What are you expect from critique?

if asked to critique a shot you don't necessarily like, you should still be able to separate your dislike from the equation and offer an honest critique. Along the way, you might surprise yourself, and find things about the photo that you do actually quite like. Even if you don't like the photo as a whole.

 

In this way, being able to deliver a critique makes it an opportunity to learn and grow and expand, for the critiquer, as well as for the person who submitted the photo.

+1 :):):)

I am not going to argue with what you said. But, my point is: the critiquing is not about how I like or dislike the photo - in reverse, I try to provide a candid (with no emotions) and honest feedback - and not necessarily on bad photos - very often I can tell what I would change in a good one (for the majority of viewers). I am very demanding то my own photos and more critique reviews I get, the better for me - I listen. That is why, personally, I am often sceptical to WOW reaction on my "Okay" photos I posted.

I don't think I've ever submitted a photo for critique here. By far the most photos I take these days are (voluntarily) of people and events for publication/distribution by local organisations. I generally don't have permission to publish those photos myself. And most of them aren't very interesting anyway :). But I could request critique for more photos than I do and I'll try to do this more.

 

I do try to give constructive critique when requested by other members. When giving critique, I'm just giving my own personal feedback along that of others. I think we all

try to give constructive feedback that we hope will help requesters in some way.

 

Just speaking for myself, there are photos I (subjectively) like more and photos I like less. My guess is that members who critique photos implicitly or explicitly apply varying 'criteria' with varying priorities.The big advantage of this for requesters is they feedback from a wide range of perspectives.

 

I try to focus on what I (subjectively) I like about each and every photo: the 'strong points'. And explain why and what I see as 'strong points'. Sometimes, I offer suggestions as to what- for me personally - would make (or have made) the photo even better. Again, I try to explain why I make these suggestions.

 

FWIW, PN is IMHO the best photo platform for asking for - and getting - considered critiques. Other platforms on which 'critiques' are often limited to 'like', Great Shot!' 'Wow! or 'Love this!' don't help photographers learn much at all.

As Mel Brooks wrote "after the birth of the artist came the afterbirth, the critic" :) - in a learning environment critiques can be very useful if given and taken appropriately. Yes, everyone has an opinion, but a well thought critique could bring to light something the author may have missed or not even thought about. So, I would say expect nothing and everything, but take it accordingly.

The question to all: why do you request a critique? Do you really want to hear the truth and improve your photography skills or this the only way how to get WOW replies to indulge your own vanity? Our friends, relatives always support us with their opinion giving us always positive feedback. This makes probably you feel that you are a good photographer. Wrong!!! I noticed many people they don't like a negative but constructive critique. That is my question: what do you expect? Or this is another way how to get anybody commented under your work? Thanks, fellas.

 

When I want a critique, I would go to photographers who's work I know of and respect and I believe to have high standards. Just for the issues the O.P. raises. As much of the photography here on Photo.net doesn't rise to that level, including my own. I don't seek critiques here. But I'm always open and appreciative of anything anyone says about a photo of mine. Like anyone else, I enjoy compliments, but that's not always the best way to learn.

 

Some people here are very knowledgeable, but generally beginning and for want of a better word, intermediate photographers. For critiques, I think people here would do better to take a real photo class at a real photo school or department at a school where the department has a culture of high photographic standards and critiquing is part of every class project. Just to get used to the idea of people talking about photos in a situation where it will be held up high standards is useful. As important as receiving a critique is to know how to critique. I never was very good at it, but I learned a lot from teachers who were. Not only about the technical part, but what a photo says and how to effectively make a photo more effective in that.

 

I don't hold critiques here to the same standard because the people in a photography department are really looking at photography as a career or semi-professional involvement and expect the most critical evaluation of work. Here, we are a social website sharing a passion, but its not the same photographic culture as in a program. Still people here give some really good advice on photos and processes. I find people here tend to look to find value in a photograph, and that's good. But for true critique, I wouldn't rely on P.net. If you want to get an idea of what a real photographic critique looks like. Go to the Magnum Photo sight and check out their portfolio review, which any photographer can have. If you are interested in critiquing, that's a good place to get an idea of it.

