validity and usefulness of photo critique

[John Camp]

"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 agree.

Like most of you (I suspect) I have a skill that I work really hard at and that I'm pretty good at -- not photography. But I find that criticism of my particular skill, by an outsider or a bystander, never helps, because I already know more about it than almost anybody who might be inclined to offer criticism. What does help is conversation with peers -- not criticism, but simply discussion of the craft, and what other people are doing, and what's going on elsewhere. Also, books by other practitioners can help. When I am asked for criticism by somebody who is reasonably good at what I do, but not at my level (pardon me if I sound vain), it's always a headache, because basically, if they could understand what I tell them, they'd already do that. And I can't really tell them how to do it, with criticism, because frankly, the only real way to learn a high-level craft is by doing it. They may get better than I am, but only by working at it; they can't be taught by an outsider or a teacher to do it better. And I think most of you, if you consider your own work, know that. What we may get from the internet is information on new tools, conversation with people who are going through (or have been through) the same problems, a certain amount of community that you might not be able to get in your immediate neighborhood. In other words, encouragement. But if you like the idea of being a street photographer, I really don't think Garry Winogrand (if he were still with us) could take you out and teach you to shoot photos as good as Garry Winogrand's. He could show you a few techniques, encourage you to work...but he can't push the button for you. For most people, criticism or talk about a craft is not as useful as simply doing it. Talking about photography is talking; it's a social activity. Actually shooting photographs, and looking carefully at the results, holds some potential for learning something.

JC

 

[telenous]

It seems to me that some of this discussion is made at crosspurposes. Criticism on the level of technique, i.e. on what exactly to do to achieve a certain photographic result, can be very helpful, and perhaps even indispensable if someone wants to learn his craft. On the other hand, criticism on the subject of a photo (for instance, "I think what you are shooting is rather boring and uninteresting") is completely in vain, since one must assume that the subject is interesting at least to the person that made the photo.

 

[Nick R.]

Obviously, the level of criticism should be commiserate with the level of the artist. It takes a great critic to critique a great painter, but it doesn't take a great painter to critique a great painter. If your work is that good find better critics.

 

[remrf]

An interesting thread. I lean toward being in favor of critiques. The person who is "pursuing his or her own vision" should be prepared to have a small audience. When I hear that phrase applied to a photographer or artist I usually take it to mean that the artist has decided not to take the time to learn the rules thus far established concerning the visual language. In their haste to produce art they try to short cut the process and in my opinion produce little that has value. You can break the rules. But you better know what they are when you do. It will show.

The critique is a useful reality check. You have to be truthfull with yourself when deciding which critiques are valid and which are not. As a former professional photographer who has taken the craft up again after several years away I find that it is not like riding a bicycle. Even after two years of fairly constant use of my cameras I still find myself making new guy mistakes. I will usually catch the mistakes when I first view the work but not always. Just as in writing it is not a good idea to edit your own work. You know what you meant to write and so will often miss mistakes that are obvious to the observer. The critique helps me. I don't always agree with them but more often than not they help me to step outside of myself and view the work more impartially.

But the worth of a critique will depend on your motivations for making the photographic effort. As I look at my own motivations I see the 14 year old I was when I started in this craft looking at the photo's of the giants of the 60's and before. And desiring to produce work that had such graphic impact. I see myself over the years as I worked and studied great photographs and came to understand how to work the medium to produce photo's with "impact". Photo's that were sharp, clear and technically correct in their process. Photo's that told the story I wished to tell. Photo's that did not need a title or lengthy explanation for their point to get across. I have rarely achieved my goal but that is what I set out to do when I pick up a camera.

So I am at least partially motivated by the desire to have my photo's appreciated both by those in the field and those who know little about this craft. Feedback from both groups is a help to me. I don't have to take the advice. But it is usually worth considering.

 

[jan normandale]

what remrf said , he said it well

 

[back alley]

anyone care to make a list of the photographers here that they would accept criticsm from?

personally, i am of a mixed mind on this. as far as my pics are concerned, i will accept the opinions of any who care to offer them up.
but in the end, i still will take the photos i like to take.

why do i photograph? i think this needs to be answered before even considering other's opinions though.

