# Why No Critique?



## cbarnard7 (Nov 9, 2013)

Given the amount of trash I've read on here lately, I was just wondering-

Do any pictures get critiqued anymore? Is there anymore feedback on photography?

I've seen so many threads about nothing getting hundreds of replies, while people legitimately trying to learn and better themselves get zero (or a very limited) response. The supposed "experienced professionals" (the people who amateurs can learn the most from) are usually the ones causing drama over nothing, and when there finally is a response, it's a harsh, egotistical remark, usually unrelated to the original topic.

I love banter just as much as the rest of you, but come on now.


----------



## SCraig (Nov 9, 2013)

Well, I'm no experienced professional or any other kind of professional, but personally I'm keeping my mouth shut for the time being.


----------



## hopdaddy (Nov 9, 2013)

I too have slowed my cc ,


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 9, 2013)

TBH, I think the number of interesting or challenging pictures has slowed to almost nothing.


----------



## wyogirl (Nov 9, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> TBH, I think the number of interesting or challenging pictures has slowed to almost nothing.


if that is the case, then there is room for improvement.  So tell them how.


----------



## Overread (Nov 9, 2013)

Different segments of the community do different things. Also don't look at page count for measuring a threads worth -yeah some threads are many pages long - most of it idle chatter and sillyness. 

Getting critique on ANY photography forum tends to be a nightmare and outside of paying for it you won't ever guarantee that you'll get any. Have a read of the link in my signature though as it will give you some tips on how to maximise your chances of getting critique whilst also improving what you can get out of a photo on your own before others weigh in


----------



## ratssass (Nov 9, 2013)

i don't feel i have enough expertise to give cc.there was a thread once that gave instructions on how to provide the proper cc."I like it" was deemed useless,but thats the best i can do.


----------



## cbarnard7 (Nov 9, 2013)

Overread said:


> Different segments of the community do different things. Also don't look at page count for measuring a threads worth -yeah some threads are many pages long - most of it idle chatter and sillyness.
> 
> Getting critique on ANY photography forum tends to be a nightmare and outside of paying for it you won't ever guarantee that you'll get any. Have a read of the link in my signature though as it will give you some tips on how to maximise your chances of getting critique whilst also improving what you can get out of a photo on your own before others weigh in



Alex- thank you for the link, it's very helpful for sure!

I guess I wasn't commenting so much on my photos (since I post maybe once every week or two) but just really in general. There's a lot of negativity and pompousness that is unwarranted and I think that when a beginner (who doesn't have as thick of skin yet) asks for advice (especially someone new to the site), they either get no response or hardly anything of value. Then, if you wait a couple days or a week with no input, you're very irritated to see where everyone seems to be spending their thread-reading time.


----------



## hopdaddy (Nov 9, 2013)

ratssass said:


> i don't feel i have enough expertise to give cc.there was a thread once that gave instructions on how to provide the proper cc."I like it" was deemed useless,but thats the best i can do.



If you will just add why you like it you have a good critique . Actually ,I learned more from giving CC than receiving .


----------



## kathyt (Nov 9, 2013)

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


----------



## cbarnard7 (Nov 9, 2013)

ratssass said:


> i don't feel i have enough expertise to give cc.there was a thread once that gave instructions on how to provide the proper cc."I like it" was deemed useless,but thats the best i can do.



I don't think that's true at all!

In fact, I think you learn _more _by trying to give critique and insight even if you don't know how. For example, when I started, I kept saying, "the sky is really white" and it took me a while before I caught on to terms like "overexposed/blown-out...etc." Sometimes it's harder to express why you like a picture rather than dislike it.


----------



## cbarnard7 (Nov 9, 2013)

kathythorson said:


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



There's room for both skimpy pictures AND critique, Kathy!


----------



## cbarnard7 (Nov 9, 2013)

Being a professional in the field of science/research, I've found that at times it can be frustrating and tedious to "dumb down" things I say to those who just can't grasp it-

But, I find I learn even more when I am constantly questioned on very basic things (it helps me track back and revisit things I have lost some insight on).

Maybe some of the seasoned photographers can challenge themselves by trying to help others in a way they would normally not?

I think that sometimes, as weird as this may sound, this forum is passive-aggressive. It's like mixing business and family. Since many of you are professional and do it for a living, it's like you want to give advice, but not enough to create a possible competitor (even if they're not in your geographic location).


----------



## ratssass (Nov 9, 2013)

hopdaddy said:


> ratssass said:
> 
> 
> > i don't feel i have enough expertise to give cc.there was a thread once that gave instructions on how to provide the proper cc."I like it" was deemed useless,but thats the best i can do.
> ...



...honestly,quite often i don't know,myself,why a certain image grabs me.whether its an emotion portrayed,the colors or whatever it is that drew me in.I can say technical aspects are at the bottom of my list.So....where do you go from there?Like that shot Pascal (?) shared of "1/39"....what do i like about it??I don't know,but it intrigued me enough to look at it several times.Is it "technically" correct??...beats me,and it doesn't matter.I like it.On the other hand,I couldn't tell you why an image doesn't grab me.Doesn't mean it doesn't serve the purpose they set out to do,and it might be presumptuous on my part to say otherwise.In the wrong hands (like mine) CC can be a dangerous tool.I certainly wouldn't want to discourage anyone because my vision isn't theirs.I do believe CC is a good tool in the hands of someone that uses it effectively.


----------



## cbarnard7 (Nov 9, 2013)

ratssass said:


> hopdaddy said:
> 
> 
> > ratssass said:
> ...



All fair points. I challenge you to try to think deeper about why you don't like something, even if it's just your opinion. It's all subjective anyway and if you say, "I really don't like B&W images, sorry...I would have like to have seen it in color and blurred." Maybe the OP will have their mind blown and start doing completely different things! Plus, it'll help you put a finger on what you really love/hate to shape your own photography!


----------



## ratssass (Nov 9, 2013)

...fair enough
kathy lose the clothes....strictly for educational purposes


----------



## jsecordphoto (Nov 9, 2013)

I just haven't offered any critique for others because I'm new to this forum. I'm a member of several non-photography forums and you kind of have to pay your dues and not post a lot before learning the lay of the land, so to speak.


----------



## DarkShadow (Nov 9, 2013)

cbarnard7 said:


> ratssass said:
> 
> 
> > i don't feel i have enough expertise to give cc.there was a thread once that gave instructions on how to provide the proper cc."I like it" was deemed useless,but thats the best i can do.
> ...



I agree


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 9, 2013)

Well I can't speak for anyone else of course but generally the only time I C&C a photo is if it's a wildlife pic, since those are the kinds of pictures I take that is what I feel comfortable with offering advice on.  As for my own experience with C&C, I've posted a couple and never gotten a response - but so be it.  Sometimes I imagine it's a probably a timing issue, if a post doesn't get a response and a lot of other stuff gets posted it gets pushed off pretty quick.  I've never taken it personally.


----------



## cbarnard7 (Nov 9, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> Well I can't speak for anyone else of course but generally the only time I C&C a photo is if it's a wildlife pic, since those are the kinds of pictures I take that is what I feel comfortable with offering advice on. As for my own experience with C&C, I've posted a couple and never gotten a response - but so be it. Sometimes I imagine it's a probably a timing issue, if a post doesn't get a response and a lot of other stuff gets posted it gets pushed off pretty quick. I've never taken it personally.