Edited August 18, 2020 by http://www.photo.net/barryfisher

When I want a critique, I would go to photographers who's work I know of and respect and I believe to have high standards.

I understand and agree with this advice, but only to an extent and only considering the kind of critique I'm looking for.

 

I'll say that the most helpful critiques I've received have been from just this kind of source, photographers I know of and respect. But, some very important secondary critiques I've received have come from a painter and a poet I also know and respect, who come at photography from a different, but important, angle.

 

And some very consequential critiques I've received have come from laypeople who didn't even know they were giving me a critique. Just typical viewers' honest reactions and responses, the questions they ask about my photos, the things they seem interested in or to focus on, the adjectives they use, that are not particularly "photography"-oriented, have been extremely helpful in my being able to step back from my own work and adopt different perspectives on it. There can be advantages in getting more and less naive takes on your work to see what it's expressing/communicating not just to "experts" but to the average viewer as well.

My thanks for mentioning the magnum website. For whatever reason, it hasn't been one that I've regularly visited. I will from now on.

 

Mike

 

 

When I want a critique, I would go to photographers who's work I know of and respect and I believe to have high standards. Just for the issues the O.P. raises. As much of the photography here on Photo.net doesn't rise to that level, including my own. I don't seek critiques here. But I'm always open and appreciative of anything anyone says about a photo of mine. Like anyone else, I enjoy compliments, but that's not always the best way to learn.

 

Some people here are very knowledgeable, but generally beginning and for want of a better word, intermediate photographers. For critiques, I think people here would do better to take a real photo class at a real photo school or department at a school where the department has a culture of high photographic standards and critiquing is part of every class project. Just to get used to the idea of people talking about photos in a situation where it will be held up high standards is useful. As important as receiving a critique is to know how to critique. I never was very good at it, but I learned a lot from teachers who were. Not only about the technical part, but what a photo says and how to effectively make a photo more effective in that.

 

I don't hold critiques here to the same standard because the people in a photography department are really looking at photography as a career or semi-professional involvement and expect the most critical evaluation of work. Here, we are a social website sharing a passion, but its not the same photographic culture as in a program. Still people here give some really good advice on photos and processes. I find people here tend to look to find value in a photograph, and that's good. But for true critique, I wouldn't rely on P.net. If you want to get an idea of what a real photographic critique looks like. Go to the Magnum Photo sight and check out their portfolio review, which any photographer can have. If you are interested in critiquing, that's a good place to get an idea of it.

Th e PN critique forum might be more accurately reflected by reading it as impressions & suggestions. Minimal resemblance to a 'pro' critique. These are casual observations on PN with very limited interactions, dialogue. It has a place with benefits and obvious limits in a fast pace social media niche (for 1 or a few photos). But not to be confused with meeting the standards, expectations & potentially huge benefits of an in depth critique or analysis of a stand alone photo or body of work.

When I want a critique, I would go to photographers who's work I know of and respect and I believe to have high standards. Just for the issues the O.P. raises. As much of the photography here on Photo.net doesn't rise to that level, including my own. I don't seek critiques here. But I'm always open and appreciative of anything anyone says about a photo of mine. Like anyone else, I enjoy compliments, but that's not always the best way to learn.

 

Some people here are very knowledgeable, but generally beginning and for want of a better word, intermediate photographers. For critiques, I think people here would do better to take a real photo class at a real photo school or department at a school where the department has a culture of high photographic standards and critiquing is part of every class project. Just to get used to the idea of people talking about photos in a situation where it will be held up high standards is useful. As important as receiving a critique is to know how to critique. I never was very good at it, but I learned a lot from teachers who were. Not only about the technical part, but what a photo says and how to effectively make a photo more effective in that.

 

I don't hold critiques here to the same standard because the people in a photography department are really looking at photography as a career or semi-professional involvement and expect the most critical evaluation of work. Here, we are a social website sharing a passion, but its not the same photographic culture as in a program. Still people here give some really good advice on photos and processes. I find people here tend to look to find value in a photograph, and that's good. But for true critique, I wouldn't rely on P.net. If you want to get an idea of what a real photographic critique looks like. Go to the Magnum Photo sight and check out their portfolio review, which any photographer can have. If you are interested in critiquing, that's a good place to get an idea of it.

