Criticism ... etc.

[Ed Sukach]

After some research, I rediscovered a site of interest --- Mike Johnston (... Do I remember him from Camera and Darkroom?) --- seems to be A ... if not THE "prime mover" here.

The site is The Online Photographer and I was especially interested in the critiques contained in Great Photographers on the Internet, dated June 24, 2006.

The address is:

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

Critiques to keep in mind when responding to images posted in the Critique Gallery.

Of particular note (to me, at least) was the first critique - a photograph of Lisa Fonsagreves, by Irving Penn, written by "M.H.".

Comments?

 

[pentaxuser]

Ed. Interesting site. My conclusion here, if one single conclusion summing up several pictures is possible, is that the person delivering the critique needs to assume that the photographer has seen the "faults" mentioned and has intended that the picture appears exactly as it is for a reason. If the picture doesn't speak to you then there is very little you have to offer the photographer.

If the photographers wants a technical critique then he/she will ask for it and "point" to those areas where he/she entertains doubts about its technical standard. If a technical change would enable the photograph to speak "louder" to the viewer with its message then and only then is such criticism worthwhile.

One of the problems with the Critique Gallery is the sheer volume of pictures to view and the speed with which they become yesterday's news. Faced with this there is often a tendency to deliver a critique too quickly to be "helpful" to the photographer. The best critiques are face to face conversations where the viewer asks questions of the photographer and may result in a slow meeting of minds where clarification and benefits follow for both parties rather than delivering one, two or three line pithy comments.

Unfortunately the internet is a poor substitute for such conversations.

pentaxuser

 

[Ray Heath]

g'day Ed
so what? it's all good advice, ain't it

few critiques look beyond the obvious

even on this site there is a reluctance to discuss "Art" or anything but the obvious

many critique sites, APUG included, reinforce the notion that it is much safer to discuss technique and the obvious than to actually offer an opinion that may be challenged

Ray

 

[Whiteymorange]

Ah! Cranial-Anal inversion, isn't it? Worst case I've ever seen. Thanks for drawing my attention to it, Ed.

 

[rkmiec]

the site makes me laugh..my guess is the people commenting on the pics had no idea who it was that took the photos in the first place.
lets first examine the Henri Cartier-Bresson image.it is extremely funny what was said due to the fact that most of his pics are shot from the hip.i may be wrong about that.besides that pic would not have been better if the guy was the focal point....duh..
second lets examine the William Eggleston print.damn that guy did he hit the nail on the head or what.seriously eggleston was chastised in the beginning and maybe still today for his apparent "snapshots" so he was right in what he said however he is sooooo wrong...duh.
also did you see his signature listing all his credentials uh i mean pro gear.he is very famous...
lastly look at the comment on the Edward Steichen photo... dude were has he been.that photo set a record auction sale for a photo at 2,928,000
dollars.i dont think anyone has the right to critisize that photo.besides i hardly think mr steichen will be able to reshoot it any time soon.....duh...
last time i checked dead is dead......maybe i am wrong but atleast......
i think next time i post about a photo hopefully i wont be such fools as them.....
i hope that page was a joke....

 

[Drew B.]

Yup....M.H. sounds like a complete idiot.

 

[Marc Akemann]

I thought those critiques were pretty funny and a good satirical idea. It's good for some photographers, like me, to loosen up once in a while, and reading those 'evaluations' did just that. Thanks for sharing that site with us.

 

[tim_walls]

One of the funniest things I've ever seen was when someone posted a Cartier-Bresson ("Mario's Bike", a wonderful photo as far as I'm concerned, although I am a Cartier-Bresson fan) picture to the "Delete Me" group on Flickr.

For the uninitiated "Delete Me" where people vote to 'save' or 'delete' a photo, along with a critique describing why. I'm sure you can guess that the popular vote was to delete the image, but some of the comments are just cracking. And remember, the people writing this comments are not being deliberately satirical...