 

[John]

Can I straddle the fence here and still make sense? Let me try.

I tend to agree with Frank that to critique or criticize you should be in the same league as who's work you are critiquing. This could be a person with many years of experience. This could be a beginner who is gifted and possesses an insight the experienced individual may never acquire. I do not classify myself as either of the above and so would be uncomfortable critiquing others work.

I also agree with RayPA in that many of us are able to coherently offer some feedback, some comment, maybe worthless, maybe not. I would be comfortable participating this way. It is hard to explain, but everyone comes from a unique circumstance, so their feedback could be helpful to those that wish to consider it. 🙂

 

[fitzihardwurshd]

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?

That's the point . Critique is a question of confidence, and so I accept it only from a friend who knows more about photography than I do or from my husband, who IS a good photog.

I appreciate neither critique nor praise from people who cannot keep a** from elbow and try to feed their ego.

I also avoid to get involved in any discussions about the quality of other peoples photos, excepted the persons I mention above. Too often it has happened that people go away seriously offended when you tell them the truth about their work.
They do not really want to know it.

Fitzi

"You know that it is one of the mortal sins of street photography to shoot people from behind ? You shall shoot faces, not asses !"

"But that is part of my CONCEPT , dear !! I WANT to have it just like that !"

"I know, but it 's a sin not because the pope said so but because it contravenes the street photo idea in a ridculous way. If that is your concept it does not make it good therefore, your concept is simply wrong then, you see?"

"I don't give a damn on silly rules ! Photography is a world of creative freedom and there is enough room for me and my style too."

And so on. I don't need that. "Extraordinary POV!" would be my comment now, I am healed.

 

[jmilkins]

IMHO taking and posting photographs is about motivation and interpretation.

Motivation :

For whom, and for what purpose are we taking the photograph?

Solely ourselves? i.e. “I don’t care what anyone else thinks” – then why put it out there?

I think photography for most people is about communicating with others in some way. It might involve and introverted process of self discovery, but that experience is then communicated to others, and moulded by their own interpretation..

For an audience? i.e. variously - to gain encouragement, to learn, to communicate a “personal vision”, to demonstrate a “superior” talent, to receive comment or criticism (these 2 are different things), to discuss a particular characteristic of an emulsion, a lens etc.

Some of these motivations are about ego, some about technical interest, some about “art” etc.

And is every photo we take motivated by the single desire to produce great art – anyone ever taken a “record” photo i.e. “here I am in front of x landmark”, or “happy birthday X”.

I don’t take photos only for myself. Sometimes I probably post them for encouragement and impetus to take more, or to be part of a “community” and to learn. And sometimes to record a family moment. Or something important to me that might be banal to others.

Interpretation

“A picture tells a thousand words” – show that picture to a thousand people and they’ll come up with many different words.

If photography expresses different things for different people at different times for different reasons , then the interpretation of a photograph could be just as complex.

FWIW I’d like to hear those thousand words. I may not agree with them or understand them all, but the dialogue and communication flows.

 

[Finder]

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

Yup. There is a difference between a master and a student.

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

I believe we all ultimately develop our personal and unique sense of vision of the world over a period of time and photography is a very powerful comminicative tool to convey this.
I also believe that constructive feedback from others can be helpful in allowing this vision to develop more effectively but can also become destructive if the photographer doesn't truly believe in himself.

This forum and others like it, offers a place (for those who want such feedback), to post images and engage in discussion of their work. I'd also agree with Robert that to really begin to try to understand another's photographic vision, it is important to see a larger body of work instead of a few isolated images - to then be able to offer something contructive and helpful to that photographer. This is my take on it anyway. 🙂

 

[w3rk5]

Isn't this tread like critiquing a photo, but with an opinion instead?

What has everyone learned? I've learned that everyone has opinions. I've also learned that some peoples opinions/suggestions are more valid than others depending on what is being discussed. (example: I know a little bit about autobody repair. I'm sure not gonna teach or suggest anything to a skilled craftsman on how things should/could/ or might be done.) Most importantly, take everything with a grain of salt.

