Quality of Photos for Critique gone downhill??

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm pleased this has generated a lot of interest and opinion. I also hope that members will think before posting any old Rubbish. However I feel I'm coming out of this looking pretty awful ;)
 
I've got to tell you Matt, IMO you're doing yourself no favours in the "hard stare" thread. No favours at all.
 
Absolutely. But it's how the comment comes across. A "nice shot (in my opinion)" and a "wow that's fantastic" when it clearly isn't are totally different.

I stress the word clearly above, not being subjective but when an image is likely poor to pretty much everyone. Granted, I haven't seen many that would fall into this category.


gramps said:
Surely it's all subjective ... members all vary in experience, ability and genre.
I comment on a variety of genres but I don't profess to be proficient in all of them, if I feel I am not qualified to offer critique I may offer praise or some indication of how pleasing I find the image (which others may not find pleasing). Sometimes an encouraging comment can be more helpful than a mass of critique
Click to expand...
 
simon ess said:
I've got to tell you Matt, IMO you're doing yourself no favours in the "hard stare" thread. No favours at all.
Click to expand...
I felt the same when I viewed that thread too, it almost seemed like @Oxford_Matt was critiquing just to be argumentative. Although he softened his approach later but I feel much of that was due to @lfc1892 response
 
Last edited:
Oxford_Matt said:
Really!! I'm not joking when I say my 6 year old son could do better... So what does that tell you. Apart from he's pretty good tog for his age. :)
Click to expand...

I'm saying you don't "know" what has gone into any image other than your own.
Suggesting you do just makes you appear pretentious.
 
Last edited:
jakeblu said:
I felt the same when I viewed that thread too, it almost seemed like @Oxford_Matt was critiquing just to be argumentative. Although he softened his approach later but I feel much of that was due to @lfc1892
Click to expand...

Totally!.... Like I said in that thread Lfc is one member that listens, explains what he's going for and doesn't hissy fit.
I'm guessing maybe @Oxford_Matt was hoping to get a different reaction and sadly lost his argument when it didn't happen.
 
sunnyside_up said:
HAHA... thanks for the Saturday morning chuckle! You never fail to disappoint!

I think this is a very touchy subject, and kind of insulting to a lot of people. This forum has never been touted as 'professionals only' and has always been very welcoming to all levels of photographer.
Click to expand...


I'm not commenting on the quality of imagery on here generally... I'm just saying most people are crap, and hide behind digital manipulation. I stand by that. Given a film camera and a roll of film and these people making all the shiny things suddenly become crap. Why is that then? Because they're crap, that's why.
 
I stand by what I say. The Quality of Posts for Critique has dropped. The Photo in hard stare is technically awful. I really don't care what you think of me. I'm merely just commenting on what I see. No one whinges when I give positive posts. The minute you post a negative critique you are burnt at the steak. Maybe I'm a bit too honest. But it's me.
 
Oxford_Matt said:
I stand by what I say. The Quality of Posts for Critique has dropped. The Photo in hard stare is technically awful. I really don't care what you think of me. I'm merely just commenting on what I see. No one whinges when I give positive posts. The minute you post a negative critique you are burnt at the steak. Maybe I'm a bit too honest. But it's me.
Click to expand...

No, I think you used the hard stare image to prove a point but failed miserably.
His images aren't for you that is all, nothing more nothing less.
 
I'm grateful for the mention of the "hard stare" thread, which I probably wouldn't have seen otherwise. Presumably (unless I'm mistaken?) this will be one of the photos that shows declining standards (to Matt, anyway). I'm not going to give a critique (because I haven't studied it for long enough, and on my screen I don't get to see it in one go anyway; but my first impressions after about five minutes are that it's an excellent image (in many ways for the reasons Matt gives for it not being one), but it's also not one that I like. To me, liking or disliking are irrelevant to critique though, except insofar as my reaction should make me think about why I react in that way. Personally, I find I learn more from images I don't like, because they make me think more about it.
 
I did explain why I felt it was not great. However this was dismissed.

Anyway back to this thread
 
Eltheza said:
'Hordes' not 'hoardes'! From the the Greek, 'ορδες';)!
Click to expand...
'Hordes' from the Mongolian 'Ord' if we are going to get pedantic.
 
Oxford_Matt said:
I did explain why I felt it was not great. However this was dismissed.

Anyway back to this thread
Click to expand...

