# Photography---is an opinionisitic art form



## LeftFieldPhotography (Apr 3, 2011)

So I'm pretty new to the forum--not so new to the photography world. I have been through school got my BFA in photography and have had some pretty amazing opportunities--though there is a question, more like a need for understanding from the fellow photographers that I don't see in this forum

I'm all for abuse and critiquing of my images that I post when asked to do so, I also enjoy seeing other's work as well--but since being a photographer, I've noticed that photography is subjective to every person. One person may like an image whereas the person standing next to them can absolutely hate it--that's just the nature of the beast. 

What I've noticed:

When someone asks for a critique, that doesn't mean necessarily destroy the image beyond recognition, but to also teach--isn't it? Isn't that what a critique is? Saying both positive and negative and what could have been done better? Isn't a critique a method of learning? 

I've seen some images that have been completely destroyed with no rhyme or reason--just the fact they don't like it...and at times that can be frustrating and can discourage the photographer who took the image. Hell, I've even been guilty of it myself--and I would love to get access to some of the photos to re-crop them or process them differently than the photographer who posted...its a learning experience for both individuals involved--or at least I thought it was.

What happened to the photography world and constructive criticism? Is it just a term of endearment now? 

How do my fellow photographers and non photographers feel about this issue?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 3, 2011)

I love this topic!


----------



## Overread (Apr 3, 2011)

LeftFieldPhotography said:


> How do my fellow photographers and non photographers feel about this issue?


 
Some people can give good constructive input and others can't. 

Similarly

Some people can take constructive intput and others - can't.


Where constructive meets receptive its all good - where the other groups meet you tend to get fights and squabbles


----------



## gsgary (Apr 3, 2011)

Overread said:


> LeftFieldPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > How do my fellow photographers and non photographers feel about this issue?
> ...



Do you mean me


----------



## LeftFieldPhotography (Apr 3, 2011)

gsgary said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > LeftFieldPhotography said:
> ...



I don't know if they meant you gary, but true. Some people can give good constructive criticism, others can't and some can take criticism better than most--that is very true, but there seems as if there isn't even a umph of attempt at "trying" to give that good criticism--instead of the paragraph or sentence of "suck".


----------



## Overread (Apr 3, 2011)

Well some people do just 





LeftFieldPhotography said:


> "suck".


 at being constructive and articulate with their thoughts and opinions.




However I suspect in the case of TPF in specific it reflects the fact that the majority of the active community we have here is made up of beginner and intermediate photographers rather than more experienced/established ones. Thus the quality of the commenting reduces because many have yet to and still are learning how to critique in itself. This is hard lesson to learn in such an environment though because of the possibility of the students outnumbering the teachers by such a great margin that they can form their own sub-group - the result being that their overall level can only go so high before it caps out.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 3, 2011)




----------



## LeftFieldPhotography (Apr 3, 2011)

Overread said:


> Well some people do just
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

I like it!! It makes sense--and I never thought about it like that, which my mistake wholly, but noticed none the less. Thank you for that awesome breakdown--even I'm not that articulate when it comes to critiquing or expressing--still learning 27 years strong


----------



## raphaelaaron (Apr 3, 2011)

I think it's okay to take the harsh critiques with a grain of salt. You'll never stop anyone from saying something downright harmful and unhelpful...especially on the internet. Some folks that tear apart others' photos have no idea how to decently take good shots themselves. I'm not saying in this forum only, but it goes out generally everywhere you go.

It seems like the more professional ones tend to give better constructive criticism---it may be due to their learning over time since becoming pro, or other outside elements. And if you want to get into the psychological aspect of things, others who feel threatened by other photographers' works tend to be harsh for no apparent reason. It could be some inferiority complex if you ask me. I've definitely seen it before on different photography forums.

Maybe I haven't been surfing on TPF enough, but so far all the C&C posts I've read have a lot of good feedback with helpful hints by other posters.


----------



## Overread (Apr 3, 2011)

raphaelaaron said:


> Some folks that tear apart others' photos have no idea how to decently take good shots themselves.



However you also have to remember that the ability to take a photo is not needed to be able to critically evaluate ones enjoyment over seeing a photo. In short you can critique and provide advice on a photo (especially compositionally) even though you don't have the skills specifically yourself to carry out the same photo. When one learns the ability to critique (one hopes to self critique) often advances (for many) far quicker than ones own base capture and photographic skill. 



raphaelaaron said:


> It seems like the more professional ones tend to give better constructive criticism---it may be due to their learning over time since becoming pro, or other outside elements.


 
Careful with the word "professional" because it, in itself, means almost nothing to photography and many will argue (tooth and nail) that they are not professional in any sense of the word and yet are able to create fantastic photographs (irrespective of gear/equipment cost).


----------



## raphaelaaron (Apr 3, 2011)

Overread said:


> However you also have to remember that the ability to take a photo is not needed to be able to critically evaluate ones enjoyment over seeing a photo. In short you can critique and provide advice on a photo (especially compositionally) even though you don't have the skills specifically yourself to carry out the same photo. When one learns the ability to critique (one hopes to self critique) often advances (for many) far quicker than ones own base capture and photographic skill.



That doesn't necessarily extend to all parts of critiquing a photo. Sure, I can give it that a photographer can critique someone's work compositionally, but it does not make sense when someone tries to tell another how to light a person for a portrait, when one look at the critiquing photog's work shows that they know nothing about the lighting themselves. It's moreover relative, and many times critique comes from a photographer's own "experience" and not just by some book. You may be different, but I don't think I'll listen to anyone who says one thing, but at the same time, their work comes up short. How can that critique be any valid? I seriously don't think it is. That's why people pay to go to expensive workshops of a well-known photographer, than some guy with a DSLR down the street. However, if the crummy guy makes a workshop and cons people to paying a lot of money for help you can get from a book, more power to him. But that's a different subject.




Overread said:


> Careful with the word "professional" because it, in itself, means almost nothing to photography and many will argue (tooth and nail) that they are not professional in any sense of the word and yet are able to create fantastic photographs (irrespective of gear/equipment cost).



It does mean something, in my opinion. I'm not saying who calls themselves a professional. I never actually touched on that. I'm talking about the guys and girls that make a living off photographing. The ones who've also been at it for a while, and consistently churn out exceptional, profitable work for their clients. From my observations since I've started, its those who tend to give better help towards beginner photographers.


----------



## LeftFieldPhotography (Apr 3, 2011)

"You may be different, but I don't think I'll listen to anyone who says one thing, but at the same time, their work comes up short. How can that critique be any valid? I seriously don't think it is. "

But isn't photography subjective? It's just like any art form correct? I'm not disagreeing nor agreeing, but I don't always produce the most amazing photographs, but have had nothing but overly satisfied clients in 10 years of photographing, and I have never paid to go to an expensive workshop--I interned forever to learn the tricks of the trade and moved on from there. Below are all my images: some are really good, others not so good--so does that not make me competent nor able to critique on anyone else's work and it mean anything?


