# Critiquing the Critics



## abraxas (May 4, 2007)

Just wondering- How much credence do you give critiques you recieve?  Do you just take it all in at face value and believe everything you read, or check up on the reviewer to determine if their comments have value?  How do you verify their comments/opinions?


----------



## gmarquez (May 4, 2007)

abraxas said:


> How do you verify their comments/opinions?



Some comments just seem to make sense.  Those I take to heart.

For the rest, I sometimes check up on the critiquer's work (photos).  If I like their shots, I'll give them more creditability (street cred). 

If I don't like their shots, or if they don't have any shots to show us mere mortals, I tend to ignore them a bit more. :raisedbrow:

Lastly, if a person changes their avatar more than once a minute, I'll just think they are crazy from the desert heat.


----------



## craig (May 4, 2007)

If someone was to reply to my photo I take it seriously. Could be one word or an extensive crit. Point is; someone made the effort. That really means a lot to me. Wether they agree with me or have a valid idea is a whole other story. I am just trying to get people to look at my work. 

Love & Bass


----------



## Hertz van Rental (May 4, 2007)

I'm my own worst critic because I know what I was trying to do and what I did wrong. And while it's nice to have people like my pictures it doesn't bother me if they don't.

This raises the question of what the difference is between a critique and personal taste. Most people seem to get the two confused


----------



## abraxas (May 4, 2007)

gmarquez said:


> Some comments just seem to make sense.  Those I take to heart.
> 
> For the rest, I sometimes check up on the critiquer's work (photos).  If I like their shots, I'll give them more creditability (street cred).
> 
> ...



I'm trying to keep my avatar modifications a little more subtle. Apparently I scared someone pretty bad- I'm working one one where the eyes follow you around the room (when you aren't looking).

It took me awhile to learn about the expertise and ability of some of those who gave critiques.  I've recieved a few where I thought their comments were a bit out of hand.  I checked on their posts and found they were headed in a direction I wasn't interested in. I consider tone and other critiques they've made also.  If one goes bad for me, I usually walk away from it for a few days and see if it makes sense later.



craig said:


> If someone was to reply to my photo I take it seriously. Could be one word or an extensive crit. Point is; someone made the effort. That really means a lot to me. Wether they agree with me or have a valid idea is a whole other story. I am just trying to get people to look at my work.
> 
> Love & Bass



Sometimes I wonder if comments are made just because  it seems the thing to do.  Regardless, a "nice shot", whether a just a stroke or heartfelt is appreciated over -nothingness-.  There's a few who don't squirt these out too often. Then something simple like that can go a long way.


----------



## gmarquez (May 4, 2007)

abraxas said:


> Regardless, a "nice shot", whether a just a stroke or heartfelt is appreciated over -nothingness-.



In the galleries, I tend to "nice shot" a photo if I really really like it.  If I just only 'like' it, I'll tend to move on rather quickly (low attention span).

In the critiques section, I'll only tend to post if I think I can offer something at lseat somewhat substantial.  Otherwise, nothing.  (Again, low attention span).


----------



## Garbz (May 4, 2007)

I look at it and if I agree I take it to heart. But photography is subjective and if someone sees the picture differently or not as intended the only critique I take away is that it needs to be more distinct next time round.


----------



## sabbath999 (May 4, 2007)

I haven't been around here long, but I can honestly say I don't care one tinker's pattute when anybody critiques my pictures, good or bad.

I share them because I like for people to see what I do. Like, don't like, it's all the same to me. If somebody wants to edit or crop my stuff, that's fine, I don't care... one way or the other. If it makes them happy to do it, fine.

If I want to know an opinion, I will ask. If I don't ask, I don't listen.

I sound like kind of a jerk but actually I am totally NOT a jerk about it... since I will never ever get offended by anything negative somebody has to say... 

I do the best I can, I can see what I need to do to get better, but frankly I am me... I am not Cartier-Bresson, and no matter what, I never will be... and even though I would much rather have his eye than mine, that's the way it is.

If somebody asks for help, or opinions, then I share if I have anything to add... if I see a great shot, I will tell the poster that as well... I won't tell her I dislike a shot unless she specifically asks, because I think that is rude... but that me. If someone likes what I shot, then that's fine... if not, that's OK too... I am just not going to put much stock in the opinions of others...


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (May 5, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> This raises the question of what the difference is between a critique and personal taste. Most people seem to get the two confused



I agree with this.  Along the same lines, I don't base the value of someone's critique on the style or quality of their work.  People can give valuable critique regardless of what kind of work they do, just as people who do good work might be terrible at giving critique.  Also, hearing someone else's point of view is valuable to me, simply because it comes from someone else.  It's refreshing.  I can sit and stare my photos all day, but I'll never come up with someone else's opinion of them.


----------



## LaFoto (May 5, 2007)

In my meanwhile well over three years here on TPF I have learned a number of valuable things, both those that are very helpful to me and my own photography to day, and those that make me consider and re-consider my own standpoint when it comes to view and "critique" other members' photos. 

And I have learned that - well according to what Hertz is saying and Aquarium is underlining - as vast as the field of photography is so vast is the range of personal tastes. Some people find photography without people in it boring. Which is why landscape photography will never really fascinate them. Let's stay with those who like people in photos - again there are those that love staged, posed or studio photography, while others much prefer street scenes and candids. The latter will not look at studio pics for as long as they will look at other members' street photography. For example.

Then some like wide angles. And develop their abilities in that area until they are able to take marvellous wide-angle photos.

Others like to filter out tiny things, give them a frame of their own by photographing them, chiselling them out by the use of aperture etc. The people-lovers will find those photos more uninteresting than other lovers of close-up or macro photography.

Again others are all fascinated by colours, the way colours can complement each other or go with each other etc, while again another group loves the abstractness of black&white photography. So it cannot be expected of a lover of black&white to really go for an extensive critique of a photo that only is about colours. 

So actually, in the end, the only things that can be critiqued are technical aspects such as under- or overexposure, wrong focus (though that can in the end sometimes AGAIN be a matter of tastes, unless the focus is totally off, and yet ... you never know... ), angles (again ... a slanted horizon can be what the photographer wanted all right!) ... which brings me back to thinking of a thread I once started myself on something like "How objective can critisism be?" or similar, and to the conclusion that it never is objective at all. It is all about tastes.

As to how critique can be formed - well, some may have noticed already: I tend to ask. Put things I am not so sure about in someone's photo into a question. A forum like this (to me it feels like it at least) is a place to TALK, to communicate, and how better can you do so but ask questions? Thus I can call the other photographer's attention to a thing that struck me as questionable and we can talk about it. No need for me to say "This is all c..." (you know) <- just to put out a crass example which you would never hear me say, anyway.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (May 5, 2007)

A good crit should help the person on the receiving end to improve their photography in some way. It might be a technical improvement, compositional - or in their whole approach.
It should not be one sided either.
More importantly, the person giving the crit has to know not only what they are talking about but what they are doing.
If you are faced with a picture and decide it could be 'improved', you start in with the advice. But what are you actually doing? You are listing what it is that _you_ don't like about the picture and proposing ways of changing it so that it conforms more with your ideals.
This is a waste of time for everyone.
What you should do is establish what the photographer was hoping to achieve. Then you can see if he has succeeded, is a bit off or has failed completely.
And in what ways.
Then you discuss it with the photographer, make suggestions or, better, give them some guidance (as well as encouragement).
So all crits should start with 'well, what were you trying to do, exactly?'
But what do I know?


