Wilson's Asian night market article

[Petrus]

From my viewpoint the processing is wrong, as the result is ugly. The author might think, and apparently does, that they are good and processing was fine. There is no critique without a difference in opinion.

By "natural B&W layer" I meant, in lack of better terminology, a straight luminance conversion, or at least something that looks unprocessed. Which could be blended to taste with the heavily processed version. Apparently there are also more elegant ways of doing the same, like adjusting the effect straight in NIK (or what ever).

[stamper]

Channel blending would work if you like the layer approach. I use Effex but don't see the need for a conversion before hand. I have a couple of books on Effex and the approach you use isn't recommended. As to "wrong". If I stated your approach to the use of Effex was "wrong" would you take umbrage? It isn't "wrong" for you to include a natural B&W layer just as it isn't "wrong" the way the author of the images processed his images. They were different to your tastes, not "wrong"?

[Petrus]

Channel blending would work if you like the layer approach. I use Effex but don't see the need for a conversion before hand. I have a couple of books on Effex and the approach you use isn't recommended. As to "wrong". If I stated your approach to the use of Effex was "wrong" would you take umbrage? It isn't "wrong" for you to include a natural B&W layer just as it isn't "wrong" the way the author of the images processed his images. They were different to your tastes, not "wrong"?

Actually I am happy to hear that my method if blending "natural" and "processed" layer is wrong, as then there must be a better way I am not aware of. Learning is beneficial, yes?

I just have been doing it because I do not need to commit myself to the process by pressing OK, but can easily see the effect and make the final decision by using the opacity slider. If this is "wrong" and there is a better way to get the same result I am happy to be put straight!

[stamper]

There are at least a dozen basic conversion methods that I have seen and a lot of variations within those conversions. It doesn't really matter how you you convert and process an image as long as you like the output AND you enjoy using a particular workflow.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The pictures are ugly due to a canned, cliche post processing, at least for some of us. Therefore, for some of us, the process used was wrong. Some others find it pleasing, thus the process right. The "right" and "wrong" should be understood in that context, not as absolutes. It that sense, there is nothing wrong with saying the process was wrong.

Btw, Stamper, you seem to imply that, when "artist" presents its work, that's how he likes it and wants it to be, thus who are we to say otherwise? In other words, in your view, there is no room and no need for any critique? Just accolades, unless one wants to be subjected to "didn't your momma teach you to shut up if you have nothing nice to say?"

[stamper]

Slobodan Alain Briot had a very good essay a while back published on critique. Do a search for it and you may learn something. The gist of what he said is that......there is a difference between critiquing an image and imposing your vision on it. The latter part is what some on the forum are guilty of... imo. They tell the poster if they had captured the image posted then they would have done it in a completely different way from the poster. The article will explain it better than me.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Slobodan Alain Briot had a very good essay a while back published on critique... there is a difference between critiquing an image and imposing your vision on it...

Just because AB said something, it ain't making it so.That distinction presupposes there is "objective" critique, "right" critique, "constructive" critique, etc., (i.e., my critique) and, by the same token, "wrong" critique (i.e., your critique). Critique is critique. It has been my long-standing view that any critique is a good critique, you just need to understand it properly. It can be elaborate or it can be brief (+1, nice!, I like it, etc.). But neither elaborate nor brief makes it inherently good or bad. It is just one piece of the puzzle.

[jjj]

I also found interesting that this article goes against the dogma, so to speak, that says you can only shoot street with a small camera, preferably a Leica... Here we have great photos, shot with a DSLR and slow zooms, for Heaven´s sake! So, thanks for that.

People who like to speak dogmatically, usually only tend to illustrate how little they in fact know.

One of the great things about art is that if you are talented, you can use the 'wrong' tool in an interesting way. Those lacking talent like to impose rules about how things should be done.

[stamper]

Just because AB said something, it ain't making it so.That distinction presupposes there is "objective" critique, "right" critique, "constructive" critique, etc., (i.e., my critique) and, by the same token, "wrong" critique (i.e., your critique). Critique is critique. It has been my long-standing view that any critique is a good critique, you just need to understand it properly. It can be elaborate or it can be brief (+1, nice!, I like it, etc.). But neither elaborate nor brief makes it inherently good or bad. It is just one piece of the puzzle.