It wasn't dismissed, he spent time explaining his thoughts and reasons for what he was trying to achieve
 
The two posts above mine were made while I was replying. I find the "technically awful" comment interesting, because I always look on "technical" decisions as being at bottom artistic ones. Depth of field and where the focus is placed is technical, but it should serve the photographer's intent - and the same for exposure, shadows, contrast and everything else. I'd only comment on points like those where I felt that what I took to be the intention could be strengthened by altering a technical parameter (sorry about the turgid phraseolgy there), and actively use what appeared to be "faults" to illuminate the intent. This presupposes that I start from the viewpoint that the photographer knew what he was doing; but that's always the safest place to start, in my opinion.
 
Oxford_Matt said:
Really!! I'm not joking when I say my 6 year old son could do better... So what does that tell you. Apart from he's pretty good tog for his age. :)
Click to expand...
Speaks volumes but I'm out now :)
 
StephenM said:
The two posts above mine were made while I was replying. I find the "technically awful" comment interesting, because I always look on "technical" decisions as being at bottom artistic ones. Depth of field and where the focus is placed is technical, but it should serve the photographer's intent - and the same for exposure, shadows, contrast and everything else. I'd only comment on points like those where I felt that what I took to be the intention could be strengthened by altering a technical parameter (sorry about the turgid phraseolgy there), and actively use what appeared to be "faults" to illuminate the intent. This presupposes that I start from the viewpoint that the photographer knew what he was doing; but that's always the safest place to start, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Good points. I remember years ago doing some images that were intentionally under-exposed to provide the ambience and mood I was after. I posted them on a non-photographic forum and a few members could not get their heads around the fact I deliberately under-exposed. Good photographers know the rules but don't always choose to play by them.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I'm not commenting on the quality of imagery on here generally... I'm just saying most people are crap, and hide behind digital manipulation. I stand by that. Given a film camera and a roll of film and these people making all the shiny things suddenly become crap. Why is that then? Because they're crap, that's why.
Click to expand...
I can't say as I hide behind digital manipulation - but I do hide behind my LCD and my histogram for a quick check to see if I'm where I should be. Admittedly, I'm not confident enough in working blind, so then I could very well be crap too. :)
And on that note, I'm going to get a glass of prosecco. Cheers
 
Oxford_Matt said:
I did explain why I felt it was not great. However this was dismissed.

Anyway back to this thread
Click to expand...
Actually he didn't dismiss it at all. He acknowledged it, considered, decided he didn't agree with it and ultimately rejected it. He even went on to thank you for it.

It was text book example of how to handle critique, and it's his choice as the photographer as to whether or not to take on board the points raised.
 
Oxford_Matt said:
What a load of Rubbish.
Click to expand...

If that refers to the post above (101), you might care to consider this:


And it may well be that the viewer doesn’t realise that there is a message at all. Andreas Feininger told how he once visited an exhibition, and in viewing the photographs found one that he thought was "unbelievably dull" - grey and grainy, with a skyline more or less centrally placed showing dunes and sky. But just before he moved on, a thought crossed his mind. What if the photographer was intending to convey a sense of dullness? Didn’t that mean that the photograph was actually a very successful image that strikingly conveyed that message?[1]

The quote comes from a book I'm writing, chapter 5, "Composition"
[1] The story is found in The Complete Colour Photographer, on page 14.

Edited to add missing "might" - in this case, "might" does make "(it) right"
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
If that refers to the post above (101), you care to consider this:


And it may well be that the viewer doesn’t realise that there is a message at all. Andreas Feininger told how he once visited an exhibition, and in viewing the photographs found one that he thought was "unbelievably dull" - grey and grainy, with a skyline more or less centrally placed showing dunes and sky. But just before he moved on, a thought crossed his mind. What if the photographer was intending to convey a sense of dullness? Didn’t that mean that the photograph was actually a very successful image that strikingly conveyed that message?[1]

The quote comes from a book I'm writing, chapter 5, "Composition"
[1] The story is found in The Complete Colour Photographer, on page 14.
Click to expand...
And one of the reasons meaningful critique can be harder to give than it need be is because:
  • Many press the shutter sith a specific intent, but don't share it alongside the photo - and then get upset when it's misinterpreted
  • Many have no intent beyond "taking a nice picture" and the lack of intent makes it unlikely that there's a deeper structure, meaning or story in the frame
 
Ok.. Well I will say this "If you wish to become a successful photographer, it does matter what others think of your work"
 
Every poor image can be called art.. Or deliberate captures. That's same as putting few full bins together and calling it art. There's always some idiot that appreciates the rubbish
 
Oxford_Matt said:
Ok.. Well I will say this "If you wish to become a successful photographer, it does matter what others think of your work"
Click to expand...

