Philosophies

[Michael A. Smith]

Quite a story, Ed. You learned the most.

Part, a very large part, of being a good teacher is knowing when to say, 1) "This work is terrible!!" and when to say, 2) "Very interesting and quite fine, but did you consider . . ." A good teacher instinctively knows which is which.

And the photographs and photographer referred to in 1) above may be much better than the photographs and photographer referred to in 2). It is all in being able to evaluate exactly where the aspiring photographer is emotionally as well as technically and aesthetically. Some you do a disservice to if you are kindly--you need to be tough. With others it is quite different--they must be dealt with gently. This has nothing to do with the photographs they are making, but with who they are.

 

[c6h6o3]

It is all in being able to evaluate exactly where the aspiring photographer is emotionally as well as technically and aesthetically.

Having been on the receiving end of both categories of comments from you personally, I must confess to worrying about just what your evaluation is of my emotional state as you look at my prints. Should this really enter into the process at all?

"One day the Master cried out the moment my shot was loosed: 'It is there!' Bow down to the goal!' Later, when I glanced towards the target - unfortunately I couldn't help myself - I saw that the arrow had only grazed the edge. 'That was a right shot," said the Master decisively, "and so it must begin. But enough for today, otherwise you will take special pains with the next shot and spoil the good beginning.' Occasionally several of these right shots came off in close succession and hit the target, besides of course the many more that failed. But if ever the least flicker of satisfaction showed in my face the Master turned on me with unwonted fierceness. 'What are you thinking of?' he would cry. 'You know already that you should not grieve over bad shots; learn now not to rejoice over the good ones. You must free yourself from the buffetings of pleasure and pain, and learn to rise above them in easy equanimity, to rejoice as though not you but another had shot well. This, too, you must practice unceasingly - you cannot conceive how important it is.'"

-Eugen Herrigel
Zen in the Art of Archery

 

[Michael A. Smith]

This enters into the process instinctively, unconsciously. It cannot be helped. All of the best teachers, in any discipline, do this. As a teacher, you want to help people as much as possible. If one is too harsh with the insecure ones, you kill it for them and they lose all confidence. If one is too lenient with the self-satisfied ones, you do not help them to the next level, whatever that may be for them.

All of this is usually unconscious and automatic. It is rare that Paula and I are aware of doing any of this consciously, though I know, for me, that in the past there are times that I certainly have been conscious--usually on the side of protecting those who are insecure.

 

[Ed Sukach]

I sat here, behind this desk, for three hours this morning.

I thought that I had written some interesting - and probably, inflammatory statements attacking a few sacred ikons. After completion and *intense* gritting of my teeth - I hit the "send" key - and did just that. Unfortunately the destination was oblivion - "bit heaven". I Lost it all.

So - fighting a few pangs of guilt from not being physically able to descend the @#!# stairs to my darkroom (I HAVE to have a liter or so of "fried" color chemicals down there) I'll re-do ... an abbreviated version:

I have NEVER felt the need to be "tough" in pursing or leading others into the nooks and crannies of photography. Depending - If I have the right concept of what is generally though of as "toughness"... an evaluation of their work without *any* allowances for their inner feelings.
However - that is not "toughness" on my part - it is a method for proving - or instilling "toughness" in the students ... something I don't want to do. Why? - Because I've never been able to conceive of "toughening" students without having a negative effect on their sensitivity.

There has been mentioned here, two scenarios... An evaluation of a students work where the verdict is, "Fine work - BUT - it could be improved by..."; and "Terrible work - worthless".
I have experienced a third: "Excellent! Wonderful - I would not change a single grain!!", - that happens many more times than either of the others, with me ... not because of some mysterious process - but I find that more readily when I TRY to find that.
I NEVER lie about the way I see others' work. There is no need to... EVER.

What happens to those images that are considered substandard (by the student - they are more critical judges of their own work than I would ever be)? "Deep Sixed". The contact sheet is stored, and the "K's" (for "kill") are put away - on the chance that they may be viewed through "different eyes" at a later date. I am not interested - and will not allow - agonizing over interesting, if unsuccessful forays into photography - "baby steps" by neophytes.

Now - "self- satisfaction" and its inevitably following "complacency".
I don't think it exists. That hasn't ever happened to me - and to tell the truth, I have never seen it happen to anyone else. I have heard rumors ...but as far as I'm concerned that is all they are - rumors.
I HAVE seen examples of those "giving up" photography, for one reason or another - mainly because of frustration, or (as in my case) guilt; or due to injury, lack of funds, the student could not see any positive results - or many other intellectualized reasons ... but never because they were not "challenged enough".

Let me out it this way: In teaching someone to swim, do you immediately load the student down with weights. to "challenge" their skills" - and, as soon as they seem to be losing fear of the water, and enjoying the first small glimmers of success, add more weights - to increase their "skills" - and insure that they do not become "complacent?"

