Photographers: Chances Are, You Suck

[pvg photography]

I found this article to be thought provoking and right on the money. I think it echoes many of the comments that I have

seen posted here on Photo.net

 

http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2012/02/photographers-chances-are-you-suck/?

utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28

Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher&pid=1804

[dhbebb]

<p>A would-be dramatic title that means nothing and does not even really relate to the rest of the article. The chances today are not that you are totally incompetent as a photographer - automated cameras stop this happening - but rather that you produce work which is like that of hundreds if not thousands of other people and does not stand out. What the writer seems to be saying is "How can photographers learn to improve through self-criticism if they are being over-praised on internet forums?" Surely not a problem?</p>

[mdma]

<p>I know my pictures suck. But no-one else's sucks like mine, thats what makes them so special!<br>

On a slightly more serious note, I get what he's trying to say and agree with it, to some extent. You could argue that with greater access to professional tools (Photoshop, 'L' lenses etc.) over the past 10 years or so the standard of output from enthusiasts/amateurs has, genuinely, increased. <br>

Also alot of 'great' photographers work is so recognised because they were simply <strong>first</strong>; everybody else is just guilty of re-appropriation - even if their work is of equal 'quality'. Photography having been around for a while now, its getting harder to truly stand out from the crowd as chances are your work will be emulating somebody, somewhere (Ansel Adams, Helmut Newton, that guy you have on Flickr). Not that raw talent doesn't shine through of course.</p>

[bjcarlton]

<p>The article is worth reading if for nothing more than the comment about how, if you want to become a "great" photographer, (based on the feedback and level of attention you get in social networking photo sites) start posting pictures of cats, and even better, kittens. That rang true. To which I would add: posting images of certain body parts can't hurt either.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Everyone knows that in polite society, praise is a form of encouragement from the better skilled or admiration from the less skilled. Go to <a href="http://www.modelmayhem.com/">Model Mayhem</a> and you'll see plenty of that and there's nothing wrong with it either. </p>

<p>Every developing individual goes through a phase of misguided self confidence regardless of discipline. It's only through maturity that humbleness and humility sets in to enable betterment through learning. </p>

<p>Nothing wrong with cat pictures either. Do it long enough and one will soon discover ways to make it great:<br>

<a href="

<p> </p>

[charles_h2]

<p>I believe praise and criticism are two sides of the same coin. I don't think that giving (praise), or "tough love" honesty is the real issue. The Internet has more to do with this issue. Before the Internet, there was a screening process for viewing good photography. Magazines, ads, and galleries, and these people let you know if you're work was up to par, and this became a goal for any aspiring photographer to reach...</p>

<p>The Internet allows any photographer to post their work, and in the end, receive either praise or criticism. The serious shooter is usually looking for more than that.. making a living, or seeing their work in the venue of choice. With the addition of various software, even snapshots can become something else. I believe that for a photographer to truly stand out these days, a "body of work" is required, because any single great shot (creative, original technique) is going to be copied to a point that we won't know where it originated. </p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Photography isn't the only activity where people may tend to offer praise as to the results of someone's efforts but avoid criticism. Who wants to tell Aunt Marge her favorite recipe tastes like cardboard? Just look at how ratings are now done here. Even people seeking feedback couldn't handle criticism in many instances. That's why we bite our tongues at all sorts of things we see people do. We don't want the tongue lashing, other negativity or just ole' hurt feelings that will result.</p>

<p> </p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Gotta' tell you John ... that never bothered me. I know I'm in the minority, but if someone asks me what I think (or posts it for critique), I'll always offer the bad. I usually try to say one good thing for every bad, and if it's really awful I'll only pick out the part that bothers me the most and not mention the rest.</p>

<p>But I'm a teacher, and it is my job to help people improve. I think we could all be better photographers (or musicians, or whatever) if critiques were actually critical.</p>

<p>My own instructors don't even provide comment on bad work. They just take it right off the wall. If you put up 20 prints and there are only 5 left, you already know how you did before they even open their mouths.</p>

<p>Then again, not everyone is motivated the same way. I'm motivated by self-improvement, so knowing something is bad gets me off my butt. Some people are motivated by praise ... whatever works. I just wish there were more hardasses like me on the boards :)</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>My own instructors don't even provide comment on bad work. They just take it right off the wall. If you put up 20 prints and there are only 5 left, you already know how you did before they even open their mouths.</em><br>

So how does anyone learn anything? Seems like the situation familiar to almost all gigging musicians after a gig:<br>

Drunken punter: Can you take constructive criticism?<br>

Musician: OK, go ahead.<br>

DP: You were s**t.</p>

[stp]

<p>Here's my take on the "code" of feedback:</p>

<p>Ratings don't mean anything except "I really like this photo," or I sorta like / don't like this photo," or "I really hate this photo." The important point is that it's all about the person giving the rating.</p>

<p>If you submit a photo for comments and only 2-3 people comment on it after 30 other people have viewed it, it sucks in the opinion of the majority regardless of the high praise that the 2-3 people may leave.</p>

<p>If you submit a photo for comments and 10-15 people comment on it, it's an average photo in the opinion of the majority, regardless of the high praise that the 10-15 may leave.</p>

