Why are so many PN "critiques" about cropping (and other technical aspects)

There was a very interesting conversation recently about cropping in the forum. I'd like to continue that

with a slightly different twist. This is not a scientific study, but I have viewed thousands of photos on PN

and like to read the critiques, although I don't often get much out of them other than "great photo" and

"nice job." It seems to me a majority of the substantive comments are the commentor suggesting a

different crop. Why would that be so much more important to so many people than commenting on how

the photo makes you feel, how it seems to further the photographer's overall vision, what it's trying to say,

etc.? As a matter of fact, it seems a lot of the "constructive" criticisms are technical (blown-out highlights,

contrast, etc.) as opposed to emotional. How about an occasional criticism of the type, "I know you're

trying to suggest sadness, but you've failed because . . ." or "that portrait suggests loneliness, if that's

what you were trying to convey, you've done a great job" instead of "I wish there were a little more space

to the left of your subject's head!"

I think it would be great if both emotion and technical were discussed! Sadly, there seems to be both lacking especially when I post images.

And, in photography, at least in hardcore photographers, you have two main types, the craftsman and the artist. The craftsman knows all of the technical details, and maybe a bit about the art. But he focuses on how it is made, and how to recreate or improve on the how. The artist, while being a craftsman to some degree, is more focused on the why. That is not to say there aren't people who fall at the 50/50.

 

As for me, I am just too lazy to critique, and would be glad to do it if people had actually proved to be more helpful on critiquing my own images. But, maybe I should be more proactive and start critiquing others and they would then do it in turn for me.

 

Which brings up another idea, how about the ability to set up critique groups or clubs? Then people could join and get updated whenever a member of the group has requested a critique. And we could help make our critique experience much more useful to us.

Zach, if you want honest critiques about your work, your on the right persons thread. Read his comments on others photo's... They are too the point and helpful (Trust me, you have no idea how much).

 

I think one of the reasons we all see "nice shot" and "perfect" so much, is I've noticed a fear of retaliation rating and or comments, if you are too harsh, or critique too honestly.

 

On more than one occasion I have had people say "now you hate me", or "I hope I didn't offend you". As much as I appreciate the concern for my well being, I always remind them... That's why we're here isn't it? To learn from our mistakes.

 

I personaly don't critique with reccomondations too often as I fee I lack the experience to input something with any value, like Fred, I like to take my time with a photo and input how it makes me feel.

Zach hit the nail on the head! When we post a shot in the photographic merry-go-round called the Critique Forum...the pic immediately begins descending to the bottom of the page and may not be viewed as often as we'd hope for. Quite often I receive critiques from those I've critiqued & I don't feel it's always that they feel the need to reciprocate w/ a comment and/or a rating...it's that they were simply unaware of me and my work amidst the thousands of members who post. It's a great way to meet your peers and opens a "varitable plethera" of avenues in which to share your interests. One thing about ratings...I wish that more people would be objective in their critiques & not give low ratings simply because the submission isn't their cup of tea. I believe that seeing merit/value in things we aren't personally drawn to or interested in is one of the surest signs of maturity. That being said, I can't say that I agree with your comment in which you said," I know you were trying to express sadness, but you failed...". Photography is an art, and art is about individual expression. What may be seen as "failure" by you, may be just the opposite for someone else. I have no problems w/ someone telling me that a particular photo does nothing for them, but honestly, if I were told my photo had "failed" in regard to evoking a particular emotion...I would quickly relate to them what I'm sharing with you. The photo only fails...if it fails for me. The photo is my baby, not yours. Conversely, you have every right to express how the photo makes you feel, or that it makes you feel nothing! You(anyone) could say that I've failed...but with all respect, it wouldn't change my perception of my work. I might be a little disappointed for you, & I'm not always mature enough to get past my fragile ego and my insecurities that quite naturally yearn for approval...but in the end I wouldn't be second guessing my picture. I'd like to hear your response to what I've said, if you will please! And, hope I didn't come across as being disrespectful or flippant...just wanted to prompt you to think on the subject!

