validity and usefulness of photo critique

[FrankS]

Not meaning to throw a bucket of water on the critque thread as I hope it will continue among those who wish to participate, reading it has brought up a question in my mind: What really is the usefulness and or validity of photo critique?

I can understand the usefulness of the process for photo beginners who may need direction and encouragement, but what about for photogs who have been at it for decades? Unless the critiquer is someone you hold above yourself in terms of photographic skill and vision, and who is skilled and insightful at photo critique, why do it?

After a point, isn't developing a personal vision more important than conforming to the vision of others?

Just a question, and I do hope the critiquing thread will continue.

 

[Toby]

Sometimes it's important to get a sounding board, even for the most experienced. The problem is if you don't get the right type of advice or if a critic has a chip on his shoulder then the advice may be worse than none at all. It's very hard to get the balance right.

 

[Michael I.]

I only aknowledge critique from people who have at least a couple of WOW photos they can show.The internet has given stage to all those who criticize anything.When I criticize someone's photo I try to add "in my opinion".

 

[rover]

I will take the other side of the argument.

Any comment or critique is better than none. If I were to offer a photo for critique I clearly would listen to the comments and suggestions offered, but ultimately, the most important opinion regarding my work is my own.

If I like something that everyone else doesn't, that means to me you all are wrong. That doesn't mean I won't learn from your offering and be able to improve in the future. I would see it as suggestions to imporve what I already see as a sucess.

 

[LazyHammock]

I think any carefully considered, well articulated criticism can be useful. I have been photographing for a few years but only getting serious the last three or so. I'll take criticism from anyone if it is well reasoned. Patting me on the back and saying "nice shot" makes me feel good but doesn't help me grow as a photographer.
"Criticism" has very negative connotations, but a good critic should be able to highlight the positive aspects of an image as well as those that detract from the image. Anyone who is putting their images out there for public viewing should be able withstand a good critique.
Nick

 

[tetrisattack]

I get as much or more out of critiquing others' work than from a critique of my own, you know? Often the prolonged focus required to say something useful about another's piece precipitates a good deal of introspection and self-analysis of my own. I look forward to critique at school that I may get to see what everybody else has been up to. 🙂

I'm fairly interested to see how things work out in the critique threads -- while the rules are carefully considered and implemented, I think it will be difficult to get the same sort of feedback one can get from meeting in real life, just due to how it's drawn out over time here. In real life there's the social tension of the moment. Somebody might blurt out what they really think, or possibly respond emotionally to a piece, or just chat excitedly about what they're trying to do with their work. Such phenomena are possible in the internet forum, of course, but are hindered by the passage of time and impersonality of electronic communication, which seems to subdue some of the more exciting and meaningful aspects of critique.

But I'm just rambling by now. Any critique is better than nothing, so let's keep it going. Anyway, back to the coffee and email. 🙂

 

[Kevin]

Photo comments just feed egos.

 

[LazyHammock]

Kevin, I agree to some extent but I don't see anything wrong with feeding the ego if it gets people out there enjoying photography. A critique is a very different beast though - it can be a useful learning tool.

 

[FrankS]

I agree that who does the critiquing is vital. This person must be exceptionally insightful and tallented in this skill to be able to help the development of the photographer's vision, rather than just offering/imposing their own vision.

 

[back alley]

Photo comments just feed egos.

i see nothing wrong with that.
we all have egos so why deny it?
over inflated egos can be a pia but a deflated one doesn't do anything much for me.

joe

 

[back alley]

Patting me on the back and saying "nice shot" makes me feel good but doesn't help me grow as a photographer.

another pov on this...when someone says to me, nice shot, i go back and look at the shot and try to figure out what was liked, what makes it a 'good shot'?
and if a shot gets no comments at all, then i wonder 'how come i like it' and no one else does.
anything that will get me to think...

joe

 

[RayPA]

I agree that who does the critiquing is vital. This person must be exceptionally insightful and tallented in this skill to be able to help the development of the photographer's vision, rather than just offering/imposing their own vision.

I disagree to a certain extent. Critiquing is not an elistist skill. That is a defeatist attitude that only keeps people from advancing their skill and art. I think that anyone is capable of providing valuable feedback. Most of the time the majority of people lack the vocabulary to critique an image, so to that extent maybe it's really a matter of critiquing vs. providing feedback (or thoughts). But critiquing is a learned technique. You learn by doing it, and like Tetris' states, it is just as valuable to critique as it is to be critiqued. It does not take long to learn, and it is instantly valuable regardless of who participates. Some of the most valuable critiques I've ever received were in classroom settings, and were provided by students/peers.

