Commenting on processing?

[TheBigYin]

Sorry but I couldn’t disagree more.

Tell the poster why you like the shot. Is it light, composition, expression?

The like button has zero use in the critique threads other than to stifle discussion

Mike

^^^THIS^^^

(things you do when you're trying not to use the like button)

 

[ancient_mariner]

what were you trying to SAY

Here's where crit is tricky, because I'm convinced very few photographers actually want to say anything beyond the obvious "look at this bird/train/lake/face".

 

[sirch]

One thing I would add is I would take no notice of crit from people whose photos I haven't seen. You simply don't know where someone is coming from if you haven't seen their work so they might have a valid point but they might be opining from the point of view of another genre, or viewing the photo on a poor monitor.

 

[Sangoma]

One thing I would add is I would take no notice of crit from people whose photos I haven't seen. You simply don't know where someone is coming from if you haven't seen their work so they might have a valid point but they might be opining from the point of view of another genre, or viewing the photo on a poor monitor.

That's a difficult, I think I would take notice of it, as they may have a point anyway.
Most people who are not photographers can look at a photo and say whether it is "good" or not, their judgement probably not being on the technical aspects.
I came across a "professional" photographer some years back who was always running down amateur photographers, and his photos were in the main technically perfect, but not nice to look at.

I don't think I would judge comments by the person making them, but by the value and meaning of the comments themselves.

 

[Nod]

I rarely post "proper" photos since I don't think screens can do good shots the justice that prints do. There are too many variables as far as screens go to be sure that what people are seeing is what the photographer intends in terms of colour, contrast, saturation etc..

 

[Nostromo]

First off, it's not just over sharpening (that creates halo effects), pushing the clarity slider too far and darkening skies that are against a contrasting foreground also tend to create halos.
I really don't sharpen much and when I do, I use the masking tool (in the Lightroom sharpening tab) to limit the sharpening.

Secondly, as for giving (real) feedback, I'm all for it, but as mentioned above (somewhere), the experience of the photographer should be taken into account (although that's not always easy to determine).

I don't comment too much on genre's that I don't photograph. I might say 'I like it' or 'good shot' or just press the like button. If it's a genre that I do photograph then I'll give a bit more feedback.

 

[john.margetts]

That's a difficult, I think I would take notice of it, as they may have a point anyway.
Most people who are not photographers can look at a photo and say whether it is "good" or not, their judgement probably not being on the technical aspects.
I came across a "professional" photographer some years back who was always running down amateur photographers, and his photos were in the main technically perfect, but not nice to look at.

I don't think I would judge comments by the person making them, but by the value and meaning of the comments themselves.

I regularly display my pictures with my local artist's society. The pictures get judged by a panel of referrees before they get displayed. Individual artists then tell me what they think - and never mention sharpness! I find their comments very valuable, particularly when my pictures are rejected.

 

[TheBigYin]

Here's where crit is tricky, because I'm convinced very few photographers actually want to say anything beyond the obvious "look at this bird/train/lake/face".

But, like it or not, everything you put out there IS saying something - now it may only be saying "i'm a record shot of a rare bird being sighted in a unusual location" or it may be as loaded as a typical 17th century vanitas painting from the Dutch school - where every single thing on the table is LOADED with hidden meanings and subtexts.

And, even if the person producing the image didn't intend it to have any meaning, like it or not the viewer will ascribe their own meaning to it by their own experiences and emotions - perhaps the best time to actually talk about meanings IS EXACTLY when the photographer didn't even think about it - as then they may actually learn something and develop into something more than a technician.

 

[zx9]

I have not yet got my feet under the table here but based on my critique given else where:
I try to pitch critique at the level of the photographer and have said in the past something like, it is a great picture well up to your usual standard, then gone on to point something quite minor out, be it distracting highlights off to the edge of the frame or some other feature that for a beginner I would never mention. With a beginner there may be several attributes that could be commented on but going in with both guns blazing could be a bit off putting to put it mildly.
Then there is the like button used as a ' there is tumble weed blowing through thread ZYX, I like the fact you have taken time to contribute'
Another thing to consider, as a new person to Talk Photography I have been going through a lot of historic image threads, often liking an image but there is no point commenting as the comment would turn up several pages after the post referenced.

