What do you want from critiques?

[rachelfoster]

I do not rate photos, but I do try to comment. However, I have a real problem.

I am not an accomplished, knowledgeable photographer. A lot of technical

aspects are still a blooming buzzing confusion (thank you, William James, for

the phrase) and I really don't know enough to offer constructive criticism.

 

At the same time, receiving critiques on my photos is helping me learn. So, on

the one hand, I want to receive critiques but on the other hand, what I can

offer in return is limited. I can talk about what an image means to me, the

emotional response I have when I view the image, and maybe even one or two

aesthetic elements, but that's about it.

 

So, what can I offer others? What can a novice contribute by way of critique?

What do you want?

[brucecahn]

Rachel: You are not required to comment if you have nothing helpful to say. If you are a beginner it is best not to give instruction. Would you want driving lessons from someone who is just learning? When you go to college do you want the class taught by the student who sits next to you?

[joshroot]

How does the image make you (as the viewer) feel? What emotions does it bring up? What about it do you like or not like?

 

People often fail to understand that 3/4 of good critique does not have to do with technique.

[rachelfoster]

So, it would seem there is interest in emotional response but if one doesn't know one's ISO from one's aperture, don't try to fake it?

[yann1]

I'm on the same boat.

I'd sometimes send a photo back with a few changes (crop, contrast...) or advising shooting from a different angle etc. or just say I like the concept, the originality. In return, I wish someone would do the same, or point out something I haven't thought. I think anyone should be happy that a viewer spend time to stop by and write a comment. By the way, my wife can't even use a camera properly, but she's my best adviser so far. A novice can sometimes see things that experienced photographers don't see. That remains true for other arts. My 2 cts.

[michaelging]

I think Josh has the answer, tell what you feel when looking at the photo. Does it give you a emotional response or not? Do you like where the photographer has places the subject,is there a subject? Does the photographer use composition to lead your eye to the subject. Does the photographer use light, color, contrast, form to make the photo more interesting?Does the persons expression ring true to what you see happening in the photo? All these and many more comments can be left by a person who has no Idea what a F-stop is,if you can articulate what you are seeing , what you like and what you do not this is what a critique is all about .I would rather be critiqued by people who express what they like and dislike about the photo, than by a person who knows the Zone System inside and out.

[dseltzer]

It's not just emotional response, but aesthetic sense one can bring to the table. And while one may not know the interactions and effects of individual parts within a camera, one can (and does!) know light, dark, contrast, focus, clarity, and many other ways and contexts in which to describe a picture. And all of what you observe is potentially of value to the photographer, regardless of the language being technical or not. The technical observations of experts is certainly an important part of the purpose of PN, but observations, thoughts and reactions of people with good eyes and minds are necessary, too. Regards, David

[AJHingel]

I'm among those that continuously demand more written comments on photos. Writing a

qualified critic of a photo demands professional skills that only few master. I would

therefore be very careful not to demand too much from critics on Photonet. What is

important is that the viewer makes the effort not only to look carefully on what he/she see

as a good photos and make the effort to express in words why it is good and eventually

continue with suggestions on how it could have been better. Our demands on critics

should not exclude the majority of users of Photonet from daring writing.

[anthony_brookes5]

anders - exactly. well put.

[rachelfoster]

Thank you all for commenting.

 

I confess I weary of writing "Wow!" "Great photo!" "Nice!" I tend to comment on those I like because I don't really know how to make photos better sometimes. Of course, snapshots are easy to spot but some are really impossible to fix. So why say that? If the photo gave the photographer pleasure it served an important purpose.

 

I simply don't know enough about how to improve photos better. Not yet. But I'm learning.

 

So, I'll continue with "Wow!" "Great shot!" until I can offer more helpful input.

[stp]

Rachel, you've gotten some good input. While "Wow!" and "Great shot!" are nice to receive,

they still don't describe what it is about the photograph that you like. Let's look at this

another way. Your more in-depth comments may help the photographer, but in another

sense, your comments may help you as well by forcing you to be more analytical and to

more fully express you own thoughts and feelings about photographs. When I provide

comments, I try to do two things: 1) first look holistically and then carefully at the specific

elements in the image, and then describe what I like overall about the photo and (perhaps)

the specific elements that I like; 2) describe what I might do differently, maybe not better,

but just as an alternative....there are often several images within a single photograph that

can be captured by cropping, zooming in or out (with the lens or feet), or panning. When

you put all of that into words, it will eventually have an effect on your own photography as

well, so both you and the photographer of the image you are evaluating will benefit.

[hjoseph7]

It would be nice if people posted the equipment, the location and the setttings they used to create a picture, but they rarely do.

 

I use the "Wow", "Geat Shot" allot myself to avoid being 'negative'.

[rachelfoster]

Yes, I have and I left a misimpression. When I can make substantive comments I will. However, there are many times I can't. Sometimes I just cannot articulate what I'm seeing/feeling. In THOSE cases, I'm wondering if "Wow!" is better than nothing at all.

[rachelfoster]

Good point, Harry. I just added my info to the My Equipment page.

[Norma Desmond]

Misimpressions are some of the best things to leave behind. The only way you know it's a

misimpression is by being told so, which should lead to dialogue and better

understanding.

 

Check out different ways of articulating. Interpretation and technical advice are only two

among many. Asking a question can be a bigger compliment than "Wow!"

 

I comment on a lot of photos I don't like. I like to be nice. Forcing myself to find positive

things to say usually gets me to see from another person's perspective. It also sometimes

allows me better to clarify what's wrogn. There are some photos that have, to me, no

redeeming qualities. But most fall into the category of having some. Seek them out. Ideas

will flow from that.

