent post-processing. What can you say other than, "Good work, Chris?"

The usual "time-consuming" criticism is to suggest cropping off a chunk from the top or the bottom, or maybe moving the camera to the right or the left (a bit late for that), or bringing up shadows or killing blowouts, or waiting for different light. Is this kind of BS "hard work?"

A work of art has to stand on its own, but when a photograph that gets posted on here doesn't stand on its own, how often does somebody point that out? Honest criticism isn't hard work, but it does take cojones. So if something gets posted that requires real criticism: "it stinks," or "back to the drafting board," most of us hang back and simply let it glide on down and off the main page. It's always painful to puncture somebody's balloon because you know it hurts. In most cases people don't post pictures on here because they want a critique. What they want is a pat on the back, and in the majority of cases I've seen, that's appropriate.

How about posting some of your own work Isaac, so we can exert some "time-consuming hard work" tearing it to shreds.

[Chris Calohan]

Oh, come on, Isaac. How many pictures have you seen on here that would require "time-consuming hard work" to critique? Either the picture's good or it's not good. These pictures of Chris's have very good composition, good exposure and excellent post-processing. What can you say other than, "good work, Chris?"

The usual "time-consuming" criticism is to suggest cropping off a chunk from the top or the bottom, or maybe moving the camera to the right or the left (a bit late for that), or bringing up shadows or killing blowouts, or waiting for different light. Is this kind of BS "hard work?"

A work of art has to stand on its own, but when a photograph that gets posted on here doesn't stand on its own, how often does somebody point that out? Honest criticism isn't hard work, but it does take cojones. So if something gets posted that requires real criticism: "it stinks," or "back to the drafting board," most of us hang back and simply let it glide on down and off the main page. It's always painful to puncture somebody's balloon because you know it hurts. In most cases people don't post pictures on here because they want a critique. What they want is a pat on the back, and in the majority of cases I've seen, that's appropriate.

How about posting some of your own work Isaac, so we can exert some "time-consuming hard work" tearing it to shreds.

Here-here! +1

[stamper]

A lot depends on high the personal bar is set when critiquing an image. If someone expects the images to be as good as some of the "old masters" then nobody is going to pass muster. The vast majority of posters are "happy amateurs" who want a benchmark for what they are producing. I don't think that any professionals will post here because they are confident they are producing good work because it sells, though personally speaking I think that is a subjective appraisal based on monetary returns rather than taste? After a while, if you post images, you get a good idea of how good a critic is by what they say and if they themselves post work and are prepared to accept sensible criticism of what they post. Last but not least some of the critics seem to have personal agendas when making a critique which means they see a chance to give somebody a "kicking".

[RSL]

I'm not sure I agree, Stamper. Who are the "old masters?" Didn't know we had such a thing in photography. If we do have such a thing they're photographers like HCB and Gene Smith who concentrated on people and their environment. In the landscape department I've seen pictures here that can hold their own against most of Ansel's work. As far as professionals posting here is concerned, seems to me several of our posters claim that job title. (By the way, the fact that you're "selling" doesn't necessarily mean you're producing good work.)

But I do agree with your method of assessing critics. If somebody's going to pass himself off as a critic, the first thing I want to see is his work. There's that old saw: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." But there's another saw I think should become well-known: "Those who can photograph, photograph. Those who can't photograph get degrees in art appreciation and become critics of those who can."

And yes, every forum has its quota of trolls and cranks. There's always a danger that they'll take over. I can even think of an example where they did.

[Chris Calohan]

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."

I've always taken great offense to this statement being a former teacher. If we didn't teach, where would the learning come from? This is true in art, engineering or just about any discipline, but I do understand it in the context of this usage.

It's not just that these critics become critics by choice and not by an earned "right," but that because they do not shoot, their opinions can't hold up to the scrutiny of those who do, amateur or professional.

A blowhard with a key board is just that. Show me through example, Isaac or cease to tell me anything.

I know I am an amateur and it doesn't rankle me in the least. I also know that I've probably earned as much doing effing weddings (a long time ago) as anyone on this forum has in any other form of photography, art or commercial. It was the purist form of whore photography as existed, but the pay was insane.  The point is that I am working toward an end. Show me you're doing the same thing and I'll shut my mug.

[mezzoduomo]

Oh, come on, Isaac. How many pictures have you seen on here that would require "time-consuming hard work" to critique? Either the picture's good or it's not good. These pictures of Chris's have very good composition, good exposure and excellent post-processing. What can you say other than, "Good work, Chris?"

The usual "time-consuming" criticism is to suggest cropping off a chunk from the top or the bottom, or maybe moving the camera to the right or the left (a bit late for that), or bringing up shadows or killing blowouts, or waiting for different light. Is this kind of BS "hard work?"