The EXIF inclusion, I am again in two minds on that, as said above certain genera of photographs it may be useful to the viewer to help them learn how others tackle a subject or how and image was made the same as what camera and lens was used in other ways it is as pointless as a kit list in your signature it is not as though this is a paint photography by numbers course.

 

[Steelo]

As someone who only really visits the landscape section, as it's all I shoot and all I'm really interested in, I've found certain members can't take critique in any way shape or form, albeit probably a few years ago, it put me off saying anything.

Personally I'm always open to critique on my images, but when it's just "I would have shot it 3 steps further to the right" that's opinion, not critique. I'm always thoughtful about my composition to the point I'm anal about it, so if that comment does crop up and I rebuff it, it's not because "I can't take critique" it's because I shot the composition I wanted to shoot, with many factors already taken into consideration at the time.

However, if it's just as @lindsay mentioned in my post this morning in the landscape section, about a crop to remove a wee bit of the road, I took that into consideration, even at the time of post production and it didn't work for me for the balance of the image, BUT, what it id do was made me think about it and I managed to remove the distracting part of the track by cloning more grass over it. Something I never even thought about at the time, and it made a world of difference to the image, of which I wouldn't have thought about without hi critique.

I'm as guilty as anyone for just hitting the like button too though, but I'll start offering critique again in the landscape section and see how it goes.

 

[benc98]

It's also hard to give crit if you don't know what the photographer intended or what sort of comments they want. I joined my local CC over locked down for a bit of social activity - if it's the crit that you get in those places then you end up with your photography taking a turn for the homogeneous. It helps when the photographer posts a line or two about their photo to give context and intent, then it can be crit can be against that

 

[Phil-D]

Off topic a bit but seeing as the thread has turned around more towards offering/accepting critique and the subject of adding/excluding exif has been mentioned, can anyone give me a reason why exif shouldn't be added?

Its a genuine question, I can think of a few reasons why it could be useful, certainly to someone new or just starting out but no reason for excluding it, especially on a photograph forum where settings, equipment and technique are discussed all the time

 

[Gav.]

Honestly, I forget about EXIF details as I'm more worried about my spelling or wording , if I'm actively looking for crit regarding the capture, I'll add it to the post, but most of the time 'these days' I'm more worried about the processing and presentation.
I will try to remember to add it for referance from now on

 

[woof woof]

Off topic a bit but seeing as the thread has turned around more towards offering/accepting critique and the subject of adding/excluding exif has been mentioned, can anyone give me a reason why exif shouldn't be added?

Its a genuine question, I can think of a few reasons why it could be useful, certainly to someone new or just starting out but no reason for excluding it, especially on a photograph forum where settings, equipment and technique are discussed all the time

I not really bothered about full exif but I do like seeing aperture, shutter, ISO, and maybe those things and some other details might be nice.

I very often detail the kit but very rarely the settings, but they might be nice, just for the interest and nerdyness

 

[Dale.]

I find EXIF interesting and helpful, although it's not a deal breaker for me if it's not provided. I provide a basic version, when I remember, although I am getting better.

RE the black halo artifact, I've noticed it on some of my own images in the past, mainly where skies meet land, hills etc. I've blamed to an extent, my lenses, as they do colour fringe in these areas and then any additional processing/sharpening just emphasises it further. It's an easy fix though, A check box in LR for the fringing/aberation but that can leave a 'clear' halo sometimes. That's easily fixed though with a layer and the clone stamp set to darken in PS.

I'm in the process of updating my lenses, which will hopefully improve things.

Some hosting platforms also add a degree of sharpening, which will cause or make any present haloing worse.

If I miss anything when I process and somebody were to notice it, I would be happy to be told about it. It's how we improve.

 

[Nostromo]

I post my photos from Flickr, so the exif data is there if anyone wants to see it.

 

[mstphoto]

Off topic a bit but seeing as the thread has turned around more towards offering/accepting critique and the subject of adding/excluding exif has been mentioned, can anyone give me a reason why exif shouldn't be added?