"It seems to me a majority of the substantive comments are the commentor suggesting a different crop. Why would that be so much more important to so many people than commenting on how the photo makes you feel, how it seems to further the photographer's overall vision, what it's trying to say, etc.?"

 

It may be honesty in that there's not much to see in a 100k jpeg at 600x pixels beyond the broad strokes of composition as well as some other technical issues. Also, they are easy criticisms to make. There is a list of them somewhere, I guess 8-)

 

Also, photographers tend to critique in terms of the craft, a different perspective altogether from a non-photographer, and the critiques here are from photographers mostly. Unless they are "Passionists" you are unlikely to receive many critiques on the emotional tenor of the photo.

John--

 

No problem. You are right. I, too, would avoid the word "failed" and probably have not

used it in reference to someone's specific work and wouldn't use it. I may have felt the

freedom to use it in my post above because I wasn't referring to anyone's work specifically,

just giving an example, but I do agree with you that I would say "I didn't get sadness from

this" rather than "you failed at . . ." Thanks for pointing it out. I think we do, though, have

to remember that people have all ways of expressing themselves, some more politically

correct and more thoughtful and caring than others. Some are brief, a little harsh, and to

the point, others less confrontational. If we've come here looking for honest critiques with

too fragile an ego, we may get hurt. I think an aspect of being a good artist is being thick-

skinned and knowing what to learn from others and what to ignore. I sometimes second-

guess my photos, if someone I respect makes me think twice by something they've said. I

always look at the portfolio of those critiquing my work so I know the sensibility from

which they are coming.

Usually, I don't post something until I'm pretty satisfied with it, so I will put what I've

learned into my next photo and not worry about the possible shortcomings of my last one.

Don-

 

Photographers tend to critique based on craft? Odd, all the big pros I have talked to, and that have looked at my work gave me more a 50/50 response. A master, such as Maplethorpe, HCB, or the likes, will give you about a 50/50 evaluation. They know that you need both technical and artistic excellence to make a good photo. As people are learning, they come up through the ranks leaning more towards one side or the other. And some parts of the craft easily border artistic interpretation. So to say a photographer is more based off of the craft, to me tells me you are working, hanging with more technical, business oriented photographers. But that is a guess based of your comment, not based of fact, so I could be easily be wrong.

Technique isn't for its own sake. It is so that the artist has the tools to better express thier intent.

 

When you don't crop properly (for your intent) the eye is going to drift away from the subject of your photograph and sometimes completely out of the frame.

 

The reason that most photographs that hang in museums have demonstrate good technique isn't because the technique is good but because they are evocative powerful photos. They wouldn't be so powerful if they weren't good.

Don--

 

I hope you are wrong. I'm not very interested in photography as just a craft. There are many

photographers who know how to photograph with, look for, and critique about "passion" and

emotion in a photograph, so I'm not sure why you brought non-photographers up. I think

with any art form, craft is important and, of course, enhances the message, but it certainly

doesn't make anyone MORE of a photographer if they know the "rules" of composition and

have no sense of creativity or personal expression.

I only know one famous pro, but a number of some very experienced

photographers. They are landscape or nature photographers mostly. Perhaps it is just the photographers that I know. I think back, too, to the photographers I knew back in the 60s and 70s who were photojournalists -- or, like me at the time, hoping to become one.

 

What stands out in my mind about both groups is their reticence, an unwillingness to appear a critic rather than a photographer.

 

The critic is a spectator and has an aesthetic that cannot be that of the photographer who has taken the photograph under critique, or that of any photographer.

 

"...criticism of the type, "I know you're trying to suggest sadness, but you've failed because . . ." or "that portrait suggests loneliness, if that's what you were trying to convey, you've done a great job""

 

If another photographer were to comment on a print I handed them and said that, I don't know what I'd think since I try not to suggest anything. If a non-photographer said it, I'd find it interesting. We never know how our photographs will be seen by others. But, beyond its value as a 'data point', it wouldn't matter much.