Define successful.

And lots of kids nowadays earn more than I ever will by taking photos of insipid things, dogs and cats etc etc and sticking it on Instagram. You could easily argue that there is no high-art in that so what's more important, being successful or staying true to your artistic integrity?

To turn that around a bit, all the best artists do something different to the norm and something that is true to them, many never make it, a few do. It is a mistake to think that aesthetics = art.
 
That may depend on your definition of "successful" and the timescale you want to use. Vincent van Gogh wasn't a successful artist (not in his lifetime anyway). Surely others opinions aren't necessarily correct - art history is littered with painters whose work wasn't thought up to much at the time but later generations viewed differently.

The same is true in the history of photography.
 
Oxford_Matt said:
I understand everyone has to start somewhere. But I feel the effort even by the beginners has dropped.
Click to expand...

i agree - sticks head above parapet [Italian parapetto, from parare to shield]..:)

i recently bought a Nikon D300
it has FOUR shooting banks in which various menus can be set - in its simplest form it's almost a P&S
a beginer using a D300 could be forgiven for thinking he's composing an image - in fact plenty of sharpening, WB, contrast. DoF etc is being done for him
if he/she then used my Canon A-1 there would have to be a LOT more thought put into the image to be produced

have modern cameras - by building-in menu-driven images - actually hampered a new beginner - and whose posted images fall short of what we 'know' can be achieved..?
 
Last edited:
Photography is art, not everybody likes the same thing, if they did, it would be repetitive and boring. I've read all the posts here and the "Hard Stare" thread and while the photo there isn't to my taste, I understand it and appreciate where they were going with it.

To call someone an "idiot" because they like something you don't (Matt!) comes across as arrogant. I'm not saying Matt is arrogant, I don't know him. That said @Oxford_Matt, I've tried to look at your 500px to get an insight from your point of view and what you like / shoot but cant find it. I assumed it would be on your profile page but its locked out...
 
Yardbent said:
i agree - sticks head above parapet [Italian parapetto, from parare to shield]..:)

i recently bought a Nikon D300
it has FOUR shooting banks in which various menus can be set - in its simplest form it's almost a P&S
a beginer using a D300 could be forgiven for thinking he's composing an image - in fact plenty of sharpening, WB, contrast. DoF etc is being done for him
if he/she then used my Canon A-1 there would have to be a LOT more thought put into the image to be produced

have modern cameras - by building-in menu-driven images - actually hampered a new beginner - and whose posted images fall short of what we 'know' can be achieved..
Click to expand...
No, I don't think so. The photographer still has to find something interesting to shoot, and compose it accordingly. Those are the two most important aspects which don't change no matter what you use,
 
Oxford_Matt said:
Every poor image can be called art.
Click to expand...

And every piece of art can be called poor. But in my opinion, statements like that need to be supported by reasons - not by whether I like it or not (I hate garlic, but I'm not going to argue with the "idiots" who like it (N.B. the use of the word "idiot" is not intended as a slur on those whose tastes differ from mine)). I'm always open to the view that I've failed to understand something and that that is the reason I regard it unfavourably.

My first reaction to seeing the proof (and yes, there is one!) that 2 + 2 does not in fact equal 4 was outrage. The proof was valid though - it depended on the presuppositions that you started with. What's true in mathematics is even more true (I'd say) in aesthetics.
 
Oxford_Matt said:
Every poor image can be called art.. Or deliberate captures. That's same as putting few full bins together and calling it art. There's always some idiot that appreciates the rubbish
Click to expand...

Looks like it might be arty-b*****ks bingo time again.;)
 
odd jim said:
No, I don't think so. The photographer still has to find something interesting to shoot, and compose it accordingly. Those are the two most important aspects which don't change no matter what you use,
Click to expand...

agreed - maybe this is a problem for newcomers - they get 'liked'' so much on social sites, they think they're progressing OK

i joined 500px exactly ONE month ago to view a specific persons work
i added 7 - just 7 - into my Album
364 views = 109 likes ----- I must be bloody marvellous..!........;)
 
Oxford_Matt said:
Every poor image can be called art.. Or deliberate captures. That's same as putting few full bins together and calling it art. There's always some idiot that appreciates the rubbish
Click to expand...

When I started reading this thread, I had you down as an intelligent person with high standards, then I got to this statement, which shows you as a self important ignoramus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top