Yeah, that happens. But sometimes you can see the thread has had a lot of views, but no responses! Not everyone needs to respond, obviously, but when you see 35 views, 0 comments...you're like, "huh?" And plus, if it's something out of your niche, it can sometimes be even better for the OP since someone isn't focused on the particular skill in that area, but the overall big picture.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Nov 9, 2013)

I only CC NSFW photos...


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 9, 2013)

cbarnard7 said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Well I can't speak for anyone else of course but generally the only time I C&C a photo is if it's a wildlife pic, since those are the kinds of pictures I take that is what I feel comfortable with offering advice on. As for my own experience with C&C, I've posted a couple and never gotten a response - but so be it. Sometimes I imagine it's a probably a timing issue, if a post doesn't get a response and a lot of other stuff gets posted it gets pushed off pretty quick. I've never taken it personally.
> ...



Hadn't really thought about it that way - and I guess the last couple I've posted and asked for C&C on had normally like 15-20 views and no comments.  Starting to think maybe I just suck.. lol

I did do a C&C on a non-wildlife recently, didn't really think it was well received though.  I'll try to make a bit more of an effort in the future I suppose


----------



## Derrel (Nov 9, 2013)

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


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 9, 2013)

cbarnard7 said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Well I can't speak for anyone else of course but generally the only time I C&C a photo is if it's a wildlife pic, since those are the kinds of pictures I take that is what I feel comfortable with offering advice on. As for my own experience with C&C, I've posted a couple and never gotten a response - but so be it. Sometimes I imagine it's a probably a timing issue, if a post doesn't get a response and a lot of other stuff gets posted it gets pushed off pretty quick. I've never taken it personally.
> ...



dont let the number of views fool you. that isnt necessarily how many forum members have looked at the thread. 
these threads come up on google and other searches based on keywords in the thread, so any number of people searching for
"osprey" might run across a thread with "osprey" in the title or post.


----------



## cbarnard7 (Nov 9, 2013)

Derrel said:


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



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

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


----------



## TheFantasticG (Nov 9, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> Well I can't speak for anyone else of course but generally the only time I C&C a photo is if it's a wildlife pic, since those are the kinds of pictures I take that is what I feel comfortable with offering advice on.



And only ones I give CC on is macro and weather based landscapes i.e. lightning because that's all I care to look at most of the time. Every once and a great while I'll look at something else but generally I'm only in and out of the macro area.


----------



## Overread (Nov 9, 2013)

Derrel said:


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



If those taking C&C need thick skin then those giving it need thick skin too 

The problem really stems from the fact that people get resistive and difficult when challenged. Either those taking the C&C feel slighted or when the comments are challenged those who gave them feel insulted. IT doesn't really matter which party feels slighted first as once the mud slings the critique is left and the fight begins. It's a shame as when C&C is challenged or countered it should be responded to with an expansion of the reasoning for the critique - a chance to go more into the theories behind the critique.


----------



## JTPhotography (Nov 9, 2013)

I try to offer as much as possible, and post as well so I can get some feedback. I have a limited amount of time to spend doing so, so I try to do a little of everything. For me, this site is primarily a place to gather and exchange information, mostly of a technical nature, from people who are very knowledgable (Derrel, for example). If there wasn't any CC at all it would still be a good site.


----------



## hopdaddy (Nov 9, 2013)

ratssass said:


> hopdaddy said:
> 
> 
> > ratssass said:
> ...



May-be you could start off with the self question , If it were my photo I would do_______________ .  With the tech's ,well that to me is the easy part . inspect the photo just like you were doing the post production . How is the exposure. Are the whites blown out ? Are the blacks blocked ? is there a blue or magenta cast in the whites . How is the contrast ? then I go to "Artistic Choices ". is the photo balanced ? is there a better crop option ? I'm sure for each person on here there will be that many different ways to offer critique ,But I'm always amazed at the things pointed out in my work ,That I missed . I will even allow my stuff to sit a few days ,then go back to see if I missed something before I post it . Most times even after finding even more mistakes ,someone will point out more that I've missed . My point here is ,you can grow much faster with CC than without . Not to mention you also need to cc your own photos with a critical eye .


----------



## manaheim (Nov 9, 2013)

I agree with a lot of what has already been said here.  In addition...

I personally don't comment unless I think there is something I can add, OR if the picture is so amazing I just need to say "wow", and that's usually all I say in those cases.

The reasons I usually don't have much to add are:

1. The picture is so fundamentally bad that the best I could possibly say is "This is a hopeless image and you have absolutely no idea what you're doing. Go read a whole lot of books, spend a whole lot of time looking at and analyzing good photography, go read your camera manual... and then try again."  That's not going to be received well by many people, and it represents probably 60% of the images I see here.

2. The picture is fine but just isn't photographically interesting.  It follows some "rules", is well exposed, well composed, etc. but just boring. There's no way to help that, so there's nothing I can say... and in the end saying "This just isn't even remotely compelling" just isn't going to go over well.

3. The picture is well thought out and well executed and there isn't room for me to say anything simply because to critique it would be to question the artist's motives and interpretations, and I dislike doing that.


----------



## hopdaddy (Nov 9, 2013)

manaheim said:


> I agree with a lot of what has already been said here. In addition...
> 
> I personally don't comment unless I think there is something I can add, OR if the picture is so amazing I just need to say "wow", and that's usually all I say in those cases.
> 
> ...



I believe you have said all three statements about my photos to me , in the past . Guess everyone mellows with AGE ?


----------



## skieur (Nov 9, 2013)

cbarnard7 said:


> ratssass said:
> 
> 
> > hopdaddy said:
> ...



If it is properly done there is very little subjectivity in C and C.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 9, 2013)

-sigh-

If you call not giving people feedback "mellowing", I suppose.

I probably should also say this isn't like some gospel rule I have chiseled in stone. It just explains why I OFTEN don't give feedback, and it's intended as an example, since I know others feel similarly.

That said... sometimes I feel like giving people a thump on the noggin is worth it, even if I think they'll react negatively to it. Perhaps that was so in your case, hopdaddy. I don't recall.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 9, 2013)

skieur said:


> cbarnard7 said:
> 
> 
> > ratssass said:
> ...



And yet there is often quite a LOT of subjectivity in the reception.


----------



## skieur (Nov 9, 2013)

Why no critique?

The answer is simple.  Why waste time giving a knowledgeable critique when the rest of the thread is strewn with "Nice pic!, Great" etc. by beginners who have not even looked at the photo very carefully and the OP takes the beginners seriously and ignores or makes a joke of your critique.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 9, 2013)

Rotfl - well, figured now would be a good time to through up a few and see if I could get any type of response.  16 views, not a peep.  Too funny.


----------



## hopdaddy (Nov 9, 2013)

manaheim said:


> -sigh-
> 
> If you call not giving people feedback "mellowing", I suppose.
> 
> ...



I would more say ,You were just pointing me in the correct direction ,without the sweet coatings . CC can be harsh without being personal ,I have always respected you for that . May-be you would remember....."Hopper " ?


