Are we all hypocrits or what?

[richterjw]

<blockquote>

<p>the most unsettling phenomenon I see is people gushing over portfolios where every photos has had probably two hours of photoshop done to it - tinted, toned, ridiculous false vignetting, etc. That and people saying great capture to images that are so far from the original capture it's not even funny.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Despite some claims to the contrary, neither photography nor any other artistic medium are designed to replicate reality. Artistic vision allows the the photographer to create or re-create the captured scene in whatever manner he deems fit. That doesn't mean you and I have to appreciate it; I don't particularly care for heavily or obviously processed images. But post-processing isn't new by any means; it was previously done in a darkroom with chemicals and continues to be. Just because you didn't alter your photos in a darkroom, doesn't mean others have not and haven't been well-received for having done so. Just because neither of us appreciates gaudy work doesn't make it illegitimate. Maybe it's just a fad; and the thing about fads is they come and go. Just ride it out and don't get swept up or too worked up about it. JR</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>...it usually takes me at least 4-5 days to really receive, process and understand feedback I might receive. For me, it needs to sink in for a little while.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bingo. After receiving some excellent and hard hitting critiques of my Stewie project from John and other folks, I took a couple of weeks off and didn't even look at the project again until I'd had some time to assimilate the feedback. I'd taken three years just to begin to put the documentary together, so a couple of weeks more seemed fitting.</p>

<p>Some folks on photo.net thrive on regular infusions of sweet comments and compliments. They're sort of like hummingbirds. I'm more of a snake. I can only handle just so much feedback, and need time to digest. I'd rather have one or two really meaningful critiques a year on specific projects or folders than frequent feedings of sugar water.</p>

[sasvata__shash__chatterjee]

<p>Here's a more concrete example of confusing critique. Take the issue of cut-off body parts in a portrait. As long as you are not taking full body portraits, it is a given that some parts of the anatomy are going to be cutoff, the question is which part and how many parts. I often see many comments where a set of critics will say "I wish the legs were not cut off", while others completely gloss-over or even ignore that part. To some if you are going to show a hand or a foot, you must show both hands and feet. Others don't care. What do you learn from such critique? What is correct? Who defines what is correct?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>In my experience most people welcome honesty. I always invite people to be as blunt as they like. Call my photo utter crap if you like as long as it's your honest opinion and the reason for that is motivated. But nobody should have to have a thick skin in the first place in order to give his or her honest opinion and be afraid of a unwarranted negative response.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If someone is asking for critique, then I completely agree that anybody should be able to write whatever they feel and think without cause for retribution/flames/counter-attacks. That's just childish, plain and simple.</p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>Ton, your complaint is essentially that a lot of people are playing a game of "I'll stroke yours if you stroke mine." If you're in this site for strokes, you can play that game and feel very good about it. If you feel that the site should be only for honest critiques and improvement, and Josh could press a magic button to get rid of the people who want to give and get hypocritical strokes, how many members would be left? Contrariwise, when you accept the strokers to make the site more viable, what kind of environment does that create for those who want to exchange honest critiques? When I scroll through the comments a photo has received, so many are pleasant platitudes that I would probably hesitate to make any critical remarks, were I not blessed with a complete lack of social graces.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>I don't mind if... ...people are consistently shoving high ratings to one another... ...they've got my blessing.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

A curious thing to say considering that the original post went on at length essential criticising this 'phenomenon'.</p>

<p>In any event, if the goal is to promote learning, what specific suggestions do you have to help people leve better ratings and crtiques?<br>

<em></em></p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>Charles, I know all too well that Josh or anyone else can't press a magic button but reflection can be even more valuable.</p>

<p><em>"...that I would probably hesitate to make any critical remarks, were I not blessed with a complete lack of social graces"</em> <br /> I like your phrasing, sounds somewhat familiar ;-)</p>

