Critique Forum

<p>How often do you "critique/comment" on others images in the critique forum. I use to give detailed critiques sometimes negative, but that approach seemed to get some people ticked off so I don't do it anymore.</p>

<p>However I do praise images that I like and leave the others alone. Mostly I'll just look at an image and pause if I like it, but some days like on a lazy Saturday afternoon, I might comment on several images in a sort of Marathon session.</p>

<p>How often do you critique on images or do you ever bother to go to the Critique Forum ? </p>

<p>I critique fairly often, as much to get my own eyes to look in a more sophisticated way as to communicate to the photographer in question. I find putting things into words helps me actually understand things about how photos work and communicate and express things. Sometimes being specific really increases my awareness of what's going on. I give about as many negative as I do positive critiques and I've only had a handful of people react badly to a negative critique of mine, which I take in stride. I've established some really good connections with photographers of all sorts by doing this which has been one of my purposes in hanging around here.</p>

<p>I don't bother anymore. For a while I was very active in writing constructive critiques on a regular basis. But after several people got their panties in a twist after I criticized rather than praised their photos, I decided I didn't need the abuse.<br>

<br />So now I participate in several forums and look at photos from time to time, but don't upload my own photos, don't give critiques, and don't ask for ratings or critiques.</p>

 

<p>My professional background is in architecture, a field where detailed critiques, both positive and negative, are part and parcel of the profession. This makes me rather sanguine about the whole process, and willing to give and receive honest opinions. Since I have asked for critiques of my own work, I figure I owe it to my fellow PNetters to participate where I feel qualified to do so. Fred is among those who has shared his knowledge and insights, even to the point of being brusquely honest, but that is what I asked and hoped for, and it is appreciated. For my part, I find myself avoiding negative critiques. If a rank beginner appears to have asked for input, I have sometimes addressed their questions via a private message, rather than in forums, in the hope of avoiding public criticism, while still providing useful feedback and encouragement. If an established participant has asked for input, I try to make positive, affirmative statements, and express any negatives as questions, rather than direct criticisms. This seems to result in a more positive and meaningful conversation, without as much risk of causing offense. Since PNet is my first excursion into the public display of my own work, I figure I am still learning the ropes and will reach a useful and meaningful approach, but only after much engagement on my part.</p>

<p>It's the one thing I keep telling myself to do more, but to do it right it takes some time and 'room in my head' to make sure I express myself somewhat logical and correct. And as a result, the second other things in life demand attention, I don't get to writing critiques much. Which is more often than I'd like. So, less critiques and those I do are mostly for people I already follow. I do try to visit the critique forum, but it's too little and too irregular.<br>

Whenever I do, I only pick those images that somehow connect to me; doesn't mean I think all is great, but at least it means I'll find both good and bad, and I see no problems in delivering both. Problem for me with many negative critiques is that they're just bold, one-dimensional statements on how one should do things, period. They're not dialog, but lecturing, and I feel any critique should above all be dialogue. Which takes some time to write down right, which means I keep telling myself I need to free up more time. And rinse, and repeat.</p>

<p>When I have critiqued, it has usually through a small window centering minor aspects (almost like Henny Youngman one liners as Fred might say) and are tangential. They are not always targeted on the substance as a whole.</p>

<p>I don't comment very often in the Critique forum per se. But I will wander through the gallery, or "recent member postings", and post comments that way. Like Wouter, I do not comment as frequently as I would like. I always felt that the fair thing to do was always keep my critique count higher than the number of comments on my own photos. Just a personal thing, but these numbers recently equaled each other and that tells me that I am not giving as much as I am receiving. </p>

<p>My critiques are usually fairly brief, not as substantive as I would like, but that takes a lot of time and thought. I wish I had more time to give but that is rarely the case. </p>

<p>Just curious but can anyone point to any photographer here at PN that you critiqued and noticed maybe throughout the years their photography improved as a direct result of the critique?</p>

<p>Just wonder how many there are.</p>

<p>I don't critique due to the same reason when I give answers, post processing tips asked by folks here, the conversation pretty much ends with no indication if it helped them. At that point I begin to rationalize that it may not have helped the person asking but it at least it might help lurkers reading the thread.</p>

<p>Now I have to wonder how many lurkers and PN members read the critique forum?</p>