----------



## ratssass (Nov 9, 2013)

> May-be you could start off with the self question , If it were my photo I would do_______________ .  With the tech's ,well that to me is the easy part . inspect the photo just like you were doing the post production . How is the exposure. Are the whites blown out ? Are the blacks blocked ? is there a blue or magenta cast in the whites . How is the contrast ? then I go to "Artistic Choices ". is the photo balanced ? is there a better crop option ? I'm sure for each person on here there will be that many different ways to offer critique ,But I'm always amazed at the things pointed out in my work ,That I missed . I will even allow my stuff to sit a few days ,then go back to see if I missed something before I post it . Most times even after finding even more mistakes ,someone will point out more that I've missed . My point here is ,you can grow much faster with CC than without . Not to mention you also need to cc your own photos with a critical eye



Thank you...you broke things down into smaller bites.With that,you've created even more questions for me.That's a good thing,as that's why I joined this community.
With that,I'll take my questions to the correct tab "Beginners"


----------



## lambertpix (Nov 9, 2013)

I've seen this on other forums, too.  It seems like critique threads go in one of these directions:

* "Nice pic"
* Crickets.
* Nasty feedback that turns ugly.
* Fair feedback that turns ugly.

I hadn't encountered the "take off all your clothes" redirection yet, but that certainly doesn't seem any worse than the others.  ;-)

Good critiques, it seems, depend on a fair bit of maturity from both the artist and the critic, and while there's a lot of that on this (and other) forums, it's really, really difficult to count on all parties to be equally mature and constructive.  Faced with this, it seems like most people just drift off to a thread that's a little more light-hearted, not to mention scantily-clad.

I've ceased to get my hopes up.


----------



## pgriz (Nov 9, 2013)

Good critiques take time, and an investment of effort.  At the beginner level, there are usually a bunch of technical issues that can be pointed out, and usually these technical issues overwhelm whatever artistic vision the person may have.  At the intermediate level, the technical quality is usually very good to excellent, but the engagement of the viewer interest/emotion is still hit and miss (mostly miss).  At the experienced/advanced level, the technical issues are usually past reproach, and the person's vision or style tends to come through.  If one takes the time to offer a critique, the critique at each level will be different.  Having made the effort, the person making the critique will usually see if the OP will understand the points made.  If the critique is basically ignored, then the chance of another critique falls very quickly. 

Another aspect is the orientation of the image.  On one side there is the "pretty" picture, and on the other side an emptionally-gripping one.  At least in my experience, the two seldom, if ever, overlap.  Yet it is much easier to make a pretty picture than one which affects the viewer's emotions.  In some ways, this is the "holy grail" of photography - to create images that touch the viewer.  I think very few of us get that far, or do it in any consistent way.  One of the complications is that we do not all react in the same way, and we usually have different "hot" buttons.  So if your photography can affect some people some of the time, I'd say you've got something good going on.  But precisely because the range of reactions is quite varied, it is in fact very useful to give feedback to a photographer indicating whether or not there was any kind of emotional reaction.


----------



## cbarnard7 (Nov 9, 2013)

pgriz said:


> Good critiques take time, and an investment of effort. At the beginner level, there are usually a bunch of technical issues that can be pointed out, and usually these technical issues overwhelm whatever artistic vision the person may have. At the intermediate level, the technical quality is usually very good to excellent, but the engagement of the viewer interest/emotion is still hit and miss (mostly miss). At the experienced/advanced level, the technical issues are usually past reproach, and the person's vision or style tends to come through. If one takes the time to offer a critique, the critique at each level will be different. Having made the effort, the person making the critique will usually see if the OP will understand the points made. If the critique is basically ignored, then the chance of another critique falls very quickly.
> 
> Another aspect is the orientation of the image. On one side there is the "pretty" picture, and on the other side an emptionally-gripping one. At least in my experience, the two seldom, if ever, overlap. Yet it is much easier to make a pretty picture than one which affects the viewer's emotions. In some ways, this is the "holy grail" of photography - to create images that touch the viewer. I think very few of us get that far, or do it in any consistent way. One of the complications is that we do not all react in the same way, and we usually have different "hot" buttons. So if your photography can affect some people some of the time, I'd say you've got something good going on. But precisely because the range of reactions is quite varied, it is in fact very useful to give feedback to a photographer indicating whether or not there was any kind of emotional reaction.



Those are some great points, especially if the OP decides to ignore the critique. I have, on many occasions, been critiqued on my work and thoroughly enjoyed the pointers. There comes a point where the OP should realize if it's just a subjective nit-pick or a real, technical flaw. In the case of the OP ignoring help, I simply move on. There are plenty of other times, however, when I'll see someone bump their picture 3x in order to hopefully have someone review their work. 

I don't expect everyone to stop at every thread and try to review every photo. It's just that I have seen the forum as a whole slightly "decline" in my short time since I've been on-board. It seems there's more of a crowd hanging out around the banning drama and mud-slinging that happens off-topic.


----------



## limr (Nov 9, 2013)

FWIW, I generally don't give critique unless I feel it will contribute to the discussion of the merits of the photo. If I see a photo that is fine, what is there to say? "Technically correct, but otherwise it does nothing for me." What does that offer to the person who took the photo? Not much. I mean, does anyone really want to hear, "Meh"?? 

Even if I elaborate on the reasons it didn't float my boat, is it really constructive? I'm not sure. If the highlights are blown, chances are it's already been said. If the flash wasn't used effectively, what the hell do I know about it? If it's a boring or cliched subject, does that help the photog who just wanted to learn how to take a good technical picture? And if there's no obvious reason to either praise or critique a shot - if it's just fine and nothing to write home about, either positively or negatively - then I just remain mum. I'd rather say nothing than say something meaningless.

Like robbins said, most of us will only pay attention to the genres we're already interested in. I rarely look at Macro for example. I like macro shots, but I don't know enough to comment on technical issues, and they're not so interesting to me that I want to look at a lot of macro shots. Especially since so many of them are of spiders! (What is WITH you macro folks and your insects and arachnids??? )

And yes, sometimes it takes time to give meaningful feedback and I don't always have the time or energy to put into that kind of feedback. I do enough of that at work! Sometimes I just want to look at pictures and move on. 

I find myself much more likely to comment if the OP asks for a more specific type of feedback.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 10, 2013)

wyogirl said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > TBH, I think the number of interesting or challenging pictures has slowed to almost nothing.
> ...



That's a quick and easy response but since I have 10,000 posts perhaps I have a different view of the issue. 

During the almost 7 years that I have been posting here, there has been a sea change in the kinds of posters and the kinds of cameras. 

Now the much smarter cameras (and better servers) allow even technically and artistically ignorant people to have decent photos. 
So there they are, totally ignorant, but at the controls of a superb picture-making machine - and screwing things up. 
They are so certain, since they were capable of using their shutter finger, that they are capable of making great pictures without any work.

I'm tired of people who are so ignorant and so lazy. 
I am really, really, really happy to work with people who are working at the art. 



ratssass said:


> i don't feel i have enough expertise to give cc.there was a thread once that gave instructions on how to provide the proper cc."I like it" was deemed useless,but thats the best i can do.



*No, that isn't.*
That is turning away from the very activity that will make you a better photographer.
If you don't know what makes you like someone else's picture, you don't know how to change what you are doing.

When you see something that you like, think that 'I like that' and then try to parse out what about the picture you like and that is pleasing.
There is no shortcut to getting better, there is only work.