<p>John, it's a fair observation but it's not as contradictory as it seems. There will always be people who misuse the system however well developed. As for suggestions I know all too well how difficult it is to write a good comment but what helps is studying the work of other photographers from the past as well as contemporary ones for this provides context and understanding. And before even writing a comment look at someones portfolio here or even a site or blog if they've got that. I see no need to make allowances in providing a comment with one notable exception. People who are just starting out need and deserve a more circumspect approach.<br /> More basic even. One can look at what the more experienced ones do and see if that complies with what one thinks and if not why that may be.The example Shash gives is good one. There is of course what we over here call the law of familiarity. But Shash has a point, every choice made will evoke a variety of responses. But that's what creates discussion and on occasion makes one reflect those choices and therefore should be welcomed. Variety is after all one of the greater things in life</p>

<p>All good photographers have a few things in common. One of the most obvious characteristics is that they all share an all overriding eagerness to keep learning. Learning never stops. Without any feedback there is no learning.</p>

<p>Shash, the going phrase on this site seems to be critique, hence my using that word. Given your post the word "comment" would probably be less debatable here.</p>

[boinkphoto]

<p>I've actually thought about this a lot lately and have to agree - here, DPReview, and "flickr" all usually give positive comments regardless, even with pretty badly flawed work. That said, I've been equally guilty.</p>

<p>I've often really wanted to say things like, "Nice photo, but the focus really is lacking". Or, "The framing is good, but ultimately the photo isn't compelling". Or even, "Fun photo, but more of a family snaphot than a worthy artistic post." Frankly I haven't had the guts (or "chutzpah" as you said to me recently!). I've even tried, and failed (due to cookies) a secondary account on DPReview (not to sully my primary account) to be able to be more direct in my comments.</p>

<p>I think it would benefit all if there were a little more honesty in general, though constructively so. Otherwise it actually demeans the positives as well - they're hard to believe when all you see are positives (and you know people are couching their real opinions).</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I put this bird I took in a fairly large art show. I thought it was ok. It's in my PN gallery. You would not say it was the best I have posted. It is just ok. It took second place in the show. There is no accounting for taste. It is so subjective. That picture just wasn't that unique. Another point. This is a learning site. If I want to learn about street I read what Ton writes and the discussions on S&D. If I would want to do weddings again I would look up everything that Nadine O'hara has written. I am an avid fan of Jeff Spirer, you could say he is quite honest and straightforward. I have learned a lot from Andrew Rodney about color management and rely on Patrick Lavoie for great practical processing knowledge. Bob Atkins for equipment. Anytime I see "what's wrong with my picture" I read it to see how other people would make it better. There are plenty of critiques of other work that also apply to what I do every day in the forums. There are a number of ways to learn here. I subscribed to photo magazines for years. There is more in PN in one month than all of those magazines combined. As I don't participate in the critique forum, I wonder how many people actually receive constructive criticism as opposed to attaboys and bland comments? The above is why I keep coming back. I believe, however, one has to be discriminating in sorting out the plentitude of really good advice from the plentitude of stuff that is not so good and some of it just wrong. </p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Y'all wouldn't be fussing about the sugar coating if you had received <strong>one of these 2</strong>s I'd given out. Give out a 2 next time you see a photo that deserves one. Loved it? Hated it? Aesthetics has a scorecard waiting for you. For example:</p>

<p>I gave out a few recently because I could not see an identifiable shape in the image. <br /> "Unidentifiable", but not supposed to be an abstract, 2. <br /> "Over Photo-shopped beyond Lite Brite or an Elvis painting on black velvet," 2. <br /> "Overexposed to call it high key," 2 maybe 3. <br /> Actually had a subject in a properly exposed photograph, in a category of photos that may not always have a clear subject: 6 or 7.</p>

<p>I had one, no joke, which provoked this thought: "<strong>Is this a photo, and did you make it with a camera?</strong> I don't think so." 2. [i may have given that one a "1", but I'm not sure.]</p>

