Are we all hypocrits or what?

<p>first of all this isn't a rant about ratings or critiques as such but merely describing a phenomenon. I've been active here for over a year and although by now I'm intimately aware of the workings and culture on this site I'm still amazed.</p>

<p>Since starting out here I see some (luckily not all) often very good photographers handing out ridicoulously high ratings and comments on work that is, to say it polite, subpar. It's a repetitive phenomenon as well and can be found all over the place. Some of these oneliner comments can often be easily translated and more often than not hold a double meaning:</p>

<p>interesting work: "your photo sucks"<br /> well captured: "I couldn't care less"<br /> nice idea: "be nice to me as well"<br /> and so on.</p>

<p>I wonder why it's seemingly so hard to understand for some people that this is a learning site. Even the best of those that upload work here don't produce masterworks consistently and therefore there's nothing wrong with giving your honest and motivated opinion because that's after all what's asked for.</p>

<p>It's not about being right or wrong but about a culture that should be compliant with the mission statement of this site. And just for the record I don't have any complaints myself, don't ask for ratings (couldn't care less) and have found some honest people who are quite willing to tell me if I screw up. I myself welcome that.</p>

<p>I'm not naive and know all too well that some people just want to hear how good they are. Still, it's quite possible to provide critique in an adult and constructive way. Remember, the worst insult of all is telling someone that they've done a good job when in fact they haven't.</p>

<p>"hypocrits or what?"<br />I would say they encourage each other to keep shooting and posting.<br />For me artists need the applause. I know that some people here believe that art is an alibi for not learning and improving.<br />For me art is not an alibi.</p>

<p>I generally stay away from posting or rating photos on pnet for many of the reasons that you cite. I get opinions from a few trusted friends instead becuse they are willing to discuss different ways of lighting and shooting.</p>

<p>Gret post, by the way. 6/6 ;)</p>

<p>Some folks are delicate blossoms and wilt under anything remotely approaching less than unfettered praise. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Someone has to offset crass blowhards like me.</p>

<p>If they honestly want to challenge themselves and improve they'll ask for honest critiques. Otherwise, as long as they're not breaking any rules, let 'em enjoy themselves and their mutual admiration societies.</p>

<p>The only objection I've ever had is the gaming of the ratings system some of them (not all) engaged in. They discovered a vulnerability and exploited it. But as far as I know that exploit is being addressed to prevent gaming from dominating the TRP. If they can still make the TRP while playing on a level field with everyone else, hurrah for them.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, you reminded me that someone asked me to critique their portfolio earlier this week and I'd forgotten all about it. So there's a good example of how the system does work for those who want it. (Of course, that's assuming I can offer any real help in this critique - never a safe assumption.)</p>

<p>I have made similar observations on this site and some others. My perception is that some hand out high ratings because they are afraid of retribution from other members or afraid that they may be evaluated by a more critical eye. Personally, I welcome a critical evaluation if done with sincerity. </p>

 

<p><em>"For me artists need the applause"</em></p>

<p>absolutely true Stamoulis but one needs to be an artist first and I think it's fair to say most are not.<br>

Applause i.e. positive feedback should certainly be given but only when it's warranted. Critical feedback however can be a valuable thing. Some of it you might accept, some you may not as long as it makes you sit back and re-evaluate your work. Isn't that why we ask feedback in the first place?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Learning I found is best done by asking direct questions in forums. You get varied answers, from people with different capabilities and backgrounds, and you cull from the answers with your judgment and form your take-away. For technical questions, at least, the answers are black and white, so to speak. You can also learn by looking at galleries and, over time, forming an idea of what interests you and what doesn't. Looking at pictures can inspire you to just be more active, or drive your photography towards different areas, and just influence your photography in many ways.</p>

<p>If you subscribe to the idea that critiques are a good way to learn from, then one thing to consider might be that not everybody is asking to be judged compared to a master's masterworks. They may be looking for critique either at their level of technical/artistic merit, or they may be looking for comments on how they are progressing over time. If every picture were to be judged at the master level, however you define it, I think this site would be a rather gloomy place to hang around.</p>