Read the fun here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrerabelo/70458366

 

[jovo]

Ed, I can't figure out why you post to the Critique Gallery. When you do, and there's a strongly negative critique, you out and out reject it, and then initiate a thread like this one which seeks to satirize and denigrate criticism. You've done it here, and you did it in the past when Early Riser wrote negatively about one of your images. This site has its' Standard Gallery to avoid such situations.

I've enjoyed some really useful critiques from many 'puggers, and comments from Brian Kosoff, Donald Miller, Murray Minchen stand out in that way. Some of these have even been revelatory, and resulted in a significant change in the way I've worked with a particular photograph or an approach to similar photographs. I wouldn't post to the critique gallery if I were reluctant to receive whatever is offered. I may or may not agree, but I appreciate viewers taking the time to think about what they're looking at and comment on it. I regard those who do so as colleagues and mates not looking to do me in, so to speak; thus, I regard APUG as a very safe place to get useful and honest feedback. But, for damn sure, if I didn't like what was written, I certainly would not whine!

 

[Marc Akemann]

One of the funniest things I've ever seen was when someone posted a Cartier-Bresson ("Mario's Bike", a wonderful photo as far as I'm concerned, although I am a Cartier-Bresson fan) picture to the "Delete Me" group on Flickr.

For the uninitiated "Delete Me" where people vote to 'save' or 'delete' a photo, along with a critique describing why. I'm sure you can guess that the popular vote was to delete the image, but some of the comments are just cracking. And remember, the people writing this comments are not being deliberately satirical...

Read the fun here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrerabelo/70458366

Wow, that "Delete Me" thread on Flickr was quite entertaining. Some of those folks might want to try decaf before typing something out while their emotions are at such a high level, but, that was part of the entertainment,... for me.

On a serious note, I've always had trouble critiquing other people's work. One thing that has helped me was #14 of Brooks Jensen's "Twenty-one Ways to Improve Your Artwork". (If you Google it, you'll find it easily.) Another thing that helped was viewing the various galleries on APUG and reading the comments and critiques from fellow APUG'rs. Very helpful in several ways.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Ed, I can't figure out why you post to the Critique Gallery.

I submit images to the Critique Gallery because I am vitally INTERESTED in the reactons to my work. Simple enough?

When you do, and there's a strongly negative critique, you out and out reject it, ...

Not true. I don't REJECT. I may, and HAVE disagreed with the conclusions, but as I've written, I appreciate the honesty.
I claim the right to reply with the same level of intensity as contained in the original criticism.

... and then initiate a thread like this one which seeks to satirize and denigrate criticism. You've done it here, and you did it in the past when Early Riser wrote negatively about one of your images.

Hmmmm... "satirize" and "denigrate". Seems to be a familiar pattern. This is acceptable to those critiquing, but any resistance to the same by the submitter is not? I've re-read the "rules"... Masochism is not a requirement for posting.

I've enjoyed some really useful critiques....

Interesting choice of crtics.

But, for damn sure, if I didn't like what was written, I certainly would not whine!

Suit yourself. It takes a certain amout of courage to disagree, and resist ... If that be "whining", it sure beats hell out of the alternative....

Son of a gun!! I've just remembered:

"Liberty is a boisterous sea. Timid men prefer the calm of despotism."

- T. Jefferson

 

[sun of sand]

I think it's kind of stupid
Point was beaten to death
Not funny after the 2nd or 3rd "critique" and that's if the 1st was funny

What's the point? The ones who get it get it and they got it very early on and the ones who don't get it aren't going to by reading the page
so who is it for? I don't need to be reminded. I don't need to mock people. I think it's kinda sick.

 

[mark]

:rolleyes:

 

[Mateo]

Oh man, I really know that I ain't the sharpest tool in the shed now. I took a gander at that there article and figured it to be a satire kinda thing. I shoulda knowed better cause I seen them good critiques at photonet and they always say things like "good contrast". Gotta agree about that boat on the water picture now that I'm learning...I don't do color but there ain't no excuse for not knowing that a sky gots to be as blue as the bluest pixel on your monitor.