This Lew Lorton Photography | Getting to a Final Image - some words on editing photos for a new photographer is an article I wrote that gives a helpful (I hope) list of factors you can consider when you are trying to understand why you like a picture.
What it doesn't give are answers, but only questions and you must find the answers within yourself.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 10, 2013)

On a similar note in regards to C&C,
I used to do music competition judging, where all you are doing is C&C
But it used to vary dependent upon the skill level, age and request of the organization doing the event.

On the National caliber players you critic, you nit-pick on the most minor things.

On the really young ones you are there to support  and offer positive criticism so that they don't just quit.
And of course everything in between.  

Many times I had to think of the type of instrument (quality, string quality, bow or other things that actually held the player back and make appropriate changes in what I'm thinking).  Players families that could not afford a $4,000 violin and instead had a $400 one, there are obvious differences in everything about it excluding any player differences.  I took into account everything that I could to help support the development of the young players.

One year they had a string judge that was a top notch international player.  He virtually destroyed the young players in his critique but then you don't expect an 8yr old to play stuff from a college level.  This drove away the players from the event organization, and apparently some players just quit.

I've seen some newbie photographers get slaughtered.  Of the C&C I've tried I have tried to be positive in things unless there were obvious issues.  Granted, you take a picture  of stars and I'm gonna like it .. in focus or not      But sometimes the C&C has to be at the level of the person presenting the photo to help them evolve.

I'm grateful for the C&C I've received and I've actually gone back and made adjustments based on the C&C and posted back those adjustments.  Very good criticism in my book.  But truthfully I also know my limits and some newbies don't.


----------



## mmaria (Nov 10, 2013)

This question bugged me as well so I'm really glad that you've asked and I've enjoyed reading replies.

I wanted to post a photo for critique yesterday and I thought about it, is it worthy to do that and simply gave up, because there is plenty of posted photos here, without c&c recieved.

On the other hand, I gave some of the critique few times and I was completely ignored by op or misunderstood. I'm taking the blame for not having enough time to really go to details. But again, on the other hand if someone wants to learn they'll google more about issue.

I like people, posing, food, sometimes landscapes and know a bit about color. 
When giving critique f.e. I think I know few thing about posing. I'll say don't use that angle on such and such people, hands are not posed pleasantly etc. If op asks Why? and clearly show that wants some details I I'll be glad to give them much more then those statements. But usually, those things are ignored. 
On some posed photos I tried to say something about girl wearing certain color but I was completely ignored. 
That is when I give critique.


When I post a photo for c&c I want that anyone say anything at all. 

I would like to hear one of these ... manaheim, you should do copy and paste 



manaheim said:


> 1. The picture is so fundamentally bad that the best I could possibly say is "This is a hopeless image and you have absolutely no idea what you're doing. Go read a whole lot of books, spend a whole lot of time looking at and analyzing good photography, go read your camera manual... and then try again."  That's not going to be received well by many people, and it represents probably 60% of the images I see here.
> 
> 2. The picture is fine but just isn't photographically interesting.  It follows some "rules", is well exposed, well composed, etc. but just boring. There's no way to help that, so there's nothing I can say... and in the end saying "This just isn't even remotely compelling" just isn't going to go over well.
> 
> 3. The picture is well thought out and well executed and there isn't room for me to say anything simply because to critique it would be to question the artist's motives and interpretations, and I dislike doing that.



Also, I would like to hear "^above" "I like it because" "I don't like it because" "I agree with what is already said" .... because then I know that more then one person feels the same way.... And, have to add that I had few meaningful and great reads in c&c of my photos. Thank you guys 

I would like to hear anything because a forum is the only place I get critique of my photos. Everything I  learned and know about photography I learned by myself (online courses, articles, books...) and from people on forum. 


And I'll go now and post some c&c


----------



## JTPhotography (Nov 10, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> During the almost 7 years that I have been posting here, there has been a sea change in the kinds of posters and the kinds of cameras.
> 
> Now the much smarter cameras (and better servers) allow even technically and artistically ignorant people to have decent photos.
> So there they are, totally ignorant, but at the controls of a superb picture-making machine - and screwing things up.
> ...



Great point and perfectly stated. I started with a manual film camera and a 50mm lens. Everyone should learn like that, it forces you to learn the craft, you either understand what is going on with the camera and how to expose photos correctly or you quit.

Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do about this "sea change" and it will only get worse. The best thing to do is try your best to not get annoyed by it. 

The interesting part about it to me is how it got to this point. I know digital has a lot, if not everything, to do with it, but you also have facebooking and blogging.

And another interesting aspect, how far, as purists, do we go to pimp ourselves (for lack of a better term) and join the crowd in an effort to keep up? I have garnered a large following on facebook and it has been a learning experience. I can post my best, most artistic work and it gets very little attention, but if I hand feed them a sunrise and sunset on a daily basis, regardless of whether the photos are good or not, and they are like first graders who have just been thrown a bunch of halloween candy.

This would be a great topic for a new thread, I would love to hear your thoughts on this, as well as from the other folks on here who have been in the business for a while.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 10, 2013)

manaheim said:


> *I personally don't comment unless I think there is something I can add,* OR if the picture is so amazing I just need to say "wow", and that's usually all I say in those cases.
> 
> *3. The picture is well thought out and well executed and there isn't room for me to say anything simply because to critique it would be to question the artist's motives and interpretations, and I dislike doing that.*



I think that this is a mistake, there is always 'room.'  Let me explain why I think that.

This next is a quote from a PM I sent to someone.



> I have lately resolved to be more forthright both in my negative comments and the positive ones.
> 
> Most artists want to know that people have actually 'seen' their work and appreciate it, not just looked at. Not that anyone expects that their work is perfect but they hope that the idea behind it is meaningful and comes across.
> 
> Yesterday I was at a local show in Baltimore (actually before it opened) and went back two hours later to try and meet a couple of the photographers. I was writing a note to leave with the other images and he wandered by. I asked him which pictures were his and told him that I had come back specifically to try and meet him, he was practically in tears. [His work was beautifully seen and composed (although not perfectly finished but I didn't say that)



I am perfectly happy to hear about defects in anything I do but most of all, I want to know that people actually are seeing what I am doing, not just looking. I rarely do decorative work or pretty work which is evident in its success.  So when I put up a picture and no one says anything, it is too easy to think that what I am trying to show isn't getting across.

Being disliked or criticized is acceptable because it is a response that gives direction, being passed by or ignored is really painful.


----------



## pgriz (Nov 10, 2013)

About 5 or 6 years ago, I joined a local photo club, on the urging of my wife (an artist) who thought I could benefit from sharing with other photographers.  It's a rather large club (membership ranges from 100-160 people each year), and have a number of very accomplished professional and advanced amateur photographers.  It's a club that is very active in encouraging various aspects of the photographic arts (technical, shooting opportunities, exploration of old and new techniques, judging, exhibiting, and competition), with weekly meetings having different subjects (presentations by well-known and/or local photographers, art gallery curators, members describing their specialties, member competitions, member show-and-tell nights).  

