A Level Playing field - for Critique

[PatrickO]

Carl's reply was made while I was posting.

It's exactly this reason that inhibits me from posting critique. I don't show my own photos for various reasons, and I only created a flickr account because I was challenged on another forum to "put up or shut up". Hence, being aware that many do share the view that those who don't post shouldn't offer critique, I mainly avoid doing so.

In practice, I skip over all posts that don't explicitly have "Critique" in the header (even if they are in a critique section), all posts with more than one image (it takes long enough to properly critique one), and any that strike me as without much positive about them. And even then, I'm very, very wary of expressing an opinion.

I'd say just do it. Especially if you are willing to take the time to crit constructively.

 

[Serendipitous Sid]

Regarding establishing the "credentials" of those doing the critique, this is actually something that's bothered me a bit since joining this forum. I gained an awful lot over the years from honest critique, both online and face to face, and having now retired from professional photography, I have the opportunity to give a little bit back, and perhaps to help some others. But how to establish my "credentials" in the way that you propose, given that I took our website down after we packed up so I have no body of work online now to which members can refer?

 

[seaodyssey]

To the people who have not critiqued a photo on here, should give it a go, no matter what your level of experience, it is after all your opinion and will make you look more closely at the photo, which will make you think more about your own photos which is a win win situation.

As has already been said we need more detail in the critique, not just nice photo, add why you like it if you do.

 

[boyfalldown]

Regarding establishing the "credentials" of those doing the critique, this is actually something that's bothered me a bit since joining this forum. I gained an awful lot over the years from honest critique, both online and face to face, and having now retired from professional photography, I have the opportunity to give a little bit back, and perhaps to help some others. But how to establish my "credentials" in the way that you propose, given that I took our website down after we packed up so I have no body of work online now to which members can refer?

personally, I wouldn't worry at all. The idea that unless you somehow prove yourself is a bit silly. I think everyone has perfectly valid input to make. Just for me, the reason I don't post photos for C & C is I never get any comments when I do

 

[Serendipitous Sid]

... the reason I don't post photos for C & C is I never get any comments when I do

Go on then. Put some up ...

 

[boyfalldown]

last couple were

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/a-few-of-my-favourites-from-2013.523579/

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/when-im-a-teenager-ill-be-a-right-handful.528778/

 

[pjm1]

As a complete novice, I'm probably the last person "entitled" to give critique, but that won't stop me!

I would like to think I still have half an eye of a "non-photographer" so can bridge a bit of the gap between what looks nice versus more technical crit. Also - and purely selfishly - I find critique massively improves my own understanding of photography, composition and technicals. By looking at better photographs than I'm able to take and suggesting what my favourite features are, I'm probably gaining more than the OP. I'm just being honest, but I'd also like to think my comments are of occasional interest!

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

The issue I see, is that those who constantly critique other's work, seldom post their own (if at all), for critique for the rest of us.

This doesn't seem right, I think people who comment against threads for critique should have to post, occasionally, their own work - if not to show the rest of us "how its done".

I Disagree. I think you are so absolutely wrong. completely and utterly wrong.
If your suggestions were imposed 95% of critique activity would stop. Overnight. Bye bye forum. All you would ever see would be "nice cat" comments and pics of roses.

 

[Serendipitous Sid]

last couple were

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/a-few-of-my-favourites-from-2013.523579/

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/when-im-a-teenager-ill-be-a-right-handful.528778/

Hugh, I've never done studio portraits so I don't feel qualified to comment on the second lot, but I'll gladly have a go with the first on the thread you linked to

 

[Alastair]

I Disagree. I think you are so absolutely wrong. completely and utterly wrong.
If your suggestions were imposed 95% of critique activity would stop. Overnight. Bye bye forum. All you would ever see would be "nice cat" comments and pics of roses.

I agree, someone has to balance all those members that post images for critique and never comment on anyone else's images..

(and all those that never venture out of the classifieds)

 

[MWHCVT]

I've been sitting back and watching/reading this thread since I spotted it, some might remember a few weeks back I started a thread looking to get more decent critique on the forum...sadly I for various reasons got a little distracted from it by some of the negativity from some members and the response from some who I offered critique too frankly it started to become a bit of a drag which is a real shame as I do love the community, but I really can identify with some of the points raised below

My latest attempt at critique got

See that annoys the hell out of me too, I tend to work along the lines of disagree with my critique by all means but don't brush it off just cause it isn't what you wanted to hear but if your going to disagree with me I'll discuss it, not because I believe I'm some sort of wonder to photography but because I want to understand your position...

