Rayt
Nonplayer Character
Who am I to give a critique? I go to an art museum or gallery and can't understand why most of the stuff are up there. Obviously I have no clue.
kennylovrin
Well-known
I think this is an interesting discussion. Mostly because I've always found critique on any form of art to be nonsense for the most part. First of all what is good and what is not is so subjective, that one mans opinion might not mean anything/matter at all to another, but also because good/and bad has a tendency to be very dependent on external factors.
I may have a negative view on things regarding this, I don't know, but to me the context of art seems to be very important when people decide what is good and bad. Well known artists seem to get away with a lot more than unknown artists or amateurs.
Also, time seems to be a very important factor in a lot of photographs. For example, two more or less identical photos, one from today and one from 50 years ago seems to be received often very differently, and I would tend to believe that is because of time rather than the quality of the photo itself. The fact that the photo/subject of the photo is old becomes a quality in itself.
There are loads and loads of extremely talented photographers for example on such a site as Flick, that gets no attention at all, when at the same time I see mediocre photos very often on sites, in magazines etc that "should be considered great".
There might be something I am missing, but this is how I perceive it most of the time. Exact same thing goes for music.
On the other hand, things that CAN be critiqued are often specifically technical, stuff like sharpness, highlights and shadows and so on. The reason for that is probably because it can be compared, and there is also a technical limitation to what can and can't be done so there is a concrete way of relating to it. It also seems that the way of getting the photo affects what people think of the content of the photo. A great photo of an animal in a zoo will probably always be considered worse than a not so great photograph of the same wild animal on the savannah of Africa. Probably because anyone can go to the zoo, but not everyone can be bothered to travel to Africa for that shot. I'm not saying it is wrong, I'm just saying that there is the context again shifting what we think of the photo, while we think we are having opinions on the content itself.
Personally, I have a very hard time giving critique on the art level of a photograph, probably most of all because I don't know what to say - who am I to decide what is right or wrong. But also because I am probably what some would consider "shallow" when it comes to art. For me it is a visual treat, if it looks good it is good, if it looks ****, it isn't good. Of course everything has exceptions, and it depends a bit on the purpose of the photo. A purely documentary photo obviously cannot be judged solely on if it "looks good", but I think for many of us hobbyists, photography is about creating something that looks good/is visually appealing.
Maybe it turns out that no one agrees with me and I am totally wrong, or maybe one of my shots that no one likes today will be awesome in 50 years when the world looks different.
I may have a negative view on things regarding this, I don't know, but to me the context of art seems to be very important when people decide what is good and bad. Well known artists seem to get away with a lot more than unknown artists or amateurs.
Also, time seems to be a very important factor in a lot of photographs. For example, two more or less identical photos, one from today and one from 50 years ago seems to be received often very differently, and I would tend to believe that is because of time rather than the quality of the photo itself. The fact that the photo/subject of the photo is old becomes a quality in itself.
There are loads and loads of extremely talented photographers for example on such a site as Flick, that gets no attention at all, when at the same time I see mediocre photos very often on sites, in magazines etc that "should be considered great".
There might be something I am missing, but this is how I perceive it most of the time. Exact same thing goes for music.
On the other hand, things that CAN be critiqued are often specifically technical, stuff like sharpness, highlights and shadows and so on. The reason for that is probably because it can be compared, and there is also a technical limitation to what can and can't be done so there is a concrete way of relating to it. It also seems that the way of getting the photo affects what people think of the content of the photo. A great photo of an animal in a zoo will probably always be considered worse than a not so great photograph of the same wild animal on the savannah of Africa. Probably because anyone can go to the zoo, but not everyone can be bothered to travel to Africa for that shot. I'm not saying it is wrong, I'm just saying that there is the context again shifting what we think of the photo, while we think we are having opinions on the content itself.
Personally, I have a very hard time giving critique on the art level of a photograph, probably most of all because I don't know what to say - who am I to decide what is right or wrong. But also because I am probably what some would consider "shallow" when it comes to art. For me it is a visual treat, if it looks good it is good, if it looks ****, it isn't good. Of course everything has exceptions, and it depends a bit on the purpose of the photo. A purely documentary photo obviously cannot be judged solely on if it "looks good", but I think for many of us hobbyists, photography is about creating something that looks good/is visually appealing.