My goal in helping the "new ones" in photography is to empower them... to nurture and encourage them to realize and accept their own unique, personal visions.

If I can, there - I will attempt to remove every barrier - or weight - that I can find. Here - the knowledge and skills of technical aspects become important - as TOOLS of empowerment in support of their vision.

There - I hope I stay clear of "bit heaven" - and that I have stirred up enough thought, pro or con, to save the thought-waters from stagnation.

 

[glbeas]

Bravo Ed, I like the way you put that. Save the challenges for those that seek it. Most folks take up photography for the enjoyment and beauty of it, it makes sense to do what you can to enhance the experience.

 

[c6h6o3]

"Excellent! Wonderful - I would not change a single grain!!",

I don't think I've ever seen work which did not contain some imperfection, not even Weston's. It's certain that Michael has never seen anything of mine upon which he couldn't improve, or get me to improve.

The greatest gains in my competency have always come out of the harshest criticism. Maybe I'm too thick skinned to be a good teacher.

 

[Lex Jenkins]

Good anecdote, Ed. Glad you shared it.

I was fortunate to have patient and generous mentors from the time I showed an interest in photography, at age eight or so. My mom saved some of those early photos. A couple actually weren't bad. In general, tho', my early photos serve to prove just how patient and generous my early mentors were.

I've avoided Leicas for the very reason you alluded to. That line of cameras seems to have an odd effect on some users. Not all, granted, but the effect it has on some is inexplicable. While I'm fairly confident it wouldn't infect me I don't want to take any chances. I stick with humble but competent gear.

 

[Ed Sukach]

"Excellent! Wonderful - I would not change a single grain!!",

I don't think I've ever seen work which did not contain some imperfection, not even Weston's. It's certain that Michael has never seen anything of mine upon which he couldn't improve, or get me to improve.
The greatest gains in my competency have always come out of the harshest criticism. Maybe I'm too thick skinned to be a good teacher.

I've heard that ... the theory is "There is NO perfect work."

I have *never* been satisfied with my OWN work ... and I'll worry over that far before I'll worry about someone else's ... not as a matter off selfishness, but due to the limits of my capabilities - I can really only control my own work. SO --- no, I'm never "satisfied with my own work... and it becomes a matter of discipline ... I know I must stop somewhere, so I will.

I would be hard pressed to find fault with many other works ... where is the "improvement" to be made on Adam's Half Dome? How would I - or anyone else - "improve" Weston's Nude, 1936, or any of his photographs of Tina Modotti, on the Azotea, 1934?
Are any of these "perfect"? I doubt it ... but then *no* diamond is "perfect" either.

The incessant quest for "perfection" is not, in my mind, a "good" thing ... the logical outcome is, inevitably, "overworking". Case in point ... Michael Jackson's plastc surgeries, or Joan Rivers'. I'd *MUCH* rather gaze on a few *very* "imperfect" faces: ... Marilyn Monroe's, Sophia Loren, Julia Roberts ...

I will call your attention to one image I posted on the "Critique" Gallery - entitled "Lips". A criticism was applied to that image - I'm sure, with the best of intentions... not one whit of doubt in my mind that it was NOT meant to be derogatory, mean spirited, or anything else than what it was - a valid, reasonable suggestion of a possible change ... to crop the top portion of the image to remove the area containing the model's lips.

I had considered that photograph at length. There were prints made, with that EXACT crop.
In *my* eyes, the configuration here served to express what I wanted to say; the emotion bound in that particular 1/125th second of time. With the suggested cropping, the image was decidedly *different* - and not my choice. It stayed as shown - and was entitled "Lips" - not in the least part for that included element - which serves to "soften" the viewers attention-fixation and present something other than what would otherwise be. in my mind, a fairly boring, run-of-the-mill "formula" figure study.

Now ... How, knowing that *I*, exercising my choice, and (grit teeth - artsy-fartsy cliche' to follow) artistic freedom, change that image to look "better" in my eyes? I understand something of making it look "better" in yours - but it is MY photograph.

Could one of the "Great Lights" TELL me how to "fix" my work? Probably ... but I have NO doubt that they would NOT. They, to a wo/man, value MY "Freedom of Vision" as dearly as they do their own --- and believe me - they value their own!!
Would they help with the technical end of things? If any of them ever refused in the future, I could truthfully say that it was the first time.

So... does acidic criticism produce the best results? Emphatically, IMHO - *NO*!
It is much better to realize that one ifs FREE to do whatever we will - and have the blessed freedom to make our own choices, and risk our own mistakes. We have the BEST chances of success in that atmosphere!