----------



## gmarquez (May 5, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> What you should do is establish what the photographer was hoping to achieve...So all crits should start with 'well, what were you trying to do, exactly?'



I agree.  However, if there is a vision that the photographer wants help achieving, I would expect him to her to state "I was trying to do blah blah blah" right at the beginning, and not wait for me to ask "what were you trying to do" first.  In the absence of clarification by the original photographer, I tend to assume that they want to get suggestions on how *others* (including me) would improve/change the photograph.


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (May 5, 2007)

gmarquez said:


> I agree.  However, if there is a vision that the photographer wants help achieving, I would expect him to her to state "I was trying to do blah blah blah" right at the beginning, and not wait for me to ask "what were you trying to do" first.



But by not stating their vision, they can guage whether people get it or not, without being told, though anything they state about it will help someone to see where they're coming from and what they're looking for.  I agree with LaFoto about this being a place to communicate.  Not so easy to do sometimes, but definitely a goal worth striving for.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (May 5, 2007)

Aquarium Dreams said:


> But by not stating their vision, they can guage whether people get it or not, without being told,



In my experience, when people don't or won't say what they were trying to do when they ask for help/for a crit then it's pretty much of an admission that they don't really know what they were trying to do.
Why most people ask for help/a crit is because they kinda know what they want but they don't think they have got it, in which case no-one else will see it either. So it makes sense to start by saying what you wanted to achieve originally n'est pas?


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 5, 2007)

Trying to use up the last two frames on the roll.


----------



## Iron Flatline (May 5, 2007)

Sometimes I'm stuck on an image, so I submit it to the Critic's Forum along with my description of my creative bottleneck. I will also provide the .PSD file and the RAW file to give people a chance to really work it from scratch. I invariably find that someone will work it in a way that is completely foreign to me, so that I learn a lot more than just how to fix one particular image.

If compared to cooking, it's like learning a technique rather than a recipe.


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (May 6, 2007)

Can the ability to give good critique be learned, and if so, where would one begin?


----------



## Hertz van Rental (May 6, 2007)

Aquarium Dreams said:


> Can the ability to give good critique be learned, and if so, where would one begin?



Of course it can. People aren't born with the ability to do it  
However... 
First you need to become a good photographer. That is, know yourself, why you do what you do, what you try to do with _your_ photographs - your motivation. You can't tell others what to do or where they have gone wrong unless you can apply it to yourself.
Then you need to have more than one such person give _you_ some good critiques to see how it's done. And you need to realise that a crit, being personal, has to be tailored to the individual and learn the techniques - tailoring the level of your crit to the level of the person.
Finally you learn that what you are doing is finding out what the person you are critting is all about and then gently nudging them in the direction that they want to go in. It's a bit Zen really.
Not essential - but certainly a big help - is to have some of the top photographers of your day treat you as a peer and seek your advice because they respect you. This lets you know you are not talking b*ll*cks :mrgreen:  

A crit is a bit like a car: they range from the Reliant Robin to a Rolls Royce.
Until you have a Rolls you don't know what you are missing (so you won't miss it - but don't worry).


----------



## gtkelly (May 6, 2007)

From a different perspective, I'm fairly new to this. I found early on that some of the critiques I got were leading me in wrong directions. But without a base to judge for myself my images wound up looking terrible.

So the critques can be a double edged sword. When you're more experienced and confident with your work I think you need them less. And when you're inexperienced you don't know how to separate good from bad.

At this point there are a few I listen to, and many I ignore completely.


----------



## Riggaberto (May 6, 2007)

abraxas said:


> Just wondering- How much credence do you give critiques you recieve?  Do you just take it all in at face value and believe everything you read, or check up on the reviewer to determine if their comments have value?  How do you verify their comments/opinions?


I have rarely received good comments on here so I stopped almost immediately.  I find that people either don't answer your question, provide comments that aren't useful, or simply give bad advice.  I've noticed that there are several people who are full time critics who give advice that's flawed in some very basic ways, or is just overly opinionated, often not respectful.  I haven't posted in a critique section for a while because of this.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (May 6, 2007)

Riggaberto said:


> I have rarely received good comments on here so I stopped almost immediately.  I find that people either don't answer your question, provide comments that aren't useful, or simply give bad advice.  I've noticed that there are several people who are full time critics who give advice that's flawed in some very basic ways, or is just overly opinionated, often not respectful.  I haven't posted in a critique section for a while because of this.



See my previous post and draw your own conclusions


----------



## abraxas (May 6, 2007)

gtkelly said:


> From a different perspective, I'm fairly new to this. I found early on that some of the critiques I got were leading me in wrong directions. But without a base to judge for myself my images wound up looking terrible.
> 
> So the critques can be a double edged sword. When you're more experienced and confident with your work I think you need them less. And when you're inexperienced you don't know how to separate good from bad.
> 
> At this point there are a few I listen to, and many I ignore completely.



I found that looking at the work of some of the critics was the most enlightening.  Reading their posts to others and the tone. It took me awhile to catch on.  



Riggaberto said:


> I have rarely received good comments on here so I stopped almost immediately.  I find that people either don't answer your question, provide comments that aren't useful, or simply give bad advice.  I've noticed that there are several people who are full time critics who give advice that's flawed in some very basic ways, or is just overly opinionated, often not respectful.  I haven't posted in a critique section for a while because of this.



I'd think you might want to keep trying.  If you're not recieving any comments, sometimes a (bump) or two or three will bring 'em up. Participating in critiquing other's photos may help too.  It certainly helps me with my shots providing an opinion.  I figure then if I'm being ignored, it's for a reason .


----------



## motcon (May 6, 2007)

Aquarium Dreams said:


> Can the ability to give good critique be learned, and if so, where would one begin?



most certainly. _*if*_ and only if one considers the process and the product of photography as an art, then all guidelines of art apply. note the usage of the word 'guidelines'. where does one begin? by learning the fundamentals that important in these areas (the short list):

center of interest

subject placement

simplicity

viewpoint and camera angle

balance

shapes and lines

pattern

volume

lighting

texture

tone

contrast

framing

foreground

background

perspective 


if one considers it an art, then one must submit to their work being critiqued as art. if one states that photography is all subjective, then by default he/she participates in photography as a hobby.


----------



## Weaving Wax (May 7, 2007)

I'm really learning to take the critique I get with a grain of salt. Like Lafoto said, people want different things out of photography. Some people don't like the grain in my photos, some don't like the contrast, focusing, DOF..etc..etc..but at the end of the day, they're my photos and I worked hard to get the results I wanted. Things like DOF, grain and contrast are my own doing and I do it purposefully. I love getting feedback, but I do take it with a grain of salt because I want different things out of photography than some people do and that's ok. 