It's difficult to say this without offending someone, but the single biggest problem with critique on the forum IMHO are the small army of people who visit every critique thread to post, 'it's a great shot - certainly better than anything I could do'.

That's not critique, in fact it's the absolute opposite. I've opened some posts to critique and been met with an overly processed hash up, followed by half a dozen comments like the above, from where there is only one way out. Go to the next thread. There is no way that my opinion is going to measure against those half a dozen voices, and no way that I'm not going to appear 'grumpy' or just in a bad mood. So the OP thinks that what they're doing is great, which reinforces bad practice, which spreads the same, creating a vicious circle where all new portrait photographers believe that everyones eyes need oversharpening and whitening. As if there's no way that an actual human being that looks like a human being is going to look right without that 'very basic' fix.

You know this I've spotted too, sometimes I find myself wondering if I am to critical, that or we have a lot of blind people on the forum, there as some prolific people on the forum for it too as you've mentioned, and it does make it harder to offer honest valuable critique if after half a dozen posters saying how wonderful it is and then you come in and say while actually XYZ could be improved if you did ABC this issue I've no idea how its going to be resolved...

That 1000 x that

and of course not forgetting the sort of pathetic individual who judges whether a shot os good or not by whether they like the poster

This is something that certainly happens in certain sections and from certain members, I'd also add to it people that post overly positively purely to garner likes, the only thing I feared happening as soon as I saw a like button...there is nothing wrong with gushing and being extra positive when justified, hell I've done it this evening and I've seen some truly stunning and deserving of such praise in my time on this forum...

of course good critique is in itself a learning exercise for those giving the crit, which seems to have gotten missed somewhere

And it's this that the 'great photo' brigade are robbing themselves of. They will never develop a critical eye if they make no attempt to exercise one. But critical thinking is missing from many areas of society as it's often missed out of education. Leaving a society that'll swallow whatever horse poop they're fed.

So right guys, I used to be blind to faults really before I joined this great community, and learning how to critically look at a photo has not only dramatically improved my skills, and photography...thanks mainly to the help of some great people in this community, it also now allows me to pass that back to the community, not that we ever actually stop learning of course

 

[Serendipitous Sid]

... learning how to critically look at a photo has not only dramatically improved my skills, and photography ... it also now allows me to pass that back to the community, not that we ever actually stop learning of course

I've always been a believer in few things improving your photography like honest critique can - if you'll let it.

As I've said elsewhere, the highlight of my being critiqued was in the early hours of one February morning in a hotel room in Dallas. I'd not long got back from shooting that day's workshop assignment. We had to shoot jpeg, we were not allowed to delete anything in camera, and every picture we took was projected onto the hotel room wall for critique. Among those looking at my snaps were Ben Chrisman, Huy Nguyen, Anna Kuperberg and a few others of wedding photojournalism's great and good. plus maybe 8-10 of my fellow workshop participants.

My critique was led by Greg Gibson, who apart from anything else has two Pulitzer prizes for PJ. After the first 100 or so shots, Greg paused the slideshow, turned to me and said "Why are we looking at this? It's crap. Does it get any better?". He then re-started the show, anybody and everybody started having their say - and I learned an awful lot from that critique. The fact that at the time we'd been running a successful wedding photography business for 8 years and were turning bookings away every year meant nothing - to me or to anyone else.

After maybe 4 hours sleep, I then went out and shot the same assignment again. Those pictures were a lot better.

A critique is only an opinion. It's not an affront to your awesome prowess as a photographer.

 

[ghoti]

Just as bad as the "nice shot" crew are the people who always look for rules of bloody thirds and the like as of they were laws etched in stone rather than loose rules of thumb.

 

[Pookeyhead]

One reason why I don't always fire with both barrels when giving crit in here, is that when I do, the technical crit is only part of it. The other half would be looking at the worth of the image, and what it's actually communicating... what it says - is it actually a good image? They'll cope with you telling them it's not sharp, or the depth of field is not appropriate etc, but the minute you question whether it's a good image, as an image, they just say, "well that's just your opinion" and get defensive.... then here's the damaging part... they'll stop listening and carry on taking the same stuff. Hello? It's crit, of course it's my opinion.

You're allowed to give technical crit in here, but the minute you question someone's image making choices regarding the actual content, then you're just branded as some arty farty anti-christ. It's ridiculous. Take your work to any professional portfolio review and you'll get far more than just technical crit.

