What Makes a Critique Helpful to You?

[laurie_m]

Pnina, I can only report my own experiences with the critiques of those I mentioned. I have learned valuable things from each and every one on my list. I have also seen where each one has taken the time to share helpful information / insights with others. While this list isn't a comprehensive list of the fellow photographers that inspire me every day, I stand by my original comment that they provide, IMO, very valuable feedback. That said, I'm sure not everyone will appreciate their style. I suppose that brings me to another point. When commenting on others photos, it's probably a good idea to see how they comment themselves. It's a good indicator of the style they will likely prefer.

[cappoldt]

Ben, a great question - and asked by one of the most polite and humble people I've met on this site. Direct and polite, in that order, are always welcome here. 99.9% of the time, I'm not only happy for the feedback, but agree with it and implement the changes before attempting a print.

 

Barry, I concur with the sarcasm. Here's a few along that vein, particular favorites: "Chipsy, that is realy great details, I feel I can touch it !" and a really great one, "Good catch ... nice colors and timing!" Those by a person with 3,200 more 6s given that 5s, and 5,800 more 6s and 7s given than 4s. I just can't imagine what kind of good and growth they feel that they're offering to people. Worse is should you critique their image, you run the risk that they will email and spit back that they've been in galleries, or some other similar brag, and that you don't know what you're talking about - and then later proclaim their generosity and goodwill. I guess you cannot account for low self esteem, though - humans are as fallible as the rest of God's creatures.

 

Gosh Pnina! You left me off your list. Remember Brian's "Zero Tolerance" rule - that's a sideways slap. Tsk tsk.

[mg]

Any critique that explains WHY the viewer likes - or mostly dislikes - a picture is absolutely useful.

 

I'd say that critiques are especially useful when an apparently technically correct picture is considered average or weak. And unfortunately, I'd say that most people only rate what they dislike, and don't comment. The more it goes, the more I feel this becomes the trend on this site.

 

An example: my latest upload - titled "sunset in spring" - was uploaded one first time, and got 7 ratings ranging from 1/1 to 7/7 - andnot a word of comment.

 

So I uploaded it a second time, and now I've got 22 ratings ranging from 2/2 to 6/7, and only 3 comments - fortunately quite useful ones. So, here I am, after a couple of years on photo.net, after posting more than half a million words of comments to help people on this site, waiting to understand.

 

Maybe I'm just plain dumb, but I thought "sunset in spring" was an excellent photo - not absolutely speaking, but in this category of work, I thought it was one of my very best photos. Now I see that about 17 people found it average, and really, I have no idea why. My guess is that they might not like the strong colors, or the clothing, or themodel, but I have no clue.

 

I would sincerely welcome any negative feedback on this picture...

[afs760bf]

OK, I'll bite on this one. This is just an idea I have, but it's the sense I've gotten from the site since ratings became anonymous.

 

First of all, I should state that I never comment or rate nudes or semi-nudes because I don't take any, I know nothing about the genre, and somehow feel that I really don't need to be looking closely enough at a nude to find a fault. So that's why you won't get any comments (or rates) from me on that photo, although you have posted some great stuff that I admire.

 

Having said that, the same thing is happening to other types of photos. I'm more of a "postcard" or "jig-saw puzzle" shooter, and as anyone on Pnet can tell you, that classifies you as a bottom-feeder. An overly-PS'd image of a violin string is what folks are looking for. But when I upload a photo, I have this wierd habit of looking at the photos that were posted about the same time as mine to see what kind of reaction they are getting. There is always a wide variety of photos and, for the most part, they are all getting the same reaction - none.

 

Almost all photos that I would consider great (that's something taken by someone other than myself) get at least one 3/3 within the first hour. Mine do that, too, but probably deserve it. After that, as Marc's experience shows, it's just spread out from everything from 1/1 to 7/7. That doesn't help much if your goal is to improve your photography. Comments are REALLY hard to come by since ratings became anonymous. And helpful ones are REALLY REALLY hard to come by. I have some folks whose work I enjoy and visit from time to time, which helps me get ideas and improve (Ben, Laurie, Chris, John Crosley, Walter, Sondra, Robert,and many others) and some of those folks help me by commenting from time to time. I am not frustrated if my ratings are not high. I'm just having fun. As many others have mentioned , there's a lot of stuff hanging in museums that would get a 1 for originality on Pnet.

