How to give crit and how to take crit

[Richard King]

Whats much worse is when someone gives a critique you never asked for

 

[coldpenguin]

I think perhaps that sometimes, people have to learn that not all people will like all photos.
If someone says they don't like a particular pic, then move on.
If however, they give a good reason, consider it, and move on whilst bearing it in mind.

We all have the profile options for name, location etc, I was just thinking that an optional level/competency/other more suitable name may allow some tempering of the crit. I fully realise that this isn't going to change the style of some posters critique of posts but could help.

Unfortunately, there is the possibility of poor misguided souls, a la the X factor.
This might lead to more upset egos.

For me, an important thing is that the person who posts the pic has written a little about perhaps why they took the pic, whether they achieved what they thought, what they feel could have been done better.

Agree 100% with that, especially if Crit is asked for.

I am sick to death of seeing 'straight from camera' and the pics being soft, washed out etc. Surely you want to show your best possible pics? Why post them and clearly expect comments. If someone can not be bothered to do any PP to make the pic better, then they don't deserve a reply - All my opinion of course

There are some people who think that they should get it 100% correct in camera, as if it were film.
At this point, perhaps we should be critiquing the settings on the camera and composition only?

(not wishing to make a fight I like the critique you give, and find it balanced.)
I have been guilty of posting more 'just for fun' shots than serious items for critique. But for me, this is a hobby, and I am never likely to take any money for it. (please excuse the grammar)

 

[swag72]

Now obviously if people want to do this they should say so in order that people don't start telling them how PP can improve it.

If people post scanned in film or don't actaully want to use any PP, fancying a more purist approach I guess, then of course that is their choice. I like the idea that if they don't want to do any PP on it, they can say so in their initial blurb. I think that's a very worthwhile idea

Also straight from the camera shots are in my opinion a better way of judging a persons basic technique as there is no hiding behind the editing.

I can see where you are coming from with this, although I personally don't agree with it. Having only used the digital medium I do feel that PP can be used to boost a picture. Of course it can never rescue a totally crap picture, and I like to try to get stuff right in camera to minimalise PP.

if you are going to give crit then comments like this isn't my cup of tea of tea but good effort and I like the eyes, or good use of lighting but have you tried ....etc are far more helpfull than just thats crap I hate it.

I 100% agree with this, and always try to give balanced and helpful comments. I am not of the 'nice shot' brigade as a rule and will say what I think needs to be said, but not in a rude way

I guess my gripe with the 'out of camera' stuff is when people post it and seem to use it as a kind of banner, yet the pic could clearly be helped with a couple of simple minutes. Let me ask you, if you are posting a pic, that for example is lacking a little punch, for whatever reason, would you post it as straight from camera or get it looking it's best to post? There are many shots posted where the poster doesn't appear to have taken any time in what they have posted, be it in making it appear slightly better, or give a reasoning behind it, all I am saying here, is why should I be bothered to crit, which takes up my time, when it appears that the poster has made no effort themselves.

Think I've explained that

There are some people who think that they should get it 100% correct in camera, as if it were film.
At this point, perhaps we should be critiquing the settings on the camera and composition only?

So, as said above, if you write it in the intro that you only wish for crit on he composition of the pic and you don't want to use any PP - That's fine. I would certainly take that on board.

I have been guilty of posting more 'just for fun' shots than serious items for critique. But for me, this is a hobby, and I am never likely to take any money for it. (please excuse the grammar)

And that is fine, as long as we know why / what your motives were for taking the shot or posting. If it's just for fun, that's cool, just say so. That can get a different type of crit then, where a more thought out approach wouldn't be required.

 

[SarahLee]

Would it perhaps be worth drawing up a critiquing template? That way members wishing to offer advice can give feedback on set aspects of the picture, rather than just posting random thoughts/comments.

I quite like that idea, but I don't think that a formal template is the way to go. I can't see many people using it and if they did you'd lose any personal aspect to discussing photos.

What I think would work better is a sticky with a checklist of things to think about when offering critique. Something to help people expand more on why they like or don't like a particular shot. Subject matter / composition / framing / sharpness / DoF etc etc you get the idea.