 

[Andy K]

I think it's kind of stupid
Point was beaten to death
Not funny after the 2nd or 3rd "critique" and that's if the 1st was funny

What's the point? The ones who get it get it and they got it very early on and the ones who don't get it aren't going to by reading the page
so who is it for? I don't need to be reminded. I don't need to mock people. I think it's kinda sick.

Great irony!

 

[tim_walls]

Wow, that "Delete Me" thread on Flickr was quite entertaining. Some of those folks might want to try decaf before typing something out while their emotions are at such a high level, but, that was part of the entertainment,... for me.

Absolutely; actually, one or two people had some fairly interesting things to say, so it wasn't all wasted. Of course the really annoying thing is that since seeing that, the photo is always going to be known to me as "Mario's Bike" now .

On a serious note, I've always had trouble critiquing other people's work. One thing that has helped me was #14 of Brooks Jensen's "Twenty-one Ways to Improve Your Artwork". (If you Google it, you'll find it easily.) Another thing that helped was viewing the various galleries on APUG and reading the comments and critiques from fellow APUG'rs. Very helpful in several ways.

Yeah, I find it incredibly hard. I mean, I quite like strong contrasty images, and will often shoot accordingly; so when someone criticises the exposure and complains about missing shadow detail or whatever, are they making a valid criticism, or just differing with 'the artist's' interpretation and intention?
I came to the conclusion I'd rather not put myself through the mill, so never submit anything to online critique groups. The screaming technical flaws in my photographs annoy me far more than anyone else - I don't need to be told about them, I'm already well aware; anything else is just people saying "I don't like what you set out to achieve." And as some time ago I came to the conclusion the only person I'm setting out to please artistically is myself and noone else, that's not very helpful to me.


Incidentally, if I've walked into an on-running dispute, I'm sorry & I didn't realise; I just posted up the Mario's Bike thing for amusement!

 

[Andy K]

Read the fun here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrerabelo/70458366

I missed this earlier. Lol! 'next time use a tripod...'

 

[Akki14]

Yeah, I find it incredibly hard. I mean, I quite like strong contrasty images, and will often shoot accordingly; so when someone criticises the exposure and complains about missing shadow detail or whatever, are they making a valid criticism, or just differing with 'the artist's' interpretation and intention?
I came to the conclusion I'd rather not put myself through the mill, so never submit anything to online critique groups. The screaming technical flaws in my photographs annoy me far more than anyone else - I don't need to be told about them, I'm already well aware; anything else is just people saying "I don't like what you set out to achieve." And as some time ago I came to the conclusion the only person I'm setting out to please artistically is myself and noone else, that's not very helpful to me.

Same here. I do wish I'd get more proper critiques on my work that I do post to the critique section but I guess my stuff isn't even worth the bytes to most people here :confused: And sometimes the technical suggestions aren't even relevant to my work since my work is more simplistic than the hasselblad-toting technicalgubbins crowd as I work mostly with box cameras and the like. Different ways of working along with different artistic visions means it's easy to shoot down some critiques however valid the original poster might think they are.

 

[Ed Sukach]

... The screaming technical flaws in my photographs annoy me far more than anyone else - I don't need to be told about them, I'm already well aware; anything else is just people saying "I don't like what you set out to achieve."

My thoughts - exactly!

And as some time ago I came to the conclusion the only person I'm setting out to please artistically is myself and noone else, that's not very helpful to me.

Mild proof that we must all be different. I consider the point where I finally ceased to listen to the critics MANDATES, and slavishly tried to DO as they said, to be MY "breakthrough". Up to then, I certainly could and WOULD obey all the of the laws, rules, conventions, formulae - whatever. The result was work with NO definite STYLE - only an inferior imitation of many others, and - of greatest importance - a nearly total lack of emotional content - dull, lifeless. Simply, NOT ME.

Whatever the critics think of my work now ... IT IS MY WORK.


From Ricky Nelson's Garden Party:

"You can't please everyone - so you've got to please yourself!'

 

[Ed Sukach]

Ed, I can't figure out why you post to the Critique Gallery.