The only skills the majority seem to want to improve are technical skills. It's as if that's all there is to photography. I'm sorry, but if I feel someone's image is redundant and pointless, I'll give that in crit. I'm not saying I'll be as brutal as the example Sid gave above - I think that's a bit too much. I don't care if it's Greg Gibson or not.. Greg wants to stop being an arse IMO... Some people would just give up if you treated them like that, but in principle, I agree. Why spend all that time critiquing someone's focus, or post processing when the fundamental problem is that it's just a really boring, crap image that no amount of sharpness or processing could redeem?

So in essence, it goes like this: You point out all the technical problems, and they thank you for it. You point out that it's boring, derivative and just one of half a million just like it on Flickr, and they'll accuse you of being a snob... then of course, they'll rally the troops and start being overly chummy with those who have liked the shot, as they can more easily get what they ACTUALLY want, which is not critique at all, but succour, affirmation of their worth, and self-esteem from the praise of their peers.

Personally... I think crit is for one purpose only: Improving your photography. In order to do that, you give your opinion on what's wrong with the image in a supportive way, but in no uncertain terms. If you're holding back from saying something for fear of upsetting someone, then you're not giving good crit... and you're also being a hypocrite.

 

[Serendipitous Sid]

I'm not saying I'll be as brutal as the example Sid gave above - I think that's a bit too much. I don't care if it's Greg Gibson or not.. Greg wants to stop being an arse IMO... Some people would just give up if you treated them like that, but in principle, I agree.

The point I didn't make but perhaps needed to is that everybody at that workshop wanted to improve their game. Full stop. Nobody paid a lot of money and went through that process for four days non stop in the hope that somebody would tell them how ossum they were. In fact the blurb for the workshop promised that every participant would cry at some point. Everybody did, in their own time and for their own reason.

I'm sure Greg would handle a newbie differently. He's actually a top bloke and he's as soft as the proverbial

 

[Phil V]

Personally... I think crit is for one purpose only: Improving your photography. In order to do that, you give your opinion on what's wrong with the image in a supportive way, but in no uncertain terms. If you're holding back from saying something for fear of upsetting someone, then you're not giving good crit... and you're also being a hypocrite.

If I'm not giving crit at all I'm not being a hypocrite, I'm being a coward, but it's just about my default position sadly, due to the reasons above.

Although I would disagree about the 'derivative' etc. As it's simply impossible for everyone to be shooting 'unique' images, and for many people the pinnacle is to simply record something perfectly and if it creates a nice picture too, then that's fantastic. There are probably a dozen outstanding bird in flight photos taken every year, but that doesn't mean that a good one isn't worthy.

 

[The23rdman]

If I'm not giving crit at all I'm not being a hypocrite, I'm being a coward, but it's just about my default position sadly, due to the reasons above.

Although I would disagree about the 'derivative' etc. As it's simply impossible for everyone to be shooting 'unique' images, and for many people the pinnacle is to simply record something perfectly and if it creates a nice picture too, then that's fantastic. There are probably a dozen outstanding bird in flight photos taken every year, but that doesn't mean that a good one isn't worthy.

Phil, I have taken the stance that I will give crit if I feel moved to do so. I then completely forget about it. If the OP responds, great, if not then that's just fine too because I've not invested in the thread emotionally.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Going back to the OP's crit "manifesto"...

Hands up if you have read several critique thread's and the same person is hammering every one of them and not because the images are particularly bad, but because they are in a BAD MOOD?

I have a problem with this. How do you know they're in a bad mood? You just assume because they're being critical they're in a bad mood?

Before someone gets on their high horse and shouts "I post I post" - fair enough - MOST people do, but there are a number who do not.

Does it really matter? I think it's a bit weird, and almost Marxist that you insist everyone who crits an image must post an image in some weird barter type currency system. Not everyone who posts images CAN give good crit, and not everyone who gives good crit CAN posts many photographs? Your proposition assumes that good crit is something everyone can do, and that everyone should be critting on some ratio of shoot to crit. Some people should just stop giving crit immediately! There's some shockingly bad crit in here that does absolutely no good whatsoever, and would actually make people's photography worse. We want more of that? I think not. Saw someone post a reallly motion blurred image the other day due to hand holding at slow speeds, and the first reply to crit said, and I'm paraphrasing here.. "Great composition, great sharpness". The minute you FORCE everyone who wants to post to crit, you'll lower the standards. Simple.

If I'm not giving crit at all I'm not being a hypocrite, I'm being a coward, but it's just about my default position sadly, due to the reasons above.

No Phil.. I never said if you don't give crit you're a hypocrite. I said that if you are giving crit, and you have a real opinion about something in that image, and refrain from saying so because you feel there's a possibility it will upset someone, then you're being hypocritical. If you are giving crit to help someone, yet don't say something that could be helpful, then it kind of defeats the point of giving crit in the first place.