Alot of us who began with Wet film and having to master dark room techniques that required skill and not a click of a mouse (I know advanced PP is a skill but alot of people just use the auto adjust settings) still see things like PP as cheating. There are still alot of us who use the classical Photojournalism style where the image should be straight from the camera as that IS how the story was seen and we would like crit on that basis.

There are some people who think that they should get it 100% correct in camera, as if it were film.

I don't quite understand these statements.
I admit to not knowing much about film, but I don't think that there is any such thing as "straight out of camera" in the film world.
Surely your choice of chemicals for processing, timings etc is as much PP as any digital PP done on the PC and can have as much of an effect on the finished product ???????

I'd compare using some auto-adjustments on the PC to sending your film away to be developed and advanced digital PP to developing the film yourself.
IMO both are just the final stages in the process of producing an image.

Whats much worse is when someone gives a critique you never asked for

Sorry, but I don't get that either (unless it was said tongue in cheek)
I thought that the default position in the critique forums was that if you posted you expected critique. If you want detailed critique use the dropdown and if you don't want any, either post in "photos for pleasure" or say that you don't want critique.

 

[Richard King]

Sorry, but I don't get that either (unless it was said tongue in cheek)
I thought that the default position in the critique forums was that if you posted you expected critique. If you want detailed critique use the dropdown and if you don't want any, either post in "photos for pleasure" or say that you don't want critique.

Its not so much in the critique forum... it is in the rest of the forums it happens a lot.. someone asks a innocent question ... e.g. How do I light this at a wedding..? and then all of a sudden everyone rips the poor sod's website and portfolio apart

That is why a lot of people who make a living, never ask a question, or offer an answer - because they are not seeking the attention

I have had the same thing with websites. Someone asks a question, I answer it technically, and then for example - some Muppet (often another designer) comes and tells me, and everyone else reading the thread, that some site I did isn't WC3 compliant. I didn't ask for the critique, and it is damaging for my business. (and usually the offending comment is totally irrelevant too) hence - I dont offer a lot of tech advice any more. The reaction to this is then often to get into a protracted argument about some nuance in coding... Net result.. everyone looks bad, and the poor OP never really had the question answers or debated properly

 

[specialman]

One of the big problems we have on TP is the massive amount of traffic when it comes to the image sharing sections. There are too many images being posted, which means the attention other members can give the work in terms of crit is spread too thin. I find this particularly in the sports and motorsport sections; shooters are usually taking a lot of shots to get the most out of the day so feel because they've invested the time, they should everything they wote to the memory card.

I can remember giving some honest but constructive crit on a motorsport post - it was something like a DTM series someone had photographed and they'd posted a big set (15+ shots). I commented that several of the shots were just shots documenting an event and not anything that made the hairs on my neck stand up. They had a couple of really nice shots in there - ones taken from interesting viewpoints using different exposure techniques - but the majority were looking down a straight towards a group of cars who just changed position every few laps. Technically good shots with regard to exposure and AF, but nothing more than that - the equipment had done a very good job for the shutter presser. The OP got the hump a little because I was honest (but not rude) and because I confessed i wasn't a motorsport nut (well, not for this form of motorsport) my crit wasn't taken seriously. A few of his mates piped up to give him a few "Nice set" comments to counter my more honest appraisal. Doing that they totally nullified his asking for honest, constructive crit.

It's very easy to use the anonymity of the internet to feel a bit brave and that applies to both posting shots AND posting crit. I said in another similar thread to this that posters need to be more brutal in how they self-crit. I won't go as far as saying there is a lot of drivel posted - people have to learn and post their learning efforts so others can lend a hand, that's great - but I swear there would be less hassle relating to crit if posters thought "Is this shot REALLY the one I should show?". As we know, photography and the enjoyment of looking at images is very subjective and varies from person to person, but just because we took the shot, it doesn't mean it has to be shown. I see the crit sections as being a place to showcase your work, your best work, the work you are proudest of whether you're a beginner or a seasoned pro. It's not about how much time and money was invested in the conception of the shot; it's about what you were trying to convey when you pressed the shutter release and how that image captures a moment in what is a very varied world.