One of the aspects that gets a lot of attention is cultivating new judges from among the members, with the goal of having all members capable of being judges in any of the competitions the club holds.  There is one basic course that is taught by a long-time judge and each judge is encouraged to come up with a set of criteria to use in conducting their evaluation activities.  The club deliberately wants a rotation of judging talent since any one judge, being human, has his/her own perspectives and point of view and habits, and these will inevitably colour their perceptions.  By encouraging rotation, the judging reactions can never be predicted (or played to by the photographers entering the competition).  At the presentation of the competition results, all the images and their scoring are shown, and then the top three and the runner-ups are discussed in detail, with each judge (there are usually three for each competition) discussing on the stage what aspects of the image contributed/detracted from the final scoring.  It is traditional to have one of the judges be an "expert" in the field not affiliated with the club, and with the other two being the club members.  This allows for a very transparent and clear discussion which explores what attributes of an image contribute to the overall result.

In participating in these competitions, I've come up with a personal checklist that I use in analyzing images to help guide my analysis of the image.  This is my checklist:

Subjective:
·         What it the overall feeling when you first look at the image?
·         What attracts your attention?
·         Is there a story or narrative that the image evokes?
·         What does the photographer reveal or show to you?
·         Is there a specific aspect that makes you want to look at this image again?
Objective:
·         Are the camera choices (exposure, aperture, shutter speed, focus position, DOF, focal length, filtering) supporting or detracting from the overall feeling?
·         It/are the position(s) of the main subject(s) in the frame supporting or detracting the overall feeling?
·         Is the light arrangement contributing positively or negatively to the image?
·         Are the post-processing choices contributing to the overall feel or distracting?
·         Are the elements that are not the main subject(s) supporting or competing with the main subject(s)?
Bottom line:  Is it an interesting image?​
In competition, it is rare for us to need to refer to the "objective" aspects as most of the images are very well executed from a technical  point-of-view. However, in workshops where we coach and mentor other photographers, those aspects are discussed in detail as they are often the reason why an image doesn't work, or at least, not in the way the photographer intended.

In the C&C on this forum, we also have the challenge that many of the posters have not gone through any kind of formal training in image evaluation, and are learning how to express an opinion on an image.  This applies to some of the very good photographers, as well, as making good images is not the same as analyzing and evaluating them.  So, the comments made "may" be founded on deep knowledge and practice, or may be the ramblings of a monday-quarterback *** photographer, who may or may not have actually done any photography himself/herself.  So when participating in an on-line forum, it pays to hang around and get a feeling from the various posts who knows what they are talking about, and who talks because they like the sound of their own voice.

Personally, if I come across a good critique, I usually try and look up the work of the person offering the critique, to see if there is a body of work which back-stops the opinions expressed, or was just a lucky guess.  Then, I can go back and see if the critique is consistent with the principles practiced by the critique-giver.  Sometimes the person does not have an online presence, and you get an idea of their abilities from the online postings.  The basic lesson in evaluating critiques is to know whether the person actually knows what they are talking about.  You don't have to agree with the view/opinion expressed, but you should be able to understand how that opinion was arrived at.


----------



## sleist (Nov 10, 2013)

This thread = irony


----------



## pgriz (Nov 10, 2013)

sleist said:


> This thread = irony



Why?


----------



## baturn (Nov 10, 2013)

Well, some of us (me) don't aspire to be artists. I care not a whit if I never see a photo of mine hanging in a gallery. I do not, nor do I ever expect to enter a competition. My photos are for myself and to share with family and friends. To document places I've been and things I've seen, mostly wildlife and the odd landscape. This does not mean I don't want to make the best pictures I can, it just means I don't care to spend every waking moment researching the hows and whys of photography. so a forum with people who have greater knowledge and experience than I should be a place where I can come for a little help from time to time.
Since joining this forum I spent the first few years just reading the threads that held interest for me and not posting either photos or comments. In the last couple of years I have started posting more of both and quite frankly felt mostly ignored. I take this to mean that neither my photos nor my comments are of interest to the majority of viewers especially those who would be the most helpful if they responded.
To be fair the critique and comments I have received here have all been helpful, just not plentiful.
I will continue to post and respond and hopefully improve, although slowly.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 10, 2013)

I try to critique something almost every day. It's work, though, and my willingness to offer critique waxes and wanes. To some extent what you're probably noticing is simply that several of the more prolific critics are simply in a down phase, I know I am.

Anyone can critique. Photography shouldn't be about making art secretly coded for only people "in the know". It ought to be, to a degree, accessible to anyone. If you have a reaction to a picture, you can simply write that down. It'll help you and the artist if you sit and try to analyze your reaction a little, to understand where it comes from, but your reaction is valuable and useful all by itself.

Sometimes pictures go uncritiqued simply because they got posted at the wrong time of day, when it happened that the only people around weren't in the mood, and the subject line wasn't quite "grabby" enough to make people take a look. There's a large element of randomness, both post-by-post and week-to-week. Don't despair, just post again. Post anything. I post things I like, I post things I don't like.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 10, 2013)

baturn said:


> This does not mean I don't want to make the best pictures I can, it just means I don't care to spend every waking moment researching the hows and whys of photography. so a forum with people who have greater knowledge and experience than I should be a place where I can come for a little help from time to time.
> 
> In the last couple of years I have started posting more of both and quite frankly felt mostly ignored. I take this to mean that neither my photos nor my comments are of interest to the majority of viewers especially those who would be the most helpful if they responded.
> 
> To be fair the critique and comments I have received here have all been helpful, just not plentiful.



You seem to be actively rejecting the idea of being creative or artistic as if that means something special or foreign.

In that context, I don't understand what you mean by 'making the best pictures.'


----------



## Derrel (Nov 10, 2013)

Some good points have been brought up in the last couple of pages. The_Traveler's post (#43) is interesting and on-target in terms of the HUGE flood of newbies who have rushed to digital, and who focus mostly on the technical...which their fancy new cameras help with to a HUGE degree. Amolitor's comments about time of day and randomness are also spot-on.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 10, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Some good points have been brought up in the last couple of pages. The_Traveler's post (#43) is interesting and on-target in terms of the HUGE flood of newbies who have rushed to digital, and who focus mostly on the technical...which their fancy new cameras help with to a HUGE degree. Amolitor's comments about time of day and randomness are also spot-on.



is focusing on the technical necessarily a bad thing in the beginning?
figure out how to work the camera, how the exposure triangle works, how to get a properly exposed and in focus picture....THEN start doing artsy stuff?
or is it something that should be learned all together? 
Im not looking for some debate on this, i am genuinely asking if if makes any difference at all which order you learn things in?
we learned technical aspects first. 

as for critique, I notice that people tend to critique more on what they shoot, or are interested in. 
for instance, I rarely comment much on B&W. (unless I find it a somewhat compelling image) 
same for street shots, or automotive, or to a lesser degree wildlife (i love the cute animal shots)
I comment far more often on people photography because that's what i am most interested in, and those are the types of photos that I feel i can give the most accurate critique on. for most of the other stuff, my comments are generally limited to a "like" or "dislike" simply based on personal taste. 
obviously, there is always SOME bit of critique anyone can partake in...even if its just commenting on the cropping, or posing, or angles... and some do. 

I think that many people are also not comfortable commenting on or critiquing photos in genres that they themselves have little or no experience with.  
I often find myself in this category. 
I think another problem might be with peoples expectations from the forum. we expect that when we post a picture that people will comment on it, and when/if that doesn't happen, we are disappointed. maybe we think that something is wrong with the photo, or that we arent part of the "in" crowd. Far more likely i think, is that we have simply caught the forum on a bit of a slow day. sometimes, simply bumping the thread a day or two later is all it takes to get things moving. 
we cant expect every shot we post to get the attention we THINK it should be getting. all we can do is post, hope that it gets some notice, and hope we can learn something from it. other than that, just keep shooting and move on to the next picture to post.