[edit]

Sorry Phil... I misread your post a little. I get what you say now, and kind of agree. However, I'll leave the above unedited, because generally, I think it's still a point I wish to make.

Although I would disagree about the 'derivative' etc. As it's simply impossible for everyone to be shooting 'unique' images, and for many people the pinnacle is to simply record something perfectly and if it creates a nice picture too, then that's fantastic. There are probably a dozen outstanding bird in flight photos taken every year, but that doesn't mean that a good one isn't worthy.

See how this subject ruffles feathers? (see what I did there?)

No, you're right, but then again, I'm not singling out any one kind of image, or genre here Phil. However.... there are some images that you see again, and again, and again.... The reason you see them again, and again, and again, is because the author of the image often doesn't realise we've seen it so much. Is it not worth mentioning?

I agree that's all some people want to do... make accurate records of stuff. Fine... but if you post it up for crit, then you'll also get some people saying it's just dull. So what? That's life. They can choose to ignore my opinion if they want. To suggest we never comment on the subject matter or creative choices the author made, is just making a mockery of the whole critique process. Should we therefore just give technical crit only? If so.. are we not promoting that photography is merely a technical exercise? Is that what we want to promote in here?

 

[Serendipitous Sid]

Phil, I have taken the stance that I will give crit if I feel moved to do so. I then completely forget about it. If the OP responds, great, if not then that's just fine too because I've not invested in the thread emotionally.

Same here. And if the OP chooses to get miffed about what is after all only my opinion, it's their problem - not mine.

 

[Phil V]

...No Phil.. I never said if you don't give crit you're a hypocrite. I said that if you are giving crit, and you have a real opinion about something in that image, and refrain from saying so because you feel there's a possibility it will upset someone, then you're being hypocritical. If you are giving crit to help someone, yet don't say something that could be helpful, then it kind of defeats the point of giving crit in the first place.

I never suggested that, wires crossed.

...See how this subject ruffles feathers? (see what I did there?)

No, you're right, but then again, I'm not singling out any one kind of image, or genre here Phil. However.... there are some images that you see again, and again, and again.... The reason you see them again, and again, and again, is because the author of the image often doesn't realise we've seen it so much. Is it not worth mentioning?

This though; critique has to be matched to the audience, and it's very difficult on a forum containing everything from badly executed snaps to some fairly unique 'art', to define where that line is drawn, particularly where the massive majority is right in the middle, either badly or well executed derivative work.

It doesn't matter to me if my wedding photography isn't 'unique', most customers don't want that, they want what their mates had or what they see in bridal magazines. The measure of a working wedding or portrait photographer is fairly formulaic, even right at the top end.

Even the people round here who are producing very niche work are almost certainly being 'derivative', there'd be very little posted for critique if we set the bar to entry at unique. And that would be no help to anyone.

Don't get me wrong, I love the discussions of the artistic values of modern photography etc. they bring a fresh dimension to the forum, but we'd have to paste a stock sentence in to 99.9% of all critique posts if we want to discuss 'derivitive'.

 

[Serendipitous Sid]

... we'd have to paste a stock sentence in to 99.9% of all critique posts if we want to discuss 'derivitive'.

True. And Brian Duffy thought so too ...

Photography was dead by 1972. Everything had been resolved between 1839 and 1972. Every picture after ‘72, I have seen pre-‘72. Nothing new. But it took me some time to detect its death. The first person who twigged was Henri Cartier-Bresson. He just stopped—and started painting and drawing. God, he was useless.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I never suggested that, wires crossed.


This though; critique has to be matched to the audience, and it's very difficult on a forum containing everything from badly executed snaps to some fairly unique 'art',

I'm just suggesting that one of the things they might be interested in is moving their imagery forward in order to differentiate it from so many similar images. I'm not suggesting they strive for "art". I think you're just reading too much into what I say because you KNOW that's my PERSONAL standpoint.

It doesn't matter to me if my wedding photography isn't 'unique', most customers don't want that, they want what their mates had or what they see in bridal magazines.

If your work is demsontrably better than the next guy's, then surely that's justification for charging more. Maybe not every client would appreciate it, no, but still... Phil... it's about giving an opinion of the imagery. If what he/she wants is just solid, middle of the road wedding imagery, then they'll obviously listen to what I say and think, "Yeah, sure, but I'm just shooting what they want" and treat my comments as interesting but essentially irrelevant... surely. It doesn't mean I shouldn't comment. If anyone get's upset by such crit, then they clearly weren't after crit. What they wanted was loads of people to go "Wow.... great shot". Well [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER] to that.

