How do I get photo critiques?

[anne_kerr]

<p>Are there any good websites devoted exclusively to critiquing photos for photographers? I post my pictures up on this website but I rarely get any feedback and I do want to get better. Who do I get to critique my stuff?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>It does seem more difficult now to get critiques here. There were various reasons: more people requesting critiques than giving critiques; some folks who offered honest, constructive critiques felt discouraged by negative reactions from folks who apparently wanted compliments rather than critiques.</p>

<p>Anyway, I'd suggest writing more specific critique requests, such as you did for your <a href="/photo/16753472">bee photo</a>; and <a href="/photo/16569376">"Garden of the Gods"</a>. The rest have little or no accompanying info to suggest to viewers what type of critiques or comments you're looking for. I generally skip over those myself and look for specific critique requests. It's helpful to me to know in advance whether the photographer is asking for mentoring, for specific technical advice on composition, etc., or whether the photographer is secure in his/her style and presentation and mainly would like to hear some impressions or free form opinions and discussions. For the latter, see the <a href="/photodb/photo-of-the-week/">weekly Photo of the Week (POW) threads</a>.</p>

<p>I'd like to suggest that giving more critiques may also draw more critiques to your own photos. But it takes time to cultivate a network of photographers who are willing to share constructive critiques.</p>

<p>Sometimes offering ratings to photos via the <a href="/gallery/photocritique/index?recent=4&category=All">Rate Photos queue</a> can help draw attention back to your own photos. Even though the Rate Photos queue is anonymous, some folks check their rated photos daily to see who's rating them. Then they'll reciprocate with comments on your photos. But to be frank, mostly I receive generic compliments in this process. I don't blame the folks who do that - they're just trying to avoid the drama that in the past often accompanied giving honest, constructive critiques rather than generic praise.</p>

<p>I'd like to see photo.net adopt some sort of system for portfolio reviews (not random individual photos) for mentoring beginners and critiquing intermediate or advanced photographers, but there's little incentive for unpaid volunteers to do so.</p>

[anne_kerr]

Thanks for your response.

 

Im very new to photography, and so, I post my photos up but I suppose I was just looking for general comments. I

wouldnt know what questions to ask. I know what "composition" means, but not much else. Im not experienced enough to

know what questions to ask. This is the same reason why I dont post critiques of other peoples' photos - I would t lnow

what Im talking about. How can I give advice to someone else when I dont even know what Im doin myself? And i would

refrain from saying things like "great job, bright colors," or whatever because that really is so generic, unhelpful and this is

especially the case when the photo in question is what I would consider to be very good. Its easy to tell when a photo is

bad. Its harder to give opinions about a photo thats been taken by a photographer whose work has been featured in

National Geographic.

 

I havent experienced what youre talking about, but I can easily imagine drama unfolding because of negative critiques.

Personally, in school I learned the best from a math teacher who was a former soldier. He was serious, blunt and honest

and sometimes mean. Compare him to my high school art teacher - she was so nice that my classmates would draw

anything (at times it could even be a stick figure) and as long as she perceived some kind of effort, they got an A even if

the work was bad. I didnt learn or improve at all. She was just too nice to "hurt my feelings." I would welcome some kind

of guidance... I really have no idea what my strong/weak points are.

 

I will say though that just by reading and looking at other people's work my own photos have inproved a great deal. I have

been reading a lot, but I read more about how to use the camera and how to do things like star trails. I havent read

anythig about technique. I figure that first I should learn how to use the darn thing. Learn to use the pencil first and then

later worry about whether or not I can create art.