Obviously there are many different types of photographers and photographs with many

different purposes or no "purpose" at all. There will probably be many different approaches to

critiquing as well. My personal style is to critique along the lines of the way I see and take

photographs. I assume some others will do that as well. I take what I need and leave the rest

behind as I also assume others will. I don't gain from everybody's opinions and I'm sure not

everybody gains from mine.

Hmmm...nature photography and photojournalism, unlike studio photography, take what is made available to them, rather than setting a stage and controlling the totality of the frame. That may make a big difference. I learned very early on that the studio was not for me. So, I do not create poses, lighting or frames, but take what comes. Even when to release the shutter may not involve a conscious decision.

 

That's what I mean when I say I am not trying to suggest anything. I don't process in the lightroom or the darkroom in order to cultivate an emotional tonality, but what ever there might be in the exposure.

In my view, cropping any image, or if you wish, framing an image is what sets it off and first attracts the attention of a viewer. It is what makes composition work or... sometimes not work.

 

Balance is not necessarily due to the picture's being symetrical, as color, brilliance or focus and other traits for that matter, must be weighed in to achieve equilibrium. This satisfying arrangement that we call composition, may differ to a degree with different viewers. Some have more of an eye for such things than others, and are more critical about these aspects than others. I personally feel quite strongly that Olympus, or Canon (i.e. four thirds or 2:3 ratio etc.) shouldn't decide for me what shape a piece of art must be. Why should they, say that you must fill the frame in the view finder with your subject. In no way do THEY know what MY subject is. And, often times the photographer finds a bit of trimming here or there makes the picture more balanced. IT IS THE SUBJECT THAT DECIDES WHEN AND WHERE TO CROP.

 

Willie the Cropper

I find the POW forum suffocating. As you pointed out people seem to be so afraid to post criticism that may be interpreted as an attack that POW comments have been reduced to comments such as "great job", "congrats", "I like it". I think people try not to upset others and the moderators. I do have problems with moderators who delete and worse edit comments -- simply because the comments are taken as been some kind of attack. Even a discussion about the philosophy of photography that may have resulted from a POW image is deemed inappropriate. It's no wonder why the discussion are limited to stuff like cropping, contrast, etc.

 

Also, I would like to see more photos that make some kind of social commentary or more documentary in nature rather than photos that try to be that pretty picture perfect postcard.

 

I confess I should stop procrastinating and post some of my own pics.

Billie the Cropper -

 

I don't think the cropping is really the issue at heart here. And, to argue the cropping issue, what is wrong with not cropping? Most of my work looks best not cropped. I compose in camera and do any cropping by moving/zooming. For me, its about maximizing the use of the tool at hand. Yes, some images do better with cropping, I cannot deny that at all. But the answer to everything isn't cropping. And how much more do you miss by cropping all the time?

 

There is an image right now in the sports forum of a guy going for the slam in a Michael Jordan'esque pose. A few of the posters immeaditaly said crop it. Then they suggested cropping it in a square, losing what I felt was a key element in the image, the curved horizon line from the fisheye. First, you lose that it is a fisheye. Second, you lose the distorted feeling you get from this curving which, IMO is crucial to the image. Also, rather than point out other ideas, like where to have repositioned the camera, if possible, and how to maximize the shot using the fisheye, they just said crop it. Really, that wasn't so helpful.

 

And what do you think printing 8 x 10, or 11x14 is? You are conforming to your medium's constraints. Doesn't mean you always have to, but its not exactly a bad thing either.

 

But the original question is why do most people not comment about intent? Which, also brings me to anther point. A large portion of the PN people, as I see it, either are afraid of being "wrong" with their interpretation, or don't want to give the time to interprut a photo. Maybe it is a product of our PC society and our very very short attention spans. I had a photo up, an obviously Caucasian blonde, in traditional Japanese dress, with stuff for Chinese Calligraphy. The kind of stuff that is semi-cheap, and very commercial looking. I asked people could get to the theme. Anyone I have asked in person got to it quickly. People here refused to answer, but instead asked me to just tell them.

 

But yeah....that was long winded......

"I compose in camera and do any cropping by moving/zooming."