Its a genuine question, I can think of a few reasons why it could be useful, certainly to someone new or just starting out but no reason for excluding it, especially on a photograph forum where settings, equipment and technique are discussed all the time

One of the first photo forums I joined back in the day was Canon Fodder Forums.
Whenever we posted an image, we always had to state the exif as well

 

[Phil-D]

just for the interest and nerdyness

Definitely Alan, if for no other reason it should be added for this

I post my photos from Flickr, so the exif data is there if anyone wants to see it.

But even on Flickr there's many that strip the exif before posting, maybe someone will be along shortly to explain why

 

[Nod]

"Save For Web" strips EXIF IIRC.

 

[Phil-D]

"Save For Web" strips EXIF IIRC.

There ya go, I didn't know that, I've learnt something new just talking about exif

 

[Cobra]

and i can hand on heart swear that I've been against the idea of the "like" button since it was mooted (maybe 2 years before it was implemented!!)

And as you know, I also voted against it. But as it's been with us well over 10 years ( yes really, I checked) I guess it's here to stay.
And yes it was partly responsible for the lack of feedback, along with around that time, many posters ignored the comments they received, not even acknowledging the positives with even the basic "Thanks" People stopped commenting on those posters images, understandable.
Thankfully the latter habit is changing, has been changing, due to some of those posters drifting away.
Probably due to the lack of comments on their images.

I do like seeing aperture, shutter, ISO, and maybe those things and some other details might be nice.

I completely disagree, it's worthless, as I posted elsewhere awhile ago, 2 togs stood side by side would most likely use different speed, ISO, or aperture, settings
maybe due to the limitations of kit, lens etc. or personal preferences to get the desired image.
Let's be honest, there is more than one way to skin a rabbit.

 

[TimHughes]

And as you know, I also voted against it. But as it's been with us well over 10 years ( yes really, I checked) I guess it's here to stay.
And yes it was partly responsible for the lack of feedback, along with around that time, many posters ignored the comments they received, not even acknowledging the positives with even the basic "Thanks" People stopped commenting on those posters images, understandable.
Thankfully the latter habit is changing, has been changing, due to some of those posters drifting away.
Probably due to the lack of comments on their images.



I completely disagree, it's worthless, as I posted elsewhere awhile ago, 2 togs stood side by side would most likely use different speed, ISO, or aperture, settings
maybe due to the limitations of kit, lens etc. or personal preferences to get the desired image.
Let's be honest, there is more than one way to skin a rabbit.

A couple of thoughts - how about a new crit button? Press the button and it creates a structured form to organize comments? It's a bit tongue in cheek, but maybe has some merit?

On the value of exif, maybe it's more valuable for people starting off? The two togs in this example know what they want and how to control settings to get those results. People starting off or looking at a new style of photo might learn the effects of different settings by seeing the results?

 

[Phil-D]

And as you know, I also voted against it. But as it's been with us well over 10 years ( yes really, I checked) I guess it's here to stay.
And yes it was partly responsible for the lack of feedback, along with around that time, many posters ignored the comments they received, not even acknowledging the positives with even the basic "Thanks" People stopped commenting on those posters images, understandable.
Thankfully the latter habit is changing, has been changing, due to some of those posters drifting away.
Probably due to the lack of comments on their images.



I completely disagree, it's worthless, as I posted elsewhere awhile ago, 2 togs stood side by side would most likely use different speed, ISO, or aperture, settings
maybe due to the limitations of kit, lens etc. or personal preferences to get the desired image.
Let's be honest, there is more than one way to skin a rabbit.

That's not a genuine reason to not add exif to a photo posted for comment though Chris . And as I posted and explained earlier in the thread, technique can be learnt from the exif of others.

There's a thread running now in the Landscape section, its obviously a long exposure, executed extremely well and a very appealing photo.

I'm guessing a filter was used, maybe a 10 stop? My first thought was how useful it would've been to have a little narrative on technique, settings, ect, maybe not for the more experienced landscape toggers but certainly for anyone new to photography or those that concentrate on other genres.