[sgust]

<p>I agree with Lex's suggestions/comments. And might add that if your unsure what to ask about your own images, go to the critique forum and find images that you like but wouldn't know how to create. But instead of critiquing the image, ask questions about how you would go about doing something similar. Most are more than happy to explain how they created an image that's up for critique.<br>

It'll do two things for you. First it will give you an idea of how other photographers go about it. And it will make other members aware of you and thereby making it more likely that they will leave a critique on your images.<br>

In the end, some images just don't get much response. I think most often it's because they are decent images, no obvious flaws to point out but not good enough to stand out amongst the masses either. When I go the the critique forum I generally look for 2 things either an image where I can see something already in thumbnail that I would have done differently. Or images that I wish I had taken. Other than that, sometimes I'll go to someones portfolio who's left a comment on one of my images and see if I can find something that I have something worthwhile to write about.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Years ago I found that PhotoSIG was better for getting high-quality critiques. It may still be better for that (limited) purpose than photo.net, but traffic and interest at PhotoSIG do seem to have declined.</p>

<p>Anywhere you post your pictures and seek critiques, your odds of getting useful critiques will probably depend on how interesting the pictures seem (especially as thumbnails!), how well you ask for specific advice in clear terms, and how much you seem in turn willing to critique others' work or at least meaningfully engage in the general dialog.</p>

 

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I'ld offer critiques, but I don't, mostly for the same reasons Lex lined out. </p>

<p>Probably would be a good idea to have a "Critique Request" section where the poster specifies what they want in a critique because most of the images I see in the blind critique forum are already good looking, so I don't like wasting my time rifling through a gallery of images that clearly don't need to be critiqued.</p>

<p>Maybe it would be a good idea in having the moderator of the Beginner Photography Forum allow "Critique Requests" posts similar to Anne's where they have to line out what they want and keep those post restricted only to this forum.</p>

<p> </p>

[Mattman944]

<p>For critiques, give PhotoSIG a try, I have received many good critiques over the years. They expect you to write 3 for every image posted, so it can be a lot of work. But, writing (and reading other peoples critiques as you write), can be very educational. My activity, like Dave R, is way down on PhotoSIG, the freeloaders who don't want to reciprocate, the people who only want praise, the people who know 1/10 as much as you and want to argue, etc, became tiresome.</p>

<p>Some general comments on your images:</p>

<p>Rhyolite Night 2a is outstanding, by far the best IMO. Do you agree?</p>

<p>Composition/Framing: Some brutally honest critiques: Vegas has a distracting bright object in the corner; the small waterfall is not level (water running uphill); deer has a tree growing out of its head. Work on your framing, some people find that holding a small frame (like an plain empty 5x7 picture frame), helps them see things they don't see in the camera. I don't think you have cropped any of your images, I crop 95% of mine, the 3:2 ratio isn't the best for many subjects anyway. Crop out distracting items and uninteresting wasted space.</p>

<p>Impact: Some of the other images, although technically (focus, exposure) and compositionally are good, are lacking interest. What is interesting is somewhat subjective; but beauty, emotion, drama, usually attract attention. Do I want to keep looking at the image? Or am I compelled to keep looking at the image? An average subject can look much better with warm low-angle dramatic lighting. A different camera angle can add interest, don't shoot everything from eye-level. Try getting down really low; the stream with rocks shot is good but could be better from a lower angle (and crop out the bright sun-lit area).</p>

<p>We are all learning, and just when I think I am pretty darn good in a certain area of photography, I will see someone else's image that blows me away.</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Ann, what Lex wrote, fully agree.<br>

Many online critique sites (also here), a lot of the feedback will consist mainly of "Great shot", "Love your photo!" and so on. As you wrote, that's not helping you learn. But being like your honest, blunt math teacher online is tricky business. It's easy to step on toes. The point is therefor really building a circle of people that give you real critiques, and where you give them your honest views.<br>

Writing critiques is also a great way to learn: put into words why an image works for you, what elements work, which not, which effects work for you, which not - it can help create a clarity on how you 'experience' a photo, and that can in turn help translate that into the creation of your own photos. So, while it means an investment in time, it actually fully worth it, in my view.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Maybe it would be a good idea in having the moderator of the Beginner Photography Forum allow "Critique Requests" posts similar to Anne's where they have to line out what they want and keep those post restricted only to this forum."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was wondering myself whether we should consider modifying the policy for critiques to accommodate new members in the Beginner forum.</p>