 

I think this is best practice if it can be done. If I crop, I want to see if the aspect ratio can be retained first, but don't make a fetish of it. For street (or what I call photographs of opportunity) the basic rule is "get the shot, everything else is secondary" including the frame. Sometimes you can't move your feet or zoom shooting landscape...you just can't get there from here. They often have to be reframed after the exposure.

 

What I won't do is crop to finesse the composition -- to get the "main" subject positioned according to a rule, move it off-center, just a nudge to get it onto the proper "third" and so on, when the photo is fine. That's too persnickety for me, but others have no problem about it.

 

If it is for a client, you crop at their pleasure, of course.

Zach, You do crop. Look at your "Lady in Red." Not only did you crop it but you used the rule of thirds to its best advantage, I might add. I'd like to see more of your work than what you display currently. I do see a very definite pattern to your work and it is most interesting. Bright primary colors on white backgrounds.

 

I thought I was getting too long winded so I didn't mention in my tirade the standard size of paper, but for the past nearly 60 years in the darkroom I have kept a paper cutter and use the trimmings for test prints.

 

I also didn't mention all the people who have said over the years that they do all their commposing in the camera. I don't believe it. Of course we all do a rough comp of what we see,but I think it is extremely rare that it ever happens. First off the negatives never exactly fit that 8X10 or 11X14 inch paper, with the exception of large format. Absolutely something's gotta give.

 

Much of what I do is pannoramics, both vertical and horizontal and of course none of those fit the paper at all. I happen to be working on some photos for a calandar and am restricted to 8X10s. I hate it. I also dislike that pans don't show up well on PhotoNet, but that's getting onto another subject.

Gene Smith's Tomoko in her Bath will annihilate the pretensions of the spectator. Few photographers are so skilled, And only a few of those will have such an opportunity and see it, and fewer still would pay the price.

 

http://polyptique.maisonpop.fr/images_users/TomokoUemurainHerBath.jpg

 

So. How does it make you feel?

I don't think cropping per se is the real trust of Fred's original comment. I believe he is asking, "Of all of the things that might be said of a photograph, why mention cropping?" What makes it come up so often in commentaries?

 

I think there may be several parts to figuring out a possibility. The place to begin I think is to "blame the victim." Many people post pictures with the simple request to give them a critique. Almost no one tells us what they intended to say with the picture or what part of their skill set the picture demonstrates. How can you offer helpful advice to someone when you have no idea what they're working on? These forums are not really conversational in the sense that you can begin a critique by posting questions you intend to be answered before you would be willing to say more. Fred began this thread at 11:39 AM EST on Monday. Now it's nearly 3:00 AM EST Tuesday morning. If I offered a great opinion about writing criticism, would there be anyone still interested enough in the thread to read it? It takes a long time for give and take to take place in a forum setting. The photos shown in the critique forum roll off within a day so that if you want to post a follow up to something you have already written, you must have a search toolkit of PN techniques handy to ever find it again. I'm not sure that its practical to try to find out what a person thinks he's up to in a certain photo without a convenient way to get back to older posts in their original sequence to permit browsing.

 

So if you have only one shot and you want to say something convenient and photo worthy, what are you to do? How about going for something simple and easily fixed like subject placement? There isn't much risk. It doesn't take long to write. And it sounds good. Almost like professional advice sometimes.

 

I did offer comments I thought were useful to someone asking for a critique. (He/she? I don't really know) deleted the picture and PN deleted my comments with it. Then the OP posted that same photo again. I don't know what he was looking for, but it was clearly not what I had to offer! I think it's mindless and silly to read "Nice job" and "Great photo" over and over again. But this is the internet. We are, after all, strangers to each other here.

 

If you asked for a critique and read something like "Help me help you. What are you working on?" would you be offended? How would you respond?

Like some others here I would like to get critiques about both the technical aspect as the emotional.

<br>I can agree that "good job" and "great shot" isn't really helping me improve as a photographer (even if it feels good that someone is appreciating my work).