"It's not what you know that hurts you, it's what you know that just ain't so." -Satchel Paige

 

[Stephanie Brim]

There are a few problems with photo critiquing by those, both photographer and critic, with little experience.

The first problem I've seen a lot is that the 'critic' really doesn't know how to go about critiquing something. Instead of giving the good points and the bad points of the work, they go mostly into the bad and leave out the good completely. Yes, give the photographer an idea of exactly what they need to work on, but also tell them what they *don't* need to spend their time working on. If composition is lacking say so, but don't forget to tell them the GOOD points, too.

The second thing I see a lot of are things like this: "Composition is good but lighting is a bit on the dull side." Okay. Great. How is it dull? How can I make it better? Making statements is good, but providing feedback as to how to make those things better is the hallmark of someone who really knows what they're critiquing.

The third thing I see occasionally is what I like to call dueling critiquers. You only need to opine on the photo once. You don't need to get all up in arms when another person critiquing the same photo doesn't really agree with you. I've seen *so* many good critiques get lost in the mess when people start arguing over whose critique is "right".

So yeah, I generally stay out of those types of things. I love critiquing photos, but I don't do it unless someone asks me personally to do so.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

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? .

Usefulness- to provide insight to those seeking out input on thier photo.
Validity- as valid as someones opinion can be, a critique is just that...someones opinion, take it or leave it. If you participate in the critique you are asking for others opinion and giving yours, tit for tat.

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?

Sure it's helpful to beginners to get insight from others on their images, but isn't it just as helpful to the photographer who has been at it for years? I've heard of photgraphers that attend a gallery showing of their work, blending into the audience and listening to the comments of viewers.

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

If a critique is just anothers opinion then take it as that, an opinion. No need to conform if you feel your vision stands on it's own. If the critique makes you question your vision then maybe it's a valid consideration.

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

Me too, me too!


The great thing about the first critique thread here is it was all voluntary, civil, and some great points were made by the participants involved, lets continue.

Todd

 

[FrankS]

By all means, continue. I was trying to generate interest in the topic.

 

[BrianShaw]

It's natural for one to get their 'nose out of joint' when negatively criticized. It's very important to remember the relationship between critic and criticism-requestor/receiver. It can be very different and that relationship might indicate a difference in how one accepts the crtiicism. For example:

1. teacher critic; student photographer: smile and agree with whatever is said; do most/all of what is said; get good grade and go forth to do whatever is right.

2. peer critic: smile and agree with whatever is said, think about professional differences (e.g. if peer is a PJ and you/I are wedding photog the POV will be very different); go forth and do whatever is right.

3. photographically-inexperienced critic: smile and agree with whatever is said; think about how this opinion might affect personal photographic vision or performance of sales; go forth and do whatever is right.

4. rude critic: smile and agree with whatever is said; purge recent memory; go forth an do whatever is right.

The problem I see with online criticism, even in a relatively friendly forum like RFF, is that there are all kinds of people with all kinds of experience and personalities. It is often difficult to tell them apart. From a lifetime (so far) of experience, however, I've learned that you cant show anything to anyone -- creative or otherwise -- without hearing many different types of opinion. In all criticism there might be a spark of truth, but it's a pretty hard life if one can't maintain a tough hide and take some sh!t with the sugar.

and as my Mum used to say... remember to always say "thank you".

 

[BrianShaw]

and as my Mum used to say... remember to always say "thank you".

p.s. The same holds true with the complimentary criticism. Some is really valid, some is just ego-stroking, some is fear of the critic to be honest, some is inability of the critic to verbalize his/her feelings, and some reflects the good (or bad) taste of the critic. Positive criticism, too, needs to be placed into context!

 

[back alley]

take it for what it is...

i used to work as a sign language interpreter, often after interpreting at a large meeting, people would come up to me afterwards and compliment me on what a great job i did.
i would ask, oh you sign? and most of the time the answer was, oh no, i don't sign but you looked like you were doing well!

take it for what it is...

 

[BrianShaw]

LOL! A classic example!!

 

[ampguy]

For those of you who want to improve your photography and critiquing skills, go here:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=348255#post348255