<p>Hand out a few 2s when you think it's called for. Make some comments every now and then. You won't be under the illusion that you sugarcoat anything.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Real, professional critiques only occur in the "solid" realm. Print your work, frame it, then offer up for critique. I have no idea the REAL question being asked by the OP.</p>

<p>Otherwise print your work, frame it, and offer for sale. The ULTIMATE critique. Everything else (on the Web) is total narcissism.</p>

 

[ishi_p]

<p>The problem is the categories are well defined and very restrictive in assessing the value of a piece of work. In fact one would assume a situation where someone would fall low on any and all of these areas and still be highly valued.</p>

<p>By the same token someone may score high on all aspects for many people and not be very good imo.</p>

<p>We each have our idea of what makes good work. The people some call great (I call good) rarely are accepted as much in there own lifetime. Because what they do can fall outside the boundaries of acceptance.</p>

<p>I say these things without seeing any real division between photography and art btw.</p>

<p>Some may say photography is just some representation of reality done with certain aspirations in mind. But to me good work reveals itself through what is not entirely tangible. As an individual I don’t know what I’m looking for. It would be so easy if I did. But it is a struggle.</p>

<p>What makes good work (in my opinion) is an involvement that pushes the work beyond these ideas. You seem to see something in the work that is about the person who made it, subtle phrases that may not even be perceptible or considered by the one who made it. And because they are well practiced they have a connection to the work that allows something other than the nuts and bolts of a picture to show throgh.</p>

<p>Like the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p><em>"Real, professional critiques only occur in the "solid" realm"</em> <br /> If I were of a negative disposition I could answer that with the argument that out there it's just as subjective which essentially is true.<br /> But hey, I'm a positive kind of realist and I know there are at least some people here that are able to provide real good critiques. But you know what, a few months ago someone who describes himself as a newbie pointed out something in one of my photos that I myself had overlooked. Good advice comes from all directions and I for one appreciate that. If anyone wants to use this site as a storage bank for their images, fine. I can tell you this though the most important lesson I learned was how much there is still to learn.</p>

<p>Dick, thanks for the vote of confidence but to be honest this site has some really good street shooters attending and I'm happy to exchange with them as much as learn from them.</p>

<p>John as I've been given to understand 1's and 2's aren't shown to the recipients. It seems that there were too many overly fragile minds. So they changed that a few years ago, hence all those rants about 3/3's. Another discussion though.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p><em>Tom, the most unsettling phenomenon I see is people gushing over portfolios where every photos has had probably two hours of photoshop done to it - tinted, toned, ridiculous false vignetting, etc. That and people saying great capture to images that are so far from the original capture it's not even funny. I think P.N has really contributed in this way to a dumbing down of photography from something that happens in the camera primarily, to where the computer is an almost equal componenet, an idea that I vehomently reject. I don't buy the whole "it's just like we used to do in the darkroom" line. Nonsense. When I shot slide film, I got it developed straight E-6, scanned it, sinched up the levels, and that was it, end of story. 30 seconds in Photoshop. Not even remotely similar to what many of the top rated photographers here are doing with the computer.</em><br>

<em></em><br />I think I'm going to gag if I hear one more person make one of these...."back in the day....when all we had was film...and it was good....and by-damn...we liked it!...and we still do!.... posts. so old....so boring...so senseless.</p>

[boinkphoto]

<p><em>I think I'm going to gag if I hear one more person make one of these...."back in the day....when all we had was film...and it was good....and by-damn...we liked it!...and we still do!.... posts. so old....so boring...so senseless.</em></p>

<p>True, however I will say that so many photos are digitally "tinted, toned, cross-processed, vignetted, etc." that sometimes it's hard to tell what's good and bad anymore. That is, when you see a lot of these photos you have a visceral reaction of "cool" simply because of all the Photoshop gussying up, but really it isn't that good of a photo if you analyze it. In fact it seems to me there's an awful lot of mediocre photos going on, including some of mine I admit, that are being overly medicated to hide the fact that they probably should have ended up in the reject pile.</p>