<p>Learning from critiques is a mixed bag, in my opinion. Technical aspects like focus, exposure are well understood, but there is no universal consensus as to how to apply those to the aesthetics of the photography. In other words, I have never found a rule set that would give me a checklist of judging whether a photograph (or any art) is at par or subpar. If you say a photograph should at least have the subject in focus, for instance, you can be pointed to a multitude of acclaimed photographers whose aesthetic consists entirely of blurry, out-of-focus images. Same goes for compositional rules. You can list all of those, but then you can find plenty of images from masters (and not :-)) that don't follow any of the rules, yet the images appeal to a lot of people and critics will find a way of justifying why the image "works". I don't really think one can judge and critique art, even though many do, and a lot of people mistakenly (IMO) think they are uniquely capable and qualified to do so.</p>

<p>What I just said above you can see manifest itself in several ways. For instance, I have seen several acclaimed pictures from acclaimed masters posted on forums, where people talk about the poor composition, or lack of focus, etc., until it is pointed out that it is a picture by so and so. I am not saying whether the image is/was good or bad, but just that opinions about very similar pictures can vary just based on who the photographer was. You can also find many, many instances where a photographer's whole body of work is acclaimed by some, while others look at the same work and are completely flabbergasted as to why the work is interesting or important. The point being, one mans meat is another's poison is especially true for art, and critiques come from the viewer's viewpoint and it is questionable at least whether it helps the artist to learn.</p>

<blockquote><br /></blockquote>

<p >This is an interesting thread “sucks” lol.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >No really it is. I think critiques can help but to me the best work is arrived at though practice and you following your own road. For me the general consensus does not do much for actual development.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > I generally agree with who has been regarded in the past as good photographers. But who is good now, and are we fit to judge yet? If we go by previous ideas then we can all consider those standards and be good can’t we? </p>

<p > </p>

<p >No </p>

<p>when i praise i do so unreservedly. i do not offer negetive comments anymore after three insidents of the recipients failing to take them in the spirit of the site. as far as i am concerned, if you offer a picture for critique, you will get good and bad comments unless it is a very special picture and had been chosen so by the elves. even then, some of them get not so good comments because such pictures would have been chosen on the level of interest they might generate rather than how good or bad they are.</p>

<p>I agree with Robert, the composition was really nice on the OP. 7/6</p>

<p>I agree with Shash. You see no numerical ratings in the Rijks museum. Night Watch, for instance, simply staggered me when I first saw it for real. One day in the early seventies I was in the Hague, Holland and as I walked up to the Koch galleries I saw this painting in the window by a Belgian artist named Aime Van Bellegham. It made no difference to me what other people thought of the painting, nor how renowned the artist was, I wanted that painting and it currently hangs in my house where I see it daily. I take enormous satisfaction from it and have done so for over thirty years. I don't know whether anyone else likes it and really don't care. I don't even know a lot about the artist except his name. I feel the same about photographs. I don't rate other people's photographs because artistic taste is so subjective. In my opinion numerical ratings just don't work. They have never worked well in work related employee rating systems because they are almot always skewed by politics and subjectivity and I don't think they work in making subjective judgments about the artistic value of somoene's work. Having said that, critiques are important in helping people learn to better the technical side of their work but they are most effective, IMO, when they are in the form of verbally specific suggestions rather than attaching numbers to a picture. It smacks of trying to attach pseudo-scientific process to purely subjective judgments. From the amount of complaints I see about the PN rating system it looks as if the PN rating system occasionally falls victim to politics also. </p>

<p>i don't understand all the fuss about ratings. if you want your photos to be professionally crited, this isn't the place for that.</p>

<p>Some of the behaviors are driven by the desire for social acceptance......<br>

<br /> Not to rant or get off subject but...when someone asks for an honest critique and you spend the time to find both the good and not so good....type it all out and maybe even do a quick edit on the image and get NO response afterwards....well thats almost more irritating than the glad handing.<br>

<br /> Sorry Ton...didn't mean to hijack your thread.....it just struck....</p>

<p>There are people, I suppose, that judge art on an intellectual basis. I don't. My reactions to art and especially classical music, are totally visceral. Maybe that's primitive but if I feel good about something that is enough. I don't care to know why I respond to Beethoven. I just do. Someone else can figure out why. My reaction to the Van Bellegham was and is on that promordial level. How the hell do you put a number on that.</p>

