Critique Suggestion

[Mark Delbrueck]

Recently I've noticed a pattern in the critique section, sepecifically in the "Static & Beauty" portion of the forum.

It seems that plenty of advice is given, most of it constructive advice for improvement. But a number of posters are treating this constructive advice as offensive. Honestly, I don't think there is anybody on this forum who is here to specifically bash photos and outright rule them as crap without offering some constructive crit. So instead of posting rebuttles, and trying to disprove constructive advice (which is more often than not coming from professionals), why not take a more pro-active approach. We're all here to learn. And I know that a number of people will refrain from offering advice if the thread appears to be going in a deffensive direction.

Remember, your the artist and your are trying to convey a message to your viewers. So refuting posts such as "well I did this because I like it, it was my preference" despite the fact that your viewers are directly telling you something isn't working out is conveying a message to you, not your viewers. I for one have posted threads on here where the advice I got was "this is generally not a good photo and this is why". But at the same time, I don't go back through and say "well I did this because of this, and it was out of my control so thats how its going to be". I Take the advice and improve next time around.

Just my .02 cents. I'm certianly not a professional. But there are a good number of people on here who are. And I for one, am going to use this to my advantage and attempt to improve my skills. There are plenty of forums online who will throw meaningless postitive banter at anything you post, and this is certainly not one of those places.

Tell me if I'm off base here

[John Thawley]

Mark, thank you for posting this.

I don't mind critiquing images. I feel I'm qualified... and I feel I'm fair. BUT... the last thing I want is to be put in a position where I'm supposed to defend my critique.

I've earned my chops. I don't want to sound egotistical, but I have better things to do.

I know a lot of folks are excited about their shots (and all to often, the car in the shot) and "see" something that isn't really there. OR... they fail to see the deficiencies. Lately I've seen requests for critiques that make me feel like we're in the first round of American Idol auditions.

I hope all will take this in the spirit intended. As Mark has pointed out, there are a bunch of talented people on this board. Most don't need the grief of critiquing snapshots.

Mark's point about some not wanting to critique because of the defensive responses rings very true. I find myself guilty of doing the same thing. I see some requests and just know where they're going. I stay away.

I also stay away from a ton of images look for critiques... or those that start with "this is just a quick shoot I did of my buddies 82 Camry"... or whatever. If you're going to start with a disclaimer.... then I'm guessing you know it's not your best... so, why are you bothering me.

Finally, this forum is about PHOTOGRAPHY first. If you're a car nut who also likes taking photos... sit back and learn.

There is a TON of valuable information on this board. If you're going to get defensive or CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH... then maybe you need to stick to just reading.

Thanks Mark.

JT

[Greg Mitchell]

Thanks Mark, John

This board is the first one that I have found that has this level of talent and is willing to share there opinions / expertise.

Most are here to learn more, and improve the craft that we are using. Everyone has a different eye to things I know I have tossed tones of images looking at them thinking mm not great. Where other people see them and think, wow that cool. We are our own worst critic most of the time. Other eyes can help. Take or leave the comments. Sure sometimes the comment may sound or like there aimed at the person, but arguing about the opinion is not going to make anyone better at this art!


Fighting over them will only turn this into other boards where everyone says northing or great work.


Greg

[Derric Slocum]

i think the main problem is really the amount of automotive fourms that are out there now. i have noticed on other forums people telling guys that they should be pros because their shots came out well. in reality its a guy who has a nice camera because he has money but really doenst know how to use it. the image looks nice because of the camera quality and everyone who knows nothing about photography tells them to look into being a pro.

they then come here for the wrong reason, im new and here to learn. i want to make it to the ranks of the pros someday and know its going to take some work. they come in thinking they are at the level because they dont know any better and expect amazing crituqes. when you guys tell them different they get upset.

i think that once you kill their dreams they just go away so you really dont have to worry about crituqing them constantly. the people that want to learn know how to take the info you give and put it to good use. after spending the last few months on this site its amazing the things i see when i am shooting that i never even thought to look for a year ago.

I say thanks to all you pro's that are helping us amatures learn the trade, dont give up helping us because of a few people who dont want to put the time and effort in!

[John Jovic]

As JT said, any request for a critique which starts with a disclaimer is not worth wasting time on. Show your best stuff, or maybe experimental stuff your not sure of. But don't show snap shots and then get offended because no one likes it!

Another thing for people to remember is just how subjective photography is, eg I like tilted horizons (sometimes), whilst many don't. I like my number plates on cars, but the Yanks here will always jump on that little gem and tell you what a mistake that is. Some people actually think cars look good on grass!!! Hah!!!

