validity and usefulness of photo critique

[FrankS]

With the brick layer analogy where the critical defect is noticed by the novice, this would be akin to an experienced photographer creating a considered portrait where a telephone pole grows out of the subjects head. Such basic mistakes just shouldn't happen.

 

[Rafael]

Certainly everybody can say whether or not they dislike a photo

But a simple expression of like or dislike is not a critique. A critique involves giving reasons for one's like or dislike of an image.

 

[RayPA]

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.

I find this problematic. Some of the best art critics, never lifted a brush, or shot a frame of film. If the critique is insightful and valid, why should the quality of the other persons work matter? Are you saying that valid criticism is worthless unless you judge the critiquers work to be of high quality/value? 🙂 I will say, however, that the best critiques are peer critiques--ones where everyone shows work and offers critique.


.

 

[RayPA]

With the brick layer analogy where the critical defect is noticed by the novice, this would be akin to an experienced photographer creating a considered portrait where a telephone pole grows out of the subjects head. Such basic mistakes just shouldn't happen.

see Lee Friedlander. 😛

 

[FrankS]

But a simple expression of like or dislike is not a critique. A critique involves giving reasons for one's like or dislike of an image.

Right. But offering more than this like/dislike opinion is where the validity question surfaces. Anyone can validly like or dislike your photo, but only some are qualified/skilled enough to offer criticism of it effectively/usefully (for the photographer.)

 

[RayPA]

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

well done! 🙂

.

 

[FrankS]

With the brick layer analogy where the critical defect is noticed by the novice, this would be akin to an experienced photographer creating a considered portrait where a telephone pole grows out of the subjects head. Such basic mistakes just shouldn't happen.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

With the brick layer analogy where the critical defect is noticed by the novice, this would be akin to an experienced photographer creating a considered portrait where a telephone pole grows out of the subjects head. Such basic mistakes just shouldn't happen.

Mistake? What if thats the photographers vision? 🙂

It is true that maybe the critique forum isn't for everyone, it's not mandatory.

Todd

 

[RayPA]

...

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..

I don't know. Your personal vision is your personal vision and I would think that the success of how you communicate that vision is determined by the viewer(s) (for lack of a better term). Therefore, feedback from viewers is important. Your technique is your's and it may be something that you choose to explore, regardless of critical opinion. Ultimately, however, photographs are meant to be seen and meant to communicate something. How do you know if you're successful, unless the work is seen and unless someone responds to it? 🙂



.

 

[FrankS]

"How do you know if you're successful, unless the work is seen and unless someone responds to it?

If it pleases me, and only those others whose opinion I value.

Anyway, I'm not being cranky arguing this point, just trying to get a good discussion going. 🙂

 

[RayPA]

"How do you know if you're successful, unless the work is seen and unless someone responds to it?

If it pleases me, and only those others whose opinion I value.

Anyway, I'm not being cranky arguing this point, just trying to get a good discussion going. 🙂

and that you've done...thanks! 🙂


.

 

[FrankS]

Ray, I happen to think the image in your avatar is brilliant, if my opinion means anything to you! 🙂

 

[sf]

Actually, Frank S, I think this critique was useful. I didn't even consider the value of straight lines in my composition. I saw it as a single form, and now that I look at it, those straight lines would have been very useful in accenting the geometric (and thus total) quality of the image.

I also think this critique is useful for those leaving comments because it gets people to look harder. COming up with useful comments develops skills and an eye for things that will be useful behind the camera as well.

This was a great experience for me - and a very effective tool for deepening the photography talk on RFF. We should make this a regular. A sticky. If we opened it up to more people, this could be a brilliant thing for RFF.

 

[Honus]

Interesting comments by all. I tend to agree with Frank, however.

Critiquing a single photograph is highly problematical in my opinion. I think you need to see a body of work to get a feel for what the photographer is trying to communicate. I remember years ago picking up a book of photographs done by Andre Kertesz. The first photo I thought was slightly out of focus and needed to be cropped. By the time I was halfway through the book, the spontaneity and sophistication of his vision became readily apparent, making my intitial judgement of his first photograph uninformed and premature.

- Robert

 

[BrianShaw]

Photo comments just feed egos.

I can stroke my own ego, but I prefer it when someone else does the stroking.

 

[vladhed]

There are many level to critiquing photographs and their degree of validity depends on the photographer. You might critique the basic composition of some beginner and they will take away an important lession, but do the same to Lee Friedlander or Andre Kertesz and be ignored because they have surpassed having to follow basic rules of composition.

The medium also effects the critique as well - my photoclub meets once a month for critiques and everyone has to say something about each photo - you are allowed to prepare ahead of time or be spontaineous.

At RFF, I tend to only comment on photos I like - and rarely do I bother to comment on basics such as exposure or composition - I'm usually looking to describe why I like the photo - usually exploring what aspect of human nature makes the image appealing.

When I post photos, that is what I am looking for. I post photos I like - but want to know if this is something universal or personal. For instance, I really liked this shot, but it is personal, so it was encouraging to get good feedback.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=36001&cat=500&ppuser=510

I like the flare in this photo and was happy to find at least one other person that liked it.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=38371&cat=500&ppuser=510

I liked this one as well, and I thought it was pretty universal, however no one commented on it which is telling.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=28512&cat=500&ppuser=510


In short, critiquing helps guide what I continue to photographing and how I process those photos.

 

[Nick R.]

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.

Critiquing, like anything else, is a skill that one can be good at or not be good at. To be a great artist and a great critiquer would be to have two exceptional talents. That's very rare in any field. The great majority of people are average. Some may have one special talent. To qualify that a critic should have two special talents is asking almost the impossible ( and unfair). Great art critiques are as enjoyable to read as the works that inspire them.

 

[Kin Lau]

I think of critiques and comments as another person's point of view, which is affected by many factors. It's good to be able to hear another person's point of view, regardless of whether we understand or agree with it. What you do with it then, is entirely your own business.

An interesting POV difference, is that of the beauty of the region in China known as Guilin. Most westerners prefer to see in on a clear non-misty/non-foggy day. Most Chinese prefer it in the mist/fog.

 

[raid]

Nick,

I agree with you on this point. I have been asked to state my opinion on the works of three photograhers applying to become members at the Gallery I am a member of. My thought on evaluating only three photographs has been from the beginning that I need to see more photos to better understand what this person wants to communicate.

Raid

"Critiquing a single photograph is highly problematical in my opinion. I think you need to see a body of work to get a feel for what the photographer is trying to communicate"

 

[ray_g]

I guess it depends in part on why you take pictures, in my opinion.

Do you take pictures for yourself? Purely for your enjoyment, and expression of your personal vision? If so, then you could not care less if anyone else likes your photos.

Do you take pictures that only other photographers (or critics) can appreciate? Anyone without the same "level of proficiency" as you or as someone said, without WOW photos, are part of the unwashed masses whose opinions do not matter anyway.

Do you see photos as a means of communication that can be appreciated by everyone, regardless of skill level? If this were the case, then everyone's opinion would be vauable, and could be used to improve your craft. I think most of the iconic images in photography (or art in general) fall under this category.