Should I be listening to people for advice who have no portfolio?

<p>I am somewhat hesitant to follow a lot of advice without the proof, a lot of it can mean dead-end results while very little advice might prove otherwise. There are quite a few people who comment leaving suggestions on how to do anything on photo.net but when I go look at their portfolio I see nothing posted? No images? Where's the proof from their results? Why would I want advice from someone who might own the greatest camera on the planet but might never use it? For all I know they might not even own a camera at all, or maybe I'm listening to a person who only uses point and shoot disposible cameras. I like to see people who make comments also have images posted in their gallery as it is a way for me to confirm are they for real or just waisting peoples time.<br>

Paul</p>

<p>There are some here (myself included) who don't have portfolios here but do elsewhere. You should check their profiles to find out before judging their critiques.</p>

<p>I check out everyones profile that I come across and do find that some have links to their portfolios elsewere on the internet which helps me to figure out if their advice is helpful. I am talking about the ones who don't have any reference to back their claims.<br />Thanks</p>

<p>A good photographer might be technically clueless. Therefore, listening to them with regards to technical questions might be a bad idea.</p>

<p>Someone who understands the technology inside out might not be a good photographer, yet could really give helpful advice with regards to technical questions. Dismissing them based on their portfolio would be a bad idea.</p>

<p>Web sized images tell little to nothing of how the images would look as large prints.</p>

<p>Someone who is an excellent photographer may be a poor critic, and someone who is excellent at analyzing other people's work may be a so-so photographer.</p>

<p>I think it is best to take what people write as it is. True or false, it is the responsibility of the reader to find out.</p>

<p>If I ask for advice, then it follows that I listen to all of the advice offered, even if I subsequently reject the bulk of it.  I do not believe anything  that I read on the web, without considerable further verification. Such is the nature of research, no matter what the source may be.<br>

I judge responses based on how well they concur as well as the general tone and quality of the reply. Whether or not that person has a portfolio at P.N. is irrelevant.</p>

<p>Good coach might not be a good player and vice versa. It's always good idea to listen to what they have to say especially if they spent time to critique you, now you can do whatever you want with that but I would not dismiss them beforehand just because there are no portfolio that you can check.</p>

<p>Some photo.net regulars don't use photo.net portfolios but do have personal websites or blogs, so check around when in doubt.</p>

<p>But I don't get too hung up on the personal portfolio issue as evidence of credibility. I tend to rely on boxing references way too much but the same dynamic applies: great boxers don't necessarily make great trainers and coaches; great trainers/coaches weren't necessarily great boxers, or may not have boxed at all. Angelo Dundee was an all-time great trainer and corner man and learned his trade through observing others, not by lacing on gloves. One of his best boxers, Sugar Ray Leonard, was a great champion who hasn't produced great results as a trainer. Exceptions include Buddy McGirt, a good but not great champion and very good trainer; and Ronnie Shields, a great amateur (I watched him several times in my youth in Texas), disappointing pro but excellent tough-as-nails trainer and corner man.</p>

<p>Sorry for the digression, but the point is, don't dismiss the critiques of those who don't have impressive portfolios. If the critiques seem on the money, why not assume the critic has a good eye and accept it graciously? Consider the alternative, which too often from otherwise good photographers amounts to "critiques" that are little more than unfettered sycophantic praise because they're anxiously currying your favor for reciprocal praise on their portfolios.</p>

<p>Above all, be grateful for any comments at all. There are many thousands of photos competing for the same scarce resource: attention of viewers. After awhile you'll be able to discern the differences between gratuitous reflexive suggestions (usually amounting to "crop this") and carefully considered suggestions (which may also amount to "crop this").</p>

<p>Especially ignore "advice" if the person has no Website, portfolio, and a generic/fake name. There are many like that. Just ignore and proceed on.</p>