As for giving critique? I do give it based on what _I_ would do with the photo, after all, isn't that what critique is? I'm not too great with the technicalities of photography, but people are welcome to take my advice or leave it. I do have a link in my sig for people to check out if they want to "check me out" to make sure I know what I'm talking about.. I may or may not give the advice or critique that they are looking for, but it's just someones opinion....


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (May 7, 2007)

motcon said:


> if one considers it an art, then one must submit to their work being critiqued as art. if one states that photography is all subjective, then by default he/she participates in photography as a hobby.



I agree!  However, I wonder if this is when we get critiqued for being "elitist"? 

Though following those guidelines, wouldn't it simply be a matter of tailoring critique to the person, as Hertz said?  Someone with a goal of hanging in a NYC gallery would benefit from a different type of critique than someone who just takes portrait photos for a side business.  Am I getting this right??  (Is that even elitist??)



Weaving Wax said:


> As for giving critique? I do give it based on what _I_ would do with the photo, after all, isn't that what critique is?



Is it?  It seems that different people define critique differently.  

Maybe there should be some guidelines about how to give critique, as well as an explanation of what it is, as a sticky in the critique forum.  The sticky there now is more of a list of dos and don'ts, rather than a guide for what critique is and how best to give and receive it.  If everyone defines "critique" differently, how can anyone benefit from it?


----------



## motcon (May 7, 2007)

Aquarium Dreams said:


> I agree!  However, I wonder if this is when we get critiqued for being "elitist"?



mmm, no. this is when people get angry because some folks are educated and experienced. that is never considered elitist. if it were, my car mechanic is an elitist when he speaks to me about what i should do to my car. 



Aquarium Dreams said:


> Though following those guidelines, wouldn't it simply be a matter of tailoring critique to the person, as Hertz said?  Someone with a goal of hanging in a NYC gallery would benefit from a different type of critique than someone who just takes portrait photos for a side business.  Am I getting this right??  (Is that even elitist??)



yes and no. a landscape is a portrait is an interior design photo is a sky photo is a photo of a flower, etc. i'm speaking of fundamentals and they cross over to every aspect of 'art', regardless of subject, however; to Hertz's point, yes, tailoring a critique to an individual's photo fits perfectly. 

'...perhaps a little more texture in ...'
'...i think it could benefit from a crop in the....'
'...try increasing local contrast and decreasing overall contrast...'

the bottom line here is that Hertz and i violently agree, we are just expressing it differently.


----------



## motcon (May 7, 2007)

.


----------



## Weaving Wax (May 7, 2007)

Aquarium Dreams said:


> Is it?  It seems that different people define critique differently.
> 
> Maybe there should be some guidelines about how to give critique, as well as an explanation of what it is, as a sticky in the critique forum.  The sticky there now is more of a list of dos and don'ts, rather than a guide for what critique is and how best to give and receive it.  If everyone defines "critique" differently, how can anyone benefit from it?



Well every time I see people's feedback or "critique" it's someone's opinion. That's how I feel anyway...doesn't mean I'm right.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 7, 2007)

Just to put my two cents in where it isnt wanted or needed, but alas I never could resist.

I believe you critique the image not the photographer.  Don't matter to me who shot it or what it is going to used for.  To me it's about the image being as good as it can be not anything else.

Just had to get my opinion, based in nothing at all, into the fray.

I honestly didn't mean to get involved in this kind of discussion but I'm weak.


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (May 7, 2007)

Weaving Wax said:


> Well every time I see people's feedback or "critique" it's someone's opinion. That's how I feel anyway...doesn't mean I'm right.



I'm not too clear on what critique is or should be, which is why I think there should be guidelines somewhere.  There seems to be some difference of opinion as to what critique is, and I think people might benefit if we were at least talking about the same thing.  I didn't mean any offense to you.  I realize I'm lost about half the time, and I'm afraid that I'm lost the other half too, but haven't realize it yet.


----------



## Weaving Wax (May 7, 2007)

No offense taken! But I do think that it's really just matter of opinion. But so are the definitions on critique I suppose..


----------



## sabbath999 (May 7, 2007)

motcon said:


> Snipped...
> 
> if one considers it an art, then one must submit to their work being critiqued as art. if one states that photography is all subjective, then by default he/she participates in photography as a hobby.



How about if somebody considers it a craft, and only takes pictures for the money?

How about if somebody considers photographic art their hobby?

Personally, I don't buy it... but that's me. I take pictures of critters, and I do it because I like taking pictures, and I like critters. I don't get paid, and I do it as a hobby... and it certainly isn't art.

Having said that, I look at your list (center of interest, subject placement, simplicity, viewpoint and camera angle, balance, shapes and lines, pattern, volume, lighting, texture, tone, contrast, framing, foreground, background, perspective) and I look at some of our newer critter pictures http://www.zoopictures.net, and I see that the later ones (the ones taken this year with our new DSLR's) are not too bad... and getting better... and I know that they are still not art.

Y'all can judge them, or you can not, doesn't matter to me one way or the other about people's opinions. 

It's not just me... the critters don't care either.


----------



## LaFoto (May 8, 2007)

AquariumDreams, I shared your qualms about how critique could be "guided" which is why a while ago I started the thread on the question if critique can be objective at all (see_here ) ... and it seems like even then we came to the conclusion that it canNOT be objective, ever, since we are all socialised beings and our socialisation is a considerable factor in how we see things and what we like about things.

And one good aspect for me personally that this very diversified forum has offered me is that I learned and am still learning more and more to define what is "me", what *I* like and what appeals to *me*, so I learn more about myself. 

And I feel that this amount of self-awareness is also necessary to be able to find the words for one's own critiquing other people's work. 

In the end, what is it that entitles me to actually pass critisism on someone else's work in the first place? I have never "learned the trade", as it were, I have neither read the Fine Arts nor anything related to Photography in any college/uni, so who am I to speak up. Which is why in the end it is _always_ only my *mind* I am speaking.

Yes, there are those factors that motcom is mentioning, and I am grateful for that list, for that is the list I kind of expected to show in my thread on the objective critisism. 

Then again - once you are well familiar with all these "guidelines" which apply to images of all kind (canvasses, drawings, paintings, photos etc), you can choose to ignore them. It is then up to the viewer to feel/find out if it was your intention to leave the guidelines behind you or if it was just because you (still) don't know any better.

And like I was saying earlier: photography can fulfil so very many functions which can differ so much from photographer to photographer: you can, of course, try to create pieces of art. You can, if you are someone else, try to document things so you'll be able to share them with others, plain and simple. This documenting things can vary: you can be happy with snapshots just so you can ... for example ... come back from your holidays and show those who had to stay "Look, we were here and saw that, and look, Lilly smeared ice-cream all over her new t-shirt" etc., or you can try to capture the feel of the place in a more elaborate/artistic manner so that in the end your viewers say "Hey, this looks GOOD! I like this photo!" or something of the kind. 

Then you can have a special interest (critters, for example), and you want to find ways to document the subjects of your special interest in a solidly good manner (not out of focus, not under- or overexposed, not too little in too large a frame, not too centred, maybe). 

Or you have the task to photograph critters for a reader... nothing artistic being asked, only a true-to-life documentation of what said critter looks like (to stay with critters as examples, but you could also take plants or flowers, for example). 