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 3, 2011)

raphaelaaron said:


> That doesn't necessarily extend to all parts of critiquing a photo. Sure, I can give it that a photographer can critique someone's work compositionally, but it does not make sense when someone tries to tell another how to light a person for a portrait, when one look at the critiquing photog's work shows that they know nothing about the lighting themselves. It's moreover relative, and many times critique comes from a photographer's own "experience" and not just by some book. You may be different, but I don't think I'll listen to anyone who says one thing, but at the same time, their work comes up short. How can that critique be any valid? I seriously don't think it is. That's why people pay to go to expensive workshops of a well-known photographer, than some guy with a DSLR down the street. However, if the crummy guy makes a workshop and cons people to paying a lot of money for help you can get from a book, more power to him. But that's a different subject.
> .


 

I guess there will be a lot of professional art historians and critics out of work because they aren't fine artists.

No, it takes a good eye to critique, not skill.


----------



## LeftFieldPhotography (Apr 3, 2011)

Trever1t said:


> raphaelaaron said:
> 
> 
> > That doesn't necessarily extend to all parts of critiquing a photo. Sure, I can give it that a photographer can critique someone's work compositionally, but it does not make sense when someone tries to tell another how to light a person for a portrait, when one look at the critiquing photog's work shows that they know nothing about the lighting themselves. It's moreover relative, and many times critique comes from a photographer's own "experience" and not just by some book. You may be different, but I don't think I'll listen to anyone who says one thing, but at the same time, their work comes up short. How can that critique be any valid? I seriously don't think it is. That's why people pay to go to expensive workshops of a well-known photographer, than some guy with a DSLR down the street. However, if the crummy guy makes a workshop and cons people to paying a lot of money for help you can get from a book, more power to him. But that's a different subject.
> ...




I love it!! Great way to put it


----------



## mishele (Apr 3, 2011)

You need to weed through the C&C you get.
 I disagree w/ not listening to any of the ideas of the new comers. I've learned plenty on here from people of all levels!! When dealing w/ art it is always good to listen to someone's comments.......you might see something in a new way. (doesn't mean you have to agree w/ them) Maybe what they say doesn't apply to this certain image but it might help you envision the next one!!


----------



## manaheim (Apr 3, 2011)

Someone on tpf once said " I'm not an astronaut but you don't have to be one o know that Challenger went badly."

You don't have to have a mastery of a Skill to be able to judge effective execution of a skill.

People here tend to not separate between what one likes and what is effectively executed.  That's a big part of the issue.


----------



## KmH (Apr 3, 2011)

A professional is an expert in their field.

Of the photographers out there making a living doing photography, some number of them are photographers, and some number of them are professional photographers.


----------



## Overread (Apr 3, 2011)

This is the other reason you've got to be so so so careful about even hinting at the word "professional" when around photographers. As soon as its dropped into a thread it derails and you end up with endless variations and variants of the word from all kinds of sources. By the end of it everyone is arguing with everyone and no one can even remember what professionals have to do with the original topic in the first place


----------



## mishele (Apr 3, 2011)

Overread, I think you are a Professional! 
Maybe we should start a "professional" nomination thread!!!:lmao:


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 3, 2011)

A professional is one who gets paid for their work and as nothing to do with skill.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 3, 2011)

Life is opinionistic, why should Art be any different?


----------



## Overread (Apr 3, 2011)

mishele said:


> Overread, I think you are a Professional!
> Maybe we should start a "professional" nomination thread!!!:lmao:


 


Bitter Jeweler said:


> A professional is one who gets paid for their work and as nothing to do with skill.


 
Wait so if I get nominated and voted in as a professional I get paid too? Sweet sign me up!!


----------



## DSLR noob (Apr 4, 2011)

There are many psychological aspects of being a SUPER harsh critique that can be beneficial for the learner. Such as what I like to think of as the "mean coach effect". Tearing you down to motivate you to prove the accuser wrong. I don't however agree that it is the BEST method of teaching.

I think when one is critiquing a work, they should forget everything they know about rules right away. First open the mind and ask "Do I like this?" yes or no. Next question is "How does this make me feel?" Once an opinion is formed and an emotion found to accompany that opinion, you then can try to describe where the emotion is coming from. For example, if you don't like it, and you feel it is a bland or boring photo, or ruined by a setting you would change, you should pinpoint the issues and the strengths taking you to that emotion. Understanding what the person holding the camera COULD have done differently and what equipment was available to them helps a lot. Then begin to make suggestions as a fellow photographer on what you would have done with the equipment, location and subject. Then the person learning from the critique can get an idea of your creative vision, your preferences on aesthetically pleasing subjects, and chose to agree with, disagree with, or learn from you as much as they feel necessary.

Of course, this isn't the case for how critiques go because the human brain is very bad at "un-learning" rules to recognize when breaking those rules has worked, so sadly every critique seems to turn into a "point out everything that the basics says to never do" contest, and only the most seasoned and open minded of users can give meaningful feedback over WHY those rules are there, or if they have been broken in a way that actually enhances the piece.


----------



## RockstarPhotography (Apr 4, 2011)

The phrase "those who can't do, teach" comes to mind.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 4, 2011)

I just read though this thead, some very interesting comments and I agree with them.  Critiquing really doesn't reguire a person to be an exceptional photographer, photo editors that work for magazines and newspapers aren't always the most skilled photographers and many aren't photographers at all, but they do know a good photograph, they also know how to destroy a good photograph if they don't understand all the componants that make up a good photograph, composition being the big one.

I've spent a lot of time looking at photographs and figuring out what I would have changed if I had shot it, but one factor comes into play in a lot of them, what limitations were put on the photographer while he was shooting the photo, example, you look at the angle a photo was shot at and say the angle is wrong, he should have moved 2 feet over, what if the photographer didn't have the 2 feet to move over?  At that point we have to just take it at face value without knowing the surroundings involved in the creation of the photo. It's the best that it could be from where it was shot and do factors like that come into play.

As has been said already, there are a wide variety of people on this forum, everyone has an opinion, some of the opinions are directed at the person who posts the photo without regard to the photo, it wouldn't matter how great the photo is, the personality behind the critique will be negative regardless.  This is where people have problems with negative critiques, they aren't even critiques, they are just insults.  Personally I don't care if someone looks at one of my photos  and says they hate it, but tell me why.  The word "sucks" isn't a word used to critique. 

Some people just can't put into words why they like or dislike a photo, I look at some photos and like them, it's that simple, it's a combination of factors, if someone wants a more detailed reason, I can  pick it apart and say why I like it. 

This is an example that follows the same line but different subject. I've worked as a car show judge for over 20 years, I get to go through show cars that some people have spent hundreds of thousands building and find flaws.  I have to provide a detailed breakdown on what I think the car needs, or find the weak areas that can be improved on. So I get to tell someone that has 500k invested in a car that he should have buffed out his 40k paint job in a couple of spots, he may not see it, or chose not to see it because he feels the paint is perfect, but it's not.  Does he really know that it's not perfect, yes he does, but he doesn't want to hear it, it's negative.

Same as photos, we look at our work, and think it's perfect, but it takes someone else to say why it's not.