<p>Comments, from anyone, are nothing but a starting point. You'll always need to evaluate <em>any</em> commentary offered about your work. Only you can determine what's relevant, no matter how accomplished the commentator. With that in mind, the fact that the commentator does or doesn't have a portfolio becomes secondary. As others have said, be glad that anyone has offered a comment but never let go of your obligation to find your own way.</p>

 

<p>I think that critiquing a photo is something that, when properly done, can be done by anyone with a good eye and good analytical skills, including communication. On the other hand, one must have at least studied fairly closely a variety of techniques and their application to be able to guide. The only way to see that online is through a portfolio, whether here or elsewhere.<br>

<br /> The problem online is that anyone can, and often does, give advice about things they haven't done. I have seen some horrific advice about the things that I do, dead wrong, and when I look, there's no evidence that they have ever shot the specifics being discussed. My favorite is the people who say you can't photograph music with a flash, which I do all the time successfully. Look for their shots and you see butterflies and leaves rather than any experience with shooting bands in the dark. People talk about street photography and show photos of the back of people, or random street scenes shot from a mile away. People talk about lighting situations they have obviously never tried.<br>

<br /> The problem is that for someone new, it can often be difficult to separate the good advice from the bad without having something to look at. If one knows that there is a great teacher, like the great boxing trainer that hasn't fought but who everyone knows is good, that's fine, but here on photo.net, that is unlikely to be the situation.</p>

<p>Another way to look at critiques from people with no portfolio.</p>

<p>Often the end result of producing a photograph is to show it to someone who couldn't possibly have a portfolio. Yup! I'm referring to non photographers. The feedback of the general public at some point becomes something you're going to want to add to your assessment of one of your images. If the only valid feedback is from someone with a portfolio(i.e a photographer) then your photography becomes a closed little circle and not the broad method of communication it really is.</p>

<p>With any sort of feedback or critique, you have to weigh ALL of it and then you decide if it makes sense and if it helps realize your expression.</p>

<p>Karl makes an excellent point that frequently gets ignored when this discussion comes up. And it applies even more so if you are trying to sell your work to the public. Can you imagine a wedding photographer who wouldn't pay attention to what brides want their wedding images to look like?</p>

<p>I think the experience of the commentator is not always relevant. Criticism tells you something about your <em>own</em> work as well as about the critic. The advice I always give to people is to take the criticism to your <em>mind</em> , not your <em>heart</em> (and as an editor for an academic journal for a spell, this was advice I got to give a lot).</p>

<p>Accept criticism that helps you see something you had missed, but discard those elements that are mean, spiteful, and jealous. Just don't be too quick to decide what is "mean, spiteful, and jealous."</p>

<p>Paul, Wikipedia contains an interesting writeup on "Advice" which is worth the read:<br /> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_%28opinion%29">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_(opinion)</a> <br /> <br /> I find it a little ironic that your question is phrased in the form of advice-seeking - should you listen to those who respond without a posted portfolio? :-)</p>

<p>I always think it is important to listen to yourself when hearing others' advice... if the advice offered does not ring true to your inner voice, it's a good indicator that it might not apply. People, regardless of their experiences or portfolio or skills, can only speak from their own condition no matter how hard they try to step out of that to be 'helpful'.<br>

The old saw about "no advice is worth a darn, including this advice" comes to mind.</p>

<p>That is a question only you can answer for yourself ... and the answer might quite well be depending on the type of question you ask. However, if you decide to listen only to advisors with portfolios, you should clearly state that when asking your question ...</p>

<p>-- "as it is a way for me to confirm are they for real or just waisting peoples time."</p>

<p>... since its not only your time wasted then.</p>

<p>No of course you shouldn't, I don't care about advice from people who don't have at least a MSc either ;-)<br>

Seriously, good advice above. I do think it would be polite of the person asking questions to mention having such biases so that people don't need to waste their time answering questions if the answers are going to be disregarded anyway (same goes to criticisms).</p>