<p>As one who has received as well as given critiques, I can testify to the value of meaningful feedback. I'm frustrated when I request critiques and none are offered, wondering if my work is unworthy of others' attention. Then I find myself having to ration my own time investment, and I realize that I tend to focus my efforts on the images that have particular meaning for me, or of members with whom I have established a rapport. Today I received an unexpected comment from Fred G, one I am grateful for, and I will need to respond with equal interest. My sense is that the true value of a site like PNet is truly measured in the degree to which we are willing and able to engage with one another, provide meaningful feedback, share hard-won knowledge, and encourage the best in one another. These are the reasons I am here, and I get the same feeling from those who share their time and talents here too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>These are the reasons I am here, and I get the same feeling from those who share their time and talents here too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's encouragement, not a critique. Can those feelings be seen as results in the form of better images or do critiques function more as motivation to shoot more images which isn't a bad thing. It's just not what I've understood to be the purpose of critiques.</p>

<p>I don't need encouragement. I love what I do and I like how I do it and the results I get. It's just I don't see anyone discussing it here as a result from the critiques they've received. In fact I suspect there's some contention created when that "rapport" doesn't gel. But I can understand back scratching is nice, but if all it does is motivate without anything getting better what's the point.</p>

<p>Or maybe I'm in the wrong forum site because my motivations aren't the same as others. Ten years here and I'm not seeing anyone improve as a result of encouragement and back scratching, just more images to add to the trillion others online.</p>

<p>Tim, your question isn't unfair, but the conclusion is maybe a bit black-and-white. Part is indeed encouragment, but also encouragment to look through the viewer's eyes and be helped seeing your photos in a different way. I learn a lot from that, sometimes giving also the confirmation that I might be on to something, sometimes giving confirmation that it's an approach that doesn't yield much.<br>

Does my photography improve because of that? In a sense, yes, as it helps taking/making shape of how I try to express myself. Is it the sole cause for those changes? Of course not, critiques still go through the thick (and thick-headed filter) that is me myself, and integrated into other ideas that already played around. They do not work in isolation. Will you see immediate improvements? Probably not, I'm still the same hack I ever was, but I look a bit better now at what I produced.</p>

<p>Some people like this process, and see use for it. Some don't. That's all OK; we're all different and that's a good thing. The fact that you don't feel a need for this kind of encouragment and sharing of ideas however does not mean they're useless for all people here. Similar whether you feel that people got better (or not), is just a single opinion in a sea of opinions. So, you might conclude it doesn't work <em>for you</em>, and as said, that's OK. It doesn't mean you're on the wrong forum, it means you've found for yourself what part of the site you won't use. For others, it may work, in their own way and that's equally OK. They're also on the right forum, just using different services than you will.</p>

<p>Tim's point is quite interesting. Do critiques improve your photography? I suspect they may when you start out, and they may also be helpful when comparing one shot to another, but it is also true that a lot of critical points do not necessarily say the shot is "bad", but that it engenders plenty of discussion, which is rather good. A shot that garners only praise, though, seems a little suspect, as it smacks of the "awesome shot" Facebook mentality. What is one to make of these differing comments if you are genuinely interested in what people think - which is the "better" or "more interesting" photo? </p>

<p>Tim, you misunderstood my statement. Yes, I am grateful when people like my images and make positive noises. I am even more grateful when they take the time to tell me what works, what does not, and how I might improve my images. Much of this comes down to taste and objective aesthetics, but there are still best practices and methods that I can use to improve my own work. This is true even if it is only in understanding better how others experience my images. In the case of beginners, I believe the encouragement is as important as the technical advice, to help them stay motivated to keep on trying, applying new knowledge until they are at a point of self-discovery. For hardened professionals, there may not be a lot here to learn from, but that is a personal perspective as much a fixed reality. </p>

<p>I do provide critiques, but only of images I really like. I try to highlight what makes the photo excellent to me. That approach reinforces use of those characteristics in my own images. There is always something new to learn, even after more decades of photography than I care to consider. Seeing new work, incorporating selected aspects, keeps work fresh.<br>

Even fine, "finished" photographers appreciate the occasional favorable comment.</p>

<p>I'm watching the movie version of Noel Coward's <em>Design for Living</em> and there's a scene between a commercial advertising exec played rather stiffly by Edward Everett Horton and an artist playwright, the much more loose Fredric March. It made me smile and think of this thread . . .</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Exec:</strong> My dear Mr. Chambers, I've come here to speak to you man to man.</p>

<p><strong>Playwright:</strong> My favorite type of conversation.</p>

<p><strong>Exec:</strong> I wish to brooch a rather delicate subject.</p>

<p><strong>Playwright:</strong> Oh, now don't let's be delicate. Let's be crude and objectionable, both of us. One of the greatest handicaps of civilization, and I may say to progress, is the fact that people speak with ribbons on their tongues. Delicacy, as the philosophers point out, is the banana peel under the feet of truth.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>;-)</p>