----------



## Overread (Apr 4, 2011)

A great point there about limitations at the time of shooting and its something that I always try to encourage people to post up when they put a shot up for critical review. Yes its good to view and consider a photo on its own, without any commentary - but we also need to remember that a photo is taken in a moment and that moment in the real world can impose many limitations on the photographer that prevent them from making "improvements".



DSLR noob said:


> There are many psychological aspects of being a SUPER harsh critique that can be beneficial for the learner. Such as what I like to think of as the "mean coach effect". Tearing you down to motivate you to prove the accuser wrong. I don't however agree that it is the BEST method of teaching.



I think this can work, even on the internet - but it is a method that only works if the teacher and student are always meeting and always interacting. If its one off posts and comments there and there at random it fails because the student only ever gets the beat down and never the pick up part after. 



RockstarPhotography said:


> The phrase "those who can't do, teach" comes to mind.


 
I thought it was:
"Those who can teach - those who can't teach sports"


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 4, 2011)

Those that can, do, those who can't, teach.  I'm not sure where this  originally came from, but don't always agree with it.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 4, 2011)

imagemaker46 said:


> Those that can, do, those who can't, teach. I'm not sure where this originally came from, but don't always agree with it.


 
This statement always struck me as a defensive remark uttered by frustrated students under the microscope of criticism.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 4, 2011)

A great point there about limitations at the time of shooting and its  something that I always try to encourage people to post up when they put  a shot up for critical review. Yes its good to view and consider a  photo on its own, without any commentary - but we also need to remember  that a photo is taken in a moment and that moment in the real world can  impose many limitations on the photographer that prevent them from  making "improvements".

But isn't this were the skill of the photographer comes in


----------



## Overread (Apr 4, 2011)

Yes and no - skills and experience will help one overcome many limitations but there will always be times that the "perfect" shot can't be captured because of limits on the photographer at the time. I'm not trying to say this as a catch all excuse for beginners and intermediate (and even experienced) photographers to use to justify poor photography, but as a way of realising that sometimes you have done the best you can do within given limitations.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 4, 2011)

LeftFieldPhotography said:


> I've seen some images that have been completely destroyed with no rhyme or reason--just the fact they don't like it...and at times that can be frustrating and can discourage the photographer who took the image. Hell, I've even been guilty of it myself--and I would love to get access to some of the photos to re-crop them or process them differently than the photographer who posted...its a learning experience for both individuals involved--or at least I thought it was.


(Haven't read the whole thread yet.)
 A lot of that has to do with the personality of the person doing the C&C.  Some people only know how to point out flaws, some people like to tell you how to do it next time, and other people edit your picture (hopefully for the better) and tell you what they did.


If I had to chose one, it would be the 'tell me how to do it next time' group.  Pointing out flaws (while necessary) is pointless without also saying how those flaws can be corrected.


----------



## molested_cow (Apr 4, 2011)

Creditability. 

In the real world, creditability gets you pretty far for someone trying to be a critic. Like some of those 20+ young "critics" on Iron Chef critiquing the work of a master chef who have experience more than the critic had ever been alive.... I don't know where that guy got his creditability from, but I cannot imagine it being from experience. Then there are those who have always been hailed as the master but have not done their trade on a practical sense for decades, but is recognized simply because they keep showing up in PR events to self-promote.

In the cyber space, creditability is pretty non-existent. Anyone can pop by and drop a word. doesn't matter if you really know your stuff, people take it for what's worth to them. In a big way, I think this is more fair. Opinions are less judged by race, age, experience or even "looks".

IMO, people who tend to give "this is not done right, you should have done that blah blah" probably only know one way to do things, therefore only have one type of opinion. People who know many different ways to achieve the result will probably offer more constructive feed backs with more diverse approaches.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 4, 2011)

Very true about this being a drop in critique site, some of the comments are coming from first timers that may or may not have any experience, but they certainly have comments. I can do a critique on an image and that person has no idea what my background is.  I am not a technical photographer, first to admit it, I start reading some of the techno geek comments and am just as lost as most of the people reading them. I don't look for the answers in books and then spew out information trying to sound more intelligent, everything I have learned about photography has come from the practical side and being around other photographers for over 35 years.  It says I am an  experienced photographer, but it is also just one persons opinion. I have been harsh with some comments I've made and offended people over the years, but I try and be fair with what I say.


----------



## SkyBlue (Apr 5, 2011)

LeftFieldPhotography said:


> What happened to the photography world and constructive criticism? Is it just a term of endearment now?
> 
> How do my fellow photographers and non photographers feel about this issue?


 
Imho, photography is the only dimension in which lie can be synonymous to truth.
Powerful Ads could be so blinding. We can see what we wanted to see, and if 'constructive criticism' follows an endearment, perhaps we're at the point where everyone wants to see the world in a beautiful way.


----------



## Joseph Westrupp (Apr 8, 2011)

What makes me laugh is when the harshest critics are poor photographers.


----------



## Forkie (Apr 8, 2011)

The hardest situation is to critique an image when it is an image that does not appeal to you. Just because we don't like a photo, doesn't mean it's not a good photo.  I don't generally find photos of flowers interesting whether done by a novice or with a professional set up, but if I can see that they have attempted to get the composition, lighting and exposure right, then it is worth a compliment accompanied by some advice or an idea about how to go about it next time.  

And even if it looks like they've just pointed the camera at someone and clicked, there's no point just telling someone, "the composition is wrong, it's too dark and the white balance is wrong".  That's no use to anyone, that's just criticism - we need to educate, that is what constructive critique should be about.  To educate within a critique, we need to say *why* the composure is wrong and how an alternative will affect the image, we need to tell people *how* changing the white balance will affect the colour of the photo.  This, in my view, is constructive - Constructive, by definition means improvement, development, _building_. 

Knocking someone down is the precise opposite of constructivity - people who are learning should be helped in _*constructing*_ their knowledge and ability.


----------



## SlickSalmon (Apr 8, 2011)

LeftFieldPhotography said:


> So I'm pretty new to the forum--not so new to the photography world. I have been through school got my BFA in photography and have had some pretty amazing opportunities--though there is a question, more like a need for understanding from the fellow photographers that I don't see in this forum
> 
> I'm all for abuse and critiquing of my images that I post when asked to do so, I also enjoy seeing other's work as well--but since being a photographer, I've noticed that photography is subjective to every person. One person may like an image whereas the person standing next to them can absolutely hate it--that's just the nature of the beast.
> 
> ...