 

[SarahLee]

Its not so much in the critique forum... it is in the rest of the forums it happens a lot.. someone asks a innocent question ... e.g. How do I light this at a wedding..? and then all of a sudden everyone rips the poor sod's website and portfolio apart

That is why a lot of people who make a living, never ask a question, or offer an answer - because they are not seeking the attention

I have had the same thing with websites. Someone asks a question, I answer it technically, and then for example - some Muppet (often another designer) comes and tells me, and everyone else reading the thread, that some site I did isn't WC3 compliant. I didn't ask for the critique, and it is damaging for my business. (and usually the offending comment is totally irrelevant too) hence - I dont offer a lot of tech advice any more. The reaction to this is then often to get into a protracted argument about some nuance in coding... Net result.. everyone looks bad, and the poor OP never really had the question answers or debated properly

Aaaahhhhh I'm with you now, and agree with what you're saying.
I have no personal interest in wedding photography or websites (no offense intended) so if that's where a lot of this behaviour occurs, most of it passes me by.

 

[swag72]

.....posters need to be more brutal in how they self-crit. I won't go as far as saying there is a lot of drivel posted - people have to learn and post their learning efforts so others can lend a hand, that's great - but I swear there would be less hassle relating to crit if posters thought "Is this shot REALLY the one I should show?"...... but just because we took the shot, it doesn't mean it has to be shown. I see the crit sections as being a place to showcase your work, your best work, the work you are proudest of whether you're a beginner or a seasoned pro. It's not about how much time and money was invested in the conception of the shot; it's about what you were trying to convey when you pressed the shutter release and how that image captures a moment in what is a very varied world.

Well said

 

[parkmoy]

I see the crit sections as being a place to showcase your work, your best work, the work you are proudest of whether you're a beginner or a seasoned pro

But the work a beginner is proudest of may, to you, appear to be very mundane and not worthy of being published for critique.

I see them as a potential learning tool. I want to be told how I could improve the pic and what I did wrong. IMO it shouldn't be about posting superb shots just to get a bit of ego massage. Perhaps we should have a 'SHOWCASE' section for that?

 

[Yardbent]

almost went - glad I didn't........

I've read these past few days enough rubbish, insults and rude behavior on 'some' sections that I thought - "enough - this is not photography - just watch Landscapes, Films, and a few others I enjoy"

Then I posted one "beginner, mediocre image" about a colour problem - and was TOTALLY supported and encouraged

just my 2p to say continuing rude behavior WILL drive people away - lets all do it right..

 

[trencheel303]

Sorry, but this is really annoying me at the moment and I have to say is turning me off TP big time. Also, there is a surprising amount of mediocrity about. I know we all start at the beginning, I'm no better than any one else, but there are just snaps being posted on many ocassions. Also, while I'm at it, and putting myself on the firing line, I am sick to death of seeing 'straight from camera' and the pics being soft, washed out etc. Surely you want to show your best possible pics? Why post them and clearly expect comments. If someone can not be bothered to do any PP to make the pic better, then they don't deserve a reply - All my opinion of course .

Maybe it doesn't need a PP. My camera sharpens pictures for me and if I get the lighting and stuff right I usually feel I don't need to add anything, except for people pics which I will add a bit of zing to in Irfanview. My urbex pics are largely unaltered though in any case. It's not because I can't be bothered improving the image but because I don't think it needs.

It's very easy to use the anonymity of the internet to feel a bit brave and that applies to both posting shots AND posting crit. I said in another similar thread to this that posters need to be more brutal in how they self-crit. I won't go as far as saying there is a lot of drivel posted - people have to learn and post their learning efforts so others can lend a hand, that's great - but I swear there would be less hassle relating to crit if posters thought "Is this shot REALLY the one I should show?". As we know, photography and the enjoyment of looking at images is very subjective and varies from person to person, but just because we took the shot, it doesn't mean it has to be shown. I see the crit sections as being a place to showcase your work, your best work, the work you are proudest of whether you're a beginner or a seasoned pro. It's not about how much time and money was invested in the conception of the shot; it's about what you were trying to convey when you pressed the shutter release and how that image captures a moment in what is a very varied world.

I would agree with that, sometimes I will go out come back and then delete most or all of what I took. If it's crap it is crap and nothing will fix it.

 

[Highlanderjc]

I see no reason to "slate anyone" but on forums it is easy to belittle someone (not only on this forum). You don't have to meet the "victim" of your crit, so the way in which a comment/reply is laid out matters, text is a cold and flat, not like a conversation in the shop/pub wherever. And lets face it all forums have there diehards, those who always want the last word...... and think they are always right! I also believe if the cap fits wear it, this was typed while smiling and I hope that no one took offence.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Maybe it doesn't need a PP. My camera sharpens pictures for me

That's fine, I suppose, if you're shooting in jpeg and posting the pics at full resolution, but if not then they'll need sharpening after resizing...