The measure of a working wedding or portrait photographer is fairly formulaic, even right at the top end.

I wouldn't say so. Today's "formulaic" was once unique and cutting edge. If no one innovated, even in mainstream commercial portraiture for example, then we'd all still be wanting the nuclear family arranged with parents stood at the back, kids sat in front... a cloudy or mottled backdrop, perhaps a prop or two... a potted plant or a table... Things change, and what is mainstream NOW, was once cutting edge. SOMEONE has to innovate with wedding and portrait photography or we'd all just take the same stuff.. forever. Clearly that's NOT the case is it. Someone will innovate, and then everyone else follows.

Even the people round here who are producing very niche work are almost certainly being 'derivative', there'd be very little posted for critique if we set the bar to entry at unique. And that would be no help to anyone.

There's derivative in the sense you just described... essentially meaning there's very little truly innovative any more, and then there's just completely unimaginative copying of what you've seen. I think the latter should be pointed out, as I think ANY photographer, no matter what they shoot, should be trying to at least add something new. That's my opinion, and that's what I'd say. Trying to censor people's crit based on some formula of working out what their intentions for the work are, is just untenable.

 

[Phil V]

I'm just suggesting that one of the things they might be interested in is moving their imagery forward in order to differentiate it from so many similar images. I'm not suggesting they strive for "art". I think you're just reading too much into what I say because you KNOW that's my PERSONAL standpoint.
.

Quite possibly.

I do have a tendency towards overthinking stuff. You should have read the rant I deleted regarding the lack of critical thinking and how it's delivered us the modern political climate

The rest of it, we're broadly coming from the same place, did you see the recent thread re 'alternative wedding photography', and the pose of the couple holding hands and staring blankly at the camera, it clearly has it's roots in early photojournalism, and someone even suggested 'American Gothic' as the source of it. Oddly, it's become the touchstone, almost the spot colour of our time.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Quite possibly.

I do have a tendency towards overthinking stuff. You should have read the rant I deleted regarding the lack of critical thinking and how it's delivered us the modern political climate

The rest of it, we're broadly coming from the same place, did you see the recent thread re 'alternative wedding photography', and the pose of the couple holding hands and staring blankly at the camera, it clearly has it's roots in early photojournalism, and someone even suggested 'American Gothic' as the source of it. Oddly, it's become the touchstone, almost the spot colour of our time.

Never saw that, no. I rarely look in the wedding photography threads. It is amazing though how many photographers decry "art" as superfluous, and then through their own ignorance of art, end up doing stuff that's so blatantly cribbed from the very medium they decry. The irony is delicious.

The thing is, it's easy to just say, "Well.. I just do what the client wants" (I'm not just talking about weddings here now), but the thing is, what the client wants is what the client has seen, and in most cases, what the client has seen is what's popular, or what their mates had. So you shoot it, and they show THEIR mates etc etc.. so it perpetuates. Then.. something new will come along.. and it will go viral on social media, and all of a sudden, everyone wants that instead. Innovation works; Always has, always will. The fact is... someone did something different. You can be the one who does something different, or not. Up to you

The fact remains though, I see no no harm in giving such feedback in crit. I'm not suggesting that - "OMG!... that's so crap.. everyone does that" is the ideal response, but perhaps - "Next time you're at Durdle Door, why not take a look at what images are already overly done, and spend some time walking around to find an angle seldom seen", or maybe "Are you aware that most people consider this a cliché?". I see nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

One fact remains: If we limit crit to technicalities only (not just in this forum, but in all forums, classrooms, or any other platform you choose) then eventually we'll stop even looking for the new. We'll end up rejecting the new. What then? Photographic Ground Hog Day. That's what. Who wants that?

 

[Alastair]

One reason why I don't always fire with both barrels when giving crit in here, is that when I do, the technical crit is only part of it. The other half would be looking at the worth of the image, and what it's actually communicating... what it says - is it actually a good image? They'll cope with you telling them it's not sharp, or the depth of field is not appropriate etc, but the minute you question whether it's a good image, as an image, they just say, "well that's just your opinion" and get defensive.... then here's the damaging part... they'll stop listening and carry on taking the same stuff. Hello? It's crit, of course it's my opinion.

The defensiveness comes because most people in possession of a camera do not consider photography to be an art, they don't consider their images alongside notions of worth. They took it, they submitted it, what's this issue of "worth" you raise? Going beyond critique of basic exposure choices or primary composition is to leave simple comfort zones.

You don't get mention of Idris Kahn and the Bechers come up very often on threads, and it's rare someone submits an image to the forum that looks to the contemporary photography body of art. A lot of people claim to subscribe to BJP, but it's rare that a thread pops up discussing an article in the current issue.