<p>If you submit a photo for comments and more than 15-20 people comment on it and many of these are people who you don't know, then you have a very good photo in the opinion of the majority.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the opinion of the majority regarding a bad photo or a good photo often doesn't mean very much. If the majority hates it, it may actually be an exceptional photograph that is so far outside the box that it is not understood. Also, the majority usually do not take more than a few seconds to evaluate a photo, so subtleties are going to be missed.</p>

<p>If the majority really like a photo, then you've hit the mainstream. If that's your goal, then fine; you're riding great in the center of the highway, and you've got a lot of company.</p>

<p>Regardless of whether you suck or excel, a more important question is why you do photography in the first place. There are many reasons, and not all of those reasons will have a component of the public in them, and not all of those reasons will have a component of self-improvement over time.</p>

<p>The most important "judge" is the creator of his / her own photography, this loops back to the person's reason for making photographs in the first place, and people have varying degrees of interest or dependence on the judgements of others regarding their photography.</p>

<p>All IMO, of course.</p>

[Emmanuel Enyinwa]

<p>The writer of the article is an asshole. Screw him and his ilk "critiquing" people's facebook pages. Nobody pretends to be Henri Cartier-Breson on Facebook, and if they post kittens, that's their prerogative. I don't have a Facebook page, but my wife posts a lot of my images there. She merely picks what she likes, which tend to be too cutesy for my taste, but her friends lap up that sort of subject matter. So, who am I to judge her or them? For me to put my images on Facebook, then judge them based on MY concept of what doesn"t "suck" is the height of stupidity. As for this site, if you want to get mostly honest feedback on your work, post it for rating. A lot of the high mate raters have been scared off by the revamped rating system, and I think the new system strikes a balance between the social aspects of this site and the need for honest, serious feedback. I challenge Mr. Jarecke to post his work for rating here iof HE wants honest feedback on them. I can assure you, having reviewed his images, that his mediocre images would average in the mid-4 range.</p>

[rossb]

<p> My pictures are probably ordinary but I don't care. They are pictures of my family, vacations and trips. I enjoy them and they look nice to me. I just printed out some birthday photos taken with my F100 and they are nice. Into the family albums they go. Negs archived away with the rest. </p>

<p> Anybody can buy a digital camera that does all the thinking and get nice photos to bring home. My son-in-law did just that as he wanted pictures of the baby. So he bought his first camera (bottom end Canon DSLR), skimmed the manuel, put it on auto everything and started snapping. Photos look fine. But young people are good with electronic gadgets. He is working on his PHD however so not much chance of him getting to serious about snapping photos all the time.</p>

[bobbollinger]

<p>Heck, I am delighted if my photos simply please myself. That is a hard enough task. <br>

If someone else likes them too, that is just icing on the cake. If someone else thinks that my shots are mediocre, then they are probably right.....<br>

A lot of the fun in photography for me is the effort to master the craft. I don't think it can ever be truly mastered, although folks like Ansel Adams certainly came close. But for the rest of us who have to worry about things like raising kids and paying the mortgage, we will likely just plod along on the journey towards mastery without ever actually arriving. But that is OK. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Journalists: Chances are, you suck!</p>

<p>Back at ya', bud. </p>

[mikemorrell]

<p>It's true that the professional photographer and serious amature won't get much critical feedback on the internet (especially Facebook and other social media/photo-sharing sites). Most users of these sites participate for social reasons and not to develop their photographic skills by giving or requesting critical feedback. I certainly don't expect critical feedback on my facebook photos! <br>

I do think the author makes a valid point about the social conventions on most social media and photo-sharing sites to give <em>only</em> positive feedback. As he says: "If nothing is bad, can anything be good?"<br>

One of the reasons I moved to photo.net from Flickr was to get and give more useful critiques than "great shot!"</p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>

<p>Regardless of whether you suck or excel, a more important question is <strong>why you do photography in the first place</strong>. There are many reasons, and not all of those reasons will have a component of the public in them, and not all of those reasons will have a component of self-improvement over time.<br>

The most important "judge" is the creator of his / her own photography, this loops back to the person's reason for making photographs in the first place, and people have varying degrees of interest or dependence on the judgements of others regarding their photography.<br>

All IMO, of course.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bingo, Mr Penland. Well said. </p>

<p>I rather liked the article. A bit simplistic in that it primarily seems to be addressed to photographers who actually believe that ratings, or comments, or "likes" and "+1s" mean much of anything in the real world. How many of those really exist? Does anyone really think they have reached a photographic pinnacle by making "Explore" or getting a "7/7"? But exaggeration is a part of humor, and it <em>was</em> a humorous piece. I see nothing to be angry or offended over in the article. </p>

<p>I also think that if someone is serious about having their work critiqued then they should attend a workshop, find a mentor, enter a juried exhibition, or submit a portfolio for review. If the internet is the only available resource then, in my opinion, studying good work, or work you admire, will probably yield more benefits than waiting for someone to comment on your photo. </p>

<p>I think it was Barry who pointed out that, in terms of internet popularity, showing certain body parts can be a ticket to that sort of success. So true. The scantily clad female self-portraitist is ubiquitous and beats the kitten photographer hands down in the popularity department. It's even launched careers for a select few. More power to them. That's just how it is.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>