So I feel that in my ramblings I am coming to a distinction between documentation and artistic representation of whatever it is (architecture, flora, fauna, landscapes, townscapes and and and), and in trying to document things, you can then teach yourself to get better, to step from the point-and-shoot photography to something more thought-over, more planned and composed. 

And then there is that huge area of peopled photography, all the matters of light and pose and ... whoa, that field is soooooooooooo large, no wonder there are so many ways to feel/think about it and so many ways in which people pass their thoughts (as critique or critisism).

I don't feel we need any really fixed guidelines on how people should phrase their critique. Who would want to watch over them and enforce them? Common sense and a bit of tact and politeness is all there is required, and maybe a tiny step away from full self-centredness towards a bit more acceptance and a feel for the other person we talk to, and then it should work. 

And The Critique Forum says that words may be "brutal" (sounds harsh in my ears but be it, it may be the term to be used in English, what do I know? English is not my native language) ... so it is important in there NOT to take things really PERSONALLY, but to always be aware that it is about the PHOTO ... which may mean a lot more to us, as the author of said photo, because we have all the knowledge of the making-of and the context, than it does to the viewer who comes to see the "naked photo".


----------



## motcon (May 8, 2007)

sabbath999 said:


> How about if somebody considers it a craft, and only takes pictures for the money?



then it's a hobby unless that person truly employs guidelines of art



sabbath999 said:


> How about if somebody considers photographic art their hobby?




same as above.


don't attempt to confuse the issue with semantics; won't work.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 8, 2007)

And it's all rock and roll to me....


----------



## motcon (May 8, 2007)

there are many different types of forums here. 

at the extremes - 

one for just showing pictures and another for serious critique wanting to understand the process and product of art.


in summary: nearly all of us agree, but are just using different ways of expressing thoughts.

it's *a lot* easier to accept a comment of, 'hey, i like that' and perhaps easier yet to dismiss comments of, 'i hate it' than it is to say to oneself, 'i liked what i saw, but her/his critique of it makes sense and if i want this to hang on my wall, perhaps i'll reshoot it'.

there are plenty of forums in which each type of person can post. everyone should be happy.


----------



## Mike_E (May 8, 2007)

Criticizing peoples photographs is like criticizing their children.  "Twere best done kindly and only when asked!"

mike


----------



## motcon (May 8, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> I believe you critique the image not the photographer.  Don't matter to me who shot it or what it is going to used for.  To me it's about the image being as good as it can be not anything else.



i'm going to consult you before i engage in these discussions - you summed it up perfectly.


----------



## sabbath999 (May 8, 2007)

It's not semantics... I don't understand why it is necessary to say that art cannot be a hobby.

My dictionary says that art is "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power" and that a hobby is "an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure."

All I am saying is they are not mutually incompatible. In fact, many of the great works of art ever created were done in people's leisure time (i.e. when not working their main job) because the artist enjoyed the creative process... or had not found a way to make enough money at it to eat.

Art can be (and very often is) a hobby.


----------



## Mike_E (May 8, 2007)

Sabbath, there are some who would say that art can Only be a hobby.  When you start charging for it, it becomes a commodity.

mike


----------



## motcon (May 8, 2007)

ok, one more post before i shower then be about my day. 

the image in the following link was posted elsewhere and the person asked, 'please tell me anything and everything that i could possibly do to make this a better photograph.' he made it clear that he wanted a critique. in that case, the person would've posted the image in the 'serious critique' forum.

he could've stated, 'hey, i loved this scene so i photographed it.' he would've posted it in a more general gallery if that were the case.

given that he asked for a critique, i critiqued it. 

http://motionless-continuum.com/Gandalf/nyc.htm


you could easily say, 'but Will, _i like_ the tree trunk on the other side of the arch. so be it, however; if we are being objective, it doesn't belong there. 

people photograph for different reasons... as well they should. a harsh critique of someone's image who just wants to photograph is an atrocity. similarly, a fluffy comment on an image posted by a person who wants serious critique is an injustice.

many, many years ago someone sat me down in a chair and asked me what i wanted out of my art. she then proceeded to objectively critique everything that i created. she recommended books, she gave books to me as gifts, she encouraged me to understand the guidelines. i knew where i was with my art, but i also knew to where i wanted it to progress. i wanted more out of it. even though i have thousands of slides and negatives that i like because i enjoyed the subject matter, if i were to submit them to myself for critique, they'd get many paragraphs of objective criticism. i'd post them in the general gallery...because i like them and am not interested in them being anything more than they are. other shots that i've taken i've sent to numerous photographer friends for their critique - shots that i liked _and_ eventually wanted to frame, then hang.

there's a place for everyone here. it really comes back to the photographer to decide how far he/she wants to progress. that dictates which forum in which one should post and also the type of responses to expect.

i'm not going to speak to the tone of some of the comments that are made; that's an entirely different subject. personally, i look past tone to look for content in the message.

oh, and as for the young lady who 'set my head straight' when i needed it, i feel compelled to state, 'thank you DD, where ever you are'.


----------



## motcon (May 8, 2007)

sabbath999 said:


> It's not semantics... I don't understand why it is necessary to say that art cannot be a hobby.
> 
> My dictionary says that art is "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power" and that a hobby is "an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure."
> 
> ...



it is semantics. art *can* be a 'hobby', but it's still classified as 'art', correct? it is, therefore; subject to the guidelines of 'art', whether or not one does it as a profession. if one does it 'just to do it', then it's just a hobby. sure, i give credence to the dictionary definition of art, but i'm going to default back to the beginning of the classification of art, thousands of years ago, those records of methodology, etc. to define 'art'. 

when i lived in boston, this place was one of my favorites to visit (it kept me thinking properly):

http://www.museumofbadart.org/

their collection is of works that people created as a hobby, but they aren't art. art can be a hobby (a past time), but a bonafide hobby (past time) can't be art unless one pursues the annals and guidelines of art.

again, i think we're saying the same thing here, my friend...our lines are just blurred a bit.


----------



## motcon (May 8, 2007)

odd coincidence, but i just read this from my myspace inbox. she and i have been friends for over 20 years.....and she now tells me something that gave me goosebumps and already made my day. take from this what you will:


_Date:	May 8, 2007 12:26 AM
Flag as Spam or Report Abuse [ ? ] 
Subject:	hey
Body:	i just uploaded a bunch of pictures, some of my art. you can consider it your own personal show, because I won't be doing one around here in may after all. 

I don't know if you know how instrumental you were in teaching me about what art really is, but, and I know i mentioned this before, it was that time we were at the apartment I lived in with jean, and i was making a card for my poppop for his birthday or something, and I was doing something, and then, you looked at it and you were like, uh, that doesn't look right, and I was like, how can I mess up something I am in the process of creating? and that has always stayed with me, and I have told that story many times over, in teaching about the creative process, that you should not mess up something that you are creating as you go. I am very thankful for that lesson, and thankful for you in it. 

hope you like them. I have just started using color this year, this is all new to me, a whole new concept. It's still in the baby stages, but I like it. It makes me happy. I think that's important, you know? If you don't like what you are making, why make it? 

hope you are well, and I hope my letter before made sense, and was received well. it was the only way I meant it. 

jen_


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 8, 2007)

I knew I should never have read this thread....