<p>Anyway it's become a bit formulaic (literally - for instance "Scott Kelby's 7-Point System") and certainly does put those who believe part of the art of photography is being at the right place at the right time, at a serious disadvantage.</p>

<p>On the other hand, this train has left the station and it isn't going to stop for anyone, so there's not much point in arguing about it anymore. Moreover there is a counter argument in many cases that the vision of seeing the potential of a photo as it could be via Photoshop is as valuable as the vision of seeing the potential of an image as you're standing before it to take it "verbatim".</p>

[doug_axford1]

<p>As a long-time pro and former judge of pro work I can guarantee you that even during the top pro print competitions, many judges will have huge differences in opinions and scores on the prints they are working on. I've even personally seen one where the same print got a 0 from one judge and a 100 from another. <br>

Now, add the anonymous judges who are incapable of judging anything and you've got a great big mess on most forums.<br>

My solution - I reviewed 2 people on this forum a few years back and have never been back to the critique section since.</p>

[mikeoday]

<p >It is so appalling that the great unwashed should be allowed to join a society and lower the tone and standards. It is enough to make one weep to see them give praise or rate an image highly simply because they like it. </p>

[steve_wagner1]

<blockquote>

<p>I think I'm going to gag if I hear one more person make one of these...."back in the day....when all we had was film...and it was good....and by-damn...we liked it!...and we still do!.... posts. so old....so boring...so senseless.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A misreading of the point, and don't hurt yourself gagging. The point is it's still possible to take a digital exposure, adjust brightness and contrast, remove color casts, and be done with it. No different than getting your slides back, scanning them, adjusting brightness and contrast, removing color casts, and being done with it. Maybe you don't like the fact that some photographers disapprove of the "Photoshop revolution." Doesn't change the reality of what Photoshop has done to the craft, and it doesn't make mine or anyone else's opinion less valuable than yours or worthy of ridicule.</p>

[gordonjb]

Ton;

 

On the topic you originally raised . Yes I do regularly read comments by photographers who I believe to be both good photographers and honest in critique, which IMO fall into the category of gratuitous praise and it does make me wonder if the entire process has any meaning at all. Due to the fact that I am hopelessly self centered, my first thoughts are to question the validity of any comments that person has made on my work. After all if they are also praising crap, then anything said regarding my work may well be useless information.

 

A number of things could be going on in this situation. One simply is that we all have different taste and maybe a good photographer whose opinions I respect actually is being sincere and does like that IMO " piece of crap " .

 

 

Another possibility is that the person has gotten caught up in the social aspects to the point where being polite supersedes being honest. I catch myself being dishonest by omission sometimes. I will also stretch my opinion to find aspects of a photo to be constructive about particularly if the bulk of my critique has been critical. Sometime I become caught up more in my own desire to appear balanced than in trying to provide the unfettered truth.

 

With some people, I know every time they have a new upload which they want me to comment on because they drop by and commented on my images only on the occasion of one of their own uploads, otherwise I never hear from them. Those comments are seldom too critical of my work because they are in fact only fishing expeditions.

 

People are motivated by any number of factors. When I am in a good mood, I try put a positive spin on the issue and think the best, other times I am pretty certain the entire process is mostly a waste of time.

[stamos]

<p>Ton, we agree in many things.<br />I would add that praise and encourage have similarities but are not the same. I do not praise, I encourage.<br />I do not ask anything in return.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p><em>"I catch myself being dishonest by omission sometimes"</em></p>

<p>when I put up this question Gordon I didn't use "we" as pluralis majestatis and so included myself. I think we all should let go of the idea that there should be a mandatory reciprocation. Maybe that would get rid of a lot of those meaningfull comments. Just like you I leave comments because I want to and not because it's expected. It could be a good start if all started doing just that.</p>

<p>As do you Stamoulis. It seems you're right. We agree on many things as in asking nothing in return.</p>

[pnital]