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Rilke: " Works of art are of an infinite lonliness and with nothing to be so little reached as with criticism. Only love can grasp and hold and fairly judge them."

That is absolutely true.

But, when someone looks to you as a teacher, it is a grave disservice to not say anything that would be helpful in an aesthetic way as well as in a technical way if you know what you are talking about. When people come as students they are not presenting finished works of art, but are coming for help. If they were 100% satisfied with their work there would be no need for them to put themselves in the position as students in the first place. Comments of an aesthetic nature, if made properly, enable the student to expand their capabilities and to have their work become more the way THEY mean it to be. It is a total misunderstanding of the creative process of the critique to assume that any comment in that direction will only be a reflection of what the teacher likes and will limit the student and make their art less of a reflection of who they (the students) are. That being said, I have heard many, many critiques. Most are wrong-headed and so off base that, here I'll agree with Ed, most of those giving them would have been better just shutting up. But, although it appears that Ed, and perhaps some others, have never experienced a proper critique, that is no reason to assume they cannot be helpful.

Based on your laudatory comments, Ed, of a few of the pictures in one of the galleries here, I looked at them. I could not disagree more with your comments. So for you, yes, it is better not to say anything in an aesthetic way. I would never comment on a scanned print on the Internet, pro or con,--there is no way it can have the feeling of the original and so all one is commenting on is are reproductions--and always, because of the medium, poor ones at that (though some are more poor than others).

I do not know the picture of Ed's that he refers to--the one someone suggested cropping. Let's assume the person making the comment about cropping knows what they are talking about and that, if the top part were cropped the picture would be better. And let's take Ed at his word and assume the photograph, as is, is exactly the way he wanted it to be.

Hopefully, the function of the comment about cropping will encourage Ed, the NEXT TIME he make a picture to consider other possibilities, and not stay locked into "the way he wants it to be." We are all limited by who we are. The more we can expand who we are, the richer and fuller our work may become. The proper function of a teacher is to enhance that process of expanding who we are--enhancing personal growth.

To go back to my original comment: in order to do that in the most helpful way possible one must have a sense of who one is talking to, in addition to having knowledge and expertise in photography. Since we do not have that knowledge when "critiquing" photographs posted in galleries on this site, it is, in my opinion, presumptuous to make any critique whatsoever--pro or con--except for an " I like that," which is not a critique, but a statement of personal taste. Receiving a too laudatory comment can serve to stifle growth even more than a comment that is critical. Unwarranted laudatory comments reflect contempt on the part of the makers of those comments. The unstated, and perhaps even unconscious, assumption is, " they cannot do any better, so I will tell them what they are doing is fine, so they don't feel bad." Whereas comments that point out all of the problems with a photograph, aesthetic problems as well as technical ones, challenge the student to grow. It should go without saying, that these comments need to be made in a positive, not a negative way--the point is not to be critical and kill the excitement of the student--which I believe is what Ed is afraid of, but to enhance the excitement of the student by challenging them to improve. Such comments can only be made if the teacher believes the student can improve, hence such comments are always great compliments.

 

[photomc]

It is my opinion that if you ask/request a critique by placing an image in the "Critique" Gallery you should really expect an honest critique. It may not be what you want to here, it could be your best work so far - and no one will "get it", but the fact you have ask other to review your work and comment means you are ready for All levels of comments - how that critique is delivered is important. It need not be harsh, hateful or hurtful - it should be aimed at helping one improve their work.

Nothing is learned when everyone showers you with praise. Most of us know when something needs more work, and if we ask for assistance we should be prepared to hear that it does.

What does this mean as it relates to APUG? I think in order to improve, I need feedback from others, who's opinions I respect. If an image is posted on ANY OTHER GALLERY, it should be commented on if one likes it only! If you don't care for a work, if you think it should be done this way or that, a private message might be appropriate, but a critique is not call for - since it was not requested. This is hard for many photographers (I include myself in that group), we all want to 'fiddle' with an image - to apply our own vision to it.

Maybe that is what should be understood in the Critique Gallery - we ask others to comment on our work, but really we are saying "here is my vision, tell me what your's is". Sometimes we agree, other times we do not. There is no right or wrong, there is no prize to be won, we do this because of the pure joy we feel by sharing our work with others that enjoy the same thing we do.

So the next time any of us post an image to a gallery we should first decide where it is posted and what resulting input we get on the image...the worst thing we could do is as not comment on an image that someone wants to make better.

