Critcs and Critiques

[Ed Sukach]

Ed:

You're right. The comments of the critic many times speak more of the critic than the photograph. I learned this myself on a photo that I commented on and was promptly corrected by several other viewers. Not that I was wrong in my impression of the photo (I wasn't commenting on its techincal merits, that I recall), but that my view or impression of the photo was definitely out of synch with the rest of the community, here. I caused me, the critic, to re-evaluate my own perspective and to keep it in mind when wiewing others' works. On that occasion, at least from my perspective, the Critique forum was more valuable to me, the critic, than to the one posting the image.

Your critique was an honest expression of the way you related, and reacted emotionally, to that photograph. It is as "valid" as anyone elses'. Being "in the mainstream" does not make a critique more - or less valuable - the honesty of it *does* ... much more valuable that that which is artificially parroted for some other reason.. to make oneself "look good" in the eyes of those in the mainstream, for example.

We are - surprise - different! WE see things differently ... and trying to understand some of those differences is, IMHO, a very useful tool, not only in photography but in life.

I've never said that the opinion - reactions of others were worthless ... that is not true, but doing that which satisfies YOU - that which is in your heart is simply MORE important, by far.

As an aside --- someone here replied to "harshness" in critiques ... as being necessary, and only proving that attention had been given to the photograph. I have seen instances when photographers have been devastated by harsh - to the point of being vicious - criticsim. I don't think anything like that is ever "justified."
A suggestion - when evaluating a photograph, why don't we construct two columns - the first labelled, "Things I think are good"; and the second, "What is wrong with this photograph". I don't think a "perfect" photograph exists now, or ever will - and I don't think the "completely bad" photograph will either - so completing the "good" column first might be helpful in channelling one's attention to a "balanced" critique. Myself... I've found it difficult to get to that second column.

 

[CarlRadford]

If its there to be critiqued...

Too much assignment writing has meant that I have missed this entire thread. Its interesting as I read Richard Boutwell's journal the other day and after looking at his work and who is is an assisstant to I thought his website must be worth a look and for me at least it was. In one of his journals he talked about critiquing critiques and that he was going to have his say on some of the most view images. Funnily enough most popular image in this gallery - Kinga - appeals to me, many of the others do not - nudes seem to predominate but I think that this is probably to do with the vast majority of us being male than any real affection to the work being presented. After reading Richards critiques I pm'd him to say that I found them informative and insightful. It must have been around the same time that I was talking to Graeme Hird and as I appreciate his images I asked if he would look at 3 of mine, 2 of which I intend to re-visit as part of a project. Others have given of their time and posted valuable comments too. I feel that if you set yourself up to have an image critiqued then you need to be prepared for those that may no like the image to be brave enough to tell you so as most people just wouldn't bother commenting on an image they do not like! As long as the comment is constructive surely it is valid and we all can learn from it. I too tend to look at other people galleries that have commented on my work but this is more to see the level of expertise or otherwise that is being exercised - that said even if no images are there nor a website does it mean that the person doesn't have a keen eye or valid opinion. Lets not make people wary of commenting on images - especially where comments are being asked for. Richard et al you're welcome to comment on mine and be critical as long as I can learn from them.

Carl Radford

 

[Ed Sukach]

Its interesting as I read Richard Boutwell's journal the other day...

... I feel that if you set yourself up to have an image critiqued then you need to be prepared for those that may no like the image to be brave enough to tell you so...

I am interested in Richard Boutwell's "Journal". I really can't comment on anything until I read it. How can I access it?

I don't think "bravery" is an issue here - or at least it should not be. It does not require courage to offer an honest description of one's reaction, but as in all social situations we should pay attention to "cause and effect". Offering an image for critique does not, in my book, absolve the critic from the status of human being and working within the constraints of civility and delicacy.
Simply put, we can be TRUTHFUL without being mean.