A work of art has to stand on its own, but when a photograph that gets posted on here doesn't stand on its own, how often does somebody point that out? Honest criticism isn't hard work, but it does take cojones. So if something gets posted that requires real criticism: "it stinks," or "back to the drafting board," most of us hang back and simply let it glide on down and off the main page. It's always painful to puncture somebody's balloon because you know it hurts. In most cases people don't post pictures on here because they want a critique. What they want is a pat on the back, and in the majority of cases I've seen, that's appropriate.

How about posting some of your own work Isaac, so we can exert some "time-consuming hard work" tearing it to shreds.

Well played, RSL.  I agree that its normally about the pat on the back or at most a gentle tip. Most of what I've seen here clearly merits that level of attention, IMHO. I don't post my work, (although I have in the past) because I'm trying to develop my own sensibilities and while the occasional pat on the back certainly feels good, I'm not sure it helps me very much.

[mezzoduomo]

Who are the "old masters?" Didn't know we had such a thing in photography.

I've seen vaunted pictures by said 'old masters' that are crap IMHO, except when one disclaims "groundbreaking", or great "for the time period". As in "Well, its great if you consider that nobody was taking pictures like this before", or "Well, its great if you consider the limits of the technology of the time."

Maybe its not so great after all.

[RSL]

I've always taken great offense to this statement being a former teacher.

Yeah, I was afraid of that, Chris, but in mitigation please take into account that for several years I taught nuclear effects while I was in the Air Force and, for a while, after I retired, I taught computer science at Colorado Tech. I always loved teaching, and I've always believed that old saying is wrong. A lot of teachers not only teach, they do. When I was teaching computer science I also was doing software engineering. I only quit teaching because I was losing too much money for every hour I was preparing lectures, grading papers, and in the classroom instead of in front of my computer designing software. I always loved teaching. Oh. . . and my parents and most of my grandparents, aunts and uncles were teachers, some temporarily and some permanently.

[Isaac]

In most cases people don't post pictures on here because they want a critique. What they want is a pat on the back, and in the majority of cases I've seen, that's appropriate.

As you say this forum is praise and put-downs, not critique.

As I said, useful critique is too much to expect.

These pictures of Chris's have very good composition, good exposure and excellent post-processing. What can you say other than, "Good work, Chris?"

You can say what in particular you've noticed that makes it a "nice tourist snap" rather than something more.

[Isaac]

If somebody's going to pass himself off as a critic, the first thing I want to see is his work.

If someone is a critic, their critique is their work.

[Chris Calohan]

Good, but a quite lame try. This is a photography forum. People post pictures for critique by their PEERS.

[RSL]

Let's see some pictures, Isaac. All I've seen so far is airy talk.

[Isaac]

Good, but a quite lame try. This is a photography forum. People post pictures for critique by their PEERS.

Firstly as Russ said, "In most cases people don't post pictures on here because they want a critique. What they want is a pat on the back, ..."

Secondly, there's no "but a quite lame try" -- it's just what the words mean. If we care about the quality of critique we examine the person's critique not their photographs (but as Russ said...)


Note: I haven't suggested there's anything wrong, or even slightly unusual about seeking approval.

[RSL]

More airy talk, Isaac. Sounds as if you're embarrassed to post your pictures. Or do you even make photographs. . ?

[Chris Calohan]

I'll rephrase - a lame attempt at an explanation for critiquing when there critic has no obvious background in what he/she is critiquing. It would be like me critiquing a surgeon's method of stitching, yet never having actually stitched up anyone myself. It's a ridiculous assumption that anyone can critique a subject they do not practice. You can like or dislike, express your displeasure as to the use of colors, something being too dark or light, but by no means can you express a technique you don't practice...so, once again, until you can show, don't blow!

[Harald L]

... It would be like me critiquing a surgeon's method of stitching, yet never having actually stitched up anyone myself. ...

I slightly disagree. If I'd wake up after a surgery and look at tattered zig-zag-going stitches on my belly I wouldn't mind a second to blame the doctor. And in general I don't believe that you have to be an artist to criticize art in a properly manner - more than that: A decent discussion on someone else's work is an art as well.

Harald

[RSL]

There may be exceptions, Harald, but I think you'll find that most art critics who discuss paintings paint. They may not be very good at it but at least they have some familiarity with the techniques and the practice of painting.

I'd expect the same thing to be true with photography. But there's a difference between the two media. A painter often distorts reality in order to produce a feeling. Except in very unusual situations a photographer isn't able to do that. A classic example is Albert Bierstadt's "Among the Sierra Nevadas," where Bierstadt has distorted linear perspective to give the mountains the feeling of height they have when you're among them. But to a camera, linear perspective is linear perspective. You can't distort it. Oh, you can use a long lens to capture a small part of a scene and make the mountains appear higher, but you'll be squishing everything between you and those high mountains, and the result won't have the feeling Bierstadt was able to capture. What you get won't be believable.

When it comes to criticism I couldn't care less about cameras, lenses, sensors, film, post-processing, or any of the mechanical things we often hear about in critiques. If somebody's going to critique a photograph I want to know how that person sees when he has a camera in his hands. I can't learn that from airy talk. I can only learn it from his work.