But my point is we have different opinions, listen to them and learn. It's not a competition, there isn't a winner at the end! As others have mentioned there are a few pros here who have some experience.

JJ

[Daniel Buck]

giving and taking critiques on-line is very difficult. It's more-or-less like this for all types of art, and just like other types of are there are folks posting images who are still developing their basic skills. As people who are well versed in what we do, it becomes difficult sometimes to give a critique without sounding like we are putting down the images. This is why I don't critique much anymore, because I'm not good at critiquing photographs, and it's difficult to convey emotion and direction of thought through text.

I used to do a lot of critiquing on 3d websites, but that was easier because there are so many other things you have to get right to have a good looking image (or heck, even a 1/2 decent image), a lot of which is highly technical and easy to critique. But with photography, someone with a camera can get lucky and get a very stunning capture, and not know what the heck they are doing at all. Not so in most other forms of art. I think this makes it difficult to critique photography, because the line between a 'good photo' and a 'not-so-good photo' is often fairly slim compared to other art forms, and if someone is attached to their photos, they might be seeing past that line when others don't.

That said, if you are posting images on a website that has alot of professional work, you should probably expect that you'll get some harsh critiques. :) There seems to be a good ratio of professionals to amateurs on this website, which I think is awesome (and not very common)

Personally, I think it's best to view images when printed. viewing a 700px wide image tells you nothing of how it will look printed. A poorly shot image can be made to look great when squished down (cropped, edited, sharpened, and so on), which is something I always have in the back of my mind when I see a great photograph posted on-line, I wonder what it looks like 11x14 in my hands :) One example of this I see quite often, things posted like "oooh, super sharp photo! what lens do you use!?" When you could literally BLUR the image before you down-size it, then sharpen it and you'll get a nice crisp image just like you didn't blur it to begin with. A truly great photograph doesn't show it's good side till you see it printed! It's hard to post and view images online, for reasons like this. A lot of things are hidden behind the mere 700px wide image. And viewing very large images is difficult on a computer screen.

Just my thoughts :)

[John Thawley]

Daniel... while I agree in part with what you're saying, I disagree in principle.

You certainly can be "fooled" in any medium. After all, there are folks who make their living counterfeiting lots of things including art. So, I discount the fakery... and the individual who feels he has gained some sort of satisfaction by cropping the bejesus out of an image to come up with a compelling image. Fakers are fakers.

(BTW... a blurred image will not become sharp by reducing the size... a "soft" image may squeak by.. but even then, soft is soft.)

I have always felt the proof is in the print. And... that is MY personal benchmark. Even with cropping, I cringe at going beyond 15% discard of original image. But that's only because I want to know I can fulfill an offset print request if needed. Again... just my personal benchmark.

Picasso has lots of wonderful, yet tiny, sketches and drawings in the collector world... and there are lots of art forms that use a smaller media. Art doesn't mean big and neither does quality.

And... where are we going in the digital world anyway? I'm keeping a portfolio on my iPhone. I sell lots of large prints online. My clients approve advertising proofs online.... so, suffice it to say, we can and do critique work via a monitor.

To be sure, some folks are better at critique than others. And some accept critique better than others. Sadly, some are just unable to communicate well in this environment so sometimes a critique is not accurately conveyed or received.

The biggest problem I see, though, is the nature of the beast. As was pointed out in another post. Someone gets a new camera. It produces a big splashy picture on their screen. The have some software that makes it brighter or more colorful. The crop out a trash can or light pole. They then send it to all their buddies that like cars. They all IM with glee... "Dude... that is soooooooooooo awesome. It's just like the magazines... DUDE.. you should do this." And... Dude takes it all in with joy.

Dude then goes to all the car forums posts is "pics" and sits back and shores up is new found career path with one line exclamations of "dude, that rulz"... "dude, Civics rule... you own," "Bro... it's on" and "we've been served."

Next step... the real world of photography forums. And Dude meets people who know how to "see." People who know the subtle, yet important, differences in composition, trash backgrounds, sharpness, depth of field.... and even crap lenses or crap point n' shoot cameras.

Now Dude is bummed. Is mob mentality pack of My Space friends are outraged. They know their bro has been dissed by a bunch of wannabe shooters that are just afraid he's gonna steal their business.... and so it goes.

If you've ever pursued any sort of mainstream activity to the 'nth degree you understand the problem. If you're an audiophile, you're aware that everyone can hear, but not everyone knows how to listen. Everyone can take pictures, but not everyone understands what it takes to make a great photograph. There are musicians... and there are prodigies... it goes on and on. The difference is... ARTISTS.