 

[CarlRadford]

Very true

There is no excuse to being rude or personal in a forum like this! Contsructive criticism should not be taken personally nor meant to be so. Richards journal, along with others can be found in the main menu area at the top of the page - Richards is here:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

All the best

Carl

 

[Flotsam]

To me, photography is about communication, not masturbation.
At least one of my aims is to express what I find beautiful, interesting and/or amusing to others through the medium of photography. I welcome reaction to my work both from my peers, who can speak in familiar terms from a background of shared experience in the photographic process, as well as from non-photographers who can offer an emotional response detached from technical aspects. I may disagree with their criticism and suggestions but at least it gives me an indication of whether I am successful in conveying what I intended to others. It offers me a perspective from other than my own experience and relationship to the subject and the image. I thank anyone who takes the time to respond to my work, I don't try to analyze them in order to satisfy myself that their opinions can be disregarded.
If I photographed solely for my own personal, self gratification, then there would be no reason to show my work to others much less request reaction to it.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Say, Gang ...

During this monumental struggle for color fidelity, where I've seen so many comments alluding to my "green crossover" - where the color balance looks *fine* on the print and my monitor, my "color eyes" (a.k.a. "wife") suggested that, out of those evaluating the color, there obviously must be someone able to post a portrait / figure study where the color of "Fair Caucasian Skin" (not meant to be racist - only the specific area of the struggle, at present) was, in fact CORRECT. With further feedback here (to reach a consensus) I would be able to compare my outgoing work with that image, and adjust my color balance (read: bias) to agree, no matter what my original print appears to be.

One problem ... would that be acceptable, considering the proscription against "digital manipulation"?

 

[steve]

Say, Gang ...

During this monumental struggle for color fidelity, where I've seen so many comments alluding to my "green crossover" - where the color balance looks *fine* on the print and my monitor, my "color eyes" (a.k.a. "wife") suggested that, out of those evaluating the color, there obviously must be someone able to post a portrait / figure study where the color of "Fair Caucasian Skin" (not meant to be racist - only the specific area of the struggle, at present) was, in fact CORRECT. With further feedback here (to reach a consensus) I would be able to compare my outgoing work with that image, and adjust my color balance (read: bias) to agree, no matter what my original print appears to be.

One problem ... would that be acceptable, considering the proscription against "digital manipulation"?

I'm confused about what you are asking for in this statement. I'm sure you realize the conundrum you've setup. What appears correct on my monitor (or your monitor) may not appear correct on someone elses monitor because of the interactive problems of color reproduction within the computer world.

This can include different gammas (PC 2.2, Mac 1.8), type & quality of the monitor, monitor color temperature, and calibrated or uncalibrated system. So, if I sent you a file with a "color correct" portrait on my system, there would be no guarantee it would look the same on your system unless we agreed on how to color match our systems.

That's why you have to "soft proof" an image with the output device ICC profile before you send the file to a service for reproduction.

Now, if you post an image on an Internet site, the color reproduction problem is multiplied by the number of people looking at the site because their monitors will not match the monitor used to produce the image.

I use a non-calibrated system at work and a calibrated system at home. I'm aware of the differences when looking at images on-line between the two systems.

Lastly, (and this is where I'm confused), why - if what you see on your screen matches the print - would you want to tweak your system to give a different color reproduction based on an image NOT produced by your system?

This calibrates your system to that individual image, but doesn't setup a reference in which all images after that are reproduced accurately.

The only way to really check your system is to calibrate the monitor, and then open an image in PS and preserve the imbeded profile. If your system is calibrated, and PS is running Adobe 1998 colorspace, and I send you a file from my calibrated system running Adobe 1998 colorspace, then the file should look the same on both systems.

However, if your monitor is not one that you can set the color temperature, gamma, and individually control RGB - it's a bit of a crapshoot to calibrate that kind of monitor. You can get close, but we still might be plus or minus 500 K from each other - meaning, the colors may look slightly red or blue (or some tint of the colors depending upon actual green channel response).

I would be glad to pursue this further with you off-line if I can be of any help - including sending images you can use to evaluate your system's color reproduction.