 

I have reservations about this. The principle is self-defeating because of limitation. "Higher standards" restricts innate human response from humanity at large, which is not a good thing, but leads to an incestuous culture.

Every profession has standards. I'm not sure I see how demanding excellence in a professional program is restricting "innate human response" what ever that is. Any human can respond to anything the way they do. I'm just pointing out differences in the way we discuss photographs here and the way we discussed them in school. Is there some fundamental value to an "innate human response"? Violence is an innate human reaction as is greed, love, joy etc etc. Certainly discussing that in a photograph is often part of a critique from where I came from. Standards refer to not just what is elicited, but how its achieved visually and photographically and the success or failure to achieving the expression in the photograph.

Every profession has standards.

PN is made up also of non-professional photographers who aren't using professional standards as a guide. I thank and applaud you for bringing up something as important and elegant as the Magnum reviews. They will interest and benefit many. But it's not unreasonable to also note that it simply doesn't apply to many here, who are looking for something else entirely.

1. 'Standards' can too often degrade to specifications.

2. An expert is: i) a drip under pressure ii) one who knows more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing.

Having indulged and dispensed with my flippancy...., a good photo is one which achieves the photographer's intent. A illustration of assembly/disassembly in a technical manual has merit if it shows the procedure....

But that aside, photos contributed for and receiving critique are in a different basket. We are all are subject to a flood of images and only moved to comment for specific reasons -- usually (maybe I stand to be corrected?) something particular. That something is a connection that triggers a response. I quote/paraphrase Jay Maisel in one of his video interviews "if your photo doesn't excite you, why should I bother with it?" His (as far as I know, maybe he borrowed it) concept of gesture - identifying what the photo is about, and transmitting it, makes it work. Now for sure, this comes from great vision and familiarity with visual principles honed to the nth degree.

2. An expert is: i) a drip under pressure ii) one who knows more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing.

Having indulged and dispensed with my flippancy

Flippancy notwithstanding, you still made a point to post it.

 

So, as a counterpoint, with a bit of flippancy myself ...

Expertise is often worth respecting ... and can too often be undervalued and rejected ... especially these days .. where incompetence and flim flam is more often lionized. [Funny, my spell-checker originally turned flim flam to film flam!]

moved to comment for specific reasons

It’s not always the photos per se that move me to comment in PN’s critique forum. I’m usually moved by a desire to acknowledge and constructively support and criticize the photographer who has the guts to post a photo and ask for critique.

Edited August 19, 2020 by samstevens

Also ...

a good photo is one which achieves the photographer's intent.

"I have meant what I have done. Or – I have often meant what I have done. Or – I have sometimes meant what I have done. Or – I have tried to mean what I was doing."

—Jasper Johns

Edited August 19, 2020 by samstevens

Expertise is often worth respecting ...

true dat. the danger i fear is how it is defined or measured. compliance with rules is futile; objectivity is (maybe ?) impossible.

I suspect that what I regard as expertise is regarded as incompetence or flim flam by others, and vice versa; rendering all critiques mere personal reactions.

It is fun to analyse my own reaction to identify what elements I am reacting to, and the technique that produces it.

[edit]: i was responding to 'expertise' as photography expertise, not critique expertise, possibly exaggerating my ignorance......

I think I'm in over my head....

rendering all critiques mere personal reactions

The critiques I receive work this way. I listen. I listen to what's said. I listen to what's said and the reasons given. If it makes sense to me and rings true, if it causes a bit of a pang in my tummy because it rings true but I'd rather deny it, if it causes an "aha" moment, I take stock of it. If none of that and nothing of any other kind of significance happens, I thank the critic and continue on.

I suspect that what I regard as expertise is regarded as incompetence or flim flam by others

In a lot of fields, expertise is not all that subjective. That sounds like either an excuse or expertise-denial. Something fishy there. If Edward Weston was still around and was offering you a photo critique, and you dismissed it as non-expertise, that would say much more about you than expertise. Likewise with a recognized Magnum photographer. You might not agree or what he says might not work for you in terms of your own photography, but that doesn't equate to his not being an expert. Even an expert can be disagreed with. But not recognizing the expert is a different story.

