Criticism ... etc.

[Marc Akemann]

"Ignore advice from others if they tell you how to do it their way. Of course, ultimately I suppose this advice also pertains to this list. But, fundamentally, I mean this to apply to photo criticism. There is no more useless critique than when the comment starts out, “If it were my picture I would have done…” It is not their picture, and how they would have done it is totally non sequitur. The best critics will tell you what it is they see in your photograph and leave it up to you to decide whether or not what they see is a function of their unique vision or your success or failure in making the image you intended."

"Live with it for a while before going public. Create a space in your home or your studio where you can thumbtack lots of pictures to the wall. Keep them there, look at them repeatedly, look at them at different times of day, in different light, in different moods, to see how your response to your image changes with time. See both inside and outside the frame of mind you had when you were creating it. The process of doing so will likely lead you to try printing variations, cropping variations, and even entirely new approaches with a given image. This is good and generally shows that the image is speaking to you – and that you are listening."

This comes from Brooks Jensen's "Twenty-one Ways to Improve Your Artwork" and is #14 and 15. On the web, it's also known as "Twenty-one Ways to Improve Your Photography". In general, I like what Brooks has to say here.

 

[Early Riser]

Everyone has an opinion about everything. I think we can all agree on that. Some people back their opinions with firsthand experience and knowledge about the particular subject that they are criticizing, and some choose to criticize without any.

The first thing that anyone needs to understand about art, music, photography, etc. is that all of it is imperfect. That in itself makes them applicable to criticism. Some criticisms merely point out a different path the photographer might have considered, while some criticisms might point to obvious flaws. Technical deficiencies are the most obvious, and easiest to criticize flaws. People with the most rudimentary experience in photography can tell if an image is out of focus, if the exposure is off, if the contrast is wrong. These are also the things that are the foundations of a technically proficient photograph so before you want people to really get into the depths of the images content, you'd better get the technicals right.

However there comes a point when someone has a deep understanding of the basic technicals of a photograph, that they may choose to break the established rules because the result of that departure supports the content of the image. In the bicycle photo, some people choose to criticize the fact that the cyclist was blurred by motion. To me the whole point is that the cyclist was blurred and personally I would have preferred if he was even more blurred as it would have added even more "life" to the image and would have made for a more visually interesting element. The cyclist was moving after all. In my opinion, an assumption, I would say that those that found the blur of the cyclist to be problematic were most likely novice photographers whose only way to determine merit in an image is purely based on technical and have not gotten past a rudimentary view of photography.

Now breaking the rules does not always work, and unless you know what you're doing can detract from an image. While trying new and different things is key to finding your own style, and for some it can produce work of very high merit, for others it can produce work that many people would find lacking in any merit.

Criticism is key in bettering your work. Criticism from knowledgeable people who can also communicate criticism in a productive way, and more importantly self criticism. Self criticism is ultimately the most important form of criticism. Self criticism teaches you when to aim a camera at something, how to compose it, what affects or techniques can enhance it, etc. And the way you learn self criticism is by criticizing the work of others, and by having others criticize your own work.

Sometimes we get so close to our own work that we lack the perspective to see what we have actually produced. I know sometimes with my own work a certain image I have taken has meaning for me, but I just can't explain why. Quite often others viewing the work, and not being as emotionally involved with it, have the clarity to see what I saw but haven't acknowledged or understood myself beyond a sub conscious level.

One of the things that I was taught very early in my career was to not fall in love with your own work. That you can be blinded by your own ego or by your own insecurities so that you are closed to all criticism of your work. For those often the rationalization for such close mindedness is that you don't want others to influence your work but that rings hollow. If the criticism is valid and true, then wouldn't that be something that you would actually choose for your own work if you simply had been aware of it? Someone coming to an observation about your work before you do doesn't devalue that observation. If the observation is incorrect or inapplicable you are always free to ignore it.

I believe you need to be open to criticism of your work, by yourself and others. But also need to be choosy about which criticisms you take to heart or act on.

 

[Lee Shively]

There is an excellent video interview with the late Eddie Adams on Pix Channel (http://www.pixchannel.com/flash/index.html). In it he tells you how to take a good picture. To paraphrase, You buy that book put out by Eastman-Kodak on how to take good pictures. You study it from cover to cover and then you throw the f***ing book away and start to take good pictures.

In my admittedly worthless opinion, there are too many people offering internet photo critiques who have forgotten to throw the f***ing book away.

 

[tim_walls]

There is an excellent video interview with the late Eddie Adams on Pix Channel (http://www.pixchannel.com/flash/index.html). In it he tells you how to take a good picture. To paraphrase, You buy that book put out by Eastman-Kodak on how to take good pictures. You study it from cover to cover and then you throw the f***ing book away and start to take good pictures.

In my admittedly worthless opinion, there are too many people offering internet photo critiques who have forgotten to throw the f***ing book away.

Too true. I once got a comment (which was meant in entirely good spirit, I add,) that it was 'surprising' that aomeone liked a photo because I'd had the temerity to put the horizon in the centre of the frame. Apparently not slavishly following the 'rule of thirds' in every photograph is quite the rebellion these days...

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

I honestly enjoy critiquing. I don't do it all that much online, though, because I much prefer to critique a body of work than individual images. I find that makes it much easier to get beyond simple observations about composition and such, and into what I feel are the more important aspects of the work. When I teach workshops, portfolio critiques are one of the aspects I enjoy most.

I don't expect everyone to agree with my views of their work. It's just food for thought, and I encourage them to decide for themselves whether my remarks are valid. They certainly don't have to agree with what I say. That said, it makes me INSANE when people present their portfolios to me for my opinion, then want to argue over every image. It's a waste of everyone's time.

Just my two cents.

- CJ

 

[removed account4]

the part about constructive often is missing in criticism.
all too often people forget they can learn from what people
have to say about their ( or someone else's ) photographs.

i have gotten some really harsh criticism over the years
regarding some of the things i presented to be criticed ( criticized ).
almost brought tears to my eyes, but i had to digest what is said
and get nutrition from it.

all too often people don't give any nourishment or person getting criticized
forgets to digest ...

 

[Ed Sukach]

There is an excellent video interview with the late Eddie Adams on Pix Channel (http://www.pixchannel.com/flash/index.html). In it he tells you how to take a good picture. To paraphrase, You buy that book put out by Eastman-Kodak on how to take good pictures. You study it from cover to cover and then you throw the f***ing book away and start to take good pictures.

In my admittedly worthless opinion, there are too many people offering internet photo critiques who have forgotten to throw the f***ing book away.

Thank you .... make that THANK you for the "Pix Channel" address. IMHO, this should be required "reading" for anyone involved in photography!

A wonderful site - and solidly bookmarked.

If there is one common thread in all of these interviews, it is the advice to "Take You Own Photographs"


P.S. *I* don't think your opinion, or anyone else's - is worthless.