Why bother?

[graybrick]

I gave up a long time ago on getting any kind of feedback resembling a critique in the "Critique Forum". Having not

posted to the forum in a while, I thought the other day that I would give it another go. I critiqued (to the best of my

ability, briefly) several other shots, and posted my own. I even gave the ratings thingy a go again. What I found was

this:

 

As expected, feedback on my work was all but non-existent, save for one two-word comment which I couldn't discern

as sarcastic or genuine.

 

The rating machine has become so wonky with having to input the letter scramble doohickey every other rating that

it's now more a pain in the bum to use than before. Final result is that my ratings mean even less than they did

before as n=4 is hardly representative of any section of viewer opinion.

 

Now, I wonder "Why bother"? I'd be fine being disappointed that people think my work sucks, as opinion might help

me see differently and give me ideas to improve upon, but posting to an all but nonexistent lack of response is hardly

worth waiting up for.

 

What are your experiences of late?

[Matt Laur]

<p>The critique forum now rotates content on and off of the list over a period of time. Your image will wander back into rotation more than once.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>The rating machine has become so wonky with having to input the letter scramble doohickey every other rating that it's now more a pain in the bum to use than before.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You shouldn't have to enter the captcha nearly that often. Not by a factor of 10 or 20. If you are, then I need to know about it because something is wrong.</p>

[graybrick]

<p>Perhaps I exxagerate with 'every other', but yesterday it was asking me about every 5-6 repititions, enough to convince me that it was more of a pain than it was worth. Further, it would ask me to input letters after I rated a shot, then put the shot back up again directly without the rating I had just entered, requiring me to input my rating for said shot twice. I did enjoy the randomizer for the critique queue, though it seems critiques are a rare bird around here these days.</p>

[Brian]

<p>Good critiques are hard to do. In principle the critique forum is a very valuable aspect of this site: in practice it falls short simply because it is so difficult.<br>

I tried to participate a while back, gave what I thought were considered and reasonably tough critiques (no point in sugaring the pill, I thought). This took some time and effort, and, though I know we shouldn't do this in expectation of reciprocal critique, I got very little in return. And, bearing in mind the huge number of images uploaded every day to pnet, there was a distinct sensation of p*ssing in the wind about it. So I gave up. Perhaps in future if I have more time, I may contribute some more.</p>

[mikeoday]

<p>I can not speak to the question of ‘real’ critiques as I neither give them (I don’t feel qualified) nor particularly seek them. Instead, I am quite satisfied with exchanging humble opinions as to what is liked and what might be done to make improvements.</p>

<p>With regard to ratings however…</p>

<p>From my observations, ratings are very important (read fundamental) to the operation of the PN gallery. The reason the gallery on this site is filled with such wonderful images is not solely due to the quality of the submissions; of equal importance is the use of a rating (voting) system that gives emphasis to images that are appreciated by the PN community. To be precise, with the exception of a couple of filters, it is the number and average value of ratings that determines which images are available in the gallery.</p>

<p>So why bother?</p>

<p>Well from the perspective of self interest, there are at least two reasons...</p>

<p>Learning how to improve ones photographs can certainly be helped by the advice of others, but it is by no means the only way. Simply studying the very high quality images on PN, and trying to apply some of the lessons that can be learned from them, will also result in improvements. By contributing to the rating system we help to perpetuate the system that results in the very gallery that can provide such a rich source of study material.</p>

<p>The 2nd is simply that the ratings we receive can give clues as to the opinions our peers have on our images. However, the robustness of this feedback is largely dependant on the number of ratings an image receives (that is, a small number of ratings may have outlying values that distort the statistics) and the only way to improve the quality of this kind of feedback is to increase the number of ratings given by PN members. If every PN rates more images then more images that will receive at least one rating and the reliability of the ratings system as an indicator of quality will increase.</p>

<p>But from a more altruistic viewpoint… We participate in the community by rating images because by doing so we contribute to the quality of the gallery and we can help, albeit in a small way, to encourage our fellow members to keep contributing and to keep improving.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Well, what I should have experienced was an email that said "I am Grayson McBrickwater, you #$%^&*! And I need a critique! Click on this link to go to my picture and look at it!"</p>

<p>"I pity the fool who doesn't evaluate composition in the comments."</p>

<p>Don't be afraid to invite people over to critique your photos; especially if you are not getting any substantive feedback. Slap that photo up there "Critique Only", but also send out some invitations. Sometimes, if you don't toot your own horn, there won't be any music at all. </p>

