The Spirit of a Critique

[witness]

<p>Some observations followed by your comments please:<br>

The THUMBNAILS- the small images that attract attention and receive more visitors often receive the most critiques. Why is it that the lower quality or ordinary photos are passed by? PN contributors post all styles and skill levels. Those seeking and / or in need of the most help are often passed by. Serious hobbyists and pros that receive the highest adulation seem to respond in kind to photographs and contributors of a similar skill level. This defeats the spirit of the critique forum IMO. Personally I try to visit as many photos as I have time for, correcting and commenting on the 2,3,4 ratings and offering rave reviews for the 6, 7 ratings. Those whom can most benefit by the skilled folks here are too often passed by. I wish more members shared my sentiments. <br>

The ADVANTAGES- by taking the time to critique all styles from all contributors, I'm honing my own skills, developing a better eye, developing new approaches, understanding what elements create a powerful image, learn about places, people, lighting, composition, post-processing and on and on.......Considering number of PN members VS the number of critiques posted.....well....it's rather disappointing. I'd suggest those whom critique mix it up a bit and attempt to assist those reaching out for help. Thanks. </p>

[starvy]

<p>i think those who comment tends to prefer spending their time discussing work that are of some interest to them. there are plenty of ordinary efforts out there. why bother wasting time looking at them. i also notice that nude and works entitled erotic tends to get a lot more feedback. often, the feedback seems to be from second language english speakers.</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>Things to consider Mark:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>There are many circles of friends on pnet who continually rate/critique <em>only </em> each others photos</li>

<li>The more photos you constructively critique, the more traffic you drive to your own work</li>

<li>I'm guilty of telling others why I think their photos are good, but <em>rarely </em> tell others why I don't like their photos (I suspect many others do the same, human nature maybe)</li>

<li>When I scroll through photos to critique, I tend to only critique photos that are interesting to me and or are similar to the photos I take</li>

<li>Posting specific questions to the forums is a better route to improved photography over expecting critiques telling the photographer why his images are not great, IMO.</li>

<li>Heavily photoshopped images often get the highest ratings,(and have the most compelling thumbnails), praise and front page promotion here on photo.net, in my opinion. It is what it is.</li>

<li>Critique, and what makes a photo good, is very much subjective!</li>

</ul>

[mwaks]

<p>Perhaps if a photo submitted for critique creates no buzz or comment, that in itself may say something. Many live by the motto..."If you have nothing nice to say, It's best to say nothing.".</p>

<p> </p>

[stamos]

<p>It is very difficult to write constructive critique. There is a group of people who believe that a negative comment is automatically constructive critique. Not it is not. Sometimes it is the exact opposite.<br />There are members that write negative comments just to attract attention to their page and/or to justify a low rate attack.<br />One big problem is that some members (semi-pros or even pros) use their photo.net page as personal webpage so the client(s) can read the negative comments and this sometimes it is not nice.<br />For me a constructive critique must have the plus (first), the minus and that this is just a personal opinion (even from pro critics). Also we should never write anything negative about the model(s) in photo.</p>

[cooltpmd]

<p>I can say that there are many challenges to overcome in critique.</p>

<p>We often blame the critiquer, when I have seen few photographers pose an actual question. Intent to me makes a huge difference. The person who says "I would like your advise, because I was trying to ...." is different than the person who takes a quick snapshot and says "how do you like it?".</p>

<p> </p>

[stamos]

<p>As far as I have been in PN we do not often blame the critiquer in PN forums. Usually it happens the opposite. Usually a negative comment is considered automatically honnest. For me it may be but it may be not. The same is true with the possitive comments.</p>

[KyleE]

<p>A couple of points. Michael that philosophy goes against the idea of critique. If no one ever tells you anything then the critique forum is useless and we shouldn't have it. The critique forum in theory should be about giving people advice on why their photo doesn't work so the next photo they take is just a little bit better.<br>

Also to Stamoulis if professional photographers are using this site as their personal website and showing it to clients then they should refrain from using the critique forum. If you don't want to be critiqued then don't submit. You don't have to use the critique forum to have a portfolio here. I really think the critique forum needs to be revamped in some way that encourages critiques rather than ratings.<br>

I personally try to give critiques rather than ratings as often as possible. To me one of the most important things to learn in order to be a successful artist is to be able to receive critiques and give good critiques. It was one of the first things I learned in art school and is a very important lesson. One of my teachers always made us make a "critique sandwich" this helps create a more receptive attitude from the artist and it makes the person giving the critique much more observant of the art they are looking at. First you say something positive about the art piece, this prevents people from glossing over it and just giving it a low rating because at first glance they don't like it, then you give one example of how the art piece can be improved, then you give another piece of positive advice.</p>

<p>That doesn't always work but in general it really helps you pay closer attention to any piece of art if you take the time to find something about it you like and something about it that you think could be improved.</p>

<p>Anyway that is just my feelings towards critiques.</p>

[LindaM]

<p>Mark, I applaud your efforts. Your approach makes a win, win, win situation. The critiqued photographer benefits, you benefit, and the whole community benefits. I wish more PNers would do the same!</p>

[wogears]

<p>So Mark, how are critiques like "Great!" "Wow! Nice color!" etc. superior to others? You have done a very commendable number of comments, but mostly they are the kind pretty much everyone does. No idea how they are more helpful to the recipients. In some cases, you have done edits which may be useful, but a great deal of your crits (admittedly, I only looked at about fifty) are the same three-worders that proliferate on this and other sites. I am of course, equally guilty...</p>

[witness]