I've visited the "Standard" Gallery ... and, frankly, I've found the atmosphere there to be FAR more appealing. IMHO, the sheer quality of the work there, and the comments ... probably as a result of the "freedom from fear" ... are, an order of magnitude or two ... ABOVE that to be found in the Critique Gallery.

I am going there... coming down from this stake; removing the bag of gunpowder from my neck.

Have a happy, fun time bashing at each other on "Critique".

 

[Lee Shively]

I saw the "critiques" satire(?) on TOP some time ago but had forgotten it. Thanks for jogging my memory--it is hilarious. It reinforces my personal policy of never, ever, ever, ever intending to post a photograph on the internet for critique.

The internet is wonderful in many ways but one way it is not wonderful is in the promotion of self-appointed experts and their opinons.

 

[Chuck_P]

I haven't anything to say regarding what Ed was sharing with us except that it shows, to me anyway, how the digital age has made professional or fine are photographers out of everybody with a some sort of camera in their hand.:rolleyes:

On the general subject of critiques...........I've always been unfomfortable with critiqing as well, especially since I never post to the gallery (I simply do not want to put money into being able to do that at the moment). I don't have the best monitor and I certainly don't want to provide poor feedback to a photograph that may look entirely different when the print is right in front of me. There are some, no doubt, that are strongly deserving of a constructive critique, but this is simply not the venue for it as so much can be misinterpreted as being "mean" or "condescending" when that is clearly not the case. I am more than willing to provide constructive criticism on a print that I can pick up and more closely examine. On the other hand, there are also some that are very nice and even on my monitor may look just awesome, and so these are easier to talk about.

~Chuck

 

[dslater]

I agree - I have to question the value of critiques based on uploaded images viewed on a low resolution crappy monitor - even an expensive monitor is crappy compared to a real print. What can you really say about things like color balance, sharpness, dark shadows and blown highlights? For example, when I read the critiques of Ed's photo of the rocks and ocean in the gallery that mentioned blown highlights, my first thought was, are the highlights really blown or did they just get blown out during the conversion process from a print to a jpg file viewed on screen.
Also, often I see a real lack of sensitivity in a number of the critiques - anyone critiquing a photo - especially one on this site where the photo probably represents hours of work should be sensitive to the feelings of the photographer. I have read many posts about how the photographer shouldn't get defensive when he reads a critique he doesn't agree with - however, in many cases, I believe the critique offered could have been worded using much less aggressive language so as not to put the photographer on the defensive in the first place.

 

[jovo]

Also, often I see a real lack of sensitivity in a number of the critiques - anyone critiquing a photo - especially one on this site where the photo probably represents hours of work should be sensitive to the feelings of the photographer. I have read many posts about how the photographer shouldn't get defensive when he reads a critique he doesn't agree with - however, in many cases, I believe the critique offered could have been worded using much less aggressive language so as not to put the photographer on the defensive in the first place.

The above is all true, and important. Critiques should not be offered with the intent of wounding or insulting. OTOH, the sensitivity of the poster can vary as greatly as the quality of the photographs being critiqued and what seems insulting to one person, is par for the critique course for another.

BUT! On this site there is no need to go through any of that if you choose not to. You can post to the Standard Gallery where critiques are expressly discouraged. This offers the opportunity to share one's work without concern about the risk of it's being commented on harshly. Since one has the choice, complaining is manifestly poor form in my opinion.

 

[dslater]

The above is all true, and important. Critiques should not be offered with the intent of wounding or insulting. OTOH, the sensitivity of the poster can vary as greatly as the quality of the photographs being critiqued and what seems insulting to one person, is par for the critique course for another.

BUT! On this site there is no need to go through any of that if you choose not to. You can post to the Standard Gallery where critiques are expressly discouraged. This offers the opportunity to share one's work without concern about the risk of it's being commented on harshly. Since one has the choice, complaining is manifestly poor form in my opinion.

just to be clear, I didn't mean to imply that the critiques were intended to be wounding or insulting - just that sometimes wording them a bit differently would make them more constructive and less emotionally charged.