 

But I think it is hard to get comments because:

 

1. If you leave a "constructive" comment, you may get a destructive comment or rating in return. Sometimes, you'll find entire argument threads on people's portfolios, complaining that the person with that portfolio left them a low rating - shheeesh!

 

2. The present rate recent queue does not provide incentive to comment, and you have to click on the picture directly to see what the photographer was trying to do before commenting. How many times have you left a comment in the comment box in the rate recent queue, and later looked at the photo directly to find that your comment seemed ridiculous in the context of the technical details, or message from the photographer (which is not seen in rate recent), or critiques from other photographers.

 

I know management's position is that ratings is just for visibility sorting, and that comments are for help. But I think the way the ratings system works now, it directly affects the amount of comments, and not necessarily for the better.

 

Someone had a thread yesterday wondering why his picture wasn't in the top photos for the last 24hours. Brian responded that he had something like 24 ratings, and an average of close to 7, but he only had one rating in the rate recent queue. All the rest were direct ratings. All the comments were "Wow - Amazing - 7/7" Does that tell you something? Perhaps it should.

 

OK, rambled long enough. I'm done. Just have a good time - nothing posted at 72dpi is real life. Cheers.

[bens]

Yes, a reason I posted this was to encourage in a small way a culture of commenting among photographers that appears to me to be in decline around here, coincidental to the switch to anonymous ratings as the device for getting into the TRP.

 

Maybe I am niave or, as my teenage daughter might tell you, just plain dumb. But I did not pay much attention to the TRP until this year, as people referred to it more and more. I've found the most satisfaction approaching this place as a learning lab and a place to dialogue with enjoyable people whose interests I share.

 

I like being well-received when it happens very much, and I admit, I've increasingly paid attention to maintaining a permanent portfolio of photos that are better received because I increasingly use it in the "real world" to show people who I am interested in working with (as a hobbyist, I sort of pick and choose among a variety of events and activities), which has been helpful. So I can understand people who use their portfolios in such a way getting huffy about ratings.

 

But, and this is a big BUT, the site does not pretend to be primarily for such a purpose. Or, as Barry notes, to be a competition. In other words, that's all gravy.

 

What keeps me around the most is that I've learned things here that make me a more skilled photographer. I doubt I'd have time or inclination otherwise.

 

So I think the place is ultimately about ACCESS, and each of us makes of it what we will. If you want to make it a ratings competition for ego satisfaction or professional ambition, god bless, but I think you are missing out on a potentially greater pleasure and use.

 

The "greater pleasure" (learning, sharing, communicating with such a wide and diverse group, goodness, to learn something from someone halfway around the globe!) requires, however, a thick skin, a commitment to dialogue by saying what you think, and a willingness to be civil at all times. Even when you don't like a photo, sometimes, you just have to risk the chance someone will be offended. Otherwise, you end up talking to a self-congratulating chorus, always a dangerous thing.

 

People are people. It appears to me that a fair amount of commenting before the site went to anonymous ratings was out of a self-interest connected to the ratings competition (versus a self-interest in learning, etc.) -- it led more often to ratings that helped in the "competition" than it does now. Also, the site has made clear its not particularly interested in encouraging comments, and hasn't past a certain point.

 

So those of us who have a self-interest in commenting for commenting's sake, we are on our own. And its seems to me, entirely anecdotally, that our return on investment (of time and attention) appears to be slowly dwindling, as commenting seems to be drying up. I don't recall it being this way a year ago -- and even if alot were fluff, fluff can be the beginning of genuine relationships if encouraged. (Caveat -- I base this observation mostly on my follow-ups to other photos that I comment on, as I do get a good number of comments on my work, which I GREATLY appreciate.)