Maybe it turns out that no one agrees with me and I am totally wrong, or maybe one of my shots that no one likes today will be awesome in 50 years when the world looks different.
I Love Film
Well-known
I Love Film
Well-known
This is because years ago, some photographer may have pioneered a concept, or might have been the first one to "see" something in a certain way. This is of itself something that is unique and interesting.
In the intervening years, tens of thousands may then have aped this concept, turning it into a visual cliche and made it boring, tedious and derivative.
Being the first to "see" always has artistic merit.
In the intervening years, tens of thousands may then have aped this concept, turning it into a visual cliche and made it boring, tedious and derivative.
Being the first to "see" always has artistic merit.
kennylovrin
Well-known
I agree with you on that. But what I was thinking was more that I tend to believe that the "exoticness" of old photographs adds a perceived value as well. So I don't think it has to be old in the sense of being pioneering of a certain style etc, but rather that things that people haven't seen in a long while tends to look more interesting. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a photograph has a tendency to get better just because it's aging - if that makes any sense. I don't even thinks it has to bee that long, I'm sure that a lot of snapshots from today that no one cares about will look really interesting in 20 years when we look back and say "what ridiculous clothes people are wearing" and even such a small thing will make the photo look better.
thirtyfivefifty
Noctilust survivor
Why criticize when all that there is to say or do is nothing? I'll provide my comments if people ask me personally, but I have better use of my time. I'm always on the look for photographs that get my attention, and have me reflecting on my personal style and technique.
funkpilz
Well-known
On here as well in real life, be it photography or whatever else, I will only give my honest opinion when somebody asks me for just that. I believe critique is very helpful, especially/only when it is honest and constructive at the same time.
BUT in an internet forum, nobody is obliged to post or comment on anything, so if I'm going to go through the trouble of replying in a thread, it will most likely be because I looked through the images and found them interesting. If I didn't like them, I really just don't see the point in saying so, just because I'm lazy.
And yes, there are people who get nothing but praise for objectively bad photos and never realize they have no skill until it's too late, just because people were too polite about their art. I can imagine what that might feel like (Hey, maybe I'm crap at photography and don't know it yet) But that's not my problem, and I don't owe anybody on the internet personal feedback, so whatever.
BUT in an internet forum, nobody is obliged to post or comment on anything, so if I'm going to go through the trouble of replying in a thread, it will most likely be because I looked through the images and found them interesting. If I didn't like them, I really just don't see the point in saying so, just because I'm lazy.
And yes, there are people who get nothing but praise for objectively bad photos and never realize they have no skill until it's too late, just because people were too polite about their art. I can imagine what that might feel like (Hey, maybe I'm crap at photography and don't know it yet) But that's not my problem, and I don't owe anybody on the internet personal feedback, so whatever.
I Love Film
Well-known
I understand what you're saying and there's a lot of truth to that. Simple snapshots become important historical documents.
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
Many years ago, I joined a camera club - ostensibly to learn more about the craft of taking photographs, processing and printing film. Many of the older members used to pass summary and cursory judgement on newer members' work but this took the form of an attack on the ability of the photographer rather than a constructive critique of the photographer's work.
This was a lesson learned well for me. I believe we should all be able to tell people what we think but I also believe that we must be prepared to explain constructively (in detail if required) why we don't like it, what we'd change and how we'd change it. After all, it's only our opinion and - even if a hundred people agree with us - it doesn't make us right. This is art, not science, and there are no absolute "rules".
We must be prepared to have our minds changed. A few years ago, I saw some photos by a photographer called Martin Parr. I didn't "get it" and, for the most part, I still don't. However, I cannot criticise his work as (a) I couldn't do better and (b) how do I criticise something I don't understand? All I can say is that it isn't to my taste - which is not constrctive.
Finally, we should be our own harshest critics. I have never taken a photo and believed that it could not have been done better. We should listen, even if we don't like what we hear. Only if we listen can we decide whether what we've been told is useful and helpful to us or if it's just someone letting off steam without really saying anything.