It looks to me that some of you are seating on some sort of an Olympus , looking down at the plebeians....;-)) I will express my thoughts in general of the discussed topic . I look at PN as a micro cosmos of society in large.. As in every large group of people( PN as an example) you can find all kinds. Hypocrites? yes, honest yes, knowledgeable yes, ignorant yes. More experienced and less, some wanting only praise some want really learn.Being a member at PN for some years , I have learned a lot during those years, getting helpful advice ( and not) with learning in my country from professionals ,as well as getting just words. With time one can learn to know what is really helpful. During my years here and my experience with space connections, I have met the nice and the ugly ,and a lot of people's psychology . I have met those who wants to help others with what they know and those who knows to get only. Some nice and polite with being honest, as well as rude in their approach, evoking negativity.

Some of them that I have met in person( and some only in space) became good friends and helpful advisers. As in every big society like PN there are some that helped, and connection has stopped with time, but it happens with people in real life as well. Not all the people you were friend and learned from in a period of your life, remained.

 

I think that it has to be taken into account that each of us has his own taste, aesthetics and degree of knowledge( and also language bariers), and art has no rules and is very personal. I think that the more experienced will do good in helping the less experienced ones. I know that it is not always working ,there are some that want only praise.... Good for them...;-)) My way is " live and let live". I know what I want , and what I want is hard work. Each will choose his way and his aims.

[patricklavoie]

<p>when i posted images, comment are welcome, constructive feedback are welcome..getting a number i dont care : )</p>

<p>And its pretty funny to give big number to another user in result of getting a big number in return..whats the point? Anyone want me to give them a good rating? when i will have some time off il be pleased to help acquire anyone goal : p</p>

<p>As for the photoshop vs slide..at least Brett compare 2 similar medium please.. a neg who need darkroom vs a raw that need darkroom..i think its more correct. And for the record, when i was shothing slide, i was using a colorimeter to get constant color result AND ask the lab to push 1/2 to 1 stop sometime after a clip test to wash out my white a bit giving more substance to my end result..so as you can see, i was still those day already manipulating reality ..even with a slide ; )</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>heres a image to add some decor to this post.</p>

<p>no rating needed, comment welcome ; )</p><div></div>

[boinkphoto]

<p>I think we've kind of lost the point of the conversation (though correct me if I'm wrong):</p>

<p>I thought the point wasn't that some people shouldn't be posting their (bad) photos, or that we should be discouraging people, or any exclusivity at all.</p>

<p>I thought the point was that a lot of us, including I ad myself, tend to give positive feedback when positive feedback isn't deserved. That we're being essentially dishonest in our critiques.</p>

<p>Now clearly many people are totally honest and direct, but I think Ton's point stands and I see it all the time, whether here or other places (flickr, DPReview, etc.). You regularly see some pretty low quality work that gets all these "nice job"s on them.</p>

<p>Now maybe it can all be explained as taste, but I think (and I base this on some of my own failings) that some of that is being uncomfortable with spelling it out like it is. And that is even true with photos that are actually good, but have flaws - we tend to gloss over them.</p>

<p>So the point isn't to try to make PN more exclusive or discourage the crappy photographers, but perhaps just be more honest in our reviews/criticism . That doesn't mean saying, "Your photo sucks," but maybe something like, "I like the basic idea, however the framing is off-putting. I would have changed the vantage if possible."</p>

<p>I really do believe, and again I have been guilty (though if I don't have anything positive to say, I usually shut up), that positive praise applied to bad photos ultimately deminishes the value of all praise. If people are saying how great some badly done photos are, it makes me wonder if anything I receive positive, really means all that much.</p>

<p>More importantly, though, positive praise (alone) given to bad/mediocre/flawed photos doesn't encourage people to improve their craft, whether that be beginners, pros, the hopelessly untalented, or the fantastically talented.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>Matt, thanks because I couldn't have said it any better than you just did.</p>

<p>Thanks Patrick as well for bringing in some nuance as well (and a SF photo). Not everyone seems to realise that it's not so much the medium but the endresult that counts ;-)</p>