[our last posts overlapped]

PN is made up also of non-professional photographers who aren't using professional standards as a guide. I thank and applaud you for bringing up something as important and elegant as the Magnum reviews. They will interest and benefit many. But it's not unreasonable to also note that it simply doesn't apply to many here, who are looking for something else entirely.

I know Sam. In my earlier post I acknowledged that, and was hopeful people understood I wasn't being perjorative of we here on P.net, I'm one of them. I was just trying to point out there was the difference you noted but hopefully not saying one needs to be one or the other.

PN is made up also of non-professional photographers who aren't using professional standards as a guide. I thank and applaud you for bringing up something as important and elegant as the Magnum reviews. They will interest and benefit many. But it's not unreasonable to also note that it simply doesn't apply to many here, who are looking for something else entirely.

 

Yep. And I hope you don't think I'm judging people asking for critiques or those providing them. I do it too. just pointing out there's other levels of critique, that is supportive but brutally honest. For myself, I never put down another's photograph or discourage anyone from shooting if they're honest about their intentions.

was hopeful people understood I wasn't being perjorative of we here on P.net

As much of the photography here on Photo.net doesn't rise to that level, including my own. I don't seek critiques here.

I hope you don't think I'm judging people asking for critiques or those providing them. I do it too.

Who said anything about "pejorative" or "judging people"? You seemed to be relating your preference for professional-standards-based critiques to the "level" of photography of those seeking critiques. I was saying that, at any level, a photographer can benefit from non-professional-standards-based critique, from even non-photographers, from just average viewers, who can often have an important perspective to offer (especially on what a photo communicates to the public). I have a different sense of critical theory than you and what type of critiques can be beneficial to all photographers at all levels. That's it.

 

And, I read a direct contradiction in the 2nd and 3rd quotes of yours above. 2nd quote: "I don't seek critiques here." 3rd quote: "I do it too." [talking about asking for and providing critiques]

The Beatles sold a lot of music to a lot of amateur listeners. It's good to hear from non-professional photo viewers. After all, they're your main customer too.

McDonald's sell a lot of burgers.

 

Is there a correlation here?

I was saying that, at any level, a photographer can benefit from non-professional-standards-based critique, from even non-photographers, from just average viewers, who can often have an important perspective to offer (especially on what a photo communicates to the public). I have a different sense of critical theory than you and what type of critiques can be beneficial to all photographers at all levels. That's it.

 

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think its always beneficial to offer a critique if you don't know what you're talking about. You can actually screw someone up. Maybe its better to describe an opinion as an opinion and a critique as a critique and recognize the difference. everyone is free to offer opinions. And yes, critical theory probably means something different to me.

 

As to your last little comment. I have asked for critiques in the past, and am always open to opinions, but when's the last time you've seen me put a photo into the critique forum? To me that was just snark, but feel free.

When I want a critique, I would go to photographers who's work I know of and respect and I believe to have high standards. Just for the issues the O.P. raises. As much of the photography here on Photo.net doesn't rise to that level, including my own. ...

...

... But for true critique, I wouldn't rely on P.net. If you want to get an idea of what a real photographic critique looks like. Go to the Magnum Photo sight and check out their portfolio review, which any photographer can have. If you are interested in critiquing, that's a good place to get an idea of it.

I don't think its always beneficial to offer a critique if you don't know what you're talking about. You can actually screw someone up.

You're talking about yourself and you're talking about photographers at a level of requesting a critique from Magnum. That's what I was thinking about when I said an average viewer's take on your/their photos could also be helpful, if there's an openness to hear from average and lay viewers.

 

At your and their level, I would hope you/they would know if someone doesn't know what they'ere talking about and wouldn't get screwed up by whatever they offered, from opinion to critique.

 

It might be a good idea for anyone offering an opinion or critique to a beginner requesting help to clarify their degree of expertise or lack thereof.

I was talking generally. I might recognize certain things, but I was thinking of people who might not.

 

"It might be a good idea for anyone offering an opinion or critique to a beginner requesting help to clarify their degree of expertise or lack thereof."

 

I think that's a good idea. Since its on-line, you could always end it with FWIW as well :)