This was a lesson learned well for me. I believe we should all be able to tell people what we think but I also believe that we must be prepared to explain constructively (in detail if required) why we don't like it, what we'd change and how we'd change it. After all, it's only our opinion and - even if a hundred people agree with us - it doesn't make us right. This is art, not science, and there are no absolute "rules".
We must be prepared to have our minds changed. A few years ago, I saw some photos by a photographer called Martin Parr. I didn't "get it" and, for the most part, I still don't. However, I cannot criticise his work as (a) I couldn't do better and (b) how do I criticise something I don't understand? All I can say is that it isn't to my taste - which is not constrctive.
Finally, we should be our own harshest critics. I have never taken a photo and believed that it could not have been done better. We should listen, even if we don't like what we hear. Only if we listen can we decide whether what we've been told is useful and helpful to us or if it's just someone letting off steam without really saying anything.
fstops
-
If you don't know how to critique other people's work how would you know what to critique in your own work?
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Exactly. And it brings up another point: some people concentrate on what they would do, and not on why it was done. For example, I showed an environmental photo of a camera salesman surrounded by cameras around his computer desk to two different people. One said that the cameras were distracting and I should have zoomed in on the face, and another said that the guy was distracting her from the cameras.
One must learn to take in different points of view and make your own assesment of their filters.
Oh, and some absolutely want a "story" to be told. To them it's "all about" the story. Which I think it's amusing because lots of people like to read stories which like to burn off word counts by giving you visuals in almost photographic detail. When they say they like a horse they are thinking rather of a camel...
My convoluted point is: if people don't know how to look at others' photos, how can one be sure they knew how to look at theirs?
MIkhail
-
Criticism like that really does not change anything. It's the technique, basics really. If you need to be told that it's better to crop, they you dont know what you are doing yet anyway. Cropping will not make mediocre shot into a good one.
Your photo philosophy, your own message, and generally weather your point of view is releavant to the modern photography or not- that's what matters, if you are half serious about photography as an art medium. It can hardly be done by random people on technical forum. Various portfolio reviews are good source for this info, starting from the top - Huston's review, and number of others. First of all, they make you to prepare the portfolio, so you looking at your pictures with critical eye to start with. That's already the first filter. And so on.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Defining "definition" as "defining" is neither.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
In 1963, I met a very old man selling a very old gun belt with holsters and other western equipment off the trunk of his car at a local airshow. He had a tintype that he wanted $5 for. He explained the one of the young men with twin six shooters and rifles was himself back in the days when he was know as the "West Pecos Kid". He said the other was William Bonney, or "Billy the Kid". I was 20 years old with no interest in photography or history. Five dollars would buy a full tank of gas and a six pack of beer. I was interested but not enough to get back before he left.
I have no way of knowing if the tintype of he and Billy the Kid was authentic or not. I still believe it was. His age made it possible. But I will never know for sure.
Sparrow
Veteran
It's easy to "like" or "dislike" an image but it's much harder to actually analyse it and then convey why you like and why other people will also like or dislike it to others, it requires a lot of work and a lot of time to do that ... so folk go off on displacement activities, like agonising over the slightest difference between lenses or the noise some shutter or other makes, and now that there's the new Sony full frame, well most people will be worrying about its price and criticising other manufactures for whatever ... and waiting, impatiently, for the un-boxing video, and by then there'll something new coming along so they won't ever need to bother with the actual photos
jwc57
Well-known
In college, before the critiques began, we had to stand before everyone and describe why, what, how, when, etc. of our photos. This served forced us to see our photos from the perspective of others and demonstrated that there was some thought and purpose behind the all the elements of the photo--contrast, composition, etc.
I think it is a better method than just throwing photos online and asking for an evaluation. I'll either agree or disagree with your choices, but at least I know where you were coming from and why you wanted to go.
I think it is a better method than just throwing photos online and asking for an evaluation. I'll either agree or disagree with your choices, but at least I know where you were coming from and why you wanted to go.
Sparrow
Veteran
... I turned down two small Russell Flint water-colours in 1978'ish at £30.00 for the pair :shoots-himself-smiley:
Matus
Well-known
If I am explicitly asked for a critique, than yes - I will say what I honestly think.