Artists are people who bleed what they do. They agonize. They abandon their friends and families. The refuse to listen to vanilla praise. They refuse to accept good enough. And most of all... they don't lie to themselves.

If you come to this board or any other board looking for critique, know your audience. Look at the work of the person giving comments. Is that person's work impressive? Is that person qualified to critique your work or anyone else's for that matter? Is the quality of their work something you admire?

Someone on this board recently posted the most hideous self righteous post I think I've ever read. His response to my dismissal of his critique was, "are you above my critique?" I answered yes. While that might appear arrogant on the surface, the basis for my statement was the individuals history on the board and the examples of his own work. And the attitudes he has displayed to the critique of his work. He rarely posts his work. What he has posted is less than mediocre on his best day and his advice is always quick, from the hip and typically laced with self promoting meaningless bravado.

The point is, you need to establish a reference point when you're seeking critique of your work. If I need feedback, believe me, I know where to go and get genuine honest feedback. I go to people I respect.

I want this board to be where people come because they know they will get careful and honest critique and feedback.

Lastly, I would suggest to those who participate in giving feedback, give your advice... cite experience... but don't make the critique about you. I see that all to often. "Your photo is crooked.... and then they launch into a diatribe of what they do... how well they do it... how much their clients love it... what kind of super-duper out of your league equipment they use... and in short, why you'll probably never be as good as them." That's not a critique... that's just blowing your own horn.

So... I just think it's an area that will hopefully work itself out as we grow the board and shape the community's personality. You know, when we launched, I got beat up pretty good about requiring real names. Personally, I think it's made a huge difference and been effective in reducing flames and other typical forum BS.

We're just over a year-old and I couldn't be happier with the direction and the growth of APN. I'm hoping to bring some new features online that will benefit and add to the user experience in the very near future. Just need a little time.

Thanks

JT

[Daniel Buck]

I think we are on the same side here John, I agree with most of what you say, what principal of mine do you disagree with? I read your reply, and I agree with just about everything you wrote.

I disagree about the blurring :D put a 5 pixel blur (which to me would be an image that is un-fit to use if it were this way out of the camera) and squeeze it down to 700px wide then sharpen. When viewing normally, you won't see much of a difference. you'll see a bit of difference when you zoom in and toggle back and forth, but probably not when viewing normally :) Not that sharpness is the only quality of a photo, that was just the one I chose to illustrate (because it's easily masked by a small image) :)

I agree that artists bleed their work. Every night after work I'm either developing film, scanning it, processing them (or digital shots), either that or I'm sleeping because I just put in a 14 hour work day sitting on the computer looking at pixels 'for the man'. I could not do this if I lived with someone else, it would probably drive them nuts. This is the main reason why I don't shoot for hire very often. Because I want THIS art form (photography) to remain MY art form. I have been open to shooting for folks every now and then, but I have turned down more than 95% of my offers (some from magazines, some from individuals, some in other areas). I have lost my desire for 3d artwork to the soulless work for clients, and I don't wish this upon my photography. For me and my personality, I can't really do both at the same time: put my heart into my work, and at the same time work for/under someone else telling me what to do or expecting from me what they want to see. I have alot of respect for folks who CAN do both of these together, but unfortunately I am one who cannot. I still very much love my job, but my heart is not in it, I'm just doing what I'm told.

[John Thawley]

Well, I disagree with your analogy of reducing an image size and having a sharp result. I understand what you're getting at... but I can tell the difference between a sharp image and a soft image. Sure.. I might need a side by side... but I don't think you can arguably discuss of view anything in a vacuum. Hence, my point about reviewing the credentials of those who are passing on comments... put their comments into the proper frame of reference.

But... having been lured into excitement by the preview screen on the back of my camera more times than once... LOL - I understand your contention.

JT

[Morgan J Segal]

At the same time, some people have no business offering a critique, or have not yet proven themselves by showing any quality work that indicates that their advice is worth anything


I don't necessarily agree that proof is in the print. While the print may be the final product and what the customer sees, the printing process is open to interpretation by the person who is doing the printing and it is directly affected by limitations of the type of media it is being printed on or with. It could come out looking terrible and it has nothing to do with the photographer
With exception to printing from a negative (where you don't have the same expectation), I have never had a print (or published image) made by someone else or by me that came out the way I really wanted it to. The original always looks better, and in the digital age, how it appears on the photographers screen is the original.
Now of course, everyone's screen looks different, but you can't do anything about that.

[John Thawley]

The original always looks better, and in the digital age, how it appears on the photographers screen is the original..

So you'll be the guy walking into the agencies carrying a monitor?

