Posted by Jim Goldstein on March 19, 2007 at 2:00 PM
I posted a semi-humorous post (I hope) on my blog about the Top 10 Most Annoying Photo Critique Comments and have been surprised at the number of responses I've received. I know that several people here have taken part in photo critique debate and I thought I'd share as it might be of interest.
BTW I've put in a good plug for NPN as I think its one of the best critique forums around.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on March 19, 2007 at 2:35 PM
I'm afraid to look. No I'm not. I'll be right back.
Pete D.
Nix on six unless the maker specifically states all restrictions on moving the camera. Heck, sometimes I suggest levitation knowing full well that it is unlikely that the photographer has mastered that skill. What's the use of a comment like that? It might inspire you to come back with a ladder.
Posted by Frank Winters on March 19, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Jim -- great list. I especially like #1 -- HDR -- I haven't seen many HDR images that I liked (maybe saw some that I liked but didn't know were HDR?...)
Anyway I have a discussion thread item re SND filters. So far people are saying that they still use them or use blending to get the full dr they are looking for. I've found in my humble photographic practice that I can get pretty good dr using good exposures and PS.
So....do you use snd filters with digital capture and if so why?
There was also a piece on photo critique in LensWork recently. Personally I take issue with this approach. A person giving you critique is taking the time to look at your work and provide you feedback (which you are requesting by virtue of posting your image for critique in the first place).
In essence you are getting a gift. Granted, it may not be the Red Ryder BB Gun you really wanted, but it's a gift nonetheless. You can turn around and toss it in the trash and forget about it but lashing out at the person offering you something for nothing just doesn't sit right with me.
A couple more thoughts: we all make images for our own sakes first. The creator of the work has pretty much already decided whether they like it or not, and the reasons may not even be portrayed in the image. When they post it for critique they want to know what others think about their work. Perhaps the most primary among those thoughts are whether a given viewer likes it or not. For some reason Brooks Jensen thinks this is not helpful but in reality this is EXACTLY what you are asking for by posting an image for critique.
Here's a true story:
My wife and I were coming out of a vegetarian restaurant one evening when a homeless person walked up to us and asked for money to buy food because he was really hungry. We told him we had a lot of food (we bought a couple of extra dishes that we never got around to and boxed them) and that he was welcome to it. He asked what it was and we told him it was vegetarian food to which he replied "I can't eat this s#$%".
If you ask for food, you may just get food. If you ask for critique you'll get critique. Either way you may not get exactly what you want. That's not the fault of the person offering it to you.
If you want to be more specific, ask for exactly what you want but keep in mind that you're asking someone to do you a favor and they deserve to be treated as such.
As usual, Guy has eloquently stated my thoughts exactly. Thanks Guy.
Posted by John W. Wall on March 19, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Congratulations, your horizon line is crooked.
Many "critiques" are useless. Not that that's a bad thing. They're also harmless. Most of the gold on a critique site is in the photographer's description of how he or she got the shot.
Posted by John Lehmkuhl on March 19, 2007 at 6:38 PM
I find any comment is better than 200 views without a single comment.....
"...most of the gold...is the photographer's description..."
That is an interesting comment. Maybe that's what most people think. It might explain why very few actually offer a sincere critique. I think otherwise. I find great value in explaining what I think about other people's photographs, even when I know nothing about the hows of the shot. But I'm talking about value to me. I'm not so sure if it's helping anyone else. In the rare case where someone actually implements one of my suggestions, I'm glad, but I'm not trying to change anyone. I also find value in the critiques offered by others, of my photographs or of any other photographs. In this goofy world of the internet even "Wow" has some value. It means some dog (google: on the internet noone knows your a dog) took two milliseconds to bark approval at your photograph.
As a professional who has worked many years and become highly competent and expert in his chosen field, I can understand how comments may seem inane or even disrespectful via their blatant ignorance. I cannot begin to tell you how many times someone has told me which community college their daughter is going to to get their "veterinary degree."
As an amateur that is just trying to understand how f-stops are directly related to DOF (see my other post, please), I have a much harder time trying to understand how anyone would NOT appreciate any comment or critique of their work. Every time I post a photo, I know I am posting what I consider "good" or even "great." But I really want to get better, and comments inspire me to imrove my photographs (not just my skill w/CS2...).
I have noticed a correlation between the number of comments received between those images that are utterly fantastic and those that are merely good. This yardstick is a value that I use (without judgement of others) to determine in part how my photos affect others. As Guy has said, I take photos for myself first. Sometimes I wonder why something that I find so beautiful may not be widely held as such, but this lack of response mostly only serves to spur me to honestly critique my own work, and to pursue my own work in the field and studio. Nothing else will improve me as much as this.