 

[Pookeyhead]

The defensiveness comes because most people in possession of a camera do not consider photography to be an art, they don't consider their images alongside notions of worth. They took it, they submitted it, what's this issue of "worth" you raise? Going beyond critique of basic exposure choices or primary composition is to leave simple comfort zones.

You don't get mention of Idris Kahn and the Bechers come up very often on threads, and it's rare someone submits an image to the forum that looks to the contemporary photography body of art. A lot of people claim to subscribe to BJP, but it's rare that a thread pops up discussing an article in the current issue.

And I constantly wonder why not. Why NOT discuss these things?

It's this segregation between photography and art that causes issues. I don't understand it. If what you are producing, by your own admission (not you... speaking generally here) is not measured by a sense of "worth" then what's it for? Why are you showing it to me? What did you want me to say say, or think? If it is not art, or at least the outcome of a creative process, what do you want from it? From me? Maybe you want nothing from me whatsoever. Maybe you wish that me, and people like me would sod off back to artybollox land from whence we came, but the fact is, photography is all these things. You can't create imagery in the isolation of your own tight, insular perspective, then post it out there in the wider world where there are people with a wider appreciation of the photographic canon, then whine when we measure it against things you don't agree with.

You put work out there, then it's out there. You'll get commentary from all angles and perspectives. You should listen to it all and decide if what you're hearing is genuinely useful or not. You also need to closely examine your motives for doing so. If it's for praise, then you need to realise that it may not be as good as you thought it was, and people will explain why, and you know what? That's a good thing. That's how you learn.

 

[Stevie-]

It is a redundant exercise to critique 'Art'. It is much easier, however, to critique on the technical aspects of a photograph.

Art you either like or don't - composition/exposure/dof/etc largely become irrelevant in the face of an image thats is put forward or considered to be Art in its own right.

In parts of the forum 'better' images are critiqued much harder and more scrutiny applied than perhaps more amateur/light-hearted efforts which should not be viewed in the same way and critique should (and often is) be more encouraging.

 

[big soft moose]

It is a redundant exercise to critique 'Art'. It is much easier, however, to critique on the technical aspects of a photograph.

Art you either like or don't - composition/exposure/dof/etc largely become irrelevant in the face of an image thats is put forward or considered to be Art in its own right.

In parts of the forum 'better' images are critiqued much harder and more scrutiny applied than perhaps more amateur/light-hearted efforts which should not be viewed in the same way and critique should (and often is) be more encouraging.

yeah we saw that with "bird gate"

 

[Stevie-]

yeah we saw that with "bird gate"

I tend not to look at the bird section of the forum as thats not where my main interest lies and I can offer little technical crit as I know hee-haw about it. I was thinking more of the people section where it is better to offer advice on improvements rather than out right critique - again I'm think more of people just starting out.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I'm not sure many people here are actually interested in photography (as a medium, in its wider sense) only in taking pictures and polishing their lenses (actually and metaphorically). Which is why there's little interest in understanding photographs as pictures, documents, or texts despite that being the most interesting aspect of the medium; how it is at once both simple to do (point, shoot) and look at, but also complex and diverse as a means of representation and expression and therefore difficult and complex to get to grips with, which is why the majority of people concentrate on the technical aspects which can be easily quantified.


Photographs don't have to aspire to be 'art' they can be journalistic or documentary, for example, but they can have more to say than; "Isn't this nice to look at". The thing is, most people buy cameras to make pictures which are 'nice to look at' and have no aspirations to making pictures with any more meaning than that.

 

[ghoti]

It is a redundant exercise to critique 'Art'.

I disagree. I think it's much more interesting to consider and to read opinions on what people think the point of an individual image is. The technical stuff you can pretty much work out for yourself. It's necessary for beginners and there's always stuff to learn, but it's a fairly formulaic business.

Considering WHY you or someone else chose to make an image gets to the very heart of what photography is all about. You are creating things for people to look at, so it's fundamental - more fundamental than technical mastery - to think about why those people should bother looking.

 

[big soft moose]

I tend not to look at the bird section of the forum as thats not where my main interest lies and I can offer little technical crit as I know hee-haw about it. I was thinking more of the people section where it is better to offer advice on improvements rather than out right critique - again I'm think more of people just starting out.

I didnt mean the bird forum - i was thinking of the whole "the bird" ferrago last year - if you don't remember or werent here then basically this french bloke posted a whole series of shots entitled "the bird 1" "the bird 2" etc and was seriously upset when they got critiqued because in his eyes they were 'art' and therefore none of the crtitique offered was valid in his opinion

 

[Alastair]

And I constantly wonder why not. Why NOT discuss these things?

