I'm wounded following a barrage of insults!

Hi

I've just had a few of my pics critisized on an IRC channel and I am hoping to try and learn how they could have been made better.

The comments were "poorly contrasted snapshots", "the composition in the second one is weak" (the B&W dog with the lead round his head), "boring", "this shot only works out because light is very flat" and one or two others.

The comments were about this pic, this pic, this pic and this pic.

Whilst I full appreciate that the light was not great, I was limited with what I was able to do in that I couldn't use reflectors or flash as these dogs were in training and getting too close to some was not that wise either. But no excuses, what I want to know is how I could have made them better in terms of exposure without using artifical reflection etc? Should I have rated them differently or spot metred (I used matrix metering).

All were shot using Nikon F5.

The B&W were shot with Delta 3200 at EI3200. The colour was shot using Kodak Portra 160N I think (from memory). The scans were done by the lab and are only their cheap 'standard' scans - not full res proper ones.

Ted

1. In my experience getting opinions on anything on IRC is bound to be negative

2. You can't judge the "print" quality / contrast based on a labs "cheap" scan. You'd have to make a print yourself. I bet you anything you can make rich prints from those negs (from what I can tell from these jpg's anyhow)

3. I'm not going to comment on your artistic intent really, because I don't know what you were after ... just the dogs? the training experience? relationship to the trainers? You should make a gallery of all the shots if you'd like some editing advice/comments, but I'm not sure that's what you were asking .....

4. See #1

I've found, over the years, the best folks to ask for an evaluation of my work are my paying clients.

My recommendation, find someone who would be willing to serve as your coach and mentor, who would help you along the way, someone whose eye for the world is similar to yours & is willing to help you. My mentor & coach was Monte Zucker.

The rest of the "experts" I would forget.

Actually all anonymous/informal comments on the Internet are bound to be negative lately. Have you read the comments under CNN new stories lately?

That being said if your not happy with the scans why put them on the Internet? Maybe that is an old fashioned idea but I don't post things unless they look like I want them to.

I'll have to say the photos on your website look much better than the 4 examples you have given us here. Maybe the issue is with the scans.

I make it a point never to judge anothers work. If I like something, or feel moved by it, I'll comment on that. I look at alot of work by other artists, and generally like what I see, its just some photos work differently and mean different things to diferent people. I have total disdain for smug bastards that place themselves above the rest of the world.

For what it's worth, I though your pictures were good.

Jeff

Ted What's an IRC channel and what qualifications in photography and more especially in animal photography do those supplying the "critiques" have?

When you ask for opinions on a critique channel too many of those critiqueing assume you have declared yourself to be the "Aunt Sally" and their part of the bargain is throw balls to knock you down. In other words it's a game for their enjoyment NOT your education.

The really important critiquers are the ones commissioning the shots and they deliver their verdicts by buying or not buying your pictures and inviting you to return or not in the future to take more.

Technically the scans look fine to me. As far as composition is concerned, you are governed by what the dogs are doing and I suspect its largely a question of burning a lot of film to get a few really superb shots. Like any other subject the more of it you do the better you become.

If any of these dogs were mine or I was the handler then I can see myself saying: "this shot sums up this dog/ what this dog does". Getting that reaction from owners/handlers is key.

Best of luck

pentaxuser

I've heard this saying about critics. "They're like palace eunuchs, all they could do is watch, but can't do it"

Ted, the most important thing you must have in your photographic retinue is a thick skin. For unqualified amateurs asked to comment on publicly displayed work, their opinions, unless well grounded in photographic principles and practice (that is to say, professionals should judge amateurs, once-a-week snapshooters should not judge either), should be taken with a grain of salt. Constructive criticism from skilled professionals (not necessarily of the school of people who buy your photographs) who take the time to point out significant faults, how and why they have occurred and remedies available to you for an improved result next time.

The mob that have "judged" your work are to me a foregone conclusion, chiefly for their bland, unserviceable and really, unskilled commentary. They don't come across to me as particularly observant or knowledgeable in their passing of quick judgement.