Enough, this has become a bit of a Rant, Sorry..the opinions of this post are subject to change (after all there are little robots on Mars, what's next)

 

[Ed Sukach]

But, when someone looks to you as a teacher, it is a grave disservice to not say anything that would be helpful in an aesthetic way as well as in a technical way if you know what you are talking about....
.. But, although it appears that Ed, and perhaps some others, have never experienced a proper critique, that is no reason to assume they cannot be helpful...
Based on your laudatory comments, Ed, of a few of the pictures in one of the galleries here, I looked at them. I could not disagree more with your comments....
I do not know the picture of Ed's that he refers to--the one someone suggested cropping. Let's assume the person making the comment about cropping knows what they are talking about and that, if the top part were cropped the picture would be better. And let's take Ed at his word and assume the photograph, as is, is exactly the way he wanted it to be.
Hopefully, the function of the comment about cropping will encourage Ed, the NEXT TIME he make a picture to consider other possibilities, and not stay locked into "the way he wants it to be." We are all limited by who we are. The more we can expand who we are, the richer and fuller our work may become. The proper function of a teacher is to enhance that process of expanding who we are--enhancing personal growth.
.... Receiving a too laudatory comment can serve to stifle growth even more than a comment that is critical. Unwarranted laudatory comments reflect contempt on the part of the makers of those comments. The unstated, and perhaps even unconscious, assumption is, " they cannot do any better, so I will tell them what they are doing is fine, so they don't feel bad."

t--which I believe is what Ed is afraid of, but to enhance the excitement of he student by challenging them to improve. Such comments can only be made if the teacher believes the student can improve, hence such comments are always great compliments.

Michael, I've GOT to learn to break "quotes" so that I can maintain the train of thought. There are a few things here I would either LIKE to, or feel COMPELLED to respond to. Let me see If I can do this coherently.

I have never received a "Proper Critique"? Well - it has been a while, and I have had what seems to be an extensive variety of them. How can I tell which are "Proper"?

You disagree with EVERY critique/ comment I have made? Every one? OK, I guess ... I'm disagreeing here - so I guess there is some sort of "balance".

The image I refer to is entitled "Lips" and I'll leave it in the "Critique Gallery" - I will eventually move it to my "Personal" Gallery. Uh ... you commented without seeing it?
Would you mind tracking your assumption that I haven't considered the information in other critiques? This is not a new image, and I've probably made more "intermediate" prints of this one than any of my others. Six (6) prints were hung on the wall in my studio, where I "lived" with them for a few months. I've considered MANY possibilities.
I've tried to stay away from the favorable comments I have received about this one (from a few Photographers and Artists that I really RESPECT) - to "display" MY aesthetic "innards". There have been *very* few instances of "My aesthetic vision is better/ "proper" and yours isn't".

I will only say this once Michael: I am NOT lying when I praise ("give laudatory comments") others work. Those are my honest opinions, and I will not apologize for it... nor will I lie, with the justification that "They need it to become "better".
I'm not "afraid" (You used "afraid" a few times...?) of anything here ... my decision to consider the "feelings" of another may SEEM shallow to you, but believe me, there is a considerable amount of thought behind it, and rational consideration of "cause and effect".

The strangest statement is, "They cannot do anything better , so..."

I've never thought that of anyone else, much less myself. ...Or, possibly .... "better" may very well involve a far too nebulous concept. Maybe "better" is NEVER possible - but "Different, Unique, Fresh, Thought-provoking ... Beautiful" - all those are.

THAT is the direction *I* choose - to make photographs like that.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

I'll try to answer you, Ed.

No, you probably never did receive a "proper" critique. The problem is, one doesn't know that until one receives a proper one. Where might one get one? NEVER in a camera club; rarely in a college or university; sometimes in a workshop; and just about never from amateur photographers (not that there is anything wrong with being an amateur, but I cannot think of another word here--what I mean is someone whose lifes work is something other than making photographs), and usually by a photograph whose work you have the highest respect for who is also a teacher. There are a handful of these people around, but it can take considerable effort to locate them. Many, many years ago, it took me three years to get to the one person I wanted to comment about my photographs (not anyone whose name you or others would be likely to recognize). His comments were minimal, but extraordinarily helpful. When, in the early 1970s I taught my series of advanced classes--private classes with guests such as Arbus, Michals, Caponigro, Friedlander, Kertesz, W.E. Smith, Ueslmann, and on and on, I found that only one of them gave better critiques than I did, and I learned from him. Some of the others critiques were useful to the students, some were not. Was most interesting.

No I do not disagree with "all" of your comments. Just all of those I read that one day--the only day I ever read that stuff or looked at the gallery. You were praising work that could have been a lot better. The function of such "kind" comments can only be to make people complacent. If you know, personally, the photographers involved and know they are emotionally fragile, there is some justification for your comments, but still, without a caveat on how they could be improved I believe such comments are destructive.

I looked at "Lips." The reason I did not do so before was that my comments were not about that photograph. I was just using it, as an anonymous photograph, as an example of a point I was making. but I looked. Someone suggested cropped out the lips???? And you listen to these people and subject yourself to that crap?