Lastly, in this rambling, I would echo J.W.'s statements that the most useful things about the posts that I have found so far is the technique info posted with the original photo.
Posted by Gary Crabbe on March 19, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Copied my reply from Jim's Blog...
--
Agreed.
Actually what gets me more than any 'valid' critique are the two supposed 'critique' forums that are basically either "Pat on the back" love-fests, where no matter how mundane the photo is, everyone chimes in with "great shot!" This is also the place where if you even think to mention to someone, "I might suggest that you consider...", you can almost hear the ego snapping in to pieces and falling to the floor like shattered glass. The other is 180 degrees opposite - the Sport Critique forum. This is where the sport is more like how much can you rip on the person and tell them everything that's wrong with their photo, and nary a word about what they did right or what's to like.
--
This is why I like NPN. Good critiques, few egos, no flames. A cozy place, and a comfortable place for showing and learning....and most here know how to give a good critique.
Posted by Tom Webster on March 19, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Hi ya' Jim. I'm going to be a little direct, here. OK? You need to cut the viewers some slack. People are commenting and critiquing your images based on their experiences and likes not your experiences and likes. I get the feeling that you expect everybody to "understand" your message immediately upon viewing the image. This is not necessarily a failing of the viewer, even if you explain your intentions in words. It just may just be a failing of the image.
Now, I will grant you that one word critiques are mighty slim. I, too, would like to have a little more info. What about an image made you think it was great, etc. But people are just people and some critiquers just aren't going to give you more. I especially dislike replies that are just two emoticons toasting two beers, . However, I do appreciate the fact that these people took the time to look at my images. We should always be grateful for that.
However, as to the rest of your critique issues in your blog, I, personally, think you are rediculous expectations. Moving backwards/forwards on a composition. How is somebody to know that you can't do that? How is somebody to know that maybe you could but didn't? Blown highlights/empty shadows. Unless you purposely state in your post that you allowed empty shadowas or blown highlights on purpose, who's to know? Even if you did it on purpose, if I don't like it I am still going to tell you so. Photoshop/unreal colors. Unless we were standing in your shoes at the time of the exposure, how is the viewer to know? Do you get the direction I'm taking here?
Unless you are only wanting to solicit responses that match your feelings, you cannot set unreasonable expectations and limitations on another viewer's response. You may not like their responses, that's not the point. When you post images for critiques you are asking for opinions based on other viewer's responses and experiences and you cannot reasonably expect them to match your own.
I'm with Guy on this. People are offering you their time freely when they stop and comment on your images. Please, have respect for the fact that they did so.
Posted by Gary Gulash on March 19, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Good of you to see the humor in these things Jim. Bottom line as Guy said, it's a GIFT! The other side of this is that the gift giver also benefits, at least I do. When I critique I am thinking objectively about the image and it becomes a problem solving exercise which exercises my technical and esthetic muscles. I do the best I can to be thoughtful. Some photos in my opinion are so well done that a slap on the back is about all you can add. But....lack of responses on a photo is very unnerving, I just don't understand that one. To use Guy's analogy, that's walking right past the starving man and tossing the food in the trash.
Posted by Tom Webster on March 20, 2007 at 12:29 AM
Pete D wrote:
Tom -
Smart aleck!
Posted by Jim Goldstein on March 20, 2007 at 1:25 AM
As always I appreciate the diverse reaction and responses. The respectful atmosphere is like no other and thats why in my comments I mention NPN as my top recommendation.
Jim... you're welcome.
Pete... great perspective on #6
Frank... I'll reply to your thread shortly :
Guy... I totally agree. My point wasn't to insult someone generous enough to spend their time sharing their perspective on an image. If anything there is a flip side to each and every one of my points. Each side is ripe for ridiculing. To your point though and as I state in a response on my blog "I think its always nice to see that your photo resonates with people and if that means you get one word critiques “Beautiful!” or whatever so be it." As others have also aptly observed, including here, the only thing worse to my identified top 10 is not receiving a comment at all... and in many instances for free. I still remember when pay per critique sites out numbered open critique forums. If anything its great to see so many people enjoying photography these days.
Bob... as we discussed my article was intended to have a humorous twist. I'll be sure to reconsider quiting my day job to become a comedy writer.
John W... oooh good one. I forgot about that one. I very much agree hearing and sharing stories is one of the most enjoyable elements of the photo critique experience.
John L... as mentioned in my response to Guy I totally agree.
Brian... I want to be clear I always appreciate a comment on a photo. I suppose over time its easy yearn for something more if the comments take a similar form. As I mentioned to someone else today an image being put out for critique is an invitation to not just share an immidiate reaction but to ask a question perhaps to inquire about a technique used, trip planning, location, etc. Forums are what you make them that goes for submissions and critiques. On that note everyone has their own reason for submitting. True we post an image because we like it, but usually deep down we seek critique to validate if that is a sentiment shared by others. I know personally I learn alot why an image I like isn't received as well and find out an image I thought was weak turns out to be received better than expected. It's all about learning.... sometimes learning about yourself and less about the image you post.
