What is constructive criticism?

[GerrySiegel]

I can only add that constructive criticism is what you wrote after you took the time to look at the picture and say what you liked and what you feel might have been better. Will it be received as constructive. No way of knowing unless there is a response that shows open mind.... There is as said an expectation that one will say there is at least some good otherwise why bother with something trite and what you yourself would have confined to the red discard button or the cutting room floor. If there must be sugar coating, yeah, I suppose that is the norm. Since most of the comments are "wow,wonderful capture" " best nude I have seen on Photo Net." This is known as political ass kissing. And I give a hero award to any poster that would like a bit more feedback, from those who can use words to translate ideas and feelings. Otherwise why not stick to the ratings or make up little gold, blue, and gray ribbons or paste stars as in elementary school " Nice work, gold star for you, Jamie..."

[dirtlawyer]

The problem with looking at the photographer's "intent" is that often you can't tell what it was. When you post a photo, you want to know if the viewer liked it or didn't like it. If the criticism finds your intent, it means you did what you wanted to do. And if the criticism finds a different intent, you didn't.

 

But many or most critiques don't even get to intent. If they're truly constructive, they talk about technical details such as lighting and cropping.

 

Much of photography is done simply to record a scene. And that is the true intent. And to critique that intent is to say either the scene looks like what it looked like when the photo was shot, or that it didn't. But how would the critic know? He wasn't there.

 

I would just like to see (and have gotten the most help and value from) are critiques telling me I'm a touch out of focus, or that there was motion blur, or that I could have framed the shot better, or that the background is cluttered. And I'm hoping I do these things less and less.

[chrismackins]

I think critiques is as much a craft as photography itself. I hope the more I do it the better I will become, trying to tread carefully but being honest as I can be. I feel your experience of photography will depend on how credible or good your critiques is in many ways, I want to critiques in the hope that if I do it I will receive it. As Mike Dixon said The old saw "do unto to others as you would have done unto yourself" comes into play.

[lex_jenkins]

The problem with critiques on individual photographs is the absence of context. Some photographs and photographers cannot be adequately evaluated apart from the context of a body of work, whether a lifetime's work or a specific theme. I always appreciate the folks who take the trouble to comment on a portfolio rather than taking a specific photo from a documentary project out of context and misinterpreting it. Sites like photo.net lend themselves very well to photos that stand on their own merits; not so well for photos that are only components of a multi-faceted statement.

[paul gilmore]

One good way to frame constructive criticism is to ask yourself what you would have done differently while shooting a subject, or, what you would like to see done to a photo if you yourself owned it, then suggest an actual action. Use language like: "... Try taking this shot from a lower angle next time..", or "...Consider cropping in such and such a way...", or ..."I'd like to see this photo sharper, or darker, or with more contrast...", or "...This subject would look good in a lower angle light, or without that object in the background..."

 

Pretend you were there with your camera.

[jim_cahoon1]

so here I am again, in trouble again, for words I wrote.. I personally, would prefer to learn by my mistakes, and/or the opinions of others, on how they might have shot the picture, had they been there. I post to learn.