Your own desire to be kind is not shallow. I never implied it was. I do believe, however, that such desires can be as destructive as ones that are deliberately ill intentioned, so I would be careful with them.

Yes, "Different, Unique, Fresh, Thought-provoking ... Beautiful" are all very nice and are things to be sought, but so is better. Better, as in, well, better. And after that, better yet. As an artist, one is never satisfied, or is so only momentarily. It is that desire to make work BETTER than drives artists. Actually, I will take back my comment that your list includes things to be sought.

One should never TRY to be different, unique, fresh, or thought-provoking. One should try to make the BEST WORK one is capable of. I'll quote Picasso here, "The artist who tries to be original deceives him/herself. If he/she achieves anything at all it will only be an imitation of what he/she likes." If one does ones best work and constantly pushes at ones own limits the work may indeed be fresh, unique, different, thought-provoking and beautiful--but those are never things one TRIES to do. (Unless one went to art school, in which case they are so confused that 99% soon stop working in the field, but that is a whole other discussion. Let's not pursue it here--it was dealt with in another topic.) These things, "different, unique, fresh, or thought-provoking" happen or not. Just like happiness. Happiness is nothing to strive for, it is something that overtakes one in the course of leading a full life.

The goal is to always get BETTER. I'm not sure why you are afraid of that word. Is it becasue it implies a value judgement? What does better mean? It means deeper, more full of life, more resonant. It means having a greater capability to connect us to the world and to each other. How is that done: by making pictures better, both visually and technically. What is better--and here we come round to the beginning--if you do not know, a good critique will help get you started.

 

[noblebeast]

Is this the first Michael/Ed pissing contest of the New Year? One thing for sure - ya gotta admire the health of those prostates!

 

[blansky]

What are we arguing about here.

Ed on the onehand feels eternally bad because he was harsh in his critique of a young girl's picture of her pet. Perhaps he was. But we also have to remove the subject of the picture from the esthetics of the picture. When I was at a course at Winona School of Professional Photography, years ago some guy puts a picture up for critique. It was a pretty bad shot of a family. The person doing the critique started to cover all the things that could have been better. When he was done the person who took the picture said yeah but the young son in the picture was killed in a car accident a few days later and the family was so appreciative of the picture that they cried in front of him. Some of who were kind of new to photography kind of felt bad at the critique now. But the crusty old photographer who was doing the critique merely replied. Then it it up to you to do a lot better work so their memories will be even more precious.

That kind of stuck with me. Since I've done portraits of people who died or were killed I came to believe that the crusty old guy was right.

Michael A Smith in the other hand states, I believe, that we have an obligation, if asked, to deliver a thoughtful crititique to help people to get "better".

I agree with this. Ed's utopian idea of give them all a kind word and send them out into the world to me does not help anyone.

I monitor a couple of photograph forums and "photogforum" is kind of interesting. Amateur and amateur/semiprofessional/professionals constantly submit prints and it is just really a cheerleading session. In fact most of the participants seem to be women who photograph kids. More often than not they are their own kids. Instead of a critique to help them get better they fawn over mediocre shots and comment on how lovely the children are. (It's true the children are lovely, BUT...)

I doubt that the participants get anything from this except stroked egos.


So in my opinion, telling everyone their work is wonderful and not giving rules ( of composition etc) or guidelines or constructive criticism is not really doing them any favors. I have to admit I'm coming from a place of being a professional ( doing it for a living) but I stll believe like Michael says everyone wants to get better. It may be hard to define but we all know what better is.

Michael McBlane

 

[Ed Sukach]

But we also have to remove the subject of the picture from the esthetics of the picture....
...Then it it up to you to do a lot better work so their memories will be even more precious.

I agree with this. Ed's utopian idea of give them all a kind word and send them out into the world to me does not help anyone....
I doubt that the participants get anything from this except stroked egos.
So in my opinion, telling everyone their work is wonderful and not giving rules ( of composition etc) or guidelines or constructive criticism is not really doing them any favors. I have to admit I'm coming from a place of being a professional ( doing it for a living) but I stll believe like Michael says everyone wants to get better. It may be hard to define but we all know what better is.

I cannot remove the subject from the aesthetic content. I work *much* more holistically than that.

A "fine" photograph would have been "much more precious"? I doubt it. They weren't looking at the photograph -

"Everyone knows what is meant by a `Better' photograph ...?"
Nope ... I've considered it. I don't. - I am included aren't I?

BTW - I am/deal with a few "Professionals" myself. And Amateurs, and Artists and advertising types - a very close friend has five (5) degrees in Art, and owned his own Ad Agency for more than 25 years. I don't see any kind of correlation here.
BTW - he is even more "gentle" than I am.

There is a *very* great difference between "Empowering" and "Ego Stroking."