<p>In fact we did have a fairly loose informal approach to this for awhile a year or so ago. Critiques were accommodated for new members here. But rather than one or two such requests some folks would repeatedly post to this forum for critiques even after they'd been here for over a year, so we cut back on that practice.</p>

<p>Still, it's worth considering a modified approach and accommodating critiques here for new members while they're getting accustomed to the site.</p>

<p>I'd also suggest that members check the option to allow anonymous critiques (via the <a href="/pvt/home">My Workspace</a> page). Some folks dislike anonymous critiques and ratings, as if those were somehow invalid if we can't check the portfolio of the anonymous commenter to reciprocate or decide whether we think they're qualified to critique us. But since the vast majority of photo.net members are actually photographers, I don't see any reason to discount anonymous critiques and ratings.</p>

<p>I've allowed anonymous critiques of my photos since that system started, but rarely does anyone take advantage of that option. And I've left a few anonymous critiques on other member photos. Surprisingly, most of those people deleted the photos and in some cases deleted their entire portfolios. I'm not sure why, since I write the same types of critiques anonymous as I do under my real name - I always try to be constructive and honest.</p>

[Member69643]

<p>The words critique and criticise have the same root crit, meaning choose, separate, a judge according to http://www.myvocabulary.com. As many have pointed out, the problem here is that people really don't want critiques, they want compliments. Some of them, at least. This web site is visited by people of varying skill level and yet the critiques are offered by everyone. Sometimes you get good advice, sometimes you get meaningless drivel (or twaddle for the UK folks out there). Another problem is that some photographers only feel that the "elite" of photo.net make valid comments, but that's not just on critiques, it's on any subject or forum post. Like any online community you have a core of hardcore users who post a TON and are known to each other. Breaking in isn't easy and won't happen at all if you seldom post. Maybe sad, maybe true, but volume gets you noticed. I think great images help too, but volume definitely does.<br>

<br>

Word to the wise - never compliment the beauty of a photographer's subject, that's insulting to the photographer.</p>

[sgust]

<blockquote>

<p>Word to the wise - never compliment the beauty of a photographer's subject, that's insulting to the photographer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well then they aught to pick unattractive subjects ;-) But seriously, how overdeveloped is your ego if you get offended by someone complimenting your subject?</p>

[Member69643]

<blockquote>

<p>Well then they aught to pick unattractive subjects ;-) But seriously, how overdeveloped is your ego if you get offended by someone complimenting your subject?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was told that the photographer had informed his subjects (female models) that the images were taken only for artistic purposes and they would be judged solely on that basis.</p>

[sgust]

<p>I was thinking of a broader range of subjects (landscapes, animals, people, buildings, etc.). If a photographer is worried about comments offending his models that's not quite the same thing as him being offended personally. But, as with most things, a little common sense goes a long way when leaving comments. </p>

[Jeff Lear]

<p>So much great advice in this thread. Don't be afraid to critique just because you don't feel you're a good photographer. Critiquing an image and taking an image are two completely different endeavors. I can look at a photograph and see that it is slightly out of focus or that it's too bright or dark in areas or that the subject is of little interest. In that same photograph I can usually find elements that I find appealing. I learned not only from looking at and critiquing the photographs of other PN members but also from the responses to those critiques by other, more skilled photographers.<br /><br />Give it a try! Spend an hour in the critique forum and find two or three images that stand out to you. They could stand out because they're almost perfect or maybe you see something that went wrong in the process. Leave your honest thoughts, the photographer will appreciate it.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Raised a good point hadn't thought about in a while Patrick and Siegfried.</p>

<p>There is a fine line between art appreciation and voyeurism when it comes to complimenting the beauty of a photographer's female subject captured in a photo. You really have to carefully pick your words or it can go either way both most likely being bad.</p>

<p>I think I went the wrong way last night deciding to critique a POW photo I found in Unified Forum view. Word to the wise, don't critique in the middle of the night as a remedy for insomnia. I was seeing things in the photo I hadn't considered before and soon found myself choosing my words more as a way to express myself in a critique in what I was seeing. That's also a fine line as well.</p>