A computer screen showing perhaps sub-standard scans is not a good way to present work for critique. It is my policy to reserve detailed judgement on what I see on computer screens, preferring very strongly to see the original negatives/positives or some hard copy. Much is lost and sacrificed through cheap and nasty scanning, but even more is lost through brash, imprudent commentary designed more to bruise than to polish.

Some points:
• Reduce contrasty scenes by shooting in diffuse light
• Crop to reduce the bulk of the frame; all images would benefit from significant, tight cropping as the surroundings have no relevance
• Add diffuse flash to provide catchlights to the eyes of the subject
• out for stray peripheral objects such as stalks, branches or heavily distracting backgrounds.
• Action shots are more difficult to plan and shoot but can be more interesting to the viewer than dogs that look "quite bored with it all".
• And finally, don't sulk off with your tail between your legs. Take it as a form of encouragement rather than a blatant put-down. For most of those guys, the skill of looking down upon the efforts of others seems to be more pronounced than any well enunciated skill in photography. Isn't that the problem with many internet forums nowadays?

I found IRC negative too. Try hanging out at a camera club.

Try getting some better scans. Or get prints made.

I think it's less of a problem here because most members on APUG are long timers, but I have been thinking, asking for opinions on anything on internet is pretty much useless. We just don't know who's commenting, his or her qualifications for making such comment, and add to that, those who loves to comment just to get rise out of someone make it utterly useless tool for anything useful. This applies to both positive and negative. It's also so easy to say something very authoritative sounding but totally lack in substance.

Basically, you the askER is left to weed out what's right and what's not right. For something this subjective, I'm not sure if it is even worth trying.

I would disagree with the comment that the one with the leash is weak. I find it compelling and menacing. If that was your intention, it was successful.

The problem with online critiques is the anonimity of the posters. Some people enjoy denigrating others, for whatever reason. I rarely post my photos for critique, although I do post them on APUG. I've come to respect the knowledge, opinions, and passion members have about photography. Even when the comment is critical, it is never a personal attack. It is always constructive and helpful. Try posting the same images here. You'll probably get more useful comments. Simply stating an image is "weak" is useless. Here, you're more likely to get, "it could have been stronger if..." That's the sort of input you can use.

Ted, FWIW, been there, done that. You are clearly skilled - the images are well composed and focussed. IMO, you should transcend the Camera Club 'pretty picture' mentality; the purpose of photography is to communicate something to the viewer. I think the second image - the dog with the trainer's arm, is the strongest image because it communicates to me the link between the dog an its trainer. I like your use of negative space in that image.

As the others have said, everyone likes something different. IME, Camera Clubs (I can't comment on IRC as I've never used it) are full of clueless amateurs waiting the tell you to use the 'rule of thirds', etc. etc. etc. They seem to know nothing of communication. Use your own judgment and ask the opinions of those you trust. You clearly have the technical skills; you can build up a 'grammar' that allows you to communicate your thoughts and feelings to your audience.

All IMO, of course.

I think the second photo is an arresting image. The comment regarding the weak composition was probably written by someone who is a slave to the thirds rule. I think the composition works because of the selective focus and the hand leading the eye to the dog's head.

There are two kinds of comments I fear the most; totally positive and totally negative.
I'm never that good and I'm never that bad.

kevs said:

As the others have said, everyone likes something different. IME, Camera Clubs (I can't comment on IRC as I've never used it) are full of clueless amateurs waiting the tell you to use the 'rule of thirds', etc. etc. etc. They seem to know nothing of communication. Use your own judgment and ask the opinions of those you trust. You clearly have the technical skills; you can build up a 'grammar' that allows you to communicate your thoughts and feelings to your audience.

Click to expand...

This cannot be said enough => camera clubs and their ilk are not worth the time to attend the meeting nor participating in their contests.

Follow the advice in the second half the that post.