The number one rule in true art is, ignore the rules someone else imposes on you.  But that said, the image still has to be worthy.  In my mind it has to have a certain harmony and balance.  But what works for me might not work for you.

That said, In my opinion critique's only purpose is to teach.  It is not meant for the writer of the critique to show you how much more he knows than you do.  It is simply to have the creator take a second look at his work in a new way.

I have a piece I posted in a forum, someone said it has to much space at the top of the image.  I went back and looked and sure enough it did.  I learned from his critique not to be so sloppy posting images.

Critique by its nature requires the artist to stop and think.  That's all it can do.  It can't force you to change how you do things.  Most of the things we do to an image aren't all that important to the image anyway.  They can make it more powerful, but it's the origninal vision (hate that word) of the shooter that is important.  All the rest is just details.

As an example my son in law shot a wedding recently.  The groome's brother was just back from Iraq.  He wore his dress blues to the wedding.  At the reception my SIL was walking by his table and noticed the Marine holding his almost infant daughter.  She was playing with the shiny metals on his chest.  The SIL shot the image and of course everyone loved it.  Now I didn't see what all was done but I guarentee you that if the image had been slightly out of wack it wouldn't have mattered to that Marines family.  It was the power of the image first anything else is just icing.  Now thats my opinion for whatever it is worth.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (May 8, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> The number one rule in true art is, ignore the rules someone else imposes on you.



The rules aren't imposed - they are just there. If you think you are ignoring them or breaking them, then it just turns out you are conforming to some other rules you didn't know about.
It would be better to say: forget about the rules and they will take care of themselves.


----------



## abraxas (May 8, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> The rules aren't imposed - they are just there. If you think you are ignoring them or breaking them, then it just turns out you are conforming to some other rules you didn't know about.
> It would be better to say: forget about the rules and they will take care of themselves.



Like spitting into the wind?


----------



## gizmo2071 (May 8, 2007)

When ever i critque it's always going to be personal opinion, so as Hertz van Rental said near the top of the thread, how do you tell the difference between critique and personal taste?
I can tell you why you havn't followed rules of lighting or composition... but they are not what makes me like a shot. I like a shot and if I don't I can only tell you ways in making it an image that *I* like.

At college today we were just showing images off that we took the other week. Everyone loved my images, but they were forced into giving critique to say how i could improve the images. I personally knew exactly how I could improve the images, but theres a difference in knowing how and being able to.
As other people have said, i'm my own personal critique. As soon as i get my images home, i go through them and know exactly how I could have improved on images.
Then it's always nice to see what other people think. 
Photography is very subjective, even when following the "rules".


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 8, 2007)

Well I think it might be best if you knew what to do, but chose to do something different.  Otherwise I agree.  Also if people didn't break the rule, there would be no need for the rule.

The main problem with rules is people are the ones who make them up and then different people interpret them. 

In my opinion, which I admit is worth next to nothing...  There is classic composition which pretty much follows rules, then there is the new stuff I don't pretend to understand but other people seem to get.  The truth is I'm going to go with, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

I am lenient with myself, because I don't really have a point of view these days.  I just shoot film to have something to do.  Remember I just wanted to finish those last two frames sort of thing.


----------



## motcon (May 8, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> The main problem with rules is people are the ones who make them up and then different people interpret them.




that is largely incorrect. backing the rules are thousands of years of practicing 'rules' that are inherent in nature and how the mind views the world. the most well known 'rule', the 'golden section', is hundreds of years aged and it is rooted in nature. the golden spiral, golden triangle, harmonic triangle, golden sections, etc. are all rooted in what we see everyday in nature. 

examples:

http://iluvkids.myweb.uga.edu/nature.html

http://www.goldenmuseum.com/0602PentagonSpirals_engl.html

http://www.halexandria.org/dward103.htm

it's very scientific and rooted in how we really do see things in everyday life.

one of the best books ever written on the subject:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Art-Visual-Perception-Psychology-Creative/dp/0520243838/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-8714834-9005447?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178674516&sr=8-1"]art and visual perception[/ame]


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 9, 2007)

Nothing worse than someone interjecting facts into a discussion to take the fun out of it...   ROFLMAO

The tyrany is in the interpretation of number not in the number itself I suppose.  Scientific method not withstanding the world will not stop spinning on it's axis if i put the eyes of a portrait on the center line.  I might not sell it, but the composition police wont shoot me,  will they?


----------



## motcon (May 9, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> ....but the composition police wont shoot me,  will they?




these days? more than likely not. just found this in the current issue of art in america (had to blur the last word for obvious reasons):


----------



## Christie Photo (May 9, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> ...the person giving the crit has to know not only what they are talking about but what they are doing.



I think this is really the original question restated.  In all fairness, I suspect it's a goal here at TPF to get folks involved...  to encourage people to post, expressing thier thoughts and taking part in discussions.  As a result, photographers at all levels of competence, with widely varying credentials might make absolute statements that have no value or are just outright wrong.  We just have to weed through the mess to find the posts that offer real substance and direction.



Hertz van Rental said:


> What you should do is establish what the photographer was hoping to achieve. Then you can see if he has succeeded, is a bit off or has failed completely.



Funny.  I've been thinking lately how titles of posts affect my reaction to an image.  This often times is the only clue I have about the makers intentions.  And not just titles, but also the forum the photographer chose for the image.  I usually just pass on through when I find a snapshot of family members posted in the Portrait Forum, or if a post, for example, is titled "Abandoned," and the image is of a new bicycle left on the driveway.

Pete


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 9, 2007)

I guess in the end it is best for people like me to stay out of the critique gallery and I do.  See I don't really have a point of view or a statement to make.  Hell most of the shots I make are to test some junk camera I built.  I post them mostly in alternate forum because home made or cobbled cameras are mostly considered alternate.  

Someone said earlier that they posted their pictures to be seen and didn't really care what others thought.  I find a lot of truth in that for myself as well.  With what I do it isn't like digital.  When I shoot a test roll I have to develop it.  

At that point it becomes more than a simple image.  It is tangible.  So to throw it out unseen by others seems a lot like buying a hamburger then tossing it in the trash.  Yes it might be more healthy to do that, but not many of us could.  

So a lot of what I shove on these galleries isn't really about learning or improving my skills it's a pure ego trip.  It is for me that's for sure and I suspect a lot more.

Somewhere there needs to be a line drawn between, Look what I can do ma and someone still learning the craft.  I know we all pay lipservice to we are always learning.  I'm not so sure.  Yes I learn something now and then but most likely I don't.  Not that I know it all by any means, I just don't want to know a lot of the information floating around here.  I know that makes me narrow minded.

Now the line seems to me to be in the critique gallery and those who actually ask for critique.  For those I would suggest you listen to all the critique.  Now here is the problem with critique does the guy giving it to you know more than you do.  Forget age and experience here, because trust me you don't want my critique on digital imaging.  It would be worse than useless.  My digital advice would probably cause your computer to explode and your camera melt.  