<p>Maybe we should add possession of a cast-iron ego and unflappable sense of self worth to the terms of use for PNet. March's character has a point, one which is over-applied in art and architecture schools, and under-applied in our politically correct world. We all should be willing to tell and hear the truth. Presenting truth in a manner that does not demean or diminish the person is a bigger challenge. And then, there is the whole issue of "what is truth?" in the discussion of art. Please, always tell me the truth, but try not to make me feel like an idiot when doing so. ;-)</p>

<p>Be tactful, courteous and do no harm. If there is no way to "sugar coat the pill" when dealing with strangers, withhold the medicine. Mom's rules "If you can't say something nice..."<br>

Obviously in a formal mentoring, teaching mode, methods are necessarily more direct if value is to be received and desired outcomes achieved.</p>

<p>It's worth keeping in mind that there is plenty of room between sugar-coating things, one extreme, and being demeaning, another extreme. </p>

<p>That, to my mind, Fred, is tact and courtesy! Some are hyper sensitive, thus the "sugar" option. How can one know with a stranger.</p>

<p>One can't, so I opt for honesty and respect. I don't like sugar coating. But to each his own. I also don't have a cast-iron ego, something David mentioned. My own feelings have been hurt and, when I look back it's usually the case that I was being overly sensitive, though that doesn't mean I didn't really feel badly. Most of the time, as I look back, that I've felt genuinely hurt be a critique, in the long run I learned something, so I'm glad I didn't have a cast-iron ego. If there's no truth at all to a negative critique, it's hard to imagine I'd feel hurt by it. It's usually the kernel of truth that is the stinger, and I'm glad I'm not too teflon to feel those and learn from them. I suppose I've been hurtful on occasion in my critiques. I'm by no means perfect. But I sense often when people have responded defensively or angrily to one of my critiques, it's them being overly sensitive like I've been in receiving critiques because they, too, sensed at least a kernel of truth in what was said. My hope would be that it, in some sense, their temporarily hurt feelings helped make them a better photographer and was worth it. Most of the time, that's how it's when my own feelings have been hurt by a critique.</p>

<p>As you say, to each his own. I have no disagreement with your approach. Possibly I just don't care enough about most "strangers" to engage as I would with someone I know. My failing.</p>

<p>By the way, since sharing and dialogue are important parts of photography (I think of a photo as a dialogue between photographer and subject, between viewer and subject, and between photographer and viewer), I make it a habit not only to respond to critiques people give me but to reciprocate by heading over to their portfolios to write a comment. That often helps establish just the kind of relationship you're talking about Sandy, where we get beyond being strangers and our critiques over time start taking on more meaning and feeling a little more personally invested.</p>

<p>I want to endorse Fred's comment. I started here as a complete stranger in November. By engaging with other members, reviewing the portfolios of those who comment on my images, and reading and contributing many posts in forums, I feel like I am becoming a member of the community, and not just a stranger in a strange land. I hope my engagement makes other new members feel welcome as well.</p>

<p>I am doing fewer critiques of others' work right now, but solely because of time constraints. I hope to get back to it soon.</p>

<p>I think that I have learned a great deal over the years from others' critiques of my work--not to deny the massive amount of material that I have yet to learn.</p>

<p>Where I was (and still am) most sadly deficient is on the artistic and historical side, in spite of Fred's and others' attempts to bring me up to speed. Technical stuff? Well, I am deficient there, too, come to think of it, but perhaps not as glaringly as on the artistic and historical side.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I have only made one critique since I became a member back in June 2010. For me it turned out to be a negative endeavor. The photographer I made the critique to is a photographer that has published at least one book on photography and has over 3900 photographs here on Photo.net. This man is an exceptional photographer. 99.9% of his photographs are very well composed and are of high quality(my opinion).<br>

Frankly the photograph I made a critique on was a poorly posed photograph that was very unflattering to the model. Instead of simply ignoring or accepting my critique this photographer became back with a stinging rebuttal about how cruel and heartless I was for pointing out what I thought was a poorly posed photograph. He implied that I had demeaned and harmed the model with my cruel and hateful critique(his words). Simply because I pointed out how this photographers posing had distorted this woman physical appearance to make her appear anorexic and was very unflattering to the model. This model has a wonderful physical appearance as seen in other photos he has post of her. He blamed me for his his shortcomings in choosing to post this one poorly posed photograph of her(my personal opinion).<br>

I decided that what people say including myself is only helpful if the person receiving the critique is willing to maturely analyze and accept or reject what others have to say. Therefore I do not contribute critiques to others.</p>