 

[Ed Sukach]

I'm confused about what you are asking for in this statement. I'm sure you realize the conundrum you've setup. What appears correct on my monitor (or your monitor) may not appear correct on someone elses monitor because of the interactive problems of color reproduction within the computer world.

Of course I do.

The barb here would be the "consensus of correct color". I was, in one way, raking through the embers to expose one or two live coals - it would have been - could have been - a lively discussion of whose work was / was not "right" - ultimately, I have no doubt, supporting the idea that this overall system is not a good way to judge color fidelity.

If no one else has noticed ... the ultimate color challenge is Human Skin - with all its subtle shading, hue, saturations. It is also the color area where the human "eye" is most sensitive. A mountain's color can be "off" considerably, and no one seems to notice; signs, trees, grass, even the American flag can be "off" several cc's - with no perceived problem ... but SKIN..?? Oh, heavens -- what a glaring error!!

I have spent the last week or so, working with my dichro enlarger, making test exposures with different color filtration. My wife and youngest daughter, both blessed (?) with ACUTE color vision are working with me. I'm continually amazed at how they are able to detect changes of 1 and 2 cc's in the filter "pack" used in the attempts to duplicate skin coloring.

I am tempted to post only in black-and-white. Tempted ... but that limitation would NOT present my work in MY medium of choice - not exclusively, at any rate.

No wonder so few color images of people - fine portraiture, at any rate, are posted in the Critique Gallery.

 

[steve]

I understand the problem with skin color reproduction. I use a Beseler/Minolta 45A colorhead and often wish there was a way to set 10ths of CC gradations.

 

[Joe Symchyshyn]

Lastly, (and this is where I'm confused), why - if what you see on your screen matches the print - would you want to tweak your system to give a different color reproduction based on an image NOT produced by your system?

I think the larger issue is that while Ed's scanner/monitor might be calibrated to eachother, they aren't calibrated properly. If everyone BUT he is seeing green in the shadows for instance, there is some issue with his colour setup.

Colour management is a pandora's box of issues at times...

joe

 

[Ed Sukach]

I think the larger issue is that while Ed's scanner/monitor might be calibrated to eachother, they aren't calibrated properly. If everyone BUT he is seeing green in the shadows for instance, there is some issue with his colour setup.

Joe...

I have no issue with my setup. My scanner / monitor / printer ALL appear to be *fine* with reasonable color reproduction of the original.

Recapping - As of 26 March, 2005, I have three recently posted color figure studies, with 1473 total "hits" and 39 comments. Six of these comments mention "green" - three of these are from Joe Symchyshyn. IMHO - a bit of a stretch from there (three monitors) to *everyone*.

Is there a possibility -- just a remote possibility - that my "setup is not the one not "properly" calibrated?

Let's see ... to "properly" calibrate the entire system ... we would have to establish a working standard of color fidelity. Each monitor in the system would have to be calibrated to reproduce that standard within certain arbitrarily chosen limits. I could kick out the big bucks to purchase an "XI-Rite" Color Calibration System ... the Screen Calibrator and Software necessary to get my monitor, printer, and screen to agree with each other .. which, as far as I am concerned they already do. Then we would - or those vitally concerned - would have to buy the same, or equivalent hardware /software and spend some time and effort (I doubt that it would be a simple task) to coordinate everything to agree with every one else, within those chosen limits.

"Those vitally concerned" ... to tell the bare-faced truth, I am not one of them.

I am offering an admittedly simplified and less than perfect solution: Someone upload a "properly color balanced" image containing "Fair Caucasian Skin". I will do what I can to get my images to "look right" on the critic's monitors. All we would need would be a consensus of the "proper" color balance.

When I get a moment I'll try to start a survey ... to try to determine how many of the monitors in APUG are in fact, calibrated. Should be interesting.

 

[jd callow]

My monitor at home is calibrated, at work I have 3 others all calibrated. The images ed posted have green in the shadows on all. I mentioned early on in this thread that the colour was wonky on Ed's posted images -- but that I liked them still. In this instance Wonky = green.