<p>Starvy, I'm afraid your opinions reflect the masses on PN and violates what i believe the critique forum is all about. There is something to be gained by all parties while critiquing ordinary efforts. I once asked a great guitarist ( whom I try to emulate) how to get to his level and his advice...." teach others and you will aspire to higher levels". I agree.<br>

I understand the etiquette with regard to not offending folks, models etc. If I offend anyone it's certainly not intentional. That's good advise and I assume that's obvious to most PN members. The issue I raise is directed to the " spirit" of a critique. Ie, if one posts to merely receive praise and/or praise other friends then why not Facebook and Myspace forums? If I comment on a poor photo, I make suggestions to make the photo look better ( crop, color corrections etc) and I don't offer hit-and-run criticisms and drive-by insults. Look at my sign up date, see how many images I've critiqued.<br>

My approach is to offer comments without numerical ratings ( majority of the time) I wish those that use the critique forum on a regular basis would commit to commenting on say 10 images per visit ( or whatever # works for you) Open a few ordinary pics and see what it is that forms your opinion. Now apply your advice about etiquette and say something or post a quick example. Now, doesn't that feel the same as receiving 7/7? :-)</p>

[KyleE]

<p>I completely agree with you Mark. At first when I signed up for this sight I was concerned about the ratings and rated several photo's. Then I realized how unhelpful that was and since changed my personal policy to always offer a critique when I am browsing the critique forums. Working full time doesn't necessarily afford me the time to critique as many as I want to but I am trying to work my way up and help as much as possible.</p>

[witness]

<p>Les, I am approaching 2,000 critiques. If I open a photo, 98% of the time I will leave a comment. If it's a 6 or 7 I see little value in attempting to trump other favorable comments with verbal blather. Why not say a few words regarding the strongest element ( nice color, great POV, great DOF) etc. I rarely hit the back button....I stopped, I will comment brief but sincere. <br>

Conversely, I don't want to ramble on with lengthy critiques. I see these on occasion and I don't have the patience to read through the paragraphs. Get to the point! I post many attachments and examples....in fact I'd dare to say I may quite possibly post more attachments than anyone else ( relative to my tenor and maybe not) Anyway.....I'm glad to have this dialogue / input from you guys so I can understand what it is that motivates the masses here. Thanks.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Mark, while photo.net does need more constructively worded critiques and not mere congratulatory comments, I hope that others who feel similarly motivated will take the time to better inform themselves about styles of photography with which they are unfamiliar before making uninformed dismissive remarks as you have regarding the work of Eggleston and Warhol in <a href="00VGfv"><strong>this discussion</strong> </a> .</p>

[wogears]

<p><em>Deleted duplicate.</em></p>

[wogears]

<p><em>Les, I am approaching 2,000 critiques. </em><br /><em></em><br />Seven-hundred and fifty-eight, as of 4:52 EST. A VERY commendable number, as I said, but not two thousand. It's easy to get to high numbers by saying, "Damn, that model's HOT!" as I have done more than a few times.</p>

<p>Concur with Lex entirely on Eggleston.</p>

[witness]

<p>Sorry, I thought I deleted the Eggleston comment...oops. Well now you know how I feel about his work. I was venting aloud then thought the better of it .....guess I clicked the wrong radio button. :-) My page says I have critiqued / rated 1,840 images. is there a stat on rated VS critiqued? Thanks.</p>

[witness]

<p>Lex, why would you post a link referencing a cross-post that is unrelated to this thread anyhow? That seems mean spirited. My comments regarding Eggleston are my opinions, I'm certainly entitled to them, and my opinion does not reflect upon any competencies or lack thereof. There is also a Warhol museum in my home town. I have seen this stuff over and over and I guess I don't " get it". Poor me, have some mercy.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Mean spirited? Gosh, I hope not. That's never my intention.</p>

<p>But the critique process, like any form of rhetoric, is just as subject to peer review as the work of art being critiqued. It seems like a worthwhile goal to not only refine our art through the critique process, but to refine our rhetorical abilities through a peer review process that challenges each other to go beyond the rather lazy and mundane position that too often is summed up as "I'm entitled to my opinion."</p>

[witness]

<p>Point taken. However ( forgive the analogy) defending my opinion is just as mundane as having to defend the use of a fork and knife while dining. I am not criticizing the critique process, but rather the low volume of the critiques. It seems rather obvious to a new member like myself. My hope was to gather insight as to why this is so. Thank you for participating in the discussion and critiquing my positions. Now were getting somewhere. :-) Take care. </p>

[timzeipekis]

<p>The critique forum has become a more useful tool for raising awareness to one's own photography. Ratings and comments have become reciprocal which isn't a bad thing, but does defeat it's intended purpose. I've learned to tread lightly on giving critiques as to not overstep one's "rules" as to how I may or may not react or comment on their photography. For me, it's useful for finding photographers who's work I admire and can relate to and growing a network of friends that I can share ideas and opinions. I've given up my aspirations for "top photo" ratings and such. I'm not a salesman. My photography is irrelevant in this regard because I do not possess nor do I care to possess the salesmanship and self-promoting behavior necessary to achieve such acclaim. My friends like my work, and I like theirs. This is my result of the critique process, and although it may not be the goal intended, it suits me just fine.</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>It should also be noted that photographers, who read the <em>positive </em> critiques on other's photos, can learn what their own images lack.</p>

<p>My point is that as a photographer, I would not expect to become a better photographer mainly from written critiques of my images on photo.net.</p>

[tholte]

<p>"My comments regarding Eggleston are my opinions." And really highlight how much you have to learn about photography. </p>

[jgalyon]

<p>"And really highlight how much you have to learn about photography".<br>

But then...that's just your opinion...and nothing more.</p>

[tholte]

<p>John, thanks for your input!</p>