<br>Fact is that way to many people here at PN have a huge problem dealing with negative criticism, they just wan't to hear "great job". These members will never learn from comments on their photos, so it's their loss. The fear of retaliation probably sometimes scare members who comment, so instead of suggesting "do this or that..." they write "this is a really good shot" or something like it.

<br>

<br>To get back to the original discussion, my opinion is that a really good photo will make you feel something. If it does, you might as well let the photographer know.

Albert, as a practical matter, I hope you are aware of the followup mechanism on this web

site. On your workspace page, toward the bottom, there is a link called "Followup on Your

Comments on Others' Photos." I check that link all the time. I like to see what others say

on photos I have commented on and sometimes the photographer will respond back to

something I've said (not often enough, frankly, but I've certainly gotten dialogues going

with

some special people).

 

You ask "How can you offer helpful advice to someone when you have no idea what they're

working on?" I don't generally like to be told nor do I like to reveal the intent or ideas of

my photos. I think the photo should speak for itself. Of course, there are exceptions, and

sometimes I like to talk about what went into a shot of mine, what I was hoping for, etc.

But, as a photographer, I love hearing others' takes on my photos and I really get off if

they see or feel something that I hadn't thought about. I think the viewer puts as much or

almost as much into the photograph as does the photographer and what they see is

absolutely valid regardless of what my own vision was. I hope, as a photographer, to

stimulate people to thought and emotion. What that thought and emotion is I have some

control over but I am not omnipotent nor do I want to be. As long as they feel something

when they look at a photo of mine, I am happy.

 

If you asked me the question you asked at the end of the post, I would not be offended. I'd

be thrilled that you asked. But I might answer somewhat ambiguously because I figure my

photograph should guide your answer, not my words.

 

If you check out my portfolio, you'll notice a cala lily. Recently a woman commented

alluding to and asking about what she perceived to be a sexual connotation in the

photograph. As there is a sexual component to some of my other work, it made perfect

sense to me that she saw that and asked about it. I gave her a nonconclusive cryptic

answer saying that if she saw it, it was there (which I truly believe). Honestly, although the

cala is an obvious candidate for sexual symbolism, I hadn't thought of it consciously

myself. I took the photo because of the delicacy of the lighting and the strength of the

color yellow. But now I can't help but see the aspect she pointed out and, of course, realize

that the sexual component may have very well have played a role in my creating the

photograph (not to

get too Freudian).

I think it's best to use the site meet photographers that you admire and then ask them to give you their HONEST opinion about your work. Most people will happily oblidge. Exposing your photos to the masses and asking for two numbers 1-7 won't tell you as much as someone who's opinion you trust. Most people only look at the photo for a split second, unless it's someone that they "know" then they might try and express something more than "nice job".

Well, I will chime in here only because I think I critique pretty much how I see it in a very honest and open way. HOW I feel and what I think MOVED the person to take the picture. I think that is what you are asking if that is correct Fred. <BR><BR>

I look for photo's that intrigue me and make an impression on me and move me. I stop and ponder about it and wonder WHY that person took the photo in the first place and WHY they took it from that ANGLE. <BR><BR> That is partially why I go back to the same people because I have fallen in love with THEIR work and their style. I search out certain types of photography and certain types of ART (PS). I love COLORS and movement so things that I have a passion for I stop and with crique with great artistic wonder. Questions and things I see in a picture that I like and want to share with the photographer. I get excited about those things. Yes, I might say I would prefer cropping but mostly I will say DON'T crop and thank you for not doing so. <BR><BR> ~ Thank you for bringing this up Fred but I also agree with that not everyone has the time to say as much as I do sometimes so a simple GREAT shot and WONDERFUL contrast might say just as much.

I like to try to critique the emotional as well as (us much) technical as I feel comfortable with but Darren Henry is talking about me - I hate giving critiques - I am so afraid of offending! And I suspect that's the problem with most people - human nature. We don't want to hurt each other's feelings. That's likely a good thing because the "wonderful" and "nice" comments we keep getting (and giving) keep us motivated and engaged and eager to learn even if at our own pace.The journey is always more fun than the destination...