This is not meant to be an offence, but an observation.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I've noticed the green cast on my very uncallibrated monitor......which means little!

Tom

 

[Joe Symchyshyn]

I have no issue with my setup. My scanner / monitor / printer ALL appear to be *fine* with reasonable color reproduction of the original.

Recapping - As of 26 March, 2005, I have three recently posted color figure studies, with 1473 total "hits" and 39 comments. Six of these comments mention "green" - three of these are from Joe Symchyshyn. IMHO - a bit of a stretch from there (three monitors) to *everyone*.

Is there a possibility -- just a remote possibility - that my "setup is not the one not "properly" calibrated?

Ed,

Sure, anything is possible... But the bigger "stretch" is that the few people that have commented and have experience judging colour are seeing things off... But if you do a poll as you mention, you might want to start with the question... "Do my images have a green cast?" And see what the poll results are. Let's not get touchy about this... My comments were intended to help, just as I'm sure Mr. Callow's and Tom Stanworth's... Why not take the information and use it instead of getting bent out of shape about it?

You mention the total hits... Well basically you're saying that 2.6% of the views actually get a comment... Some were multiple comments from the same popel... (you have 8) so that throws off the numbers even more. I think that what this says is...

1. Most people don't comment.
2. If you agree with the comment why re-say the same thing.
3. Most people will look at the nudes rather than other images.

Maybe your other "test" should be posting 2 images on the same day... your first image is a nude done very poorly - something that you think is badly done... Then post something that you feel is the ultimate black and white image that you've done but a non-nude. Give it a week. Now which one do YOU think will get the hits.

Hits don't mean a thing... Instead of ranking images by latest... Resort by hits and what do you find... Almost all female nudes... What a coincidence?

If you're unwilling to accept the comments as being valid, why are you posting images in the critique gallery?? The people that comment, myself included, are trying to help you, not hurt you.

Sincerely,

joe

 

[Ed Sukach]

Ed,
If you're unwilling to accept the comments as being valid, why are you posting images in the critique gallery?? The people that comment, myself included, are trying to help you, not hurt you.

I am going to write this one more time...

I am interested in the reactions to my work. How many times do I have to say it? I "accept" all comments as being "valid" ... I can't imagine why anyone would make an invalid - false comment. Why lie?
I do NOT think I live in a vacuum... and the atmosphere I live in is of some, but NOT overriding importance.
I appreciated the offer of help... but I am not looking for some ultimate truth or "ranking" as to the goodness or merit of my work.
My point is not whether I am "correct" ... Picasso wasn't, either, in a lot of his work.

Oh, the hell with it. nothing but black and white from now on.

I never tried to "help" - through domination - anyone - certainly when not solicited ... you think that - correction - is the only function of critique? ... I do not. Critique is my mode of listening to others.

I really would like to share, but seeing my abysmal color work is so offensive, I'll limit myself to black and white.

 

[joeyk49]

Ed:

Your comments have bolstered the confidence of this neophyte.

I agree with your assertion at constructive criticism, even from the "untrained" eye, can be helpful/useful to the photographer. I show my photos to everyone I can and gauge their response to the one that I expect, to see if I'm conveying what I wanted to. I'm more of a first impression kind of viewer, so I'm always looking for the viewer's first impression.

Interestingly enough, it (these forums) can also be useful to the critic; where the reaction to the criticism can be a learning experience, as well.

Black and white is really boring...now GRAY!.. That's another matter....

 

[Charles Webb]

Ed,
I am truly surprised that you would make the statement that "nothing but black and white from now on". I have not commented very often on your nude images as I thought you were working toward a particular goal.
Myself not knowing what your goal in making the image was I did not comment. I won't comment now, as I still do not know what result you
were attempting to achieve by making and posting in the "Critique forum".

To quit shooting color at this point and for this reason is simply cutting your own nose off to spite your face. What can you possibly hope to gain by doing
only B&W?

I can only speak for myself, I am sorry that you have come to such a decision!