<p>I'm regretting defining the intent of the photo as a demonstration of "sensualization of children" due to the way the photographer dressed and photographed the two girls. The word sensualization I've never used before in a sentence in my entire life but it just rolled off the tongue and expressed what I felt from the perspective that the two girls were being depicted too much as grown adults similar to those beauty contest "Toddlers In Tiaras" episodes.</p>

<p>It sounded like common sense to me at the time until I finally got to sleep and woke up the next morning wondering why the hell did I say that. I wasn't even drunk critiquing which I also advise against.</p>

[Member69643]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=7055189">Siegfried Gust</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 13, 2013; 12:54 p.m.</p>

 

<p>I was thinking of a broader range of subjects (landscapes, animals, people, buildings, etc.). If a photographer is worried about comments offending his models that's not quite the same thing as him being offended personally. But, as with most things, a little common sense goes a long way when leaving comments.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Aye, common sense, which I lack in spades, so when said she had a nice butt, I rightly got called on it. I've retired from critiquing.</p>

[anne_kerr]

<p>Oh, wow. There’s so many comments that I want to respond to. I’ll try to get to everything.</p>

<p><strong>Lex</strong>, you were right. I had that bee photo up for a while and I didn’t get any responses. Since you mentioned it in your reply, I got a few comments on it. I was excited that I finally got critiqued, and from now on, I’ll follow your advice. I’ll put more information on there when I post a picture and also try to comment on other peoples’ photos. I’m afraid I might say something I shouldn’t or that doesn’t have merit, but if an argument ensues, I can just use the noob card.</p>

<p>I didn’t know about the “Rate Photos” queue. Maybe I can try that too.</p>

<p><strong>Siegfried</strong>, I like your suggestion about asking a photographer how he executed a shot. I believe you had mentioned that to me before, but I had tried it once and didn’t get a reply. Granted, that was a long time ago, and I only asked one person, but I was discouraged after that.</p>

<p><strong>Matthew</strong>, thank you for your comments on my photos! I’m very proud of myself for Rhyolite Night. I’m very surprised at how the photo came out. Yes, I had been there in the day, but I really couldn’t see anything. I did a test shot, but I wasn’t too impressed with it. Taking that photo was a real pain. I had to drive out from my hotel about half an hour, endure really cold temperatures, and actually, the field there is supposed to be a hang out spot for rattlesnakes. It was a really creepy location. I had actually coincidentally run into another photographer who said he was a professor in Colorado. He was taking photos in another location, and I copied him. I took “NightRhyolite1” just because, honestly, I figured if he didn’t “see what I saw” in that other location in the back, that it wasn’t a good photo. I told myself that if I didn’t take the photo I wanted of that shack back there, I would always regret it. So I forced myself to go (I was exhausted) and I’m glad I did.</p>

<p>Apart from that, I agree with you, especially when you said my photos are boring. I know what you mean. A deer, it’s a good picture of a deer as far as vacation photos go. Does it make you think or feel or want to look at it? No. I know it but I don’t really know what to do about it. I guess there’s something I have to see and try to put it across in an image, and I just don’t see anything. If you’re referring to the photo I think you’re referring to in reference to the stream, I actually was really low on the ground. It was on the tripod, at the lowest it can get -- maybe 2 feet off? What didn’t help was that the ground wasn’t level (it was higher where I was standing) and I was afraid of getting sand in my lens (which happened later anyway). Lastly, no, I don’t crop my photos. I don’t mostly because, well, what happens if I want to just print out 4x6 for my parents to see my vacation? I’ll have to create a separate folder for cropped ones, I guess.</p>

<p><strong>Wouter</strong>, I didn’t think of that. I mean, now that you mention it, it shouldn’t have surprised me that people might get offended if you critique their stuff. I just imagined that if you put yourself out there, especially if you’re a preofessional, you’d be able to take the good and the bad. I mean, that’s what it’s for. That’s the point. If I wanted to know how awesome I was, I’d go talk to my dad. I know he’ll say I’m the prettiest girl in school.</p>