C'mon, Morgan. Sure... I understand what you're saying... but at the end of the day, if you can't print it it's a moot point. I understand it's never exactly as we want... but it's got to print.

I think your taking the discussion out of context. My complaint is watching people crop out 80% of an image and popping up a 640px or 800px representation and trying to pass it off as if it was a full frame shot. Hell, I'm showing my portfolio on an iPhone these days.. and it's absolutely effective. But it some one wants a poster or a 20x30 print, I know I'm showing them images that have the resolution to generate the output. So when I say the proof is in the print, I'm referring to the truth.

JT

[Morgan J Segal]

So you'll be the guy walking into the agencies carrying a monitor?




No, I send them to my website. I have not printed a portfolio in years and I have not been asked for one either.
As a matter of fact, my printer has been offline for a year and a half. I don't make prints at all.
My last printed portfolio consisted of small photos that were not much bigger than they are on my site now, as I was trying to make the portfolio easy to ship, travel with, and to look at.

I too have been toying with the iPhone idea, but I am waiting for the next generation and for the price to come down. Last time I had to show images to someone in person, I brought my laptop.

C'mon, Morgan. Sure... I understand what you're saying... but at the end of the day, if you can't print it it's a moot point. I understand it's never exactly as we want... but it's got to print.

I think your taking the discussion out of context. My complaint is watching people crop out 80% of an image and popping up a 640px or 800px representation and trying to pass it off as if it was a full frame shot. Hell, I'm showing my portfolio on an iPhone these days.. and it's absolutely effective. But it some one wants a poster or a 20x30 print, I know I'm showing them images that have the resolution to generate the output. So when I say the proof is in the print, I'm referring to the truth.

JT

I understand what you're saying from a file technical standpoint, and I agree about people attempting to make photos by cropping down a piece of shit.

but at the end of the day, if you can't print it it's a moot point. I understand it's never exactly as we want... but it's got to print.

Well that is not necessarily true as there is plenty of online magazines now. As a matter of fact, I was recently in talks with such a magazine for a full time position. All my photos would never need to be printed at all, I could have shot with a cell phone.

I was mainly referring to Daniel's point about making big prints to represent what your work really looks like. I understand what he is saying, but my point is that printing opens up a whole new set of problems, so you're trading one evil for another. Quite often when making a print, they can pick up contrast,, color shift, and lose shadow detail. I used to cringe when I had to show prints to people (especially when printed from transparencies) because I knew they were a compromise and not exactly what I wanted (the client often did not know any better though).
I spent five years working at a high end lab dealing with photographers trying to get prints to look "right"

And I certainly would not want to show images that were printed in magazines, most of the time my photos are not even close to what I intended them to be as they get cropped to shit :(


The images blown up on my monitor are often bigger than they'll ever get printed, and since that is what I am looking at when I adjust my images to my desires, I consider that the best representation of my images. Everything else is compromised.

I think overall we are in agreement though ;)

[Daniel Buck]

eh, if the 'original always looks better', and the display on a monitor is the original for digital shots, that would put a negative or a transparency the original of film. I don't want to see film when I look at someones photography, I want to see a print!

The difference though, is that a negative/transparency looks the same no matter who looks at it. A digital file on a monitor will look different on everyones monitor! A print is a print, get your levels right on a digital file, correct color space, and the print should look good! (or rather, consistent. And then from there you know what adjustments you always need to make on your files before you prints)

Just me personally, I like seeing prints. Unfortunately, that isn't as easy as a digital file, a digital file can travel around the world in a second :-) Some folks may enjoy seeing something on a monitor better, kind of like a back-lit transparency (but with no fine detail). My end goal is always a print, so that's how I judge a photo, in print. If your end goal is a web-based output, then I suppose a well presented digital file is your bar to meet.

[Morgan J Segal]

Daniel, as I pointed out, a print is not a print, there are many different factors that play into how a print looks, from paper, to inks, who did the printing, what process was used to print, to what kind of light you are looking at it under.

You may like looking at photos as a print, but don't think for a second that it is not a compromise.

I can get a good sense of someone's use of light, composition, lens choice, exposure, etc by looking at it on the web or a monitor. what I can't tell is someone's ability to produce a good technical file to be reproduced, but that is their problem to overcome if they want to work or sell images, not mine.

[John Thawley]

I can get a good sense of someone's use of light, composition, lens choice, exposure, etc by looking at it on the web or a monitor. what I can't tell is someone's ability to produce a good technical file to be reproduced, but that is their problem to overcome if they want to work or sell images, not mine.

I'd buy that.

JT

[Steve Demmitt]

I do the same

"If I need feedback, believe me, I know where to go and get genuine honest feedback. I go to people I respect."