Gary... its great to see my opinion is shared. NPN seems to have quite the healthy balance between the two poles.
Tom... great points, but keep in mind I wouldn't seriously expect others to be a mind reader. The points are purely from the perspective of a photographer and there is a top 10 annoying photographer assumptions list out there somewhere... or will be shortly :) To your point, and its very well taken, that if some of those comments arise perhaps it is because the photo is lacking. But hey... if the critique can relay that then I'm grateful. Ultimately there's usually an endless margin for growth by critiquer and photographer... and over time if you're lucky you learn more about the person posting or commenting and their style. We all have pet peeves when it comes to photo critiques, but the development of familiarity and even friendship transforms the experience for both parties.
Gary G... great response. I very much agree. Thanks for recognizing the attempt at humor.
Always a great experience here... thanks to everyone who has responded to date.
I am glad that I only fit into the one-word critique category. Or maybe into some others as well - the lets move to the left-category. Let me explain: Sometimes, we are struck by an image, and we dont know why. We want to let the photographer know that we are amazed by his work, but we just cannot put it into words...
Posted by Josh Anderson on March 20, 2007 at 8:15 AM
Discussion
20 repliesBTW I've put in a good plug for NPN as I think its one of the best critique forums around.
Pete D.
Nix on six unless the maker specifically states all restrictions on moving the camera. Heck, sometimes I suggest levitation knowing full well that it is unlikely that the photographer has mastered that skill. What's the use of a comment like that? It might inspire you to come back with a ladder.
Anyway I have a discussion thread item re SND filters. So far people are saying that they still use them or use blending to get the full dr they are looking for. I've found in my humble photographic practice that I can get pretty good dr using good exposures and PS.
So....do you use snd filters with digital capture and if so why?
Thanks,
Frank
There was also a piece on photo critique in LensWork recently. Personally I take issue with this approach. A person giving you critique is taking the time to look at your work and provide you feedback (which you are requesting by virtue of posting your image for critique in the first place).
In essence you are getting a gift. Granted, it may not be the Red Ryder BB Gun you really wanted, but it's a gift nonetheless. You can turn around and toss it in the trash and forget about it but lashing out at the person offering you something for nothing just doesn't sit right with me.
A couple more thoughts: we all make images for our own sakes first. The creator of the work has pretty much already decided whether they like it or not, and the reasons may not even be portrayed in the image. When they post it for critique they want to know what others think about their work. Perhaps the most primary among those thoughts are whether a given viewer likes it or not. For some reason Brooks Jensen thinks this is not helpful but in reality this is EXACTLY what you are asking for by posting an image for critique.
Here's a true story:
My wife and I were coming out of a vegetarian restaurant one evening when a homeless person walked up to us and asked for money to buy food because he was really hungry. We told him we had a lot of food (we bought a couple of extra dishes that we never got around to and boxed them) and that he was welcome to it. He asked what it was and we told him it was vegetarian food to which he replied "I can't eat this s#$%".
If you ask for food, you may just get food. If you ask for critique you'll get critique. Either way you may not get exactly what you want. That's not the fault of the person offering it to you.
If you want to be more specific, ask for exactly what you want but keep in mind that you're asking someone to do you a favor and they deserve to be treated as such.
Guy
Many "critiques" are useless. Not that that's a bad thing. They're also harmless. Most of the gold on a critique site is in the photographer's description of how he or she got the shot.
"...most of the gold...is the photographer's description..."
That is an interesting comment. Maybe that's what most people think. It might explain why very few actually offer a sincere critique. I think otherwise. I find great value in explaining what I think about other people's photographs, even when I know nothing about the hows of the shot. But I'm talking about value to me. I'm not so sure if it's helping anyone else. In the rare case where someone actually implements one of my suggestions, I'm glad, but I'm not trying to change anyone. I also find value in the critiques offered by others, of my photographs or of any other photographs. In this goofy world of the internet even "Wow" has some value. It means some dog (google: on the internet noone knows your a dog) took two milliseconds to bark approval at your photograph.
Pete D.
As an amateur that is just trying to understand how f-stops are directly related to DOF (see my other post, please), I have a much harder time trying to understand how anyone would NOT appreciate any comment or critique of their work. Every time I post a photo, I know I am posting what I consider "good" or even "great." But I really want to get better, and comments inspire me to imrove my photographs (not just my skill w/CS2...).