"You can't please everyone so please yourself" Rick Nelson Garden Party

Steve

Sirius Glass said:

....camera clubs and their ilk are not worth the time....
Steve

Click to expand...

They're "camera clubs". If they were "image-making clubs", they might have something to offer. The one time I attended a camera club (about 25 years ago), everyone brought their new lenses, flashes, etc. I heard how great the photos from the new gear looked. Didn't see any photos...
I brought about 10 matted B&W prints, from 4x5 negatives (during my Adams phase...). Not a single critique of the images. Lots of questions about the equipment, though.

Don't go to websites where anonymous idiots make useless comments. Come here, where anonymous geniuses make useful ones...

Ted;

I have found insults and innuendo everywhere including on APUG. Not to worry. Just keep going!

Best wishes.

PE

I've shot both pets and toddlers. I'd limit the risks by shooting black and white, medium format (giving me lots of crop factor), but I'd still be crossing my fingers. I'd keep in mind that I was probably taking a better photo than the owner/parent could with their little point and shoot, and I got away with it on every occasion. Pet owners and parents are not objective critics, but they are the only ones that matter here.

A professional photographer I know makes a great living doing pets, and his work is stellar, but he is smart and does it in his studio where things can be controlled.

I don't know if that helps, but may provide some perspective.

I'll take a stab at this for you, and I don't speak from on high. From a technical standpoint, all the photos look fine. I like the B&W better. I shot DP3200 once at 3200 - I had to print with a #5 filter to get what I wanted, and the grain was like I spilled pepper everywhere, but it was the shot I wanted. Were these the shots you wanted?
I will say, that like the dogs they depict, these photos look like they need a job to be truly happy. In other words, what's missing for us outsiders looking in is context. All four shots seem to be the start of a story that could be developed with more shots of the same subject - they have a photo essay quality about them. The third shot would make a great book cover or poster as the low contrast space above the dog is prime real estate for text.

Ted,

A few issues stand out to me:

1. The reproduction quality is not so good. As others have mentioned, it must be the scans which are the issue. This could account for the "poorly contrasted" (ie your contrast and dynamic range) comment. The judges seem to be unfairly comparing your minimally-processed film scans to their stored mental representations of high-contrast out-of-digital-camera jpeg files.

2. "snapshots". What is lacking in all of these is a decisive moment that grabs the viewer and tells a story. It sounds like they were looking for stronger images.

3. Your composition on the second one: since you brought it up, I'll comment. What's the purpose of the negative space on the right? More aggressive cropping would have strengthened the composition, I think.

Of all these issues, I think #2 is the biggest, and #1 is the second biggest. As far as photojournalism, these images are okay, but probably not what a newspaper would prefer to run on a front page. I've found that some of the best images are found on the front pages of my newspaper sections. They tell a story and capture a moment.

Good luck. Don't worry, my images are nowhere near what I'd like them to be most of the time either. I'm always trying to improve, but feel like I will never quite get there (chasing a moving target).

Final comment: Critiques are subjective. I've had people find fault with my favorite images (still my favorites after many years). The complaints were: "colors are too loud" and "shadows contain no detail".

Edit: Maybe it's not the scans themselves that was off. Some more levels and curves tweaks in Photoshop might yield much better tonality. Still, I think the biggest issue is the lack of a story that grabs the viewer. Your technical issues are minor in comparison; I've seen "great" work by famous fine-art photographers that is technically much weaker than these images.

The very act of displaying artwork is to invite criticism. Whether that criticism is positive or negative, you must be willing to accept any and all opinions on your work whether you agree with them or not. If a person can't take criticism then he should consider whether he really wants to display his art.

Although a photograph is a relatively permanent representation of the artist's internal vision, art is not static. The photographer grows and changes with each photograph he creates. If he is to keep on growing and improve himself he must accept some negative criticism or else he will not be motivated to grow and improve himself. If all he ever hears is, "That's wonderful!" he will keep repeating he same old things over and over. He will not grow. His art will become stagnant.