 

[Cobra]

That's not a genuine reason to not add exif to a photo posted for comment though Chris

I'm not saying don't post it, or leave it intact, as already mentioned save for web strips it out, and a lot of people post as attachments, maybe half but that's just a guess. There are no rules regarding EXIF, if people want to post it in the thread, then that's up to them, But I still stand by what I said It's nothing more than mild curiosity

I'm guessing a filter was used, maybe a 10 stop? My first thought was how useful it would've been to have a little narrative on technique, settings, ect,

And some people do post that, particularly in more specialist type images when using filters, which IMO saying they used a 10 stop ( etc) would be more useful for water scapes,
but totally useless for a pet or person in a park. (does EXIF show "filters"? I've no idea, as I never look at it)

On the value of exif, maybe it's more valuable for people starting off?

I would suggest a newbie starting out may well copy the settings and be very disappointed,
as their image doesn't resemble anything like the other image, too dark to light too noisy, the variations are almost endless.
I.e. As we all know, some cameras, handle high ISO setting far better than others.

A couple of thoughts - how about a new crit button? Press the button and it creates a structured form to organize comments?

I suggest that people think for their selves, they have been doing that for around 17 years on TP.
Besides, one size wouldn't fit all, and if people still don't know the best way, there are a few guidelines and suggestions in the tutorial section,
on how to"

Talk Photography

www.talkphotography.co.uk

 

[Gav.]

Settings for a newbie starting out with an f5.6/6.3 lens would not help if they are trying to copy a serious tog with a f2.8 lens? Let alone FL.. just a thought, I'm probably out of my depth saying that

 

[ancient_mariner]

Settings for a newbie starting out with an f5.6/6.3 lens would not help if they are trying to copy a serious tog with a f2.8 lens? Let alone FL.. just a thought, I'm probably out of my depth saying that

Or if the tog used an f1.4 lens.

Exif or no exif doesn't really matter, because they can always ask how a pic was taken.

 

[Phil-D]

Settings for a newbie starting out with an f5.6/6.3 lens would not help if they are trying to copy a serious tog with a f2.8 lens? Let alone FL.. just a thought, I'm probably out of my depth saying that

Then again Gav, a newbie with a thirst for photographic knowledge would obviously want to learn how FL and aperture affected an image, without the relevant info, they wouldn't be able to do that.

 

[Gav.]

Or if the tog used an f1.4 lens.

Exif or no exif doesn't really matter, because they can always ask how a pic was taken.

Then again Gav, a newbie with a thirst for photographic knowledge would obviously want to learn how FL and aperture affected an image, without the relevant info, they wouldn't be able to do that.

True, but I learnt far more by asking questions and playing about with my own fluff ups

 

[Sangoma]

Settings for a newbie starting out with an f5.6/6.3 lens would not help if they are trying to copy a serious tog with a f2.8 lens? Let alone FL.. just a thought, I'm probably out of my depth saying that

I think it would help, it would help to learn the limitations of what they have / advantages of better gear, and either indicate they need a work around or a new lens

 

[Phil-D]

Ya know, I'm not really sure how I've got into this discussion about exif, it wasn't my intension.

I know there are plenty of members on here in the 'you can't learn anything for exif' camp, we see it wrote regularly. From personal experience I disagree and have given a couple of examples, there's plenty more.

I'm not looking to make it a must, I know that will never happen, but feel on a photography forum it's helpful/interesting to know, both from learning a new technique and/or offering critique.

We see more and more images posted, in every section of the forum, with absolutely no narrative, just a title, why?

I can only guess (again ) they aren't looking for anything else but 'great shot'

........hopefully my last post on the subject.........its freezing cold out, foggy, miserable, if I could hibernate I would!.... back to being 'can't be ar*ed' I think

 

[Gav.]

I think it would help, it would help to learn the limitations of what they have / advantages of better gear, and either indicate they need a work around or a new lens

I understand they may help, but finding limitations of gear is part of pushing what you have as far as you can.

---

I don't what to twist this thread further still but, tech specs vs technique has a big part to play too.. just because 'newbie' copied a 'pro's' same settings .. hell even owns the same gear .. the pro may be laying on the floor or sat on their 'back' foot a knee down to the side and foot out front, elbow barced on knee and the camera pushed into the face for support vs a 'newbie' just standing there camera floating in front of face, not supporting the lens correctly, the results would be very differant

 

[Gav.]