With respect to the red lined text then Alain is a far better and knowledgable photographer than you Slobodan therefore commands greater respect than yourself. Did you bother to look for and read the essay before dismissing Alain's thoughts? If not here it is.

http://luminous-landscape.com/vision-11-critiquing-photographs/

Please read and tell what you don't like about it. The pertinent part is.

Personally, I see a difference between critiquing and criticizing a photograph, or any work of art for that matter. For me critiquing means looking at the work for the purpose of finding out the strong and weak points of the work.  On the other hand criticizing means taking a critical look at the work for the purpose of expressing a personal opinion.  While there is a gray area between the two, I view the former as constructive and the later as destructive.

That's what I was alluding to and what a lot of photographers don't understand when critiquing an image. I don't pretend to be a good at critique
but I try not to be destructive. In my camera club days I listened to judges who can dissect an image without being hurtful in their musings. I suspect that many on here are trying to put across their "superiority" rather than helping the author of a posted image.

[jjj]

With respect to the red lined text then Alain is a far better and knowledgable photographer than you Slobodan therefore commands greater respect than yourself. Did you bother to look for and read the essay before dismissing Alain's thoughts? If not here it is.

http://luminous-landscape.com/vision-11-critiquing-photographs/

Please read and tell what you don't like about it. The pertinent part is.

Personally, I see a difference between critiquing and criticizing a photograph, or any work of art for that matter. For me critiquing means looking at the work for the purpose of finding out the strong and weak points of the work.  On the other hand criticizing means taking a critical look at the work for the purpose of expressing a personal opinion.  While there is a gray area between the two, I view the former as constructive and the later as destructive.


That's what I was alluding to and what a lot of photographers don't understand when critiquing an image. I don't pretend to be a good at critique
but I try not to be destructive. In my camera club days I listened to judges who can dissect an image without being hurtful in their musings. I suspect that many on here are trying to put across their "superiority" rather than helping the author of a posted image.

'Critiquing' is simply a pompous way of saying 'constructive criticism and like the term 'giclee print' being used as a substitute for 'inkjet print', it is more informative about the person using it than anything else.
Also sometimes bluntly telling someone they haven't made the grade can be far, far more constructive than being all polite and nice. It all depends on the person you are talking to. Some people if given polite feedback only hear the positive spin and ignore the useful feedback, so it's basically a waste of time. Others will take any little bit of criticism to heart and not hear the positive aspects being mentioned. You have to pitch teaching/criticism/feedback to the individuals involved. For example I had a jiu jitsu student who wasn't making progress he should. Because he knew me too well and I wasn't 'scary' enough because I teach in a positive manner, I had another instructor to tell him that he was rubbish and if he didn't buck up he wouldn't get the next grade or progress any further. The trick worked and after that he did really well.


Usually I only pass judgement on other people's photos if directly asked, it is germane to a discussion or I can be practically helpful in some way. Why you like/dislike something is usually personal taste, so if something isn't to one's taste, then one's opinion is often valueless.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...Alain is a far better and knowledgable photographer than you Slobodan therefore commands greater respect than yourself....

I try not to be destructive. In my camera club days I listened to judges who can dissect an image without being hurtful in their musings...

Ouch, Stamper!

You just hurt my feelings. I thought you learned something from those judges?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... critiquing means looking at the work for the purpose of finding out the strong and weak points of the work.  On the other hand criticizing means taking a critical look at the work for the purpose of expressing a personal opinion...

And how do you find "the strong and weak points" without involving a personal opinion of what constitutes "strong" and "weak"!?

Once again, a stance like that, coming from an expert or not, promulgates the fallacy that there is objective critique and subjective criticism. All critique/criticism is subjective. However, when we like it or agree with it, it is "objective" and "constructive" critique. When we don't, it then becomes subjective and "destructive" criticism.