 

[specialman]

But the work a beginner is proudest of may, to you, appear to be very mundane and not worthy of being published for critique.

I see them as a potential learning tool. I want to be told how I could improve the pic and what I did wrong. IMO it shouldn't be about posting superb shots just to get a bit of ego massage. Perhaps we should have a 'SHOWCASE' section for that?

And that's my point - the beginners will post whatever they post, the more established people will post what they want to post. The key is to really ask yourself whether showing the shot a) makes you feel proud to do so, and B) that it is a true representation of you as a photographer. Of course, exception apply, such as shots taken as an illustration as to whether you're doing something correctly. That's learning.

I had a look through the image sections last night and found several threads that carried disclaimers about it being a rushed shoot, not having all my gear so I couldn't work correctly, the light was going and I didn't bring my flashes..... That sort of thing only goes to prove that people are posting work that isn't their finest. Again, self-crit - does this cobbled together shoot best represent you?

 

[magicaxeman]

Perhaps we should have a 'SHOWCASE' section for that?

Perhaps ego massage is a very good reason NOT to have such a section.

I post because I want others to share in what I've been trying to do or more often than not have a laugh at me. Not because I need the validation of my peers or want my ego massaged.
I wont lie, its nice when others like your images but on the other hand I do not loose any sleep if they don't.

One thing that does get to me is no exif data..especially if the person is requesting help or critique, thats one of the reasons why I don't use save for web myself I want the exif data left in the image file.

 

[neil_g]

the problem is that whilst people are behind keyboards and screens they can be much harsher than they would in real life and/or type stuff that it not always easy to determine what tone it is implied.

likewise you can read stuff the in the wrong way in which it was meant.

 

[gramps]

One thing that does get to me is no exif data..especially if the person is requesting help or critique, thats one of the reasons why I don't use save for web myself I want the exif data left in the image file.

Doesn't seem to happen if your pics are on flickr!

 

[Yardbent]

Doesn't seem to happen if your pics are on flickr!

not everyone wants flickr............quite happy to use TP Gallery
.
.
.
.
..
confined to 800 as it is though............:shake:

 

[magicaxeman]

Sorry Gramps I have to agree with John on that one, I loath flickr, I just use my PB to host the pics and that's it, unless I think its a good or really funny shot in which case it might go on a few of my other sites or even my own website.

I don't have a gallery here due to size limits (file size, not pixel count) and have enough to keep up with already, so if I want to post to all I have to save 4 different sizes of each image. (ok so I automated that process, but its still a lot of storage space on the hard drives)

 

[specialman]

It's a good point about EXIF - it needn't be embedded though; it's just as easy to write '1/60th sec, f/8. ISO 400' etc as a caption when you post the image in the thread.

I know that horrific Strobist flickr site insists on this (as do many other flickr groups) so you can get a handle on the lighting settings used. Maybe if all images on TP includes this it might at least bring a more photographic feel to things instead of just randomly posting images as if we're on Facebook.

 

[SarahLee]

I had a look through the image sections last night and found several threads that carried disclaimers about it being a rushed shoot, not having all my gear so I couldn't work correctly, the light was going and I didn't bring my flashes..... That sort of thing only goes to prove that people are posting work that isn't their finest. Again, self-crit - does this cobbled together shoot best represent you?

I agree - that's one that really puzzles me
If it's a shot that you're not happy with yourself, why offer it up for critique unless it's to ask about a specific point or illustrate a particular issue :shrug:
Although, to be fair it's not something I see very often in the areas of the forum that I visit most anyway.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

For me this critique offered up by Kev M sums up the sort level we need to be aiming for. The trouble is Kev has obviously put a fair bit of though, not to mention time, into it and I'm not sure that in general people will put that much effort into their crit, the other replies in that thread proving the case in point.

 

[Kev M]

Stuff Graham said.

That's very kind of you Graham but I'll be the first to admit my critique isn't always that full.