[jackaldridge]

<p>If I get a one word critique I'm ecstatic...<br>

The sheer volume of photos rotating through photo.net makes it difficult...<br>

At the same time the number of people who have the opportunity to see your photo on this site is much greater.<br>

I've been on sites with fewer posts...where every photo gets a critique...there you get the "I like it.." or "Swell shot"... routine...<br>

There are other sites that devote more emphasis to critiques...one is <a href="http://www.photosig.com">www.photosig.com</a>...<br>

You might even look at developing rapport with one of the photogs here whose work you like and ask them their advice. I do that with one of my instructors from Santa Fe Photo Workshops and it is very helpful. If the critiques are that important to you you might even consider a paying arrangement with a photographer whom you admire...</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Double post error. I was in another thread and somehow hit the wrong button. Sorry.</p>

[mark_chartrand]

<p>Grayson,</p>

<p>If you shoot people pictures, email me with a photograph attached and I will be happy to critique it. Find someone who has done, what you consider, to be a good job of critiquing and ask them to critique your picture.</p>

<p>Mark</p>

<p> </p>

[mike dixon]

<blockquote>

<p>Now, I wonder "Why bother"?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>To a large extent, writing a substantive critique is of greater value than receiving one. The ability to evaluate photos is an essential skill for photographers; it's often easier to hone that skill on photos to which you have no emotional attachment.</p>

[randall ellis]

<p>This topic has come up quite often over the years, and I have to say that this is one of the most civil series of responses that I've seen. It's very encouraging.</p>

<p>For my part, I don't often see images that I feel like commenting on. I have a particular set of styles of image that I generally prefer, and while I have comments on images outside those bounds from time to time, I prefer to sift around for images in my preferred genres and comment on them rather than try to comment on all images posted. It's kind of like going to a museum for an hour or two - do you see the exhibit that really pulls you and spend quality time considering each piece, or do you pass on that and look instead at other things that are less interesting or perhaps not at all interesting. Sure, there is always something to be gained from breaking out of your routine, viewing something new and different, but with limited time and considering the time it takes to really critique an image I personally prefer to comment on what I already have a good bead on and simply view the rest until something inspires me to comment in more depth.</p>

<p>It is also important to note that, as someone hinted at above, the entire community here is not highly trained in art criticism, and therefore are not the most likely group to provide constructive feedback. There are a number of talented people here, and some of them leave some insightful comments, but if you are really interested in thoughtful, pointed, detailed, and artistic constructive criticism you really need to speak with people who are artists in other media or go to a photographic workshop where you can get a portfolio review. You can get some great <em>technical</em> feedback here - no doubt at all about that at all - but if you want an <em>aesthetic</em> review you should probably speak with people who have a deeper background in that than you are likely to find online. Show your work to painters, sculptors, mixed media artists - people who will not default to a technical response. These people have more exposure to the artistic side of the art world and they can draw upon that experience and understanding to produce some very insightful comments.</p>

<p>As to why bother, if everyone stopped bothering all together there would be even less constructive conversation going on than there is now. If we want this site to provide more of this type of value we each have to invest, and keep investing, our own efforts, even if the payoff is long in coming...</p>

<p>- Randy</p>

[bill_from_new_york_city]

<p>

<p>I try a few times and I not talking about posting photos, but giving feedback good or bad. My problem is if I give some feedback I should get some back. At least a thank you. If not then I think why bother posting any feedback because the poster of the photo is not reading what I say and I just wasted my time.

<p>But I will try again, see if things have improved.<br>

Bill</p>

</p>

</p>

 

[katherinemichael]

<p>I found that there are <strong>so</strong> many photos entered in the critique forum, that getting a written critique was really hit or miss. People are seem to be naturally drawn to photos that apeal to them, perhaps commenting more than they would on a photo that they do not like. Writing a good crtique takes time. I suspect that many people just are unable or unwillling to put that much time into it. I still put photos in the critique forum, but like John said above, if I feel like I really need more attention to a photo then I will ask individual people who's insight I respect to look at it and give me their opinion. </p>

[andymerse]

<p>I have felt much like yourself in the area of ratings and critiques on this site.<br>

However, what makes the pursuit of photography so interesting is that there IS no perfect image. The realisation of this explains why everyones experiences and ideals are a huge part in how they percieve other peoples images.<br>

I look at photography as an amazing tool to record tiny moments in time and any kind of system that may improve and extend this knowledge is an important one.<br>

All the best with your craft</p>