We see more and more images posted, in every section of the forum, with absolutely no narrative, just a title, why?

I can only guess (again ) they aren't looking for anything else but 'great shot'

May be some are used to the Instascam and faceache way of posting

I will try to get back into the habit again of adding it

 

[Sangoma]

I understand they may help, but finding limitations of gear is part of pushing what you have as far as you can.

---

I don't what to twist this thread further still but, tech specs vs technique has a big part to play too.. just because 'newbie' copied a 'pro's' same settings .. hell even owns the same gear .. the pro may be laying on the floor or sat on their 'back' foot a knee down to the side and foot out front, elbow barced on knee and the camera pushed into the face for support vs a 'newbie' just standing there camera floating in front of face, not supporting the lens correctly, the results would be very differant

Yes, completely understand that part of it, but it does answer lots of "questions" and allow people to think more about the shots, things like motion blur. depth of field, perspective distortion, what combinations of ISO/aperture/shutter speed as they may well be a different balance to what the other person would use.
All I would like to look at is ISO, aperture, shutter speed and focal length.

I think then there is the aspect of interest.
How interesting is a photo of a beautiful lake/building/cliffs/park etc etc if there is not one letter of text saying what and where it is, compared to those that have just a few words of description?
Having the basic EXIF date to me would also add to the general interest, and would be more likely to comment than just a
Also gives the impression people want to keep the nice locations to themselves

 

[Nod]

For the first 3 years of my photography, the only "EXIF" I could give would be the ISO and even that would be a stop or 2 wrong in some batches. These days, it's (basically) free to experiment with different settings.

 

[juggler]

I know again Sirch has said this but it's worth repeating in big letters for the hard of thinking...

All the "Photos : ..." forums are open for feedback/critique except Photos : For Pleasure.

anyone who complains at getting critique, report their complaint and one of the staff will weigh in.

My photography improved immeasurably after joining this forum nearly 14 years ago (and those who know how useless I am now will realise jsut how terrible I was back then!) and it's probably 90% due to the brilliant critique I recieved when I first came here.

There used to be WAY more crit given back then.

That's good to know. When I was last here more regularly critique was the norm; now it's a rarity. I thought the rules had changed!

 

[juggler]

I rarely post "proper" photos since I don't think screens can do good shots the justice that prints do. There are too many variables as far as screens go to be sure that what people are seeing is what the photographer intends in terms of colour, contrast, saturation etc..

The great majority of images are viewed on screens, not printed.

 

[juggler]

That's good to know. When I was last here more regularly critique was the norm; now it's a rarity. I thought the rules had changed!

Although.. I am confused by the presence of the 'critique' tag which can be added to threads. If all images are fair game then what purpose does the tag serve?

 

[TheBigYin]

Although.. I am confused by the presence of the 'critique' tag which can be added to threads. If all images are fair game then what purpose does the tag serve?

its a way to make it doubly clear to everyone that you're open to critique - we've learned from multiple dummy spits that people were not aware of crit being site wide apart from photos for pleasure, so we added it to allow people to make it clear.

Think of it more as a "I not only welcome critique, but i'm actively seeking it on this particular image"...

(or "come at me, bro...")

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

While there is clearly a trend recently to not give criticism. When I see excessive sharpening I will say so.
Over sharpening does not , and can not, increase detail. all it can ever do is emphasise edges that already exist.
It is certainly one of my pet hates as it always detracts from quality.

Most digital images need some degree of sharpening to overcome deficiencies in the process chain. However the default value is usually more than sufficient , and sometime too much. It is usually sufficient to only increase local sharpening for emphasis, rather than overall. Sky's, plain flat surfaces and misty regions never need sharpening, as all you emphasise is noise.

It seems some people seem to equate sharpening with correcting focus. This is something it can never do.

As for Exif. I find that Photoshop seems to strip out Exif when you save for web. However It is rare for me to have any interest in such information as it is rarely useful.

 

[sirch]

It seems some people seem to equate sharpening with correcting focus. This is something it can never do.

Similarly with camera shake