Just think about what the person said, maybe try it and see if it really does look better.   Remember in the END it is YOUR image not theirs.  You want advice you can use.  

This post is way to long feel free to edit or junk it mods.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (May 10, 2007)

Christie Photo said:


> I've been thinking lately how titles of posts affect my reaction to an image.  This often times is the only clue I have about the makers intentions.



If you give a picture a caption or a title then the picture ceases to be a picture in it's own right but becomes merely an illustration to the words. This is because our society privileges the written word over the visual image.


----------



## Christie Photo (May 10, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> If you give a picture a caption or a title then the picture ceases to be a picture in it's own right but becomes merely an illustration to the words.



Well said.


----------



## abraxas (May 18, 2007)

Interesting how this thread went a bit astray.

How much stock does one put into the presentation of the critique by the critic in consideration of the analysis?


----------



## JohnMF (May 18, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> This is because our society privileges the written word over the visual image.



Unless the visual image is a naked woman.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 18, 2007)

Ah but the porno novel is a thing of beauty...... lol


----------



## Puscas (May 18, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> This is because our society privileges the written word over the visual image.



on a side note: could you elaborate on this, because IMHO it's exactly the other way around. 








pascal


----------



## abraxas (May 18, 2007)

Puscas said:


> on a side note: could you elaborate on this, because IMHO it's exactly the other way around.



Together they form a more expressive communication. There's no sense in separating the two when combined by the author/photographer.  Text without photography is as limiting as photography without titles or captions.

Why separate one from the other when both can be more effective together?


----------



## Hertz van Rental (May 19, 2007)

Puscas said:


> on a side note: could you elaborate on this, because IMHO it's exactly the other way around.



"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God."
Sound familiar?  

Read Barthes or John Berger or any of the Structuralists for full details.
Or read Derrida for an analysis of the whole Western myth of language and the privileging of the 'word' over the 'voice'.

To put it simply, you can change someone's entire perception of an image by changing the caption, even different captions for the same image.
No-one questions the authority of the word - they prefer to accept that they have misinterpreted the image. That quite clearly demonstrates that the Word is more powerful than the Image in our minds.
Many studies have been done - if you hunt you will find them.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 19, 2007)

As one who now and then dapples in posters, which by their nature has words stuck in there somewhere usually, I find it hard to come up with a neat little saying for an image but if i start with the image I find it easier to find a little saying.  What does this mean I wonder.

I am caught up by a little catch phrase from my favorite author.  "Beware my friend of the tyrany of words."


----------



## ksmattfish (May 19, 2007)

abraxas said:


> Just wondering- How much credence do you give critiques you recieve?  Do you just take it all in at face value and believe everything you read, or check up on the reviewer to determine if their comments have value?  How do you verify their comments/opinions?



You have to judge the value of the advice and opinions you are given.  To me a critique from a stranger who I know nothing about is probably useless.  It's possible an unknown could offer wisdom out of nowhere, but usually I'll need to know something about the person so I can put what they say in context.  I think it's natural to give more credence to those whose works and accomplishments I respect, but it's important to listen to everyone (unless I'm just convinced they are talking out their rear end).

I think the best way to verify or assess the value of someone's advice is to get to know them.  In the real world they may be someone I associate with in the local arts community.  Online I can check their websites, and maybe forum posts and that sort of thing.

I also think that conversation makes a better critique.  I agree that a critique shouldn't all be about whether they like the photo or not, it should be about whether the photographer is accomplishing what they were trying to achieve, and how could they do it better, more efficiently, etc...  I find having this sort of conversation difficult through internet forum posts because it takes so long.  Whatever end of the critique I am on there are a lot of questions and answers needed.  You can present a photo with no other information, and ask for people's opinions, but that's not a critique.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (May 19, 2007)

ksmattfish said:


> I also think that conversation makes a better critique.  I agree that a critique shouldn't all be about whether they like the photo or not, it should be about whether the photographer is accomplishing what they were trying to achieve, and how could they do it better, more efficiently, etc...



:thumbup:


----------



## Puscas (May 19, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God."
> Sound familiar?



well, it took a while before there was any word..



Hertz van Rental said:


> Read Barthes or John Berger or any of the Structuralists for full details.
> Or read Derrida for an analysis of the whole Western myth of language and the privileging of the 'word' over the 'voice'.
> 
> To put it simply, you can change someone's entire perception of an image by changing the caption, even different captions for the same image.
> ...



oh I see. I thought you meant that our modern day world is more verbal than visual driven, which I think is not the case. I mean, when someone sees a newspaper, they look at the image first and read the words later. The proces you describe happens after that. So I wasn't thinking about the same thing as you. But thanks for your reply!



pascal


----------



## Hertz van Rental (May 19, 2007)

Puscas said:


> when someone sees a newspaper, they look at the image first and read the words later.



But you will find that people do not actually draw any conclusions from the image - it tells them virtually nothing. They rely on the words to explain to them what the image cannot.
Your choice of newspaper as an example demonstrates my point. It is the worst medium for subjugating images to the written word


----------



## danalec99 (May 19, 2007)

Words are unfortunately more powerful, in a way that it can influence how you react to an image.

For example, the reaction would be different if I were to name this image "A silhouette of Brad Pitt & Angelina at a cafe" than just "a cafe on Jersey shore"


----------



## Puscas (May 19, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> But you will find that people do not actually draw any conclusions from the image - it tells them virtually nothing. They rely on the words to explain to them what the image cannot.
> Your choice of newspaper as an example demonstrates my point. It is the worst medium for subjugating images to the written word




Like I said: we were talking about two different processes. So my choice of example doesn't demonstrate your point, you're merely translating it to your point. And now I have to look up the word subjugating...(don't you have an image to replace it..:mrgreen

And I see what you and Danalec are saying. And I think you're right. But likewise would you react differenct to a caption if the image changes. Say you have a picture of a dish with the word delicious above it. Replace the dish with a woman and the impact of the caption changes (it's suddenly sexist for example), so it's the combination that delivers the message. 

but sorry, I'm not trying to hijack the thread, I was just intrigued by the remarks. And again, thanks.




pascal


----------



## skieur (May 21, 2007)

What should be critiqued and is critiqued in high level competitions is technique as in all the technical aspects of focus, exposure, shutter speed, colour balance etc. and composition as in the elements of design applied to photography.  Personal comments in competition critique are obviously not acceptable.

The value of the critique depends on the knowledge and experience of the person in photography and how "trained" their eye is.  The other element is that if the comment precisely relates to technique or composition, then it is probably worthwhile and valuable too.

skieur


----------



## motcon (May 21, 2007)

skieur said:


> What should be critiqued and is critiqued in high level competitions is technique as in all the technical aspects of focus, exposure, shutter speed, colour balance etc. and composition as in the elements of design applied to photography.  Personal comments in competition critique are obviously not acceptable.
> 
> The value of the critique depends on the knowledge and experience of the person in photography and how "trained" their eye is.  The other element is that if the comment precisely relates to technique or composition, then it is probably worthwhile and valuable too.
> 
> skieur



well said.

marry me.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (May 22, 2007)

Puscas said:


> And I think you're right.