 
I share your concern, and I no longer post original images on this site, because I almost never get anything useful in return.  I was taught that a good critique utilized the PIN principle -- say something *P*ositive,* I*nteresting, and *N*egative...and the negative should be said in instructive terms.  Mostly, these days people just give their unvarnished opinion under the badge of "honesty", as though being cruel and insensitive was somehow honorable.  I draw a distinction between honesty and candor, but few people appear to appreciate the difference.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 8, 2011)

Instead of complaining about it, maybe you should critique more images!
Plenty pass through here without comment.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Apr 8, 2011)

LeftFieldPhotography said:


> So I'm pretty new to the forum--not so new to the photography world. I have been through school got my BFA in photography



This is going to be come off as mean and pretentious, but i have to ask if you really have a BFA in photography, and from where? The work on your website doesn't really reflect the kind of quality out of most 4-year Art School/University graduates. Also, if you dedicated 4 years of your life and wallet to art school, than why didn't you mention it on your site?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 8, 2011)

I may get dumped on for this, having a piece of paper that says "I have a degree in photography or fine arts" doesn't automatically make a person a good photographer. School teaches basics and moves into more advanced areas of photography and that is important, but being able to translate all that information into great work doesn't happen with the the piece of paper.  Becoming a great photographer takes time and practical work experience, not just school.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Apr 8, 2011)

And I would agree with that, just because i spend $5000 on a hammer, it doesn't mean i can build a house, it just means i have a $5000 hammer. Photography is not something anyone needs a degree in, but for those who do, 4 years is a significant amount of time to dedicate towards learning a skill, and at the end of those 4 years, you'd have to at least be technically proficient. Now when you look at that website, ask yourself "does this look representative of someone who has been seriously active in commercial-grade photography for (at least) 4 years? Probably not when 15-20% or so of the photos on there are completely out of focus.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 8, 2011)

I haven't looked at the website, but agree with much of what you said, however spending 4 years learning the technical side of photography doesn't necessarly mean that the person is any good at it. How many people go though universities earning degrees but still leave not having understood any of it, and slipping through with just a pass.

Web sites are like a lot of things, what they can do is give average photographers a place to showcase their photos and give them credibility in their own minds. Good or bad, people love to tell other people about their web sites. Some people just can't accept that they really aren't good photographers, and that's fine, because even average photographers come up with good images, these are usually the ones they have on their web sites, but the depth of good images they produce is fairly shallow, and that's what web sites don't show. It just showcases the best they have, and if the best they is average then so be it.


----------



## fwellers (Apr 8, 2011)

imagemaker46 said:


> I haven't looked at the website, but agree with much of what you said, however spending 4 years learning the technical side of photography doesn't necessarly mean that the person is any good at it. How many people go though universities earning degrees but still leave not having understood any of it, and slipping through with just a pass.
> 
> Web sites are like a lot of things, what they can do is give average photographers a place to showcase their photos and give them credibility in their own minds. Good or bad, people love to tell other people about their web sites. Some people just can't accept that they really aren't good photographers, and that's fine, because even average photographers come up with good images, these are usually the ones they have on their web sites, but the depth of good images they produce is fairly shallow, and that's what web sites don't show. It just showcases the best they have, and if the best they is average then so be it.



a lot of generalizations in that paragraph. you come to a conclusion about a ton of people you know nothing about. where's your website ? If you had one would you put your worst images up there ?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 8, 2011)

www.scottgrant.photoshelter.com

It may very well be a general statement regarding web sites, some photographers don't know a good photo from a bad one, especially if they are the ones that shot them. I did take the long way around on what I was trying to say.  Web sites don't tell the whole story of how good or bad a photographer is, yes people put up their best images, and there are a lot of average photographers that have managed to come up with 10-20 good images to create the illusion they are better than they really are. I suppose this is a positive for them. If they get hired based on those images, the client may very well be disappointed with the photos they end up with, if they don't match the quality of the work they saw on the web site.  It's getting caught in "good photographer fabrication". I made that one up.


----------



## Hardrock (Apr 8, 2011)

imagemaker46 said:


> www.scottgrant.photoshelter.com
> 
> Sorry I dont have much to add to topic but #8 on your featured favorites is outstanding!  Was it off the block or a turn?


----------



## fwellers (Apr 8, 2011)

Well I guess, if you're talking about a professional, who is under the gun to take a certain amount of good pics in a certain amount of time yea. But I always thought the bottom line and what matters most about your images are the ones you display. I mean does a lesser keeper rate make you a lessor photographer ? I don't know if I would judge someones work ever  by saying 'well how many tries did it take you to come up with that ? '   
I have a website ( or a photosite ). I think I know where I stand in the food chain as  a photographer, it's pretty low right now because I'm only a 2.5 year photographer. At the same time as I'm learning how to expand my vision, I am also learning how to display only the best. It's a big giant learning curve that I will enjoy the rest of my life hopefully.  I don't care to be judged or belittled as someone who thinks they are  better than they are just because I try and display nice images on the web. 
Maybe you didn't mean it quite the way I interpreted it. I am a little sensitive to photographer snobbery that I see a ton of on the internet.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 8, 2011)

Is that the backstroke shot?  It was off a turn in an outdoor pool. Thanks.


----------



## fwellers (Apr 8, 2011)

imagemaker46 said:


> Is that the backstroke shot?  It was off a turn in an outdoor pool. Thanks.



Not at all.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 8, 2011)

@fwellers, it wasn't a shot at anyone really, like you said it was a general statement and more so directed to those that looking at themselves as professionals. I've seen some amazing work on web sites, and not all of them are from professionals, it really doesn't matter who shot them. People like other people to see what they shoot, and that's good. I think everyone should own a camera and learn how to use it.  I've had people not show me their holiday pics because they think I will judge them, I can look at happy snaps and see them for what they are without being critical, they are what they are.


----------



## Hardrock (Apr 8, 2011)

Yes, the image really makes you feel as if you were in the water. Great job!


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 9, 2011)

SlickSalmon said:


> I share your concern, and I no longer post original images on this site, because I almost never get anything useful in return.  I was taught that a good critique utilized the PIN principle -- say something *P*ositive,* I*nteresting, and *N*egative...and the negative should be said in instructive terms.



I agree this is a good rule - if someone is criticizing 5  year olds. 
Adults should be able to extract useful information from virtually any well-meant response. In critiques, my responsibility is not to make the poster happy, all warm and comfy, but to say the truth as I see it.

In general terms, having an opinion about an image is relatively unimportant compared to knowing and saying why you have that opinion.

Responding to an image is a great way - the best way - to exercise one's own critical abilities. 

Knowing why you have certain feelings about an image allows you to understand your own picture taking better.

I wrote the following to give as a handout in presentations on critiquing images.
_________________________________________________________________

*It's not enough to say you like it *_*- an introduction to giving critique*_


Very few pictures presented for critique in the photo communities on the web are meant simply to convey detail or information, as does a drivers license photo or a picture of how to assemble some mechanism.

Pictures presented for critique generally are intended to have visual impact but, more than that, to convey a feeling, an impression, an emotion or an intellectual concept. 

The photographer uses all the technical and compositional tools at her or his command to achieve that. A critique should explore what the photographer did and how well it was done.