 

[bjorke]

To mix up a few metaphors, it seems to me that Ed want to nurture little flowers while Michael S prefers planting flags on the highest peaks. And Ed's initial tale reveals, as Michael M has pointed out, a confusion of abstract photographic merits with those inherent in direct, "unary" subjects. And maybe eight year olds.

(I had a similar experience recently -- rating a web gallery of blankly uninspired photos made from someone's vacation visit to Auschwitz (hey, they asked). I commented on the lack of interest in these photos, save for those of the PARKING LOT -- which I felt spoke volumes about the dull banality of the modern-day experience at what has become a modern, morbid, tourist attraction. I was threatened with a ban from the forum, from people who felt that my attitude betrayed inherent juden haas, despite the many years my children have spent in Hebrew school. This was Auschwitz! The photos must be automatically good! (One hears a lot of similar sentiments about 9-11-related shots, including those made by tourists in the past couple of weeks))

I have to side with the Michaels here because c'mon -- APUG, while public, is not about newbies. When people ask me about learning photography in a general way, I tell them buy a digicam, shoot like crazy, and look very carefully at the results.

When someone already has their own darkroom and is scanning a print from their 6x7 negs, their intentions and investment in resources and time are already clear. Coddling cheapens these intentions, rather than encouraging them.

-

I do think, Michael S, that valuable criticism can come from reviewing web postings, though as you say even a small print far outshines what one can see on the web in terms of detail and physical presence. A great difficulty, IMO, comes from the nature of public galleries, where popularity and community-building "niceness" factors come into play. This has been a universal feature of public web galleries, as far as I've seen (and likewise photoblogs).

The marginal exceptions have been through online groups that did not have galleries per se -- in fact a lot of the best criticism I've gotten in recent months has come from a private mailing list run by a well-known photographer and professor, where members post photos (and even, occasionally, proof sheets) to their own web sites and others make what are hopefully constructive (though at times difficult) comments. But to work, it needed to be closed, invitation-only. No kittens.

 

[Ed Sukach]

No, you probably never did receive a "proper" critique. The problem is, one doesn't know that until one receives a proper one.

I looked at "Lips." The reason I did not do so before was that my comments were not about that photograph. I was just using it, as an anonymous photograph, as an example of a point I was making. but I looked. Someone suggested cropped out the lips???? And you listen to these people and subject yourself to that crap?

The goal is to always get BETTER. I'm not sure why you are afraid of that word. Is it becasue it implies a value judgement? What does better mean? It means deeper, more full of life, more resonant. It means having a greater capability to connect us to the world and to each other. How is that done: by making pictures better, both visually and technically. What is better--and here we come round to the beginning--if you do not know, a good critique will help get you started.

My back has improved, to the point where I can set aside all the pillows, heating pads and other paraphenalia. I now longer make a credible, audible, involuntary impression of a wounded water buffalo in heat when I go from a horizontal postion to a vertical... and I'm mobile enough now to have actually visited my darkroom, for the first time in ten days!
I *missed* that place, and its lure will keep me occupied for the foreseeable future - so - probably to the relief of many here - I'll be spending less time at this keyboard.

I'll be brief - "A `good' critique". I'm quite certain I've run across one or two of those at one time or another. I certainly DO listen to all the "crap" ... possibly this is a good time to repeat "Sukach's System of Receiving Critique":

1. LISTEN to all of it - no mater how irrelevant or inane. It will take some discipline. Occasionally the worst drivel will contain brilliant gems of insight.

2. CONSIDER the content. Here, I would suggest a time limit. Usually 3 - 5 seconds is sufficient to determine if there is anything of value.

3. DISPOSE of it. If you have discovered anything of value (relatively rare), USE IT. Think about it ... integrate it into you subconsciousness. You have discovered a pearl of great price.
If there is not (far more common), let it go - as if it never happened. It may be marginally interesting - but it can serve no useful purpose.

This has worked well for me over the years.

But... I am always open to new ideas. You may have done this before - but could I ask you to repeat a "simplified" method to be used for the recognition of "proper" criticism?


Now - again with `Better' - and again with the "afraid" bit. No, I'm not afraid of the word "better" - but "I've never stretched its meaning quite THAT far.
To me, "better" requires a comparison: "A" is `better' than "B". That involves some sort of judgemental system ... and I think that any that might be even marginally effective in comparing human "spirit" or "soul" or "being" -- if at all possible -- would be incredibly (literally) complicated.

I really do not believe "Praise" is a negative factor in teaching.

I hope to say this as a matter of simplification... I do not intend to demean your - or anyone else's - philosophy. If I could find a way to say this "more gently", I would:
I think your teaching system could be summarized as the "Carrot and Stick" approach. One would not want the mule to ever GET the carrot ... so he will continue to TRY and the cart will be drawn forward. I've seen that approach - expanded and thinly camouflaged - tried many times, as a Middle Manager (previous life). I've never seen it work... at least not with human beings. I don't know whether or not it works with mules.