For example, I was in an instructional videography course earlier this year, with a roomful of people most of whom had little to no experience in video/filmmaking. We had to make four videos throughout the course. The critiques were the best and most important part. The final two projects were each crtiqued three times, as rough cuts and as finals. The overall progress from the first efforts to the last was astounding. Critiques work. I knew more about video and filmmaking than 90% of the people in the class, and their feedback was invaluable for me. In fact, their uncouched honesty and non-critique vocabularly was brutally effective.

🙂


.

 

[ampguy]

If one can't take the heat, they should get out of the kitchen.

 

[Chuck A]

While I agree that critiquing is not an eletist skill, it is not something that everyone can do constructively. When someone critiqhes my photos I take the time to look at their work and see where they are photographically. I measure their critique by their work.

 

[raid]

I agree that who does the critiquing is vital. This person must be exceptionally insightful and tallented in this skill to be able to help the development of the photographer's vision, rather than just offering/imposing their own vision.

Frank,
It is important that you receive constructive criticism from someone who can actually point out some useful and manageable changes that you could use [if you want to] to create something more artistic. Maybe having such talents is rare and that's why fewer people comment on photos posted in the gallery than people who view these photos.

raid

 

[FrankS]

Well, I don't think my opinion on this expresses a defeatist attitude. And I stick to my opinion that good photo critique is an elete skill posessed by few. Certainly everybody can say whether or not they dislike a photo and that opinion is perfectly valid, but not necessarily useful to a photographer whose personal vision is different from theirs.

Here's a question: What role does personal vision play in all this? Is there a commonly held vision of what is good/bad photography? I'm talking here about experienced, educated photographers who have learned the basic beginner "rules" of photography first and can whenever they choose to, create a pretty picture..

 

[back alley]

if a novice brick layer notices a hole in the brick dam do we ignore him because he lacks experience?

 

[Rafael]

I agree that who does the critiquing is vital. This person must be exceptionally insightful and tallented in this skill to be able to help the development of the photographer's vision, rather than just offering/imposing their own vision.

The problem with this position is that it opens the door to the "you don't like this image because you don't understand it defense." I think that in many cases, this defense is highly problematic. That said, I think that understanding is an important contributor to art appreciation. For example, there are many forms of modern art and performance art that I simply don't appreciate. Would I have a better appreciation of them if I understood them better? Quite possibly. Would I come to like them if I understood them better? Again, maybe. Should a modern artist ask me for a critique of their work? It depends on what they want. Obviously, I am in no position to give them a technical critique. However, they might find my reasons for liking or disliking their work valuable, even if those reasons were not centered on technique.

I think it's important to identify what it is that we hope to get out of a critique. If we are looking for a critical appraisal of technique, composition, use of colour, etc., then I agree that we should look for critiques from someone with photographic skills that are equal to or greater than our own. However, photography is a visual artform that most of us (I believe) hope will speak to many different people. One of the great things about photography is that its appreciation spans different cultures, languages, and countries. Your photographs will speak to people who don't speak your language. And those people will either like or dislike your photographs. For example, I have had people in Africa who had never received any photo training at all (who had possibly never even taken a photograph) express strong reactions of like or dislike to some of my photographs.

Obviously, I am talking here of a different type of critique from the technical critiques that I wrote of earlier. But I think that these latter types of critiques are also valuable. In fact, I think it's valuable whenever anyone can give me reasons for why they like or dislike my work. As was mentioned in an earlier post, I may or may not accept the critique. But photo critique has got to be more than purely technical. My 2 cents.

 

[FrankS]

An experienced/good bricklayer would not make such an error.

 

[Rafael]

What role does personal vision play in all this? Is there a commonly held vision of what is good/bad photography? I'm talking here about experienced, educated photographers who have learned the basic beginner "rules" of photography first and can whenever they choose to, create a pretty picture..

Yes and no, just look at the recent thread about photographers we don't get even though we should.

I think that artistic vision is important. And an experienced photo critic will be able to see how a photographer has used or broken rules of composition, technique, colour theory, etc. in order to express that vision. However, ultimately, I believe that photography is a very democratic art. It should be accessible to anyone. I might express my vision through a brilliant use of technique. But if nobody likes the end product, that has to count for something. Doesn't it?