 

[Ed Sukach]

Ed,
.... Why not take the information and use it instead of getting bent out of shape about it?

And what am I supposed to "do" with it?

If you're unwilling to accept the comments as being valid, why are you posting images in the critique gallery??

I've answered that.

The people that comment, myself included, are trying to help you, not hurt you.

I will agree, to a point. I believe that most are sincerely trying to help ... yourself NOT included. I've asked for help ... in the form of a "good" - in your estimation, color image of Fair Caucasian Skin. No help is forthcoming, apparently. What I see is a continuation of, "You're just NOT doing it right. And, see - EVERYONE agrees with me!"

I've heard you the first ten times ... give me an example of what you consider to be "right".

Sincerely,

Doesn't seem that way to me. Not even a little bit.

"Why not take that information ... and instead of getting bent out of shape...."

You are not providing any information I can use. Tell you what... I won't get "bent out of shape" listening to the repetitive fault-finding if you do not "get bent out of shape" when I do not genuflect in your presence. In all fairness, you TALK a good game... but, try as I may, unless I can see some evidence of your expertise ... well, I can't seem to connect myself with the wonderful directions and the marvelous corrections I can enjoy from following your advice - whatever it is.

Have a Happy Day!!!

 

[johnnywalker]

I am one of the people who thought the photo had a bit of a greenish tinge. It could be my monitor, haven't a clue. I don't know why it is a big deal. I'm sure the original print does not have a green tinge, so why do we care?

In any case, isn't there a fairly simple way of testing a monitor and scanner by scanning some standard colour chips (forgotten the name, "Mc" something or other) and putting them up on your screen to compare with the originals?

 

[Richard Boutwell]

Ed, all your color pictures have been deleted, are you really that upset over the color balance? It is a good thing that I save what I write in case something like that happens. I asked in one of my comments if your work was merely about color balance—it is now hard for me to think otherwise.

---------------

In your opening post you said you “have never been able to connect learning with masochism”. There is no connection because masochism is a sexual perversion involving being dominated and humiliated; learning is about growing. I don’t think people get off by being humiliated in the Apug Critique Gallery—most people want to learn.

-----------------

Most people confuse their “humble” opinion with being critical.

A critique is involved with thinking critically (deeply, objectively) about the work. Then, one forms an opinion, or connects an already held opinion to what was discovered when the work was carefully considered . I actually don’t see much of that in the critique gallery. For a very good example, see this picture:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

----------
Who said that a critique speaks more about the critic? If you are going to quote someone, please reference who originally said it.

The critic’s vision is of course represented in the critique—in some way, only because their vision is representative of who they are in all ways. Just as a photographer’s vision is representative of who they are and their values.

It is helpful to know a little about the person giving the critique, and what their credentials are—I always do that. I also look at every picture the photographer I am critiquing has posted.

---------------

Here is a part of what I wrote about one of your nudies you deleted (by the way, I didn’t mention anything about the disgusting green cast): ”Abstractly speaking, there seems to be nothing on the right side of the picture to support her visual weight.” (the model looked like she was tumbling in the picture) “I think that has to due with the lack of an edge." (there was no separation between the edge of the picture and the surrounding webpage) "There is no (sense of) space without a defined edge.”

The picture I was talking about was bad and I really did not like it. That did not stop me from REALLY thinking about it. I did not let my basic opinion of the picture stop me from seriously considering why I disliked it, and I tried to form a suggestion as how to improve the original seeing. I think that is a fine example of what being critical and constructive is all about.

------------

Ed, you could possibly be the most defensive person I have ever seen on Apug. It is hard to believe that you are getting so bent out of shape over something as silly as color balance. I would worry more about making better pictures. That would involve learning something from the critiques—they actually are helpful.

Considering someone else’s vision can only help you see better (even if all it does is make you think opposite to that they say---it still makes you think)—isn’t that why most photographers look at the work of other photographers?