----------



## Overread (Nov 10, 2013)

On the time of day even the day of the week affects it. Weekends are the worst time to post anything because people are up and out and not slaved to the computer. Weekdays people are more likely to be surfing whilst at work; in a lunch break or when they come home are relaxing an thus not up and around.


----------



## limr (Nov 10, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Some good points have been brought up in the last couple of pages. The_Traveler's post (#43) is interesting and on-target in terms of the HUGE flood of newbies who have rushed to digital, and who focus mostly on the technical...which their fancy new cameras help with to a HUGE degree. Amolitor's comments about time of day and randomness are also spot-on.
> ...



I can't think of no answer other than, "it depends."

I think back to when I first started being interested in photography and try to remember what I wanted to accomplish. I remember distinctly trying to get a certain artistic effect - the blurred foreground and sharp subject in the background. Did I have any idea how to do it? Beyond just "try to focus on the subject," no - I had no idea. At the time, I had a point and shoot film camera. I tried again and again to get an artistic effect and I failed miserably. It took me a little while to realize what was happening: I wanted to take a kind of picture that my camera was not suited to. I didn't know why it wouldn't, but I just knew somehow that I had reached the _artistic_ limits of that camera, and I needed one that gave me more control. That's when I got my totally manual SLR and started learning the technical stuff.

You could say that I couldn't achieve my artistic goals without the technical proficiency, but without the desire to be artistic, I would never have any reason to learn the technical stuff. So which was the chicken and which was the egg? Or is it just an itch to learn one - art or technique - that creates the itch for the other?

So no, I don't think it's a bad thing to focus on the technical aspects of photography to start with, but I also think that the person behind the camera should have an awareness of _why_ he or she is taking the picture.


----------



## cbarnard7 (Nov 10, 2013)

sleist said:


> This thread = irony



I see why'd you think that (and it is a little ironic, being a side conversation and all) but it needed to be brought up. Most of the conversations on here are based on different variations of (or lack of) critique, so it's nice to hear why people do/don't.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Nov 10, 2013)

Here's my thought. I'm always willing to tell people what I like about something, and what could be better, though I do try to preface it with HEY BRO I'M NOT EVEN CLOSE TO A PROFESSIONAL AND PEOPLE PROBABLY LAUGH AT ME. I appreciate the feedback I've been given here-people seem to be able to critique positively and have been a huge help. There's only been one comment on any of my numerous threads (I've slowed down with them for fear of going overboard here and also not having as much to post) that didn't sit well with me. I understand why the C&C seems to slow down, as perhaps it's being perceived that moderators are cracking down with numerous recent bans, but I would surmise they still want to encourage positive critiques; things like "Oh hey, you know, the lighting could be helped by..." or "If the subject were ___ this would work a little better" as opposed to "YOUR EYE IS DEAD LIKE YOUR DREAMS," etc.


----------



## limr (Nov 10, 2013)

minicoop1985 said:


> "YOUR EYE IS DEAD LIKE YOUR DREAMS,"



I actually snorted as I laughed.



cbarnard7 said:


> sleist said:
> 
> 
> > This thread = irony
> ...



I think what this thread also proves is that you'll get more answers when you ask directed questions. This goes back to Overread's point about there being better ways to get more feedback, and more importantly, useful feedback. If people put more attention into what they want to know/ask, then maybe more people will be willing to respond.


----------



## baturn (Nov 10, 2013)

Lew, I see what your' saying. I guess I can't really have one without the other, but I really do try to put the emphasis on showing exactly what I saw at the time I saw it, as opposed to framing differently or adding or subtracting light or whatever to create some abstract idea or concept. This is not to say I don't see the merits of other peoples art, I just don't wish to create so much as I wish to capture.
Oh, and did you just respond to my post to stop my whining?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 10, 2013)

pixmedic said:
			
		

> is focusing on the technical necessarily a bad thing in the beginning?
> figure out how to work the camera, how the exposure triangle works, how to get a properly exposed and in focus picture....THEN start doing artsy stuff?
> or is it something that should be learned all together?
> Im not looking for some debate on this, i am genuinely asking if if makes any difference at all which order you learn things in?
> we learned technical aspects first.



Well, going back to post #43 and what The_Traveler mentioned...he spoke about the wave of newcomers who basically allow their cameras to take care of the technical, and who are, as a class, reluctant or unwilling or uninterested in doing any of "the work" required to become better from an artistic or compositional point of view. These are the people who repeatedly shoot with awful composition, and yet who are very often offended when their work meets with less than stellar C&C here, or elsewhere.

These days, with the flood of wide-DR digital and high-rez sensors and intelligent, analytical light metering and intelligent programmed auto options...there's not a lot of need for extensive technical skill. The cameras and the file-processing TODAY are soooooo much better than what we had a decade ago...it's now pretty easy to buy a decent camera, set it on P, and use it like a point and shoot. After a few months to as year, a good number of people consider themselves "photographers". Even though they've made very little effort to really learn much except how to _operate their cameras_. Some will qualify their inexperience, calling themselves "natural light photographers", or whatnot.

My answer: no, focusing on the technical is not a bad thing. But ignoring the artistic and aesthetic is a bad thing. And that's what we've seen over the last decade; an entire worldwide army of people getting into the art and craft and science of photography with basically, no little to no intention of being able to create much beyond a well-exposed, technically satisfactory "image".


----------



## limr (Nov 10, 2013)

And it's no wonder that more and more people think, "If I have a good camera, I can take great pictures!"

Just saw this on the back cover of Food and Wine of all places. I took a cell phone picture right after I recovered from my aneurysm.


----------



## pgriz (Nov 10, 2013)

It does make sense.  The majority has no time for the journey, they want the destination.  It's not the learning that's important, it's the final grade.  Because the grade becomes a currency to be traded in for further "achievements".  In this mind-set, cheating is the smart way to efficiently get to where you need to go.  Same philosophy in athletics - taking the drugs is just an efficient way of getting to the destination, which is to win competitions, and then use that to win the real prize, the endorsements.  Same attitude in financing, when fast-track loan approvals got us into the worst recession since the Great Depression.  

I'm willing to bet that 99% of the images to be taken by those iSight smart cameras will be selfies, or group images to show others what a great time the group is having.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Nov 10, 2013)

Cell phone cameras, if you ask me, feel like they're more used for snapshots than true photography. I have somewhere in excess of 2300 photos on my Galaxy S 3, and the vast, VAST majority of them are just snapshots to remember a moment or something of the like. I have a DSLR for a completely different reason, and that is to actually take photos, not snapshots. Not that I've done that yet, but hey.


----------



## limr (Nov 10, 2013)

minicoop1985 said:


> Cell phone cameras, if you ask me, feel like they're more used for snapshots than true photography. I have somewhere in excess of 2300 photos on my Galaxy S 3, and the vast, VAST majority of them are just snapshots to remember a moment or something of the like. I have a DSLR for a completely different reason, and that is to actually take photos, not snapshots. Not that I've done that yet, but hey.



Hey, I'm totally with you on that, but I have a feeling that we are becoming a minority.