Because for 99% of people, photographers are people who own cameras and take photos - 99% of which are never printed and are probably only looked at once. Art isn't part of photography for them.

At the risk of being controversial, it's far too easy for people to post an image in the "critique" sections of the forum. If 90%+ of images are being submitted for "Attaboy!" pats on the head, why are so many sections devoted to "feedback and critique" and so few to generic sharing?

Simple criteria - if you haven't printed it, don't share it for critique. Because if you don't consider it worth the 10p it costs to print, why should someone else consider it worth their time to critique?

 

[Pookeyhead]

It is a redundant exercise to critique 'Art'. It is much easier, however, to critique on the technical aspects of a photograph.

It's easier, yes. You've hit the nail on the head.

Art you either like or don't

That's a simplistic view, and quite frankly, a bit of a cop out. It's easy to say "Art... yeah, you either like it or you don't", but the fact is, there is good art, and bad art, and means to measure which is which, just like anything else. If this was not the case, then almost anything would make it into the National Portrait Gallery or the V&A. Saying "you either like it or not" as if there's no inherent skill or talent is just what people who don't understand art say.

- composition/exposure/dof/etc largely become irrelevant in the face of an image thats is put forward or considered to be Art in its own right.

I disagree. That can be the case, yes, but often not. One of the things I admire about Edward Burtinsky is how he manages to take landscape that are so loaded with social and political commentary instead of just being postcard pretty, yet remains absolute masterworks technically.

In parts of the forum 'better' images are critiqued much harder and more scrutiny applied than perhaps more amateur/light-hearted efforts which should not be viewed in the same way and critique should (and often is) be more encouraging.

If you're suggesting that crit is given at an appropriate level, then yes of course. I'm hardly likely to crit a beginners shot of buildings and start mentioning the "Bauhausian sensibilities of the way you isolate the building from the person to illustrate the autonomy of machine aesthetic". no... but then again, if it's just boring, and not really showing me anything interesting about that building, I'll say so. A great many beginners shoot buildings and actually ignore the building! They'll compose on thirds, arrange the rest of the scene "artfully" around it, and not actually give one single thought abut the character of the building, it's tone of voice or how the buildings feels. I think these things can be introduced very early in someone's creative career.

 

[Stevie-]

I didnt mean the bird forum - i was thinking of the whole "the bird" ferrago last year - if you don't remember or werent here then basically this french bloke posted a whole series of shots entitled "the bird 1" "the bird 2" etc and was seriously upset when they got critiqued because in his eyes they were 'art' and therefore none of the crtitique offered was valid in his opinion

I think I was on a bit of a hiatus from the forum at that time. But yeah, thats basically what I meant!

I think you will always have people who think photography (there own or others) is Art and people who don't really view it in that way.

 

[big soft moose]

That's a simplistic view, and quite frankly, a bit of a cop out. It's easy to say "Art... yeah, you either like it or you don't", but the fact is, there is good art, and bad art, and means to measure which is which, just like anything else. If this was not the case, then almost anything would make it into the National Portrait Gallery or the V&A.

the point is though that this is what people who post pictures as art on here tend to say in response to crit - "it doesnt matter if you don't like it, its art so it doesnt have to be well composed, exposed, framed etc " - now you'll probably think that sentiment is bobbins, and I'd agree , but if thats what they think (vis "the bird" for example) then theres no point in offering them crit so its best not to waste your time and concentrate on giving it where its actually welcome
.

 

[Stevie-]

That's a simplistic view, and quite frankly, a bit of a cop out. It's easy to say "Art... yeah, you either like it or you don't", but the fact is, there is good art, and bad art, and means to measure which is which, just like anything else. If this was not the case, then almost anything would make it into the National Portrait Gallery or the V&A. Saying "you either like it or not" as if there's no inherent skill or talent is just what people who don't understand art say.

It is a simplistic view yes - and perhaps I haven't explained it thoroughly enough. (and I don't know if you are implying that I don't understand art, not that it makes much odds. I have little or no artistic ability despite being the son of an Artist - Now however a High School art teacher).

Art is so subjective that critque is also subjective. You don't have to like 'Art' to appreciate it (I hate using this label of 'Art' but I can't think of anything else) And, moving even more off topic, there is a surge in literally 'anything' being lauded as 'Art'.

When I said DOF etc largely becomes irrelevant I did mean can largely become irrelevant - I tend not to like sweeping generalizations and never conciously make them - apologies.