Letting go of you preconceived ideas is integral to learning and growing. At a certain point it is possible to learn from yourself—but so few have the capacity for it. There is the real benefit of the serious critique—it helps get past a certain block in the vision and helps you see better. But, you stated in your first post that you are not interested in that. It is hard to believe that you take yourself so seriously—It is hard for me to take you seriously at all.

 

[Andy K]

The picture I was talking about was bad and I really did not like it.

Bad to you others may think otherwise. Take for example lomography which revels in "bad" photography and yet can produce stunning photographs.

It is hard to believe that you take yourself so seriously—It is hard for me to take you seriously at all.

When I see this kind of personalisation in a critique I instantly ignore that particular critique because I see such comments as purely trying to score points and figure they are not coming from an unbiased or helpful viewpoint.

 

[Richard Boutwell]

Bad to you others may think otherwise. Take for example lomography which revels in "bad" photography and yet can produce stunning photographs.

Lomo photography can be done well. Unfortunatly, most people use a holga because they think it will help them be creative/artistic. It is similar to people who use alternative processes in an attempt to be artistic.

When I say bad, I mean the space was poorly considered; There was no seperation (but there was the stated intention of seperation) between the person and the background, and there was no serpation at the edges; The model was stiffly "posed". I can go on but I don't have the picture here for reference.

When I see this kind of personalisation in a critique I instantly ignore that particular critique because I see such comments as purely trying to score points and figure they are not coming from an unbiased or helpful viewpoint.

Well, this is not a critique. It is a discussion on critiques and critics--- I was helpful in the original critique. My comments here to/about Ed are based on his comments in this thread.

 

[ian_greant]

ok. Maybe this will help a bit - and my apologies for talking dirty.

Take the eye-dropper tool in photoshop and click it in the shadow, highlight and midtone of any image in question. If the blacks aren't even and the whites aren't even.. (no matter what it looks like on your monitor) then you have a problem. The same thing basically applies all the way across the tone range.

If you look at the sample I've attached. (Karl, I hope you don't mind that I picked you) you can see from the sample I took on the face that there is a shift towards red and green. (cool shot by the way - I like the color!)

Just to recap: Monitors Lie. Use your color analyser to know the truth (eye dropper tool in photoshop)


Ed. The problem with your system is you are essentially calibrating your scans to match your monitors output - not calibrating your monitor to see what your scans really look like.

 

[Sean]

Some critiques I see on the net lately remind me of the reality TV shows (American Idol), people like that Simon character ready to pounce and destroy anyone they deem unworthy in their eyes. It all becomes a game hell bent on who can aquire the most kills. Not healthy at all in my opinion but unfortunately becoming more acceptable every day..

 

[Richard Boutwell]

Sean, can you give a few examples of critiques you feel are like that?
------------------
I think that people are not articulate enough when they give a critique. I also think that too many people subscribe to the idea of, "If you can't say anything nice. Don't say anything at all." It often takes people like that Simon character to tell people that their work is not worth crap (I don’t recall ever seeing an episode of that crap show). Not everything is good, and not all opinions are right. In this age of overly political correctness we are so incredibly afraid of offending someone that we never really say what we truly think or feel about something. IN the critique gallery it is common to read a contradictory statement like:

“Beautiful.

I don't think the sky adds much to this image. I would consider cropping down to below the top of the trees in order to focus the viewer's attention on the structure cantelevering out over the water.”

Am I wrong to think that if something is beautiful there would be no perceived problems?
--------------------
Part of what I try to do is give the most objective and straight forward comments I can. In doing so others can see what is involved in critiquing. (I am not saying that I am a master or a know it all--- But on more than a few occasions I have received comments like, "By far the most insightful critique I have had ever. Thank you so much for a very intelligent look at one of my pics."---)
-------------
The reason people listen to real critics is because they have a knowledge base that they draw on in forming their opinions. They are able to think critically and write articulately about their opinions. Of course there will always be opinions that are not agreeable. If the opinion is well thought out and well written there is a place to base a dissenting view. No one can really learn from, “I do/don’t like it.”