Enough "stirring". To the DARKROOM ....!!!!

 

[blansky]

Ed:

You do have an ability to flip things around from thier initial statements.

Subject vs aesthetics I didn't make any mention how you work whether your "holistic" or not. Your example of the little girl with the pet. She saw the pet, you saw the photograph. You critiqued her photograph, she could only see her pet. In my example of the family with the dead son. In your opinion, they only see the son. In my opinion, how I represent that son will enhance their memory of him. If it is a crappy picture with bad light, as well as bad aesthetic elements, I believe, it is a disservice, when I have the obligation to do better.

I didn't say a "better photograph". I said everyone wants to get better. I believe that most everyone here can track their progress of getting "better"

When I used the term "professional" I added making a living off it. What I was saying was as a professional that we have an obligation to get better and that is how I slant my comments. We owe it to who pays us for the work. An amateur has no obligation to anyone. There was no comment made that you don't know any professionals. I'm sure you do.

Your last comment about empowering vs ego stroking. You, it seems fancy yourself as an "empowerer". I don't have a problem with that, however, what you consider empowering, may just be ego stroking to the recipient. There are people here and on other sites that display work for the sole purpose of getting their egos stroked. Your comments to them may well be from your point of view as empowering. I think that the line between the two is far finer than you do.

My comments are not antagonistic towards you. They are just opinion and please read them carefully from that point of view.

Michael McBlane

 

[Ed Sukach]

Subject vs aesthetics I didn't make any mention how you work whether your "holistic" or not.

Your last comment about empowering vs ego stroking. You, it seems fancy yourself as an "empowerer"....

I replied to one idea: "You have to separate the subject from the aesthetics." I sat here trying to do so,... at least in my mind's eye. FOR ME ... I find that extremely difficult under any circumstances. My reason, as near as I can figure it out... a markedly Holistic approach. You did not mention that ..., I did.

I "fancy"..??? As in "flights of "Fancy"?

I can't answer that ... I *try* to "empower" - to clear the way - to do what I can to supply the tools and techniques... to HELP.

Let me try for an example... A student once came to me with an interesting photograph. Unfortunately, the exposure had been made with the camera in the "Automatic Exposure" mode, and the frame had included a window with bright sunlight streaming through it. The window itself was exposed quite well, but it was not the "object of interest" in the photograph. The student judged her own work: "Bad", hopelessly "bad". I told her not to give up on it. We set the negative up in the enlarger, analyzed for everything in the scene EXCEPT the window and produced a "successful" photograph.

I don't call that "ego stroking". She did learn something about using a light meter ... and analyses in the enlarger with the ColorStar... and the capacity of color film to record images at different light levels... and much more.

I *COULD* have merely labelled the image a failure, coldly, justifiably (in the eyes of some) ... brought her attention to the mistake.. and sent her out to "do it again". I chose not to. There is much more that lies out there to do.

That is what I mean about "empowering".

And ... No, I don't take your comments to be "antagonistic." I will guess that you are doing the same thing I am - trying to make your opinions known, clearly... without getting the entire world p***ed off because of what you believe in.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Help me here, Ed. What is "Automatic Exposure" mode?

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

I monitor a couple of photograph forums and "photogforum" is kind of interesting. Amateur and amateur/semiprofessional/professionals constantly submit prints and it is just really a cheerleading session. In fact most of the participants seem to be women who photograph kids. More often than not they are their own kids. Instead of a critique to help them get better they fawn over mediocre shots and comment on how lovely the children are. (It's true the children are lovely, BUT...)

Some parts of this are true, and some made me giggle. Umm, yeah, most of the participants are women who photograph kids. It's a 'children's portrait specialist' website. Clears that mystery right up! And I'm still trying to figure out what's wrong with posting images of one's own kids? Built in models on which to learn? Hell, I'm as guilty on that count as anyone there. Oh, the shame.

I've been on that forum just about since it was started 3+ years ago. Yes, it is a very 'positive' environment (euphemism for 'cheerleading'.) But, like apug, it has a critique section. The critical comments are generally reserved for that section. There are some very, very beginning photographers there, and it is QUITE important, when the image is NOT posted for critique, to keep them positive and enthusiastic while they learn. There's nothing wrong with that. Personally, I post there in order to share information and techniques, and to try to encourage those who are learning to develop a style of their own.

If you've been on that forum for any length of time, you'd know that, yes, the participants can learn volumes there -- many on the site have come an incredibly long way in a very short period of time.