A critique has two benefits; the intended one is to allow the photographer to see how his/her image is seen by others eyes - eyes that are unclouded by any emotional attachment to the image. The second benefit is that every critique can be a learning experience for the critic who sharpens his/her own eye by disentangling the many components of a photograph and weighing each of these to understand the photographs strengths, weaknesses and ultimate success.
*
How is this *_critique_* actually done?*

The feeling that the picture is great, good, mediocre or terrible is a visceral, emotional response; we need to go further and be able to describe why we have that response. To understand that visceral response, the critic asks him/herself questions and the responses build the critique. The questions are meant to separate out the various components of a picture into manageable quantities so each of us can understand in some way why we feel as we do about the picture. (Think about the best chocolate chip cookies youve ever had and the recipe that made them.) The photographers ability and talent and the content do add an unquantifiable component but the critic needs to get as close as possible to picking out the qualities that make up the worth of each picture in his or her own eyes.
*
Some potential questions:*


What feelings or impressions come from the picture? 
Are these feeling congruent with the content or subject? 
Are there one or more centers of visual interest? 
Is(are) the center(s) of interest - the main subject(s) - well placed within     the frame and does the placement relate well to the rest of the     content so that the viewers eye is drawn to, rather than away? 
Is there excess space that pulls the eye away and drains any tension or     drama from the picture? 
Is there enough space so that nothing feels cramped or cut off? 
Are there geometric issues? e.g. are the horizontals and vertical     correct, and is that important?
Is the composition appropriate for the content? 
Is the color or tonality appropriate for the content? Saturation or     lack of it? Correct hues, white balance? 
Does the color make the point that the photographer wants? 
Is the sharpness or lack of sharpness appropriate? 
Is everything that should be in focus and sharp, actually so? 
In the reverse, is there so much depth of field, that attention is     drawn away from the real object of interest? 
Are there individual small defects - points of motion, dirt on the lens/sensor,     out-of-focus spots that hurt the image, unduly bright areas that draw the eye? 
 More questions may occur to you to add to your concept of each image; your summation should be - in your opinion, why is this picture good/bad/indifferent and could the photographer have done something differently or better to increase the impact of the picture? 

Respond to the picture as presented without suggestions for different angles, etc. If the environment is friendly and the photographer is willing to listen, then suggest possible technical or technique changes that, in your opinion, might improve the picture.

Remember that wonderful, successful pictures may have many small defects and still be great. Conversely, a technically perfect picture may be completely uninteresting. 

Photography, as all arts are, is clearly a realm where the whole may not be equal to the sum of the parts.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 9, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> Knowing why you have certain feelings about an image allows you to understand your own picture taking better.


 
:thumbup:

When I went back to school to learn painting we were asked to C&C each other's work from the very first week even though none of us knew much about anything. It is a way to make you think about what you are doing yourself. There is a lot to learn from that seemingly stupid exercise.


----------



## rehab (Apr 9, 2011)

I havent read the thread but for the first few posts, photography is opinion based however the *technical aspect of it is not*. Don't get that twisted, dont get it tangled. Either its produced right or its not.


----------



## Joshonator (Apr 10, 2011)

The best way to get a person to improve is to get them to listen to what you are saying. So whenever I leave feedback I leave at least one positive remark about the image, regardless of how bad i think it is. Rather than saying why the image is bad tell them how you think it could be improved. The_ way_ that you say it makes a world of difference.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 10, 2011)

Joshonator said:


> The best way to get a person to improve is to get them to listen to what you are saying. So whenever I leave feedback I leave at least one positive remark about the image, regardless of how bad i think it is. Rather than saying why the image is bad tell them how you think it could be improved. The_ way_ that you say it makes a world of difference.


 
Here's the thing, though... you really can't say how to improve an image unless you're dealing just with the technical aspects of it.

A photograph is a statement of impression made by the artist.... that is the person holding the camera.  How _you_  would improve the image would relate to how _you _would have taken the picture.  Once you do that, the picture is yours... not theirs.  The statement is yours... not theirs.  Or worse... the statement is your retake on whatever the original artist was saying to begin with.

Not to mention the various practical limitations... you weren't there... you don't know what was there... what was in the scene... how the air felt, what sounds were in the air, what the general emotion of the area in question was.  You couldn't feel... therefore how could you share that feeling?  Really just a different way of saying what I said above, but same end result.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 10, 2011)

Joshonator said:


> I leave at least one positive remark about the image, regardless of how bad i think it is


 If it's bad, it's bad.  Candy coating everything, and telling everyone that they're special (you are not special) is one of the problems we're dealing with now.  Everyone thinks they're entitled to something...   Guess what.  You're not.  Nobody owes you anything.  If you fail, you only have yourself to blame.

If you think it's bad, say so.  Try to explain why, but even if you don't, that's better than trying to come up with something 'good' that isn't really there.   ...And if you can, offer tips on how to improve.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 11, 2011)

Joshonator said:


> I leave at least one positive remark about the image, regardless of how bad i think it is





O|||||||O said:


> If you think it's bad, say so.  Try to explain why, but even if you don't, that's better than trying to come up with something 'good' that isn't really there.   ...And if you can, offer tips on how to improve.





manaheim said:


> Here's the thing, though... you really can't say how to improve an image unless you're dealing just with the technical aspects of it.


 
However skilled or unskilled the photographer is, I treat them as an adult and give them the two things they deserve from me which is respect and honesty. I tell them how I see the picture as it is presented and how I feel about it and why. I don't think  that I'm so important, smart or all-knowing that I can make a value judgement about any picture on some absolute scale. 

And my liking or disliking anything isn't nearly as important as how the picture is done.  I couldn't give less of a crap about 97% of the subject matter I see but I can try to say something sensible about most of it. 

I know that being nice, as opposed to being truthful, is a hard habit to break, it's easier to be a nice guy but it is infinitely less valuable to the person hearing you. If they can't trust everything you say, why should they trust anything?

Being truthful doesn't mean being a hard guy and grinding someone down, just treat them with the respect and honesty you'd like to hear yourself. If you are the kind of person who needs chocolate coating, I'm afraid you'd best put me put me on 'ignore'.


----------



## skwty (Apr 11, 2011)

Ok, as a "new guy", which I have stated more than one time.  I feel the same way as the OP here.  I have read through the entire thread and there are plenty of good comments and this is a great discussion, no doubt.

I joined to learn about photography.  I don't want a degree, or useless piece of paper for that matter, with my name on it.  I like to capture life and I want to learn how to do it the best way that I can with the resources I have.  When I post a photo for C&C, I freak out.  My first one was posted late at night, when I figured I would not get a reply for a while and that was the point.  I didn't want to see it ripped to shreds because I thought it was a great shot.

When I got up the next morning and didn't see any emails regarding my post, I was relieved for a second, then thought, "WTF?".  I have seen many C&C's get comments how could mine get NONE over night?  Well, it had to do with the fact that I didn't have the subscription set up right so I would get the emails   SO, when I came to the forum to check things out I was happy I got replies.  Bummed by a couple, took notes on some others.  

The one thing I didn't like was being told what "should" have been in the photo.  I know that "just because a photo looks cool doesn't make it great", but for a split second it made me feel good about taking the shot.

I appreciate C&C and can take it seriously AND with a grain of salt.  I just don't want to see it become a waste of time for "new guys" like myself.  I like the forum and the attitudes here so far, I would hate to "forget" about it just because nobody is willing to help a guy out.  I think, based on this thread, that anyone wants to C&C, these points would help.