Something dawned on me yesterday and the old adage is true that you only get out of something what you put in. I'm fairly active round here, especially when I've got time on my hands but it's mostly in the non-photographic, technical questions rather than appraising pictures. I posted some photos that I really wanted some in depth crit on, what I got was a couple of replies and a couple of hundred views. Now maybe it was because I'd gone to the effort to say what I thought could be improved that meant people had nothing to add or maybe its because I don't critique other peoples photos much that they couldn't be arsed to critique mine.

What I decided was that if I wanted critique on mine then I had to do the same for other people so instead of going through everything in People & Portraits I picked out the ones I'm interested in, that meant no babies, no children, no weddings/engagaments, no candids. I'm not interested in these subjects so I wouldn't have the enthusiasm to crit them properly and if I can't be bothered to crit them properly and I'm not interested in the subject then don't even look at them, spend time looking at the most relevant photos not every photo.

I'm with swag on the whole "straight out of the camera thing", digital files all need a little polishing and that whole argument about the days of film "where you got it right in camera" is a load of rubbish.

I shoot film and it doesn't matter if you get it perfect in camera (with the slight exception of transparencies) because even if you do you can bet your life that the finished print will look little like the negative, at least it won't if you want to get the most out of it. First you decide on your developing methods, what chemicals, what temperature, what timing, how many inversions. Then there's the printing, how much contrast, dodging and burning, what paper, what chemicals, does it need toning. Then when you've made the print you notice marks from dust or scratches on the negative so you spot the prints with dyes and bleaches. In the process of making a finished article (print or file) then the pressing the button bit is only one stage of many. I can easily spend longer making prints than I spend on digital files.

If you can't be arsed to spend five minutes polishing the rough edges off of your files then I'm not going to spend five minutes critiquing them.

Which brings me to my last point about quality over quantity. I'd much rather see one or two polished images than dozens which have for the most part been batch processed.

If you want more crit on your images, look at fewer images on TP, be more selective. But those you do look at, spend a little time telling the OP how badly they ****ed it up

 

[Flash In The Pan]

That's very kind of you Graham but I'll be the first to admit my critique isn't always that full.

Perhaps not, but that was an excellent example of the level of crit we need to be aiming for.

Which brings me to my last point about quality over quantity. I'd much rather see one or two polished images than dozens which have for the most part been batch processed.

I couldn't agree more, it's really irritating to see 6, 12 or more shots of near enough the same thing with "c+c please" - pick the best and post those.

It's funny, thinking back to when I joined TP, I was very reluctant to post any images on here for fear of them receiving harsh criticism on a proper photographic forum, however when I look through the various photo sharing fora now it appears to me to be just like Flickr, in both the quality of images and the comments they attract- and that really isn't good enough.

 

[Kev M]

While we're at it, lets cut out the "please be gentle" nonsense. If you want people to be gentle, you're not ready for crit. Flickr is the place for you.

That's not saying that people will have a license to be rude but if you're so scared you feel the need to ask people on the internet to be gentle with you then all you're going to get is a load of "nice shot" nonsense.

 

[Arkady]

While I agreed with your earlier point that people should put a bit of info on here along with the image i.e what they were after, what story do they want to tell etc, saying that only people using PP deserve Crit gets my back up. Yes I do use PP when I feel it's appropriate but like alot of other photographers I know I feel it's too easy to hide basic faults caused at the time a shot was taken by using PP.

Alot of us who began with Wet film and having to master dark room techniques that required skill and not a click of a mouse (I know advanced PP is a skill but alot of people just use the auto adjust settings) still see things like PP as cheating. There are still alot of us who use the classical Photojournalism style where the image should be straight from the camera as that IS how the story was seen and we would like crit on that basis. Now obviously if people want to do this they should say so in order that people don't start telling them how PP can improve it. Also straight from the camera shots are in my opinion a better way of judging a persons basic technique as there is no hiding behind the editing.

Like I said PP has it's place and I will use it when required although always with the minimum editing I can. But most of the time I'm of the opinion that if a shot requires alot of work with PP then it's not a shot worth keeping and I will try and get it right next time. Taking the photo is the real skill that photographers need not editing. I still make alot of mistakes with my photography and welcome crit (as long as your not rude and insulting for the sake of it) but hey we all make mistakes with shots and good crit helps us improve for next time. I think photography is like anything in life none of us know everything and anyone who claims they do is probably heading for a rather large public fall. Photography is a form of art and is therefore subjective, if you don't like something fine thats your perogative but if you are going to give crit then comments like this isn't my cup of tea of tea but good effort and I like the eyes, or good use of lighting but have you tried ....etc are far more helpfull than just thats crap I hate it.