I have noticed a correlation between the number of comments received between those images that are utterly fantastic and those that are merely good. This yardstick is a value that I use (without judgement of others) to determine in part how my photos affect others. As Guy has said, I take photos for myself first. Sometimes I wonder why something that I find so beautiful may not be widely held as such, but this lack of response mostly only serves to spur me to honestly critique my own work, and to pursue my own work in the field and studio. Nothing else will improve me as much as this.
Lastly, in this rambling, I would echo J.W.'s statements that the most useful things about the posts that I have found so far is the technique info posted with the original photo.
--
Agreed.
Actually what gets me more than any 'valid' critique are the two supposed 'critique' forums that are basically either "Pat on the back" love-fests, where no matter how mundane the photo is, everyone chimes in with "great shot!" This is also the place where if you even think to mention to someone, "I might suggest that you consider...", you can almost hear the ego snapping in to pieces and falling to the floor like shattered glass. The other is 180 degrees opposite - the Sport Critique forum. This is where the sport is more like how much can you rip on the person and tell them everything that's wrong with their photo, and nary a word about what they did right or what's to like.
--
This is why I like NPN. Good critiques, few egos, no flames. A cozy place, and a comfortable place for showing and learning....and most here know how to give a good critique.
Now, I will grant you that one word critiques are mighty slim. I, too, would like to have a little more info. What about an image made you think it was great, etc. But people are just people and some critiquers just aren't going to give you more. I especially dislike replies that are just two emoticons toasting two beers,
However, as to the rest of your critique issues in your blog, I, personally, think you are rediculous expectations. Moving backwards/forwards on a composition. How is somebody to know that you can't do that? How is somebody to know that maybe you could but didn't? Blown highlights/empty shadows. Unless you purposely state in your post that you allowed empty shadowas or blown highlights on purpose, who's to know? Even if you did it on purpose, if I don't like it I am still going to tell you so. Photoshop/unreal colors. Unless we were standing in your shoes at the time of the exposure, how is the viewer to know? Do you get the direction I'm taking here?
Unless you are only wanting to solicit responses that match your feelings, you cannot set unreasonable expectations and limitations on another viewer's response. You may not like their responses, that's not the point. When you post images for critiques you are asking for opinions based on other viewer's responses and experiences and you cannot reasonably expect them to match your own.
I'm with Guy on this. People are offering you their time freely when they stop and comment on your images. Please, have respect for the fact that they did so.
Smart aleck!
Jim... you're welcome.
Pete... great perspective on #6
Frank... I'll reply to your thread shortly :
Guy... I totally agree. My point wasn't to insult someone generous enough to spend their time sharing their perspective on an image. If anything there is a flip side to each and every one of my points. Each side is ripe for ridiculing. To your point though and as I state in a response on my blog "I think its always nice to see that your photo resonates with people and if that means you get one word critiques “Beautiful!” or whatever so be it." As others have also aptly observed, including here, the only thing worse to my identified top 10 is not receiving a comment at all... and in many instances for free. I still remember when pay per critique sites out numbered open critique forums. If anything its great to see so many people enjoying photography these days.
Bob... as we discussed my article was intended to have a humorous twist. I'll be sure to reconsider quiting my day job to become a comedy writer.
John W... oooh good one. I forgot about that one. I very much agree hearing and sharing stories is one of the most enjoyable elements of the photo critique experience.
John L... as mentioned in my response to Guy I totally agree.
Brian... I want to be clear I always appreciate a comment on a photo. I suppose over time its easy yearn for something more if the comments take a similar form. As I mentioned to someone else today an image being put out for critique is an invitation to not just share an immidiate reaction but to ask a question perhaps to inquire about a technique used, trip planning, location, etc. Forums are what you make them that goes for submissions and critiques. On that note everyone has their own reason for submitting. True we post an image because we like it, but usually deep down we seek critique to validate if that is a sentiment shared by others. I know personally I learn alot why an image I like isn't received as well and find out an image I thought was weak turns out to be received better than expected. It's all about learning.... sometimes learning about yourself and less about the image you post.
Gary... its great to see my opinion is shared. NPN seems to have quite the healthy balance between the two poles.
Tom... great points, but keep in mind I wouldn't seriously expect others to be a mind reader. The points are purely from the perspective of a photographer and there is a top 10 annoying photographer assumptions list out there somewhere... or will be shortly :) To your point, and its very well taken, that if some of those comments arise perhaps it is because the photo is lacking. But hey... if the critique can relay that then I'm grateful. Ultimately there's usually an endless margin for growth by critiquer and photographer... and over time if you're lucky you learn more about the person posting or commenting and their style. We all have pet peeves when it comes to photo critiques, but the development of familiarity and even friendship transforms the experience for both parties.
Gary G... great response. I very much agree. Thanks for recognizing the attempt at humor.
Always a great experience here... thanks to everyone who has responded to date.
Pete D.