<p>Primordial is spelled with an "i". </p>

<p><em>this isn't a rant about ratings or critiques as such but merely describing a phenomenon. </em></p>

<p>This is just like the postings that start out with a disclaimer that it 'is not a digital vs. film debate', calls it something else and then goes on at length debating digital vs. film.</p>

<p>These one line "double meaning" examples seem way over the top. There doesn't seem to be any reason for anyone to attach the sort of meanings that are attributed to the comments. If these hidden meanings are so "easily translated", can we be shown an actual instance on the site where this has happened? </p>

<p>Encouraging people to be more helpful when commenting on other's photos is good. In doing so it is itself probably helpful itself to avoid getting side tracked with complaints and supposed hidden meanings behind short compliments and just provide suggestions on how people can be more helpful instead.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Heres what I think happens, too many people are legends in their own mind. . Some folks don't like being knocked a step back when they need to be, so they can take a step foward.<br>

People with talent will give you great advice and critiques and you can learn a lot from it. The problem arrises when there are some people either playing around or not giving rating seriously. If you look at your ratings carefully, you can see whats real and whats not. It gets easy to tell. Just take a look at where its comming from. You know who to take seriously - and its the large majority of the people here.<br>

In the last month I'm rethinking about how I shoot photos because of what I am learning on this site - and thats a good thing. </p>

 

<p>Tom, the most unsettling phenomenon I see is people gushing over portfolios where every photos has had probably two hours of photoshop done to it - tinted, toned, ridiculous false vignetting, etc. That and people saying great capture to images that are so far from the original capture it's not even funny. I think P.N has really contributed in this way to a dumbing down of photography from something that happens in the camera primarily, to where the computer is an almost equal componenet, an idea that I vehomently reject. I don't buy the whole "it's just like we used to do in the darkroom" line. Nonsense. When I shot slide film, I got it developed straight E-6, scanned it, sinched up the levels, and that was it, end of story. 30 seconds in Photoshop. Not even remotely similar to what many of the top rated photographers here are doing with the computer.</p>

<p>To those who really want a good critique, I suggest you look at critiques that have already been given. Find someone who has given a critique that you think was honest, thorough and trying to help the photographer. E-mail that person and tell them you thought they did a good job of critiquing other's work and would like them to take a look at one of your photographs. I think you will find that those people are willing to take the time and effort to help you.</p>

<p>Mark</p>

<p>Good points Shash. Some do seem to miss the point of my post though.</p>

<p>Yes, good photography comes or is supposed to come from a good understanding and applying techniques as much as from a own and unique vision. The point is though this is a <strong>LEARNING</strong> site and most of us, if not all, put up their work in order to get feedback, beginners as much as some pro's. I've made very clear my opinion on rating but nobody is going to learn anything if honest critique is not provided AND accepted.That's the point, nothing else. If anyone chooses to believe that this is just another variation of those rating/comment rants by all means be my guest. I think I've made very clear by now what my intention was/is.</p>

<p>Answering that argument by stating that this site doesn't provide professional critiques is totally beside the point in this context. Like I said before, some you might accept some you might not. Some may come from a deep understanding some from gut feeling but it isn't going to work if it isn't provided in the first place.</p>

<p><em>"...where people talk about the poor composition, or lack of focus, etc., until it is pointed out that it is a picture by so and so"</em><br>

Isn't this just as hypocritical?</p>

<p>Some initial defensiveness is probably normal. I don't know about you, but it usually takes me at least 4-5 days to really receive, process and understand feedback I might receive. For me, it needs to sink in for a little while. Then, once I've gotten "ordinary" with it, then I can begin to apply that information or really consider it. </p>

<p>some good points. Frankly I don't give a rat's ass if one shoots on film or digital (I do both) so let's get that out the way first. Mark, it's a good idea and as I understand it some people do already just that. It kind of defeats the purpose of this site though doesn't it? At least if it's done out of fear of getting flamed?</p>