I'm glad to hear it. It means that you agree with all the major thinkers on the subject and all the research that has been done on this for the past 60 years. People may well glance at a photograph first but then they immediately scan any associated words to discover what the photograph means or represents. Only you do it so quickly and it is so automatic that you are not conciously aware you are doing it.
It is because a lot of what goes on in our heads happens at a subliminal level that a critique of any image - certainly at any advanced level - has to take in meaning.
Any photograph you take reveals far more about you than you can possibly imagine. The images you make are are not just pictures of things, they are reflections of your world view, attitudes and the self-image you want to project to others*. 
Without accepting and understanding this no photographer can ever hope to have even the slightest degree of control over it. And then, no matter how much _technical_ control you apply in terms of focus, exposure and composition, you will only ever manage to produce images with just shallow surface gloss**.
This is one reason why a good critique should always start with the question: "what was it you were trying to do?" 



*(And before anyone starts arguing or telling me I'm wrong, read a few books on the subject and study it. Starting with Freud. I remember giving a lecture on this subject only to outrage one student. And I quote: "I don't have a subconcious! If I did I'd know about it."   )
**(But I'm sure there are a lot of people who would be happy with that.)


----------



## motcon (May 22, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> This is one reason why a good critique should always start with the question: "what was it you were trying to do?"




i fundamentally disagree with this statement/thought. if we are talking about a formal critique, these words should never be uttered. if the photograph is a complete failure, then the question should be asked as there in lies a great learning opportunity.



Hertz van Rental said:


> *(And before anyone starts arguing or telling me I'm wrong, read a few books on the subject and study it. Starting with Freud.  )



not arguing nor 'telling you are wrong', we simply agree to disagree....and i've read a great many books on the subject. i prefer the writings of Hofstadter, Jung, and Arnheim.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (May 22, 2007)

Jung was a student of Freud, Arnheim worked in perception and Hofstadter is a mathematician... Personally I prefer Piaget and Vygotsky.
As most psychology starts with Freud (either agreeing with him or disagreeing with him) he is always a good place to start.

If we are talking of 'formal critique' (as in 'criticism') then most technical aspects of the image are totally irrelevant and don't form part. But naturally one does not need to ask the _photographer_ that question.
If we are talking critique for those who are still learning - as the critiques on here tend to be - then the first question _must_ be 'what were you trying to do?' Wether the picture is successful or not. Improvement in photography comes about by thinking on what you are trying to do. Slavish following some formula or other rarely teaches anyone anything.

(Just remember - I've been reading for twenty years longer than you. And providing I don't lose my place I should finish reading my first one in the next few years  )


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 22, 2007)

Jesus I thought it was about whether the colors in the picture matched my wallpaper.


----------



## motcon (May 22, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> Jung was a student of Freud, Arnheim worked in perception and Hofstadter is a mathematician... Personally I prefer Piaget and Vygotsky.
> As most psychology starts with Freud (either agreeing with him or disagreeing with him) he is always a good place to start.



that doesn't make Jung a Freudian. they are nearly opposites when it comes to psychology.

Arnheim worked in the psychology of visual perception and how the brain works and views the world of art.

Hofstadter is, first and foremost, a cognitive scientist (explaining psychological triggers and feedback)





Hertz van Rental said:


> If we are talking of 'formal critique' (as in 'criticism') then most technical aspects of the image are totally irrelevant and don't form part. But naturally one does not need to ask the _photographer_ that question.
> If we are talking critique for those who are still learning - as the critiques on here tend to be - then the first question _must_ be 'what were you trying to do?' Wether the picture is successful or not. Improvement in photography comes about by thinking on what you are trying to do. Slavish following some formula or other rarely teaches anyone anything.



asking what one was trying to accomplish _after_ a critique puts the critique as well as his/her efforts in perspective. 



Hertz van Rental said:


> (Just remember - I've been reading for twenty years longer than you. And providing I don't lose my place I should finish reading my first one in the next few years  )



as such, time is irrelevant. it's what one does with time that is important. you've had 20 years more than i to read, but that in no way suggests that you've read the same quantity (or more) . 

regardless, this isn't personal. back on topic....


----------



## motcon (May 22, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> Jesus I thought it was about whether the colors in the picture matched my wallpaper.




actually, it is. also make *damned* sure that the textures of the picture are in harmony with the carpeting. 

'...dat sher wud go nice wit mi shag carpit...'

don't be a victim of the texture trap; house guests will snicker.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 22, 2007)

Now don't take this wrong but it sounds to me like this defeats the purpose of an open forum. When we begin to assume that only a few voices are worth hearing, then we are in the committee version of critique. Five men make a panel and all work is submitted to them. This goes against my idea of a forum and slips into the juried display. 

If we advocate that only certain people are qualified to give critique, I'm not sure growth is helped by it. Then again what do I know.


----------



## motcon (May 22, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> Now don't take this wrong but it sounds to me like this defeats the purpose of an open forum. When we begin to assume that only a few voices are worth hearing, then we are in the committee version of critique. Five men make a panel and all work is submitted to them. This goes against my idea of a forum and slips into the juried display.
> 
> If we advocate that only certain people are qualified to give critique, I'm not sure growth is helped by it. Then again what do I know.



you are entirely correct. the desire is to promote growth, but by defining what 'is' and 'isn't'. there isn't a committee (as far as i know).

we're trying to hash out ideas, not a formal structure, per se.


----------



## Alex_B (May 22, 2007)

*listens to the masters' talkin*


----------



## The_Traveler (May 22, 2007)

My, my.  Has this turned into a graduate students' discussion, everyone pulling hard at the sleeves of their favorite authority figures?


----------



## Alex_B (May 22, 2007)

The_Traveler said:


> My, my.  Has this turned into a graduate students' discussion, everyone pulling hard at the sleeves of their favorite authority figures?



Well, I myself have no authority figures in photography or arts as a whole.
I am just a stray dog


----------



## motcon (May 22, 2007)

The_Traveler said:


> My, my.  Has this turned into a graduate students' discussion, everyone pulling hard at the sleeves of their favorite authority figures?



when a thread is titled, *"Critiquing the Critics"*, i think one should expect some hardcore discussion.

or shall we go the way of the 'critique' precedent?

'he's nice; i like him'
'he's mean.'
'ooo, hi!'
'i don't like to talk about critique; makes my tummy squirm.'


----------



## Alex_B (May 22, 2007)

motcon said:


> when a thread is titled, *"Critiquing the Critics"*, i think one should expect some hardcore discussion.



I think this is still a very mild discussion as far as aggression and bitterness are concerned. So I see no problem with this thread.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 22, 2007)

motcon said:


> when a thread is titled, *"Critiquing the Critics"*, i think one should expect some hardcore discussion.
> 
> or shall we go the way of the 'critique' precedent?
> 
> ...



Don't get me wrong.  It's fun to watch - as long as I don't have to actually read the stuff.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 22, 2007)

Yeah this is fun not art appreciation 101. Like all discussions here, and on most forums, it quickly gets tedius to those of us who are left brain thinkers. Whatever that means.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 22, 2007)

I actually learned the most about photo criticism from movies - particularly "
*Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death"*


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 22, 2007)

Well learning what not to do is important. Believe it or not, and I don't either, I took a film course in college. It was bout the time caboret came out. We had to go see it of course.