Nice topic!  Rant complete.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 11, 2011)

skwty said:


> Ok, as a "new guy", which I have stated more than one time.  I feel the same way as the OP here.  I have read through the entire thread and there are plenty of good comments and this is a great discussion, no doubt.
> 
> I joined to learn about photography.  I don't want a degree, or useless piece of paper for that matter, with my name on it.  I like to capture life and I want to learn how to do it the best way that I can with the resources I have.  When I post a photo for C&C, I freak out.  My first one was posted late at night, when I figured I would not get a reply for a while and that was the point.  I didn't want to see it ripped to shreds because I thought it was a great shot.
> *
> ...


 

I agree with you there; a picture is what it is - and the viewer should respond to that.
OTOH, if the viewer thinks that the image doesn't have the obvious impact, a secondary comment might be that it could have used x and y to make it better.

I did take note of this comment you made in one of your posts.




skwty said:


> (defining a subject before photo is something I need to work on),



Screw 'work on it', that is photography.  If you don't have an idea in advance of what should be big, what should be well lit, what should be in the power position in the frame, don't take the picture. Instead, take a breath and a step back.

All of photo experience goes towards making that decision.

Here are my suggestions about getting good C/C.

1) post your best picture.  Don't say this is unedited, don't say I just messed around.  Take seriously what you post and people will take you seriously.

2) post one picture at a time so people can concentrate on it.  Post more and most of the comments will be on the best because people want to say something nice.

3) Don't say you like it, you love it or all your friends love it. Don't identify with the picture. It doesn't make any difference. Nice people won't say things that will hurt your feelings. Smartasses will just see it as a chance to be superior.

4) Look at the picture hard, pick out a weakness and ask a question about it. That will give people some way to start looking at your picture and will signal your willingness to hear.

5) If you have one critic that is constantly a jerk, put him on ignore and don't respond - at all. Life is to short to listen to fools.

Lew


----------



## skwty (Apr 11, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> Screw 'work on it', that is photography.  If you don't have an idea in advance of what should be big, what should be well lit, what should be in the power position in the frame, don't take the picture. Instead, take a breath and a step back.
> 
> All of photo experience goes towards making that decision.
> 
> ...


 
You know what?  You are right and I think new guys like myself, would really appreciate reading your comment here.  Thanks for that!


----------



## TwoTwoLeft (Apr 11, 2011)

I'm new here also. This is an interesting topic because I was thinking the same thing as the OP as I was lurking around. One thing I did notice, more often than not, was the lack of instruction in the critiques. I'm a professional and instructor in an unrelated field. I know how to teach, critique & give CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Just saying the composition is bad, or the lighting was horrid with no farther explanation as to why they think that, or HOW it can be fixed, is NOT a critique.

 I realize that I'm new here and you regulars probably see the same mistakes over and over with awful photos that make your eyes bleed. If you feel this way and bring nothing to the table, stay out of the beginners forum. If beginners cant post there and receive instruction then what's the point? If I post in there, I don't give a north end of a south bound rat if you "like" the photo or not. That's purely subjective. I want to know whats wrong with it technically and how I can improve. 

I'm totally new to digital photography. I spent a lot of time with film in high school & college. After I graduated, my career got in the way so no more darkroom. I had a couple very good photo instructors and a couple egotistical idiots who were part of the "those who cant do, teach" crowd. I learned from all of them, it just always wasn't about photography....


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 11, 2011)

**** it!

We should just have the critique forums shut down.


----------



## mishele (Apr 11, 2011)

TwoTwoLeft.......I hate this place too. Most of these people are assholes!!

But that aside......If you ask specific questions, most of the time you will get someone to answer them. Don't be afraid to call someone on what they don't like. Get in a dialog w/ the people that post in your thread. If people see that you are eager to learn and listen, they will help. Keep posting!!


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 11, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> **** it!
> 
> We should just have the critique forums shut down.


 I thought they already were...


----------



## Joshonator (Apr 11, 2011)

I agree with being respectful and truthful. And I've never seen a picture in which I could not find at least one thing that was done or was at least attempted to be done well, unless it was taken by a camera phone in a dark room.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 11, 2011)

Joshonator said:


> And I've never seen a picture in which I could not find at least one thing that was done or was at least attempted to be done well.



You clearly haven't seen my web site.:lmao:


----------



## SNBniko (Apr 11, 2011)

I have big girl panties I can hand out, and I've even taken the knot out of them already!

I think people need to evaluate for themselves if they can handle critique.  If they google "photography forum," find this site, post without reading any of the other critiques, and then are shocked when we don't say their precious picture is the most beauuuuuuutiful in the world, then they deserved what they got.  If they came here to learn, they'll get fantastic information.  If they came here to be fawned over, well, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

And the whole 'if someone is a jerk put them on ignore' idea, how about just reading the comment and disregarding it?  Why does everyone have to get in such a fluff, and get into a pissing match?  Just blow past it if it doesn't have anything to offer, don't take it so seriously.  

I'm no photography master... not by any stretch.  But these same lessons apply everywhere in life.  Horses, for example, are humbling machines.  The second you get cocky and aren't paying attention, you'll almost get your arm ripped out of socket or get thrown on your ass.  Forgiving horses don't teach good riding, it's the tricky, 'dirty' ones that do.  You've got to be spot on, or you'll get your piece of humble pie.  And as far as direct riding critiques?  My trained gets after me whenever I need it.  I've told her countless times that I don't pay her $50 for an hours worth of 'oh you look wonderful!'  I pay her so she can tell me I suck, and how to improve.  Anything that anyone wants to excel at requires hard work and improvement.  How do you improve if there's no one there to tell you where you're going wrong?

Again, pull up your big girl panties, or get off the pot.  ....something along those lines.  =P


----------



## TwoTwoLeft (Apr 11, 2011)

mishele said:


> TwoTwoLeft.......I hate this place too. Most of these people are assholes!!
> 
> But that aside......If you ask specific questions, most of the time you will get someone to answer them. Don't be afraid to call someone on what they don't like. Get in a dialog w/ the people that post in your thread. If people see that you are eager to learn and listen, they will help. Keep posting!!


 
I don't think the people are assholes. Some just simply don't know how to critique effectively. Just because someone is an expert in their field doesn't make them a good teacher. 

I hang around airports a a lot and I thought pilots had big egos... Photographers have them beat by a landslide!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 11, 2011)

:violin:


----------



## Overread (Apr 11, 2011)

So to summarise:

Some people can give good constructive critique and some can't
and
Some people can take critique and some can't

Where you get those that can together its all good - where you get combinations of those who can't you get problems and when you get both who can't you get a horrible mess.


----------



## mishele (Apr 11, 2011)

Yeah at this point go fly a kite.....I'm not babying you anymore....lol
BTW.......I was messing around about all of you being assholes....just some of you are......


----------



## manaheim (Apr 11, 2011)

mishele said:


> Yeah at this point go fly a kite.....I'm not babying you anymore....lol
> BTW.......I was messing around about all of you being assholes....just some of you are......


 
*raises hand*


----------



## skieur (Apr 11, 2011)

Good constructive criticism is only possible when it is basically a good photo without the appropriate attention to details necessary to make it a great photo.