I had pictures in a photography show in September. Supposedly the theme was "no digital cameras." Well, this apparently meant "nothing that is _only_ a digital camera." There were five people showing pictures. My boyfriend and I had film pictures only, the woman who organized the show had one picture taken with a Diana, and a third photographer had two pictures taken with a Holga. The rest of his were taken with an iPhone. The other two photographers showed _only _pictures taken with their iPhones using the Hipstamatic app.

One of them who had about fifteen 16x16 prints from iPhone shots is actually a professional photographer. He started out on film and moved to his DSLR. He just 'takes snaps' with his iPhone. The app did all the processing for him, but he was responsible for the composition. There were a few that were pretty meh and only made slightly interesting because of the processing, but there were also some that would have made really interesting shots even without all the Hipstamatic filters. 

But how many people looked at those pictures and said, "What a talented photographer"? Not nearly as many as those who said, "Look at what that iPhone can do, isn't it amazing?"

And now the camera not even does more and more of the work, but it even tells you which picture is the best. No one has to think about it at all. And then they'll post their selfies and group images and snaps of their food or a flower and get rave reviews and then take all the credit for something that camera did. And they might even think they don't need an actual camera because who wants to put all that work into it when all they need is their iPhone?

None of this will affect me or how I shoot, but it is certainly worthy of a good healthy eye-roll. Just seems like one more thing that makes it easier for people to be lazy but still maintain the delusions that they are a talented or even simply competent.


----------



## mmaria (Nov 11, 2013)

limr said:


> I think what this thread also proves is that you'll get more answers when you ask directed questions. This goes back to Overread's point about there being better ways to get more feedback, and more importantly, useful feedback. If people put more attention into what they want to know/ask, then maybe more people will be willing to respond.



I've had a different experience...

Before TPF I was a member of one particular online forum, and it was quite different then TPF.
When posting photo for a critique, you needed to include your EXIF, and you needed to ask specific questions. If someone just post a photo without any words or just wrote "C&C" , mod would come and explain that exif and a specific question needs to be included. Posted photos without any information didn't have any replies even without mod intervention.

So with that habit, when I joined TPF I posted a photo with exif and explanation and specific questions(did that few times actually) and got no replies. I noticed how people just post a photo and get comments, so I did that and I did get comments also !!???

I personally like when people ask specific question, it's much easier to say something. When a photo is posted without any information I just can't give any constructive criticism because I don't know what OP wants and knows. I may be talking about some basic stuff and then it turns out that OP already knows about basic stuff. Asking specific questions gives more information about OP and replies should be granted.

And now, if you excuse me, I got some critiquing to do...


----------



## amolitor (Nov 11, 2013)

This is the reality: cameras are getting better, they will continue to improve. While the iSight camera may not actually take "better pictures" it's coming. For some social norm of "good picture" the camera is just going to get smarter and smarter and better and better at making them for you.

Why is that a bad thing?


----------



## pgriz (Nov 11, 2013)

amolitor said:


> This is the reality: cameras are getting better, they will continue to improve. While the iSight camera may not actually take "better pictures" it's coming. For some social norm of "good picture" the camera is just going to get smarter and smarter and better and better at making them for you.
> 
> Why is that a bad thing?



Per se, it's not a bad thing.   But it lessens the link between the process and the end result.  If all you want is a loaf of bread, then picking it up at the grocery store or bakery is fine.  But those who know how to actually make bread from basic ingredients, and we're not talking the bread-maker machine, have a much richer experience and connection to the bread that they end up eating.  Some of us have gardens, and know the difference between tomatoes ripened on the vine and those we buy at the grocery store.  And it's not just the difference in taste and texture, it's knowing what it takes to get that fruit onto your plate. 

How many of us retain the ability to do basic domestic or automotive repairs?  While none of these skills are essential, they keep us in touch with the underlying processes, and give us a sense of perspective of the logic of that thing we use.  Those who go for the end-result, miss out on the richness of the experience (of process) that could be theirs as well.


----------



## mmaria (Nov 11, 2013)

pgriz said:


> If all you want is a loaf of bread, then picking it up at the grocery store or bakery is fine.  But those who know how to actually make bread from basic ingredients, and we're not talking the bread-maker machine, have a much richer experience and connection to the bread that they end up eating.



well... my husband owns a bakery and I still often make my bread (without bread-maker machine of course).... just saying....


----------



## amolitor (Nov 11, 2013)

I make bread as well, and I take pictures. I get it.

While there is surely value in this connection, it's not really practical to have that kind of connection with every single thing we do. This results in a hunter-gatherer society, where everyone is deeply connected with the handful of things necessary to sustain life.

Something TPF, and photography commentators in general, tend to lose sight of is that the vast majority of the world simply wants nice pictures of things and people. They seek their self-actualization somewhere else, if at all, and that's OK.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 11, 2013)

Those analogies break down a bit when we take into account that the details of the technology of making a picture carry over into the editing of a picture. So when someone doesn't know about dynamic range, shutter speed, iso, contrast, colorspace, they can't go any further than what the camera gives them.

Hence the sticker shock when they can't progress much past the perhaps-decent, sooc jpeg without knowledge.


----------



## pgriz (Nov 11, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I make bread as well, and I take pictures. I get it.
> 
> While there is surely value in this connection, it's not really practical to have that kind of connection with every single thing we do. This results in a hunter-gatherer society, where everyone is deeply connected with the handful of things necessary to sustain life.
> 
> Something TPF, and photography commentators in general, tend to lose sight of is that the vast majority of the world simply wants nice pictures of things and people. They seek their self-actualization somewhere else, if at all, and that's OK.



I don't think we're discussing/arguing whether all people "should" know how to take nice pictures, but that reliance on the smarts of the tool makes one kinda oblivious as to why certain images are better than others.  For the minority who want to have better than just nice pictures, there is value in understanding the underlying processes.  TPF, and other forums about photography, focus on the process and the tools in much more detail than is even comprehensible for the majority of photo snappers.  We see the tension between the world of those who just want a nice picture, and those who care about how that nice picture comes about.  That tension shows up in the discussions of which lens takes the best people pictures, or which flash is needed to light up the gymnasium, or why can't the print off the web image be nice and smooth...  One group knows the limits of their tools, the other does not.  That does not make them bad people, but it makes it difficult for them to overcome those limits.

Edit:  Lew makes the point more eloquently.  Tip of the hat, sir.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 11, 2013)

There are degrees of connection to the work, and degrees of control.

You can argue that you're not truly in control of the product, and connected to it, if you're not growing your own grain, or at least grinding your own flour. Many of us, nonetheless, feel OK buying our flour from King Arthur, and just making some bread. Some people insist on natural cultures, others just use boughten yeast. Photographers have been arguing about this since dry plate was invented, are you truly in command of the result if you're not flowing collodion across a glass plate? If you're not developing sheet film? If you don't use photoshop and 24 bit color throughout your workflow?

You can argue that more control and more understanding is necessary to a truly superior product but it is not the case that more control and understanding will inevitably result in a better product. Frequently the reverse is true. Most people will argue that there is a sweet spot, and most people will argue that the sweet spot is very close to wherever they happen to be standing, which is fairly informative.


----------



## pgriz (Nov 11, 2013)

So are we now arguing whether moderation is a good thing?