 

Fair enough. Is still the best 25 dollars annually I ever spent on things photographic.

[mg]

"Comments are REALLY hard to come by since ratings became anonymous."

 

Right. I had exactly the same feeling, actually, but I can't tell for sure. Perhaps comments simply moved on to other pages ? Meaning that the photos which don(t get on the TRP are of course less likely to get many comments, since they won't be seen much.

 

It would be interesting to see some stats about that. Number of comments and what are typically the pages that get commented nowadays since the ratings are anonymous again.

 

As for the anonymity, it is clear it was meant to prevent retaliations, but then again, anonymity may have "liberated" a couple of folks who just go through the queue rating everything a 2, except their friend's pictures.

 

For info, I have lately noticed that loads of pictures were indeed getting very undeserved low ratings within an hour after upload, and that such ratings later disappeared - i.e. were removed by PNet, i.e were abusive.

 

Of course, anonymity would normally mean, that the number of comments would decrease... Why ? Simply because one can't leave a comment on a picture when low-rating it and still remain really anonymous. So, in order to remain anonymous, people might tend not to comment...

 

But only stats can tell what's really happening.

[MichaelChang]

Marc, why do you remove your pictures when they contain comments? It might account for some people becoming reluctant to comment further. I will occasionally trim my portfolio but mostly those of little interest (containing no comments) or no photographic value, and leave ones containing comments even though I might wish to remove them to better represent my current state of photography. <br><br>

From my experience, the social aspect (for the most part, with exceptions) is an integral part of dispensing comments if one's been a member long enough. Most will discover there's little incentive in commenting if one is unfamiliar with a recipient member's personality, specifically how comments will be received, what dead-silence means, even including such things as relative sense of humor. As irrelevant as these matters may seem in academic terms, we're finally dealing with people and their psychology, aren't we? People do things for their own reasons; not ours, and most of us will only engage if the results are everything good. If not, most of us will stay clear or form our own sub-communities where attitudes are more predictable.

[sjmurray]

This is a very good topic to discuss. I would say a helpful critique is one that is appropriate to the genre that is being expressed in the photo and most helpful if the critique is done by someone who is knowlegable in that particular area. Otherwise it is nice just to know someone liked the photo and it moved them in some way, even if they don't have the expertise to state anything more technical than that. All in all, the ratings system will democratically favor the most common themes and accepted forms. Comments by someone who is interseted in the genre that is being critiqued is best, but it is not helpful at all to criticize someone's photo because it is in a genre that you personally dislike or don't understand. I think this is maybe where the low ratings and apathy often come from. There are some really great creative folks posting here who get mediocre ratings or none at all because they are not understood and don't stick with the "norm." Because of these factors I take ratings and comments with a "grain of salt." I have my own biases and preferences too and my tastes may not be at all helpful to someone who is trying to emulate a style or genre that I am not interested in or know nothing about, but that doesn't mean their photo(s) are not good. That's why I politely say nothing in that case.

[ricdphoto]

I joined this site because freinds of mine said I had good photos, but frankly I did not agree with them. I wanted feedback from people who take pictures and understand photography.

 

Once I got over a few hangups of my own, I actaully paid to become a member. I found these few things made me a better photographer:

 

1) Tell me what you like and dislike

2) Tell me how to improve

3) Comment on something you shoot, or are an expert about, or love

4) Look at my whole portfolio for bad or good habits

 

The last one is important because I try to do things in series and post more than one image from a shoot - I may have done a better job on another image.

 

I don't think you should comment on other people's work if you are not an active poster or have no images - I can't learn from you.

 

I don't think you should rate lower than a 4 without a comment.

 

I think you should read the definition of critique before you leave a critique. It is interesting to read what dictionary.com has on this word.

 

Finally, remember how you might feel if someone said the same about a photo of your own. What would you have them say to help you?

[ben conover]

Hello,

 

Without having time at present to read all the above I'd say that honesty is very important when writing a critique. I like to read comments that are real and come from within, not without.

 

Cheers.