[rachelfoster]

Ah, well, now we're getting to the crux of the matter. I know I don't know much and so hesitate to say anything. What if, in my ignorance, I say something stupid? Is it "no harm, no foul?" Would it mislead another newish photographer? Would it discourage?

 

And, is it better to say nothing at all than to say something wrong?

[hjoseph7]

"And, is it better to say nothing at all than to say something wrong?"

 

It depends on how you say it.

[Norma Desmond]

I think if you come from a genuine place and are graceful, you might say something ignorant

but not stupid. If one statement from another novice misleads a newish photographer, he or

she would surely find something else to be misled by even if you kept quiet.

 

"And, is it better to say nothing at all than to say something wrong?"

 

How helpful in life are mistakes?

[karl.jahr]

Rachel, I just had a quick look at your portfolio, and you don't look exactly like a beginner. There are ways to express "wow" and "great shot" with more meaningful expressions. And there is no need to concentrate on technical terms. When you look at a Rembrandt, do you talk about how he mixed colors and use his brushes? I don't think so. Emphasize the emotional side and how you reacted to the picture.

[rachelfoster]

Karl, thank you, but I started shooting in August. Beginner? Yup. Lucky? Sometimes. I'm taking a basic photography class starting next week, but until I know something about what I am doing I'd like to know how I can best contribute to PN.

 

The problem is many photos evoke little emotion (something closely related to a thread in the Philosophy forum).

 

Sometimes I'm able to speak in terms of emotion at great length (mostly on works such as found in the Goldsmith portfolio). Many shots I can see are wonderful but have little to say. And herein lies my dilemma. I know a shot is good, or ok, or not good, but I'm not sure why I think so or how to say it.

[summitar]

Personally, I welcome all criticism as long as it is lavish praise.

[sandysocks]

Good advice from Fred. If you want to learn things, you have to play the game. One of the things I have done in the past is to play devil's advocate. Although the critique forum is not the ideal place to do this, stirring the pot is a great way to shake loose useful information. Also, saying something stupid can be a great way of providing illumination into subjects where your comprehension is muddled. I can attest from personal experience.

[hjoseph7]

Here is a sample critique of a famous painting by the Artist Van Dyke, if anybody is interested. It's a little amateurish because i wrote it but if you visit any museum and ask the for an official critique of a certain work of art this is the type of response you will get:

 

CRITIQUE:

"There is a certain uneasiness about this scene however. The dark clouds in the background, the woman?s mysterious gaze, the rigid profiles, the elevated position, the muted colors all combine to make the viewer feel as if they are intruding into a somewhat restricted private world. The shallow visual plane further intensifies this feeling.

A the top of the painting, a motif consisting of red drapery further separates the two figures alluding to their different destinies. This, and other contrast already mentioned, might give this painting the appearance of a double portrait, if it wasn?t for the clasped hands that add a semblance of togetherness between both subjects.

As one looks down towards the bottom of the picture, another symbol of wealth and nobility, is the exquisite ?oriental? red rug that gives the picture balance, while it protrudes slightly into the right corner of the foreground. A small dog can be seen on this rug, behind and to the right of the young boy, creating another diagonal to the extension of the rug in the foreground and is the only vivid figure in the entire scene.

I?m a little curious why Van Dyck chose to include this dog in the picture. To low and insignificant to be used as a pendant in my opinion, the dog which is placed directly behind the young boy, might remind the viewer of the playful spirit of informality that still resides in the child, but has seemingly left the older woman seated in the foreground?

This portrait not only contains some of the classical elements that evolved during the Renaissance, but it also shows Van Dyck?s mastery of composition. In a style that would become characteristic of the artist, he managed to capture the rank, station and personality of the subjects, although in this case, in a somewhat idealized manner. While in Genoa, Anthony Van Dyck refined his use of colors and established the Elegant Style of Portraiture, which would not only serve him well in London, but would become an inspiration to other artist for years to come."

[bosshogg]

I'm probably in the minority, but I like ratings. However, I only like them when they are accompanied with a name. Thankfully, comments must have a name with them to be made. Rachel, if you like something and wish to express that like, why can you not make a statement as to why you like it? Personally, I find the guys (and you all know some of them) that go around to a hundred images a day and make the very same "great shot" comment rather offensive. It shows to me a lack of sincerity. I've done it, but a three word attaboy is not much of a compliment. I try not to comment at that level. A good rate would be just as informative.

 

Rachel, you don't have to be an art critic to form opinions. If you made your living giving your opinions, then perhaps it would be more incumbent upon you to be an "expert" in that subject matter. I disagree with the gentleman who made a comment to the effect that you would not wish to learn form a professor who was not learned in his field, etc. It is not analogous. Comments on photos on Photo.net are not meant to be extensive studious examinations of images. Yes it would be wonderful if some noted art critic took it upon him/herself to do that for one of my images. Not realistic, however, to expect that.

 

So I say give what you can and take what you can. But the only way this site works is if people give as much as they take. IMHO if you are asking for rates or comments, you should be giving them. And they should not be anonymous.

[rachelfoster]

"So I say give what you can and take what you can. But the only way this site works is if people give as much as they take. IMHO if you are asking for rates or comments, you should be giving them. And they should not be anonymous."

 

For me, this is NECESSARY. I can't take without trying to give back. However, I seriously question that my comments have any value at this point.

 

So, I suppose the point of this thread was to help me figure out how I can best contribute. It sounds like I'm going to have to simply put my big girl undies on and stick my neck out. If I look foolish and say ignorant things, so be it. Someone else will hopefully come along and correct it, teaching me something.