There are in general 2 problems with critiquing photos on a forum like this one:
1) the posted photos where the photographer asks what other think are in general, well, not too good ('boring' or 'without story' or 'lacking impact' would be a better word). So most of 'honest' opinions will reflect that fact.
2) even more important than (1) - there are very few people (no offense to anyone particular) who can actually give a helpful critique (what is more difficult than actually taking a good photo) so there is often not much to learn from the critiques posted.
3) Third point coming out of the first two - one should try to post only the very best work which he/she thinks is worth showing to someone :angel:
Let me make an example of myself:
The photos I have taken that I consider 'good' would not get posted for a critique. Surely others would have taken a different and often better photo in the same situation, but there is not necessarily much to say about it. Now the photos I have taken that I personally like, but at the same I mostly do realize that the photo would not be interesting for others and it even does not have any great technical quality - what I already know
So I only post my photos which I hope will at least some people may enjoy. Apart from gear testing of course
There are in general 2 problems with critiquing photos on a forum like this one:
1) the posted photos where the photographer asks what other think are in general, well, not too good ('boring' or 'without story' or 'lacking impact' would be a better word). So most of 'honest' opinions will reflect that fact.
2) even more important than (1) - there are very few people (no offense to anyone particular) who can actually give a helpful critique (what is more difficult than actually taking a good photo) so there is often not much to learn from the critiques posted.
3) Third point coming out of the first two - one should try to post only the very best work which he/she thinks is worth showing to someone :angel:
Let me make an example of myself:
The photos I have taken that I consider 'good' would not get posted for a critique. Surely others would have taken a different and often better photo in the same situation, but there is not necessarily much to say about it. Now the photos I have taken that I personally like, but at the same I mostly do realize that the photo would not be interesting for others and it even does not have any great technical quality - what I already know
So I only post my photos which I hope will at least some people may enjoy. Apart from gear testing of course
Fedupwithdigital
Member
An art teacher of mine once said an artist should be his own harshest critic. He was obviously quoting someone else! I wonder if he was a member of your camera club?
Being relatively new here and, frankly, not that good a photographer, I personally feel that any criticism I could offer of anyone else's work wouldn't be worth much.
I'm no artist, but as well as being able to take criticism, I think my art teacher also meant that a person shouldn't have their head turned by praise either. As Paul Jenkin says, if you don't think what you've done is any good or as good as you wanted it to be, then it isn't good enough. Regardless of the praise of others.
So maybe constructive criticism should be encouraged as much as praise?
On that note, feel free to nip over to the Gallery and comment on my pics!
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Me liking someone's picture is very different from me giving my opinion or critique about the same photo. My personal taste does not set the standard. There are some photos that I think are good but I do not personally like. And vice verso. So I will never tell someone I do or do not like photo because that is meaningless.
I will give certain people my honest opinion or critique about their photos if they specifically request. There are some absolute requirements:
1) We must know each other very well. Not just internet buddies.
2) They must fully comprehend that my opinion is no more than just one persons opinion, others may have different opinions, and that conflicting opinions may both be valid.
3) We can discuss my comments in person or via telephone. No web responses, no private e-mails, but something that has immediate back and forth dialogue.
A good photo is easier to critique. You can tell what the photographer was trying to accomplish by their success in doing so.
A "less than good photo" is a challenge. Sometimes an impossible task. You get no message. You don't know what was excluded from the frame. You don't know what happened a 1/2 second earlier or later. It is hard to be constructive about what is not there.
I will give certain people my honest opinion or critique about their photos if they specifically request. There are some absolute requirements:
1) We must know each other very well. Not just internet buddies.
2) They must fully comprehend that my opinion is no more than just one persons opinion, others may have different opinions, and that conflicting opinions may both be valid.
3) We can discuss my comments in person or via telephone. No web responses, no private e-mails, but something that has immediate back and forth dialogue.
A good photo is easier to critique. You can tell what the photographer was trying to accomplish by their success in doing so.
A "less than good photo" is a challenge. Sometimes an impossible task. You get no message. You don't know what was excluded from the frame. You don't know what happened a 1/2 second earlier or later. It is hard to be constructive about what is not there.