My point, though, is not to defend the photogforum, but to agree that there are times when true and in-depth critiques are vital (in fact, I think most of the time they are). But there are also times when encouragement and a pat on the back are the best thing to encourage someone to keep on going.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Edward Weston photographed his family and friends--from the beginning of his career until the end.

 

[photomc]

I don't think that this is what blansky was talking about, he will have to speak to that. However, I do think what the general thought was, is This is a serious site - just looked at the work posted in the galleries. If a photo is placed in the critique gallery, then the person that placed it there should expect a critique (not have everyone tell them it perfect), if the same image was placed say in the experimental gallery then the response could (should) be different, same thing for the technical gallery.

We each and everyone, I think, want to show our best work and are hoping that others will like it. But, depending upon WHY you make photographs in the first place it really doesn't matter.

If it makes anyone feel any better, how about we change the comment about 'women and pictures of their children' to old men and pictures of there backyards, cars, tractors, etc'. (that was meant tongue in cheek since ya can't hear the tone of voice).

Photograph what You want, develope it the way You want, print it the way You want - if no one else likes it and You do - don't show it to anyone, don't get your feelings hurt...But remember if you ask for an opinion here, You will get one..if you ask for Help here, You will get that as well. Some will be very nice about it, some will blunt. If someone gets down right nasty about it, this group moderates itself - most folks here know the difference between honest critique and someone being mean.

One more thought regarding the photo with the child that had died...first it is most important that there is a memory of the child (we all love to look at photographs of our loved ones), but if the photograph is really good (and processed the way the good folks here All know how to process), then the image is going to last and last,

Consider this, with the new digi things, the image could have just been deleted because it was not very good - at least with print film, it will be here for a while. A working professional Should have a different perspective on quality than the average shooter....would we want to buy the work from someone that does so, so work? No, we don't have to crush them either, but how do you know what you need to do if no one tells you, how do you know a photo could be better, unless someone tells you - or better still shows you.

Just look at the members of APUG, the really good ones, take time to teach - one way or the other.

Rant ended...

 

[Ed Sukach]

Help me here, Ed. What is "Automatic Exposure" mode?

The camera used was a Canon A-1 with the exposure index dial set to "A". The meter "looks" at the AVERAGE brightness of the entire frame and will select a shutter speed to go with the aperture to produce an average film density consistent with an "average" scene. Lots of "averages". Not always the "best" exposure by any means ... especially with an included bright source of light, as a sun-facing window.

This girl received the Canon A-1 as a gift. It had just been sent to Canon Repair for a complete Clean and General Overhaul. While waiting for it, the owner bought a d*****l whiz-bang and simply GAVE her this pristine! Canon.
She has done some AMAZING work with that camera.

I LOVE kicking a few "boulders" out of the way (in this case, "automatic" metering), and tagging along in the slipstream as a neophyte begins to realize her potential.

Possibly that is better term to use - "empowering" does seem a tad pretentious. I'll "fancy" myself as merely a "Boulder Kicker".

 

[blansky]

Sorry for the confusion.

What I was saying, or meaning when I said about photographing ones own children on that website, was instead of commenting on the work they are constantly commenting on their children. Instead of comments like try this, try that etc , the comments are Oh...he's so precious, oh...your daughter is just darling. You have such a beautiful family .etc

Of course there is nothing wrong with this BUT in a site that is dedicated to getting better at photography, it turns into a site for mutual admiration and gushing comments on the subject instead of the work. As Cheryl says they do also do some critiquing, but if you you follow the threads you know what I'm talking about.

I'm amazed by the fact of saying "the pictures of their own children" could lead to comments like Edward Weston photographed his family. Of course, who doesn't. Or someone saying "is photographing one children not professional enough".Sometimes we get off on such strange tangents.

If you'll read what I had said, it was that this site "photogforum" was IN MY OPINION all about stroking and not about critique. THats it. And IN MY OPINION that does not lead to developng better photography.

I don't think I've ever seen on THIS site anyone ever display a picture and have people dote over the subject. They comment on the work. As it should be.

Also I would like to point out,as a "professional" I have never stated that we are better at photographing children than anyone else. On the contrary. As someone who photographs a lot of children, I have always stated that parents can do a better job of capturing their children than anyone. They can capture the essence of childhood better that any outsider. It stands to reason they are there. They aren't an interloper. On top of that the best photographs I've ever seen of children are made by women. That also seems natural to me.

Also, JDEF, good "professionals" aren't generally in malls.


As for ego stroking, who says it is a bad thing. As I argued with Ed I just don't believe it gets you "better". Everyone needs their egos stroked once in a while. It feels good. BUT.

I hope I made myself clearer this time, so you can beat your swords back into plowshares again.

Wow, I'm sure glad I didn't mention that I didn't really like apple pie. Whooops
Damn it.


MIchael McBlane