What do you take into account when critiquing photos?

[allenspencer]

I mainly go by the amount of potential I see in the photograph. If the

photographer is obviously talented, but the images are turning out mediocre, I

tend to rate them highly anyway, then make suggestions, just to try and get

them going, sort of an emotional boost.

 

When I rate photographs badly, it's when the photograph is just so idiotically

a cliche, it almost hurts to look at (Badly focused close ups of flowers,

typical sunsets, pretentious self portraits, etc.) I can only remember using

the extreme 1/7 rating a few times, I try to go to at least 3/7.

[ken munn]

My policy is much the same as yours. In addition I've occasionally said why I don't like a

photograph. Sometimes the poster doesn't respond, sometimes they thank me, sometimes

they defend their shot, sometimes they get real upset. Ho hum.

[phyrpowr]

I try to discern if some effort is put into it. I like to see someone trying to "make a photograph", and who has taken the time to learn some focus and exposure basics, even if the result isn't quite there...yet. In other words, Spencer, me too.

 

But I don't give low ratings: don't need the flames. I might make a comment, "try this", or "hot spot at three o'clock". My only number ratings have been to say "you nailed it" when I think some one had done an exceptional job

[ifti]

Rating at best is subjective and varies from one to next depending upon their expertise and their liking of the subject. I have seen rating vary from 2-6 range on the same photo. The 1 and 7 exist and are few while majority falls in the mid range. <P> Rating although supposed to be technical is like a poll or cross sectional opinion from people of diverse tastes and talents. You cant please every one but you sure can learn from what pleases most and also what displease some and improve your skills. I am always obliged to individuals who give me time to C&C and give me any hint. Regards ifti

[Leonard-just-Leonard]

I rate on nothing but that particular photo itself.

 

If the photo piques my interest for whatever reason, then it is worth critiquing and/or commenting on.

 

Who took the shot is totally irrelevant. Not like I would recognize any "names" other than Ansel Adams and apparently he is dead.

[jgalyon]

when we give out 1's... we (and staff) are the only ones who know the photograph and the photographer to which the rating was given. so...since threes are the lowest number that the photographer will see, i suppose giving out ones are pointless. but...i still give them out as a matter of principle (i suppose). as Jack said...i try to discern the effort. if it appears there has been no effort or little effort... i don't hesitate to rate as low as is possible. but unlike Jack... i don't let "flames" effect my ratings. if someone gets bent just because i give them a 3/3...that's their problem. if they write a nasty message... i usually tell them to grow up if i'm in an especially cheerful mood...and if in a bad mood...that's another story. if they choose to do the retaliatory 3/3...all i can say is that i don't know of anyone's life coming to an end just because of someone being petty. no disrespect to anyone...but i just don't understand the fear that many members express regarding giving out an honest 3/3. and...i surely don't understand members who allow themselves to the run off the site just because someone writes them a nasty message after having told them their work wasn't yet...perfect. let me backtrack a bit... because i actually DO understand that some people are not old, grumpy, guys who don't give a s**t what children posing as adults have to say. some people are such tender hearted souls that a nasty, flaming arrow shot their way would bring them to tears...and i wish at times that i were a bit more like them. i suppose that "it takes a village"...and i'm the village curmudgeon...

[tonmestrom]

first of all I do mind who took the image and I'll adjust my critique accordingly because there is a big difference between an accomplished or even professional photographer and someone who just picked up a camera for the first time. In the first case I don't see any need to hold back if I think it's called for, in the latter I do hold back and try to be more supportive as I think we all should.

 

secondly I always try to be honest. I think it's far more insulting to call a photo great if in fact it's rubbish. I speak as I find because people here put up their work for critique so can hardly complain if they get a deserved negative critique. I sure don't mind. Quite the contrary. If people point out flaws that I have overlooked I'm glad for it and really do appreciate that. Fact is a lot of people do.

 

Actually people here shouldn't complain at all. When I studied photography we received comments you wouldn't believe but if you take that to be a challenge you will be better off and in a sense it's just the same here. It never seems to occur to some people when they see a comment that they don't particularly like to take a step back and re-evaluate their work. I always do and sometimes find that it's a valid critique.

 

Lastly I think there's not that many people around who have a problem with substantiated negative critiques, or maybe I just haven't found them yet.

 

Just keep writing what you feel is right. If it's in some cases negative people will appreciate even more that you are being honest when you write a positieve one.

[tonmestrom]

Almost forgot. I think it's important to make a difference between what you like or don't like. For instance I'm not into insects but I can sure appreciate and admire the craftsmanship that it takes to create a beautiful photo of one. If it's a beauty I comment accordingly although I don't like the subject as such

[ken munn]

It nags me a bit that I mostly comment on photos that a) I identify with and b) I think are

quite good. What gets me is that probably the shots I comment on are by photographers

who are pretty good already and many of them are much better than I am. I tend not to

comment on pix where the photographer really could (in my view) do with some help.

 

In the process, I've noticed that 'good' images tend to get several or even many comments,

whereas poor images (again, in my view) tend to disappear without comment. So unless

the 'poor' photographer realises that lack of critique is in itself a critique, he or she may

either give up posting pix, or not realise that there is a lot of room for improvement.

 

Maybe we should spend more time critiquing bad (to us) shots?

[lex_jenkins]

I don't give extra credit to a bad photo just because the photographer usually produces good work. That would make as much sense as downrating a good photo because the photographer usually produces mediocre work.

 

I don't downrate a photo just because it's a cliche. The rating for originality isn't some sort of punitive measure.

 

It's essential to separate one's reflexive or even emotional reaction. Ratings based on such responses are invariably either punitive based on negative emotional reactions or inflated based on a positive response. By that measure an "average" photo would be one that doesn't interest us enough to provoke any emotional response at all, rather than one that is average by definition - because it's statistically common and requires no special effort.

 

I try to make an effort to understand a photo in context.

 

For example, a single photo in the "Documentary" category might not stand alone as a strong photo, but it might be a crucial link in a story. While context might not affect my rating, it may influence any comments I leave.

 

Another example is process. If the photographer is experimenting with a certain process or technique, perhaps he/she is primarily interested in whether the photo fails or succeeds within the context of experimenting with something like an alternative photographic or printing process. As a traditional darkroom fan I'm happy to offer comments within the context of such alternative techniques. Since I have little interest in digital alterations I simply bypass those altogether rather than downrate them simply because I don't care for the process or results.

 

Photo.net's anonymous ratings queue is not well suited to context, which is why numerical ratings are misleading and confusing at best and useless at worst for some genres of photography.

 

Example: Spencer's "Badly focused close ups of flowers, typical sunsets, pretentious self portraits, etc." Would it - or *should* it - matter if context is a criterion? I think so. Spencer might disagree.

 

Should we consider the differences between an unsharp closeup because it was poorly focused or unsharp for technical reasons (trying to use a superzoom with extension tubes and closeup diopters, or stopping down beyond the point of acceptable diffraction), and those that are unsharp by selection because the photographer chose equipment or a process that is inherently unsharp (pinhole, LensBaby or comparable lens, bromoil, cyanotype, etc.)? I think it's important to consider the photographer's intent. Others may be literalists, interested only in results as evaluated by a narrowly defined set of standards that automatically excludes choices of equipment and process.

 

Again, numerical ratings are not particularly useful here. Comments would be both more useful to the photographer and, to some extent, revealing about the person offering a critique.

 

I suspect that one reason we don't see many (non-digital) alternative process photos submitted for ratings on photo.net is because these photographers recognize that relatively few viewers understand or appreciate the process. Even for fans of alternative processes the nuances are lost in small JPEGs.