<p>Personally I don't mind if photos are over the top nor the fact that some people are consistently shoving high ratings to one another (you have to be either blind or stupid not to notice). If that is what makes them happy they've got my blessing. And if it's true what Joseph says that too many people are legends in their own mind, fine. It's something you can adress. I did and do. I'm sometimes a bit flamboyant on the positive side but always give my honest opinion. Have been flamed twice, been called acid, blunt and what not. The mails I got were actually very funny although a bit childish. Some people don't won't to learn, a fact we all know. They can be easily ignored.</p>

<p>But like I said. I've noticed some good photographers who got caught in that as well. Why? Out of fear of getting flamed or getting some other kind of negative response?</p>

<p>In my experience most people welcome honesty. I always invite people to be as blunt as they like. Call my photo utter crap if you like as long as it's your honest opinion and the reason for that is motivated. But nobody should have to have a thick skin in the first place in order to give his or her honest opinion and be afraid of a unwarranted negative response.</p>

<p >I think what’s being pointed to is the superficial nature of some comments. It’s a generalization but not without some truth. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Yes sometimes another perspective can help. But (on an online forum) how does anyone now enough about another person, there intention or direction, or if it would be useful to be encouraging or critical. It depends on the individual circumstance that most people have no clue about. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Personally do don’t critique because I am way too hard on myself and others. And I don’t know anyone well enough to judge what is best for them. I do think there is a certain high minded attitude some people have. Though this may help for some it will not help others. I think there can come a point where it is just a pat on the back and for some it’s not helping at all, for some (including professionals) that’s what it is about. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >On a public site like this I don’t expect everyone to feel they want to push there work so far, that’s fine. But for me it’s about the learning process and stretching yourself to find you own voice. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I guess those who ask for it want the kind of feedback that is on offer. I don’t, so I don’t ask. If I want some info I’ll ask and I have learned a lot from this site just through looking through old threads. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I agree an honest critique (can) be better than a kind one, but I don’t load my photos up for them. And I don’t feel I’m not learning by doing that, if fact I think it helps to have your own feeling for things. </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ton:<br /> Good points Shash. Some do seem to miss the point of my post though.</p>

Yes, good photography comes or is supposed to come from a good understanding and applying techniques as much as from a own and unique vision. The point is though this is a <strong>LEARNING</strong> site and most of us, if not all, put up their work in order to get feedback, beginners as much as some pro's.</blockquote>

<p>I didn't quite summarize my ramblings. I got your point. My point was that because there is so much variability in opinions on photography, how does one separate the chaff from the wheat so as to learn from the comments? Let's not talk about the absolute basic flaws, which I won't attempt to put in words, but simply say that most of us would fail those with the smell-test of "I know it when I see it". Beyond those that a large majority would agree as flawed, a photograph might draw completely different reaction from person one as it would from person two. If both persons are technically competent photographers, whose comments are valid? Who/what do you learn from?</p>

<p>I do agree that you can ask for critique on specific technical aspects, and people can weigh in on that. It is easier to learn from those opinions because by definition there should be less variability on the answers. But on more subjective issues of photography I cringe on the word "critique". You could classify critique into the generic category of opinion, but to me opinion and critique are different. Opinion is the personal reaction to a photograph and it is quite valid to express it when asked. Critique, at least to me, implies that the critic is judging to some universal standard and somehow capable of making the image better, and therein lies my problem. I believe critique can suggest different versions, but it is debatable whether the alternates are better or worse. At that point, it might as well be opinion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Dick: How the hell do you put a number on that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dick, I think Ton agrees on that point. I too think that the ratings are non-sensical, since if nothing else, they are based on non-standard subjective calls. You can't take a subjective judgement and come out with a collectively objective rating. That makes as much sense as the sentence I just wrote!</p>

<p>If only we could tap into our awareness during the creative process instead of our egos that need to get 'appreciated' and the same for critiques (sent and received), no one could get offended and learning would be much more free-flowing.</p>

<p>I don't commernt or post images (except in No Words) for this reason. My hobby of photography is about my creativity and having fun, it's not about allowing my ego to be pumped up or let down. Eschewing my ego and its reactions is the ultimate goal, then I'm free to unreservedly create.</p>