That having been said, the photographer has to decide whether to accept criticism or to blow it off. It's hard to say how to decide that. Do you respect the person giving the criticism? Or, do you, at least, respect the person's artistic credentials or ability? Is the person's criticism respectful of your work or do they just cut you down in order to make themselves feel superior? Is the person's criticism of your work balanced?

A balanced critique is probably the number one thing that makes me decide whether to accept an opinion or not. If somebody just cuts me down and doesn't even give one positive word I am likely to think "F*** you!" and walk away.

Personally, I'd rather hear 100 negative comments on my photos than to have 1 glowing, positive comment.

I think the most important thing for a photographer or any artist to have is a thick skin.
You are bound to get criticized by idiots and crackpots and people who are just out to satisfy their own egos by trying to take you down. You are also just as likely to get glowing reviews by shallow people who will not understand your work who will say anything for attention. You've got to learn to filter out those kinds of people from both ends of the spectrum. Listen to the comments that come from the middle. Basically just take the rest with a grain of salt.

I like all four of your photos. I like dogs. I grew up around dogs. My father bred and trained hunting dogs when I was a kid.

I think you might be right about the quality of the scans. Since I can not see the originals it's hard to judge. I can only judge what I see. I see virtually no problems with focus or composition, however.

The color photo of the Shepherd is good. I don't see anything in that picture, exposure-wise or color-wise that can not be tweaked. Maybe, it's a hair bit yellow. It's an outdoor shot of a dog who was probably moving around a lot. You're probably going to have to take what you can get. Right?
The narrow depth of field takes you right to the dog's eyes. I've always thought Shepherds have expressive eyes.
It took me a minute to figure out what he was chewing on. Maybe you could change the angle of the shot so the viewer can see what the dog is doing.

The second one is a police dog in training. Right?
It makes me think, "If it wasn't for that handler with the collar on that dog, he'd tear my leg off!"
It looks like the light might have been flat but the contrast of the picture was pumped up to compensate.
But, you know what? That kind of works. Since the subject is so compelling the contrast sort of adds to it.
It kind of reminds me of a chase scene in a movie.
Subject and composition-wise... No problems. You decide on the contrast. Make it the way you think is best.

The third and the fourth one are nice. They remind me of the times my Dad trained his hunting dogs. I really like the one of the dog drinking.
The contrast on the fourth one (drinking dog) is a little hard. I can see that you were in a hard-contrast light so you were working against Mother Nature on that one. Again, when you are working with dogs, they can move and run at any second so you're probably going to have to take what you can get.
I would like to see some more texture in the dog's fur, especially on the fourth one But it is a black and white dog. That is a REALLY hard thing to get perfect.

(I once tried to photograph a black Labrador retriever standing on a snow bank on a bright, sunny winter day. It just didn't work.)

For subject and composition, I'd give an 8 or 9.
For exposure and technical, I'd give a 7 or 8 but I think I would give an extra point because you were working in hard light with a somewhat difficult subject.
With that in mind, I'd give a solid 8, overall.

But... Know what? The last time I checked, we still lived in a free country!
They are your photographs. Make them any way you damn-well please!

Ironically, if I were you I would be more interested in comments from experienced dog owners, than amateur photo critics.

I think the limitations of the scanning and posting process are less likely to obscure what matters to the dog owners.

Just to be different, I will be a little bit more supportive of the camera club/armchair critic forums.

With respect to camera clubs, at least you can often get a chance to see the photographs of the person supplying the criticism. That way you can judge for yourself whether or not you might have something to gain from that criticism.

More importantly though, the nature of the criticism is telling. It seems to just assign labels, rather than suggest improvements.

Just using the first photo as an example, if the criticism was in the nature of "the brightness of the foreground grass is distracting" or "the wayward single strand of grass near the top" draws attention away from the eyes" or "the blue colour near the mouth is confusing" than the criticism would be constructive - i.e. it would suggest potential improvements, or reveal weaknesses that might not occur to you as the photographer.

I liked the photos, but might make comments of that sort of nature.