[stamper]

And how do you find "the strong and weak points" without involving a personal opinion of what constitutes "strong" and "weak"!?

Once again, a stance like that, coming from an expert or not, promulgates the fallacy that there is objective critique and subjective criticism. All critique/criticism is subjective. However, when we like it or agree with it, it is "objective" and "constructive" critique. When we don't, it then becomes subjective and "destructive" criticism.

I think it boils down to what is a persons motives for saying what they say. Is it to be genuinely helpful and to get a positive response from the person whose image is being critiqued. Or is it, in some cases, for someone to try and prove they know better by criticising the image and then making suggestions that makes that person look more knowledgable? Or is it to be deliberately hurtful. I once posted an image that a now departed member said was .... a waste of computer time. How would you describe that remark? Subjective or objective or just plain mean. Getting back to the original point. Do you regard the words ugly and wrong justified, especially when the image received universal praise from others? What about the member who looked at an image, didn't like the sky and stated he didn't look at the rest of the image before dismissing it? Destructive imo  possibly means being jealous of what is seen and then nitpick the smallest distractions to dismiss the image. There are a lot of nitpickers on the forum. I have just looked at an image that one member nitpicked at what he thought was tyre marks on a beach scene only to be told it was propeller marks and a car would have sunk if it had been there. We obviously agree to disagree on this subject.

[stamper]

Ouch, Stamper!

You just hurt my feelings. I thought you learned something from those judges?

You were very dismissive of someone who is held in high regard in the site. Your prerogative but I don't see any articles published on the site from your good self.

[AreBee]

Slobodan,

...the fallacy that there is objective critique and subjective criticism. All critique/criticism is subjective. However, when we like it or agree with it, it is "objective" and "constructive" critique. When we don't, it then becomes subjective and "destructive" criticism.

How do you explain the case whereby a viewer considers a compositon to be strong but does not personally like it?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Slobodan,

How do you explain the case whereby a viewer considers a compositon to be strong but does not personally like it?

You mean like someone saying "Yes, I have an opinion on the matter, but I disagree with it"? I'd say that would require explanation from a different kind of professional 

[AreBee]

Slobodan,

Thank you.

p.s. Rob says thank you too.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...Do you regard the words ugly and wrong justified, especially when the image received universal praise from others?..

I do regard them justified, in the context I explained in my post #24.

As for "universal praise"... Only the first two posters (of 11 in total) said something nice about the images. Four of us were critical, some mildly, others harshly. The remaining five, including yourself, did not express any opinion about the images, but rather discussed the use of plug-ins or the philosophy of critique.

Two out of 11?  Hardly a "universal praise."

However, even if the first two hundred or two thousand or whatever were showering it with praise, it does not deny the right or diminish the validity of the next critic to be negative. I hope we agree on that one? Unless, of course, we live in a society where a Central Committee determined in advance what is "right" and "wrong," or what is worth the praise?

[Isaac]

What about the member who looked at an image, didn't like the sky and stated he didn't look at the rest of the image before dismissing it?

"didn't like the sky" -- False: I said nothing of liking or disliking.
"didn't look at the rest of the image" -- False: you changed the tense to change the meaning of my words.

You disrupted normal commentary about Arlen's photo.
Show some consideration for forum users: don't disrupt discussions about their photos.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Slobodan,

Thank you.

p.s. Rob says thank you too.

Ha! Nice one! I appreciate your sense of humor (and sarcasm).

But in all seriousness, saying things like "strong" and "weak" in the context of a photographic critique is a value judgment (in a different context, say if you are comparing me to Mike Tyson, saying his is "strong" and I am "weak" is not a value judgment, but a simple, easily observable fact)

Hence, saying "strong composition" is a positive value judgment, and it doesn't make much sense to accompany it simultaneously with a negative value judgment ("but I do not like it"). Unless you have a split personality, that is

What would make sense, however, is to say, for instance: "This is a classical rule-of-thirds composition, but I still do not like the image." In this case we have an objective observation (rule of thirds) and a personal, subjective, value judgment. That would make sense.