Good constructive criticism is NOT possible when there is NO centre of interest, NO attention to composition and major technical flaws.  Perhaps "read the manual", "take courses", "join a camera club", or "sell your camera and find another hobby" would be the most constructive criticism possible.

skieur


----------



## mishele (Apr 11, 2011)

You also need to know intent. Artistically speaking......unless you know what they want to portray you can't help them......lol


----------



## mishele (Apr 11, 2011)

manaheim said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah at this point go fly a kite.....I'm not babying you anymore....lol
> ...



You were the asshole I was thinking of.......


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 11, 2011)

mishele said:


> You also need to know intent. Artistically speaking......unless you know what they want to portray you can't help them......lol


 When you go to a museum or gallery, does the art come with a little placard that says what the artist's intent was?

Name and date is all I usually see.


The art should be able to stand on it's own.

It's up to the viewer to figure out what it means.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 11, 2011)

These are not the assholes you are looking for.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 11, 2011)

Just to expand on what I said earlier...

Sometimes (most of the time?) saying too much is a mistake.  With the wrong description, "Wow, that's really profound - I now know the meaning of life" can turn into "Well, that was a failure...".

Love him or hate him, Andy Warhol was great at never saying too much.  He let other people talk about his work, and in the end it worked out great for him.


----------



## mishele (Apr 11, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> > You also need to know intent. Artistically speaking......unless you know what they want to portray you can't help them......lol
> ...



I was saying C&C wise........If you are looking for a dramatically sad picture, it would help to know that to tell you why the shot works or doesn't. Yes, every picture should not need that if you are just viewing it. If someone wants to help you improve, knowing intent is a help.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 11, 2011)

I guess it depends on how they present it.

If they just post it, like - well, here it is - then intent gets thrown out the window.  It works or it doesn't.


If they say, 'here's a picture I've been working on, but I'm not quite happy with it - how can I improve?' - that's different.


Museum/galley = "Here it is".


----------



## mishele (Apr 11, 2011)

Andy Warhol doesn't give a **** if you like his work or not....lol He has a vision and that is what he gives you. People here that are looking for C&C are uncertain about something. =) I C&Cd someones photo today and they ended up telling me it was an abstract. If I would of known that was what he was going for, I prolly wouldn't have wrote what I wrote. But w/ out knowing anything about the picture or the though process before hand, I was clueless on the C&C he wanted.


----------



## Overread (Apr 11, 2011)

mishele said:


> Andy Warhol doesn't give a **** if you like his work or not....lol He has a vision and that is what he gives you. People here that are looking for C&C are uncertain about something. =) I C&Cd someones photo today and they ended up telling me it was an abstract. If I would of known that was what he was going for, I prolly wouldn't have wrote what I wrote. But w/ out knowing anything about the picture or the though process before hand, I was clueless on the C&C he wanted.


 
Again it all comes down to having to encourage people to help themselves first. I have to say quite a lot never really take that part on board - they either flit away from the site or just give up posting if they have to do more than just post their pictures. 
Thing is we have a just posting pictures section - but like all things TFF these days - it needs to be above beginners for anyone to ever bother taking a look at it 

ps .. I just breached 11K posts..... I feel oooold!


----------



## mishele (Apr 11, 2011)

LOL......you old dog!!! Congrats on the 11k!!!!!


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 11, 2011)

mishele said:


> Andy Warhol doesn't give a **** if you like his work or not....lol He has a vision and that is what he gives you.


 Oh, but he does (did) care what other people think - he was just smart enough to not tell them _what _to think.


----------



## mishele (Apr 11, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> > Andy Warhol doesn't give a **** if you like his work or not....lol He has a vision and that is what he gives you.
> ...


touche :hug::


----------



## skieur (Apr 11, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> > You also need to know intent. Artistically speaking......unless you know what they want to portray you can't help them......lol
> ...


 
Correct!

skieur


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 11, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> > You also need to know intent. Artistically speaking......unless you know what they want to portray you can't help them......lol
> ...


 
The big difference is, the creator of the works in a museum, or gallery, are, get this...
*not asking for a critique and how to get better*.


----------



## mishele (Apr 11, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > mishele said:
> ...



Thank you for getting what I was talking about.....lol:hug::


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 12, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > mishele said:
> ...


 Neither are most of the people posting pictures here.


----------



## Buckster (Apr 12, 2011)

I welcome critique of my photos, but I don't take them to heart; They don't get me elated or sad or angry or happy; I don't see them as "right" or "wrong", other than being right or wrong for me and my personal, subjective tastes and preferences.

The comments and tips that I agree with, I try to learn from to use in the future, in order to fulfill my own aesthetic vision and presentation.  The ones I disagree with, I simply disregard, knowing that in the end, they're just opinions and I don't happen to share them in that instance.  I see critiques of other's photos the same way - some I agree with, some I don't, and it doesn't matter much, either way.

Ultimately, my vision is mine.  If others like what I do with that vision, cool.  If not, no biggie.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 12, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > O|||||||O said:
> ...


 
<insert *ORLY* Owl here>


----------



## SNBniko (Apr 12, 2011)

I LOVE THE ORLY OWL!


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 12, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> <insert *ORLY* Owl here>


 Believe it or not, most of the pictures here are posted in the gallery sections, not the beginners section.

If you only post in the beginners section, it might seem that everyone is asking for C&C, but that is only a small part of the forum.

I have noticed very few posts in the gallery sections asking for C&C.  Photos are usually presented more like "Well, here it is".  Maybe with a little description of it.  Often with nothing at all but the photo.



edit
Also, you're going to get C&C whether you ask for it or not.  All I'm saying is that 'knowing the intent' is not a requirement for C&C.

If you have to explain the photo, it has already failed.


----------



## Overread (Apr 12, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> If you have to explain the photo, it has already failed.


 
Yes and no - a photo has to stand on its own merits - however I feel that with a photo alone one can tell many possible stories - sometimes a photographers needs to add more than the photo can say - or more correctly to help guide the viewer to understand what they are seeing within the photo itself.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 12, 2011)

Overread said:


> however I feel that with a photo alone one can tell many possible stories


I agree completely.



Overread said:


> sometimes a photographers needs to add more than the photo can say - or more correctly to help guide the viewer to understand what they are seeing within the photo itself.


 Once you do this, then the photo only has one meaning, and any of the other possibilities the viewer might have came to are no longer valid.  Someone might see something much more profound in it than you have ever imagined.  It's my opinion that you should leave it open to them to figure out.

Sometimes, I guess that's the goal - this is this, and nothing else.  Other times, it's better to leave it wide open.  Once you say what it is, or what it means - it's like saying that everyone who thought something else is wrong.


----------



## Overread (Apr 12, 2011)

OIIIIIO I guess it differs depending on if you are showing art alone with your photo - by which point I agree its best to leave it open to the viewer to interpret - or if you are trying to show something more deliberate with the photo - something more educational; journalistic; expressive, maybe just showing and explaining the greater context of the scene that the photo is a part of.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 12, 2011)

Yes, I agree that sometimes there is only one right answer.  To me, that would be boring text-book stuff, lol.  Diagrams or whatever.  Technical stuff - you know what I mean.