----------



## jsecordphoto (Nov 11, 2013)

bmmision said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > I think what this thread also proves is that you'll get more answers when you ask directed questions. This goes back to Overread's point about there being better ways to get more feedback, and more importantly, useful feedback. If people put more attention into what they want to know/ask, then maybe more people will be willing to respond.
> ...



You have some good points. Maybe we could implement some sort of format for C&C. Including exif data would be good, it would help when critiquing because you'd be able to see "oh, a slower shutter speed could've helped" or "try using F/11 for greater DoF instead of F/5.6"

Knowing specifically what they are looking for critique on would be nice too, although general comments have helped me when I've put something up for C&C.

And the talk about cell phone cameras- I entered some photos in a local fair's photo contest in October and I would say about 75% of submissions were taken on cell phones. All of the winners in their respected categories (people, landscape, macro, etc) were clearly taken on DSLR's or at least those "Bridge Point and Shoots" but it goes to show that a LOT of people believe that you don't need a "real" camera to shoot good photos, just the newest version of the iphone


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 11, 2013)

A joint effort that we could all participate in would be to post more intriguing pictures and then critique others in a more detailed way.
This would provide both a better environment and good models.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 11, 2013)

To this end, I have posted *this.*

I welcome general critique but also an answer to the small question I put in my last comment there.


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 11, 2013)

I have to agree that I can only critique so many "group of people shot in the shade in a park" before I really just stop trying...because they're all the same.

It's becoming easier to tell who is really looking for critique and who says they are, but what they really want are compliments on their technically proficient but emotionally sterile images.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 11, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> technically proficient but emotionally sterile images.



great phrase, certainly a quotable quote


----------



## amolitor (Nov 11, 2013)

I definitely go through phases where I am totally unwilling to give technical critique. I know it's what a lot of people want, but I just don't care (ETA: about technical details)

The idea of insisting on EXIF data before giving critique just strikes me as insane. In the first place, if you can't make a pretty good guess at the important parts of the EXIF just by looking at the picture, where on earth do you get off criticizing those same parameters? In the second place, who the hell cares what shutter speed and ISO was used. Does it work?

There's a pretty good community on here that really wants to see the EXIF before they can really tell you how much you suck, I realize. I'm pretty sure a lot of it is simple camera snobbery. They want to see if you're using the Good Equipment, whatever that is, before they pass judgement on your picture.


----------



## KenC (Nov 11, 2013)

As someone said a few pages ago: ironic - almost no critique to be found, but here we have six pages of discussion about it, along with other tangential issues, some of it by people who probably got bored when the thread about Charlie being banned was closed.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 11, 2013)

^^^ There is also the traffic question.  Lots of threads get lost here FAST because so many threads go by so quickly.  I actually almost always read the most recent threads and don't go forum by forum.

THIS thread has 6 pages of replies just because it happened to get picked up and people started commenting on it, so people keep seeing it.

This thread also has the snark factor. People always enjoy snark, so they tend to watch threads like this.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Nov 11, 2013)

manaheim said:


> People always enjoy snark, so they tend to watch threads like this.



Exactly. Who doesn't enjoy a good snarking? I know I do.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 11, 2013)

TheFantasticG said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > People always enjoy snark, so they tend to watch threads like this.
> ...



is that like a good snogging?


----------



## minicoop1985 (Nov 12, 2013)

limr said:


> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> > Cell phone cameras, if you ask me, feel like they're more used for snapshots than true photography. I have somewhere in excess of 2300 photos on my Galaxy S 3, and the vast, VAST majority of them are just snapshots to remember a moment or something of the like. I have a DSLR for a completely different reason, and that is to actually take photos, not snapshots. Not that I've done that yet, but hey.
> ...



This is yet another reason I use my DSLR for photos. I hate how everything is becoming too automated. This is why I'm taking more and more of a liking to my Oly OM-1n and my Minolta SRT-101. I don't even like using my Maxxum. It's refreshing to get back to basics, to do everything myself, and know I'm responsible for everything that is that particular image. That's something that I see dying in today's world-the "Do this for me" as opposed to "Look what I actually did" generation.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 12, 2013)

minicoop1985 said:


> Cell phone cameras, if you ask me, feel like they're more used for snapshots than true photography. I have somewhere in excess of 2300 photos on my Galaxy S 3, and the vast, VAST majority of them are just snapshots to remember a moment or something of the like. I have a DSLR for a completely different reason, and that is to actually take photos, not snapshots. Not that I've done that yet, but hey.



I saw these pictures iPhoneography | Karen Klinedinst Landscapes in person and they look terrific.
Good use of equipment, artist's eye for editing.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 12, 2013)

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

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

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


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 12, 2013)

I wonder if TPF should create more forum categories to satisfy, or narrow the categories to satisfy.  Maybe critics subscribe to a category or sub-category and hope that posters post in the right category.

Are there too many types of photographers/artists/people taking/making/shooting images/pictures/photographs/snaps to get the best of whatever we should get out of TPF?


----------



## amolitor (Nov 12, 2013)

I belong to the school of thought that says, basically, the only important thing in photography is to put the camera in the right place and mash the button at the right time.

This is not the only school of thought out there


----------



## limr (Nov 12, 2013)

Derrel said:


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



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

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



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



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

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


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 12, 2013)

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


----------



## cbarnard7 (Nov 12, 2013)

So this thread has nothing about critiquing anymore...


----------



## vintagesnaps (Nov 12, 2013)

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

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


----------



## Derrel (Nov 12, 2013)

vintagesnaps said:
			
		

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



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

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


----------



## molested_cow (Nov 12, 2013)

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


----------



## AnimalLover (Nov 12, 2013)

kathythorson said:


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


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


----------



## minicoop1985 (Nov 12, 2013)

Derrel said:


> In response to basically limr's post above, and also to minicoop's post, I typed this out. Just some thoughts...
> 
> So, who is a better photographer? The person who gets great shots with a Leica M6 TTL and three simple Leica primes costing $12,000 total, or the person who gets good shots with a Ricoh Singlex TLs and three crappy 1970's vintage screw-mount prime lenses that were picked up at a garage sale for $25 for all three lenses? Are you saying that the photographer is immaterial if he's shooting with an iPhone? Or that the better the camera, the less important the photographer's skill is? Or that we ought to give a rat's patootie about what ignorant non-photogrtaphers "think"? It's not all that clear to me what kind of preconceptions and biases we're trying to establish here as worthy of eye-rolling.
> 
> Is the 32 year-old "hipster dude" shooting a Yashica-Mat 124G necessarily going to produce better work with film and his 120 twin-lens reflex than if he were to shoot the same types of subjects with a Nikon D3200 and cropped everything to square-frmat and converted everything to B&W Tri-X emulation using an expensive, well-done software suite? Who are we to "(pre-)judge and (pre-)critique" the work of these fictional people? Especially since we have not even SEEN ANY PHOTOS?



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

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


----------



## C4n0n.Fan (Nov 13, 2013)

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


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 13, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


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



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

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


----------



## pgriz (Nov 13, 2013)

^^^  YES!  x100

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


----------



## minicoop1985 (Nov 13, 2013)

pixmedic said:


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



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

Michael Paul Smith's Imaginary Miniature Elgin Park World


----------



## skieur (Nov 18, 2013)

cbarnard7 said:


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



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


----------