But by and large if YOU the viewer consider something as 'Art' then (usually) much more in the way of allowances are made for the technical aspects.

And Burtinsky does move landscapes into the realm of art for me - Unlike so many other pictures of similar subjects.

 

[TheBigYin]

I didnt mean the bird forum - i was thinking of the whole "the bird" ferrago last year - if you don't remember or werent here then basically this french bloke posted a whole series of shots entitled "the bird 1" "the bird 2" etc and was seriously upset when they got critiqued because in his eyes they were 'art' and therefore none of the crtitique offered was valid in his opinion

In fairness to the Pastel Ribbon bedecked chappie, if he'd have posted full size versions of his shots in the creative section, rather than as thumbnails with a SEO spamming link, showing a bird the size of a microdot in the "Feathered Section" he may have had something of a less rough ride. As it was, frankly he initially suffered from his own mis-reading of the forum. It didn't help however that people formed a disorderly queue to give him a bit of a shoe-ing. It is however fair to say that most if not all of the "critique" he got was of a technical nature, and not at all what the images required. I spent the first few days on his side, TBH, because I generally DID see what he was getting at, but the SEO spam was something of an irritant I must admit.

 

[big soft moose]

It didn't help however that people formed a disorderly queue to give him a bit of a shoe-ing. It is however fair to say that most if not all of the "critique" he got was of a technical nature, and not at all what the images required. .

While that is probably true, as I recall with the first picture he posted I spent about 30 minutes giving him indepth critique covering both technical and artistic points (in my view even a black and white art shot benifiis from having a decent tonal range rather than just a muddy grey) , for my efforts I got a load of abuse about not understanding art ... which was when the disorderly shoeing started (and yes I agree that what followed wasn't too cleverand would have been best left to you guys)

However i didnt intend to open that can of worms again as its a general point of which this is only 1 example - if someone posts a picture for crit , then they can expect honest constructive crit on the plus and negative points - if all they want is smoke blowing up their arse about how great their artistic mojo is then they should say so.

 

[Pookeyhead]

the point is though that this is what people who post pictures as art on here tend to say in response to crit - "it doesnt matter if you don't like it, its art so it doesnt have to be well composed, exposed, framed etc " - now you'll probably think that sentiment is bobbins, and I'd agree , but if thats what they think (vis "the bird" for example) then theres no point in offering them crit so its best not to waste your time and concentrate on giving it where its actually welcome
.

I've just given feedback to a set of images that gave the following advice

Fabulous images. You got more? A great commentary on the reliance upon and influence of the automobile in US culture.

None of the little technical gripes you'll no doubt receive are important. Listen to them, learn from them, but essentially these images' raw, honest ability to communicate far outstrips such petty concern. Well curated and edited too. I don't mean PP... I mean the sense of unity and uniformity in feel, shape, crop etc. They're a set.. they're the beginnings of a body of work.

I stand by that. However, that's not to say that all "art" should ignore technicalities at all.. hence my comments on Burtinsky further up, and why I make a point in saying that he should listen and learn from technical crit, but in this instance, the images would have been somehow neutered... numbed by applying the that level of precision to them.

These things seem purely objective to those who do not yet have the skill to determine when they should, or shouldn't be worried about such things, but they're not. Some things just come from having experience in reading imagery. Given enough experience you end up reading an image as easily as a book. The inexperienced viewer looks at the whole, the surface, the aesthetic. It's just part of gaining experience. What I don't get is the wholesale rejection of that process and the self-imposed limitations of insisting that photography is not a creative process, and therefore the same rules do not apply. It's almost as if it absolves them from more critical review. "Oh it's not art... so I don't have to bother with all of that", but regardless of your opinion, good photographs, always have, and always will communicate meaning and messages.

It is a simplistic view yes - and perhaps I haven't explained it thoroughly enough. (and I don't know if you are implying that I don't understand art, not that it makes much odds. I have little or no artistic ability despite being the son of an Artist - Now however a High School art teacher).

I'm not implying anything about you. I'm just saying that it IS the typical response, and TYPICALLY it is said because the person doesn't understand art. I am surprised however that someone with an art education is of the opinion that art is either good, or bad based on nothing more than whether you like it or not. You like it or not based on whether you liek it or not, yeah But that's not a measure of whether it's art. I like Top Gear, but it's not art. I like cheesy trance music, but that's not art either. It is a creative endeavour, and has it's own merits, but it' not art. I think you're right... the word "art" is not something you can just use in this context. It's too broad, and seems to segregate. However, it usually does distil down to this level when you have a wide range of experience and opinion in such a thread.