Hmmm...nope.

All digital images require PP: it's a fact of life. If you think otherwise you're just plain wrong.
Those Darkroom Techniques we all learned are still necessary in the digital age: instead of choosing how far to push or pull the negs, what dev and what dilution to use, what grade of paper and what that was dev'd in - all of which had an effect on the final image: all those techniques are still in use today, we just arrive at them by using different tools in Photoshop.

How much PP you employ is up to you.
Letting the camera do all the leg-work is only practical when you have complete control over the subject and lighting.
For the majority of imagery, you have to do something, even if it's just levels/curves and some sharpening.

This classic photojournalist style you speak of is pure myth. Just look at the way Don McCullin's images have changed over the years - and by this I mean his own treatment of the same images. I own several of his books and there's a huge difference between the way he printed 30 years ago to the way he prints those same images now.

 

[Richard King]

Hmmm...nope.

All digital images require PP: it's a fact of life. If you think otherwise you're just plain wrong.
Those Darkroom Techniques we all learned are still necessary in the digital age: instead of choosing how far to push or pull the negs, what dev and what dilution to use, what grade of paper and what that was dev'd in - all of which had an effect on the final image: all those techniques are still in use today, we just arrive at them by using different tools in Photoshop.

How much PP you employ is up to you.
Letting the camera do all the leg-work is only practical when you have complete control over the subject and lighting.
For the majority of imagery, you have to do something, even if it's just levels/curves and some sharpening.

This classic photojournalist style you speak of is pure myth. Just look at the way Don McCullin's images have changed over the years - and by this I mean his own treatment of the same images. I own several of his books and there's a huge difference between the way he printed 30 years ago to the way he prints those same images now.

The guy is talking complete sense +1

 

[Markk]

I disagree with the "if you charge more you should get more in-depth/harsher critique" view. What price for what quality is entirely up to the tog to set and the client to accept and shouldn't have anything to do with the crit.

Critique shouldn't be demeaning and the receiver should also realize this is the Internet and you can't avoid everything that is rude. But we should strive to be polite yet constructive with our words.

 

[joescrivens]

Hmmm...nope.

All digital images require PP: it's a fact of life. If you think otherwise you're just plain wrong.

With respect rob, there is no law or bible that says this is fact. Shooting jpeg with the picture settings at the settings you want and the corect wb. If you nailed the focus and compositionally it was just right then someone might not feel the need to do any PP.

It isn't fact, it's still your opinion.

 

[TheBigYin]

Doesn't seem to happen if your pics are on flickr!

The problem with Flickr stripping exif data is this - If you post a file with exif data, the full size image will retain it's exif. All the other resizes (shrinks) that flickr produces have the data stripped. So - if you're posting images for on here, and want to retain the exif, post them to flickr as an appropriate size for display here and dont rely on flickr to downsize them for you.

 

[coldpenguin]

Hmmm...nope.

All digital images require PP: it's a fact of life. If you think otherwise you're just plain wrong.
Those Darkroom Techniques we all learned are still necessary in the digital age: instead of choosing how far to push or pull the negs, what dev and what dilution to use, what grade of paper and what that was dev'd in - all of which had an effect on the final image: all those techniques are still in use today, we just arrive at them by using different tools in Photoshop.

How much PP you employ is up to you.
Letting the camera do all the leg-work is only practical when you have complete control over the subject and lighting.
For the majority of imagery, you have to do something, even if it's just levels/curves and some sharpening.

I take part in a local photography competition. I have gotten a couple of firsts, and a couple of other places. The rules of that competition are that if you submit a digital photograph, you must not perform any post-processing. The limit of what I do, is I crop slightly to fit, as I believe that this could be easily performed otherwise after the 'processing' stage of either digital or film.

I think that using auto-levels or other settings within photoshop, after the image has been taken, is against the rules of that competition.

I guess that this is fair, so long as the shots from the film are sent off to a photolab like jessops, rather than home processed, where modifications could be made to the image during the processing.