The rest of the class and the professor really didn't care much for my comments about Lisa singing caboret. Every fame of the scene could have been printed as a still portrait. The lighting was that good.

Hell they saw it as a movie. I saw it as a string of still images strung together. That's how I figured, I don't see things like most people.

Now back to the discussion at hand. 

Since there are so many gurus on site is there room left for "Gee whiz clyde you should have shot that cow *after* you tipped her, would have been a better rule of thirds shot.

No harm intended guys,


----------



## abraxas (May 22, 2007)

ksmattfish said:


> You have to judge the value of the advice and opinions you are given.  To me a critique from a stranger who I know nothing about is probably useless.  It's possible an unknown could offer wisdom out of nowhere, but usually I'll need to know something about the person so I can put what they say in context.  I think it's natural to give more credence to those whose works and accomplishments I respect, but it's important to listen to everyone (unless I'm just convinced they are talking out their rear end).
> 
> I think the best way to verify or assess the value of someone's advice is to get to know them.  In the real world they may be someone I associate with in the local arts community.  Online I can check their websites, and maybe forum posts and that sort of thing.
> 
> I also think that conversation makes a better critique.  I agree that a critique shouldn't all be about whether they like the photo or not, it should be about whether the photographer is accomplishing what they were trying to achieve, and how could they do it better, more efficiently, etc...  I find having this sort of conversation difficult through internet forum posts because it takes so long.  Whatever end of the critique I am on there are a lot of questions and answers needed.  You can present a photo with no other information, and ask for people's opinions, but that's not a critique.



I think in a serious and professional setting though, a critique from a stranger can be valuable in that personalities and social relationships aren't involved.

Thanks- great response without distracting self indulgence. I have to say this thread has been quite illuminating.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (May 22, 2007)

motcon said:


> you are entirely correct. the desire is to promote growth, but by defining what 'is' and 'isn't'. there isn't a committee (as far as i know).
> 
> we're trying to hash out ideas, not a formal structure, per se.



Absolutely. If everyone ever agreed on everything then at that point the world would come to an end.

The state of play:
1) There are two main approaches to looking at an image - looking at what the photographer was trying to say/did say (the _meaning_ of the image); looking at the technical aspects and how the photographer is using them (exposure, composition, focus).
The former does not need to look at the technical aspects. The latter does not need to enquire into what it all means.
It is, of course, possible to approach each seperately or to combine them in any way you like.
It is then up to the photographer to decide what sort of crit he would like or feels he needs.
2) Whilst there is no formal crit structure as such, there are certain points within which it has to work. But these are largely set by each individual case.
And there is no right or wrong way. Only ways that work for an individual and ways that don't.
3) Mysteryscribe needs the services of a professional interior decorator.



(I thought Hofstdter's work was with cognitive models for use in AI. Somewhat different to cognitive psychology.
Sorry. Couldn't resist. I hate staying too much on topic for too long...)


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 22, 2007)

Nah I dont need a pro decorator. Why pay someone to screw things up when you can do it yourself.

Now I might consider paying a pro as in hooker.

as for the real discussion going on in the background. It is irellivant because:

At the end of the day whatever conclusions you come to will be immediately trumped by, "awesome dude" as a critique.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (May 22, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> Nah I dont need a pro decorator. Why pay someone to screw things up when you can do it yourself.



You seem to be confusing decoration with DIY carpentry.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 22, 2007)

Or camera building..


----------



## Alex_B (May 22, 2007)

if a decorator / interior designer is needed, I am willing to jump in ...


----------



## Hertz van Rental (May 22, 2007)

Alex_B said:


> if a decorator / interior designer is needed, I am willing to jump in ...



Now you're getting confused with lifeguard.


----------



## Alex_B (May 22, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> Now you're getting confused with lifeguard.



might be right .. lifeguards get more girls, right?


----------



## Puscas (May 23, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> I'm glad to hear it. It means that you agree with all the major thinkers on the subject and all the research that has been done on this for the past 60 years.



First I apologize, I didn't noticed you commented on my comment. Second, I hope this is not your attitude towards everything. The mere fact that something is around for 60 years, doesn't make it true forever or rather off limits for anything different. 


And again, I wasn't talking about the same process as you were. Indeed, I was talking about our obsession with images. 




Hertz van Rental said:


> People may well glance at a photograph first but then they immediately scan any associated words to discover what the photograph means or represents. Only you do it so quickly and it is so automatic that you are not conciously aware you are doing it.



Yes, is has to be associated, otherwise you become very consious of the fact that you are looking for meaning. But I reject the idea (and maybe I'm misunderstanding you) that the image is some powerless factor at the mercy of words. If you have an image and you add/change the word(s), sure the impact changes. But the image has a power of its own and it impacts the word(s) as well. 
But of course, that's not the way we look at it when we're critiquing, so believe it or not, I agree largely with you on this: 

_


Hertz van Rental said:



			If you give a picture a caption or a title then the picture ceases to be a picture in it's own right but becomes merely an illustration to the words.
		
Click to expand...

_




pascal


----------



## Hertz van Rental (May 23, 2007)

Puscas said:


> But I reject the idea (and maybe I'm misunderstanding you) that the image is some powerless factor at the mercy of words.



Images have power. There is no doubt of that. But because of the way we have developed we now privilege words over images. This means that if you put words and pictures _together_ (and this includes the mere titling of an image) then the image becomes an illustration - the words take precedence because in our present culture (at least in the West) words have power.
This process is highlighted by the following.
An illiterate person does not see what is written, only the image. And the image is all that person has to go on. Words have no power for them.
If the writing is in a language we do not understand then we find ourselves using the image to try to puzzle out the meaning of the words. We recognise that the words have meaning and that the meaning must be important.

Some of this is context conditioned. We understand that in newspapers and magazines the written word carries the message. The images are there as a supplement (in newspapers they provide a spurious proof. 'We can't be lying - we have a photo to prove it'.). In a gallery we understand that the images are the important objects - but we still put little titles with info by them 

Of course just because something has been around a long time does not mean it is not open to question or that it is right. But it doesn't mean that it is wrong either.
There is still a lot of research going on in this area (advertising depends upon it for one thing) but all the indications still point the same way. So I see no reason to change my view.


----------



## Puscas (May 23, 2007)

Me thinks we're on the same page...




Hertz van Rental said:


> So I see no reason to change my view.



I'm not asking you to. Just to keep an open mind. 


well, it's been fun. My curiosity has been satisfied.
Off to the Off Topic again.....













pascal


----------



## The_Traveler (May 23, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> Images have power. There is no doubt of that. But because of the way we have developed we now privilege words over images. This means that if you put words and pictures _together_ (and this includes the mere titling of an image) then the image becomes an illustration - the words take precedence because in our present culture (at least in the West) words have power.



I agree with most of what you said up until the underlined passage. IMO, words become an intrinsic part of the communication and may even direct it, but they are not necessarily the most powerful portion. The relative power is related to the effectiveness, both of the words and the image.

Unfortunately, what we run into here are people who use titles or text in an attempt to add something that the image doesn't have.


----------