<p>Agreed about the obviously ill-informed advice ("Always use fill flash, never have anything in shadow!" "Rule of thirds goes in everything!" "Landscapes must always be horizontal, portraits must always be vertical!").</p>

<p>But I have no trouble accepting obviously well informed critiques from those with no portfolios. And even if a complete novice suggests an off-the-wall crop or edit, I'll consider it because they are seeing things with an eye that hasn't been over-trained. I'm wary of the "shibboleth effect," the notion that only insiders are permitted inside the city walls and secret passwords, buzzwords and catch phrases must be repeated within accepted context, while any strangers who don't know the code must be ostracized or executed.</p>

<p>Because as Karl observed, we are not playing to only an audience of fellow musicians. Becoming too insular risks becoming incestuous. Next thing you know our photography is suffering from genetic defects.</p>

<p>I always give much more weight to advice given from people who have easy-to-find photographs (pnet portfolio, websites, blogs, etc). It has served me well on photonet over the years. I can give many examples about both good and bad advice offered, and the high degree of positive correlation with those offering the advice having photographs to see, or not...</p>

<p>BTW, the OP is NOT asking about critiques and questioning critiquing skills, but advice about photography in general...</p>

<p>I don't have a lot of work on photo.net . it is on my website , http://www.ellisvener.com . If some one is giving advice and they don't have a photo.net gallery or their own URL or a gallery of work hosted somewhere, I think you are right to be a bit sceptical.</p>

<p>I agree with Karl, often the best judge of a photo or image is the non-photographer. They're almost always the best critic or supporter of my photo cards. They know what they like and don't like, and they're less technically critical (some with experience mistake opinion for fact). And as stated, check their profile as they often have their own Website or photo gallery elsewhere. But in the end a critique is just an opinion.</p>

<p>As for P&S cameras. I heard an interview with a French professional photographer who asked his students, "If you can't capture good photographs with a simple P&S camera, why would I expect you to do any better with better camera?" His point being the camera is just the tool, and talent and skill will show despite the tools.</p>

<p>Paul:</p>

<p>The simplest idiom is to ignore any critic that has nothing useful to say, regardless of what's in his portfolio.</p>

<p>If I ask for advice, and somebody gives it, I listen politely. If it makes sense to me, I apply it. If it doesn't make sense to me, I ask for clarification. If it still doesn't make sense to me, I toss it out if the critic doesn't know what he's talking about in my opinion. If I know the critic is knowledgeable (i.e. as evidenced by pictures in a portfolio, or other clues), then I'll experiment and see if I can apply his advice to my situation.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>If someone offers advice without showing his/her own work, ignore them. I think the ratings system should block anyone who hasn't posted a half-dozen new pictures every quarter (which would rule me out because I've not posted anything for a year or so).</p>

<p>There are a number of reasons not to post, including but not limited to concern about the privacy of one's subjects and pilfering of one's work, and lack of photographic expertise doesn't necessarily invalidate a criticism. You might very well get excellent advice from a museum curate, a fine artist, or an architect who has never pursued photography seriously, even though it might relate to visual elements, rhythm, or color relationships rather than f/stops or light placement. There's also the old adage about the mouths of babes and sucklings.<br>

Contrariwise, an excellent photographer may be a poor critic. I once heard Ansel Adams criticize the work of one young photographer rather harshly as a meaningless abstraction, and the young fellow asked, "Do you see what this is?" Adams didn't, the young fellow explained what his picture represented, and Adams reversed himself. The work was well done--he just hadn't seen it for what it was.<br>

I think you can submit a photo as is, without comment, for judgment on its intrinsic merits. I think you can evaluate the criticism you get in the same way.</p>

<p>I listen to all the advice that I receive. I do not always heed it, but I do listen. The type of advice depends on whether I look for a portfolio or not. If it's something simple like cropping, then a portfolio doesn't matter. If it gets into technical aspects, then I am more likely to look for a portfolio, although the lack of one does not necessarily negate the usefulness of the advice.</p>