To some extent, I would include photo-journalism in that too, but not really...  Even that can (and should) have multiple meanings.  Is it depicting the struggle of the working class, or is it just some rebels on a truck?
In photo-journalism specifically, I think the 'photo' part should remain fairly open, but the 'journalism' part should be giving you the facts.  Even then, it's still open to interpretation.  Unless they make it an opinion piece and come right out and tell you what you should think about it.  (And there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that either.)

I mean, you're going to know what it _is_, e.g. rebels on a truck, but that doesn't mean that they have to tell you what it _means_.


Am I making sense?


----------



## mishele (Apr 12, 2011)

Art...yes should be able to stand on it's own merit. We all agree on that.
My opinion differs if you are asking for C&C. Even the simple question, how does this make you feel, will help you give feed back. The artist doesn't have to give the whole storyline away. If they are looking for help to convey something, they need to give you some insight.


----------



## Overread (Apr 12, 2011)

Yes and no 
Remember allowing an audience to read what they will of a journalists photo can result in them reading the totally wrong message - you can't blame that on the photographer because the nature of interpretation is also reliant on the interpreters experiences and influences. This is fine for purely artistic creations, but in the journalistic world it can bring with it the tarnish of missinformation -- so in that world I feel that whilst a photo might say 1000 words it needs a few key words to go with it to make sure that the audience is reading the right 1000 words.


----------



## LiquidGrace (Apr 12, 2011)

When I give or take critiques I try to see it from their point of view. Then I evaluate if I agree with their comments or not. I'm a C&C junkie I love getting it because I knwo with a bunch of strangers I'll get an honest answer over some shy friends and family. I guess I know with coming to an online forum you have to have a thicker skin. Understand that none of it is personal and if people are going to spend the time looking at my photos and picking it apart I'll appreciate it. Why ? Because they didn't' have to take the time to look at my photos and help me learn. 

In the same light I think some miss out on tactfully giving criticism. Some times the rude comments come out of no where. But that's a reflection of the critique not necessarily the work being produced. When I give critiques I try to give them with the knowledge I have. I go over things I have improved on and try to help the person fix the errors I can help explain to fix. However most of the time I feel I am under qualified to even give an opinion short of. "OOF, DOF, Better lighting." I can't get into specifics such as key lighting etc. I try to stick to the technical aspects of the photo I'm viewing. If I feel something was cut off that shouldn't be etc. But I can only give advice / knowledge on the things I actually know. The rest I don't feel up to par in giving advice. A photo I'd see as 'amazing' could be a fix up project to another photographer who is far more seasoned and technically sound then I am. 

It's a game of give and take. 


When you post your photos understand you will get some who don't like it and some that will. Also understand that sometimes people don't sugar coat things. Not to take it personally but actually see what they're trying to teach you and learn from it. Don't let someone's words get to you, read between the lines. Also never let someone be the cause of you quitting. If someones words cause you to quit your passion that isn't on them. It's all in how you internalize Criticism. If you are a sensitive person then perhaps reading more and honing your craft is perhaps better than always posting for C&C's.


. When you give criticism think of how you'd appreciate someone to teach you. Do you learn well if someone essentially makes fun of you and takes jabs at you? Or do you learn better if someone respects that your trying to better yourself and gives you tips on how to help yourself. There's always more then one way to give advice.
 All in all I think you'll find this to be a common trend when you go to any online forum. Not just photography specific. Forums are so diversified it's to me very refreshing. I've learned things here from photographers that I couldn't just learn in a classroom or with local photographers. Sometimes it comes from a person 10000miles away from you. This is why I adore the internet.


----------



## skieur (Apr 16, 2011)

Overread said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > If you have to explain the photo, it has already failed.
> ...


 
If the photographer needs to add more than the photo can say or guide the viewer using your words, then, his composition and photographic technique have NOT achieved his objectives and it is a weak photo.

skieur


----------



## Overread (Apr 16, 2011)

skieur said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > O|||||||O said:
> ...


 
I disagree, but as I said above I'm not just taking photography as the production of art alone - photography includes many forms from technical (dull tedious stuff that "artists would never touch ) though to the totally abstract. Sometimes those technical photos will need annotations - sometimes a journalist will have to tell you what you are looking at to understand what is shown.


----------



## skieur (Apr 16, 2011)

Photography is not really an opinionistic art form but there are a lot of variables involved in giving and assessing critique.

1. A few newbies have a talent for recognizing good or poor composition (perhaps some artistic talent) and/or a technical eye to recognize excellence in camera technique.

2. Some photographers have seen very few quality photos, while others have seen 
    thousands including some of the very highest quality and creativity.

3. Some experienced photographers recognize mistakes even apparently minor ones, 
    because they have made them several times during their careers.

Look at the photos of the person giving critique in his/her gallery.  Do they look "professional" as opposed to looking like quickly shot, casual snapshots with little attention to technical excellence or composition?  

Consider the wording of the critique.  "I like it.", "Great shot". etc. should tell you that that the person posting this has very limited photographic experience.  Take their praise with a grain of salt.

If, on the other hand, the person giving critique refers to technical aspects, composition, and uses photographic terms, then his/her critique should be taken more seriously, because there seems to be more experience behind the comments.

Irrespective of the intention of the photographer, it is always interesting through critique to see what draws or does not draw the attention of the viewer.  It takes a lot of photographic experience to assess critiques of your own photos.  I suspect that there are fewer photographers who recognize when the praise is unwarranted and the criticism is valid and accurate, but that can easily be the case.

skieur


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 16, 2011)

skieur said:


> If the photographer needs to add more than the photo can say or guide the viewer using your words, then, his composition and photographic technique have NOT achieved his objectives and it is a weak photo.
> 
> skieur



Garbled syntax aside, no one can state what every photographer's objective should be. 

I am not in favor of explanatory text that stands in the stead of a well conceived photo but sometimes a word, a title, a single line  can add a certain useful extra note to the context and  appreciation of a picture.


----------



## mishele (Apr 16, 2011)

^^^^^^^^^^That is all I want.....lol


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 16, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > If the photographer needs to add more than the photo can say or guide the viewer using your words, then, his composition and photographic technique have NOT achieved his objectives and it is a weak photo.
> ...


 
Is this in regards to simply viewing an image in a gallery (real or interweb), or in an instructional situation where the photographer is asking for help?

This has been twisted in this thread. It is an important distinction to make, and people here aren't. I think it's important when asking for critique and comments on whether the image works, is to know what the intention of the image is. Whereas no, I do not expect an explanation of intent in a gallery or museum show. Often museums DO include background information along with the exhibit.


----------



## Bynx (Apr 16, 2011)

I like a cuddle, a snuggle or even a kiss from time to time.


----------



## skieur (Apr 17, 2011)

Bynx said:


> I like a cuddle, a snuggle or even a kiss from time to time.



Very well put. 

skieur


----------



## skieur (Apr 17, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > If the photographer needs to add more than the photo can say or guide the viewer using your words, then, his composition and photographic technique have NOT achieved his objectives and it is a weak photo.
> ...


 
I apologize for my garbled syntax.  My only excuse is that I am taking lots of eye drops so my editing skills are limited at the moment.

skieur


----------