<p><strong>Jeff</strong>, you said not to be afraid of commenting just because I’m not that good. So now that I’m writing this, I gave it a go. Let’s see if I’m right in my assumptions. I fear that I will unjustly tell someone something about their photo and upset them needlessly. So I went on the critique section and picked out a photo. I found “Johanna Da Cruz’s” photo of a zebra: <a href="/photo/17034733">http://www.photo.net/photo/17034733</a></p>

<p>When I saw it, initially I was confused. From a comment I read, it seems Photoshop was used to “copy” the same zebra and paste it around in the frame in different positions (right?). My honest opinion is it looks weird. Matthew had said to me that my deer picture looked like it was growing a tree out his head. Well, this zebra has…I mean, it has body parts sticking out and I can’t tell what’s going on clearly. I especially don’t like the zebra at the top left. Just generally, she seems to enjoy PS too much. Am I wrong? Am I harsh? Is there something here that I don’t see? Your responses will show me if I’m clueless or not, I guess. By the way, I wasn't trying to be mean or rude... I just want to know if I'm the one at the art gallery standing next to some guy saying "I can feel the anger and the emotion in this painting! Wow." And I'm just thinking it looks like a paint gallon exploded on a canvas, and not much else. </p>

<p>Oh, and <strong>Patrick</strong>, thank you for making me laugh. “Aye, common sense, which I lack in spades, so when said she had a nice butt, I rightly got called on it. I've retired from critiquing.”</p>

<p>Good God. I must really be committed to this. I haven’t written this much about anything in a long time. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>If all it took to offend a photographer was to compliment the subject, photographers specializing in nudes would have fled the internets years ago. Try to find any nude on this site with more than three comments that *doesn't* include references to the model's physical attributes.</p>

<p>The typical "critique" of a photo of a nude woman goes something like this:<br>

"Congratulations, my friend, on your beautiful photograph of your lovely red headed girlfriend! I, too, have a red headed girlfriend but she will not pose for me in the nude. :( So, once again, my friend, congratulations on your photograph of a lovely red headed woman!"</p>

<p>And the boilerplate and/or copypasta critique for subjects other than nudes goes something like this:<br>

"Well seen!"</p>

<p>"Great capture!"</p>

<p>"Excellent (choose one or more as suits your mastery, my friend!):"</p>

<ul>

<li>Composition</li>

<li>Lighting</li>

<li>Color</li>

<li>Tones</li>

</ul>

<p>In other words, Anne, you can do this. The worst you can do is accidentally give an actual critique that doesn't come off a Magic 8 Ball. Or did I mean that's the best you can do? Probably both. Neither. Either way, congratulations on your excellent sense of humor.</p>

<p>My idea of a good critique on a candid photo is something like "Made me spit coffee on my keyboard. You owe me $50."</p>

[Member69643]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=172915">Lex Jenkins</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 13, 2013; 06:57 p.m.</p>

 

<p>If all it took to offend a photographer was to compliment the subject, photographers specializing in nudes would have fled the internets years ago. Try to find any nude on this site with more than three comments that *doesn't* include references to the model's physical attributes.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't disagree, and honestly don't feel my critique was in poor taste. I commented on a lighting/reflection which I felt created a strange illusion, but also added that she has a very nice butt. I can see how that could be taken as crude, but gosh darn it, it was a nice butt, I swear to god.</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>Made me spit coffee on my keyboard. You owe me $50</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now you owe me €20 (thank god my keyboard is not that expensive...).</p>

<p>Anne, great reply, seriously.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My honest opinion is it looks weird. Matthew had said to me that my deer picture looked like it was growing a tree out his head. Well, this zebra has…I mean, it has body parts sticking out and I can’t tell what’s going on clearly. I especially don’t like the zebra at the top left. Just generally, she seems to enjoy PS too much. Am I wrong? Am I harsh?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You cannot be wrong. It's what you saw. It is your impression. Can your opinion be discussed? Sure, but that's part of a good critique too - it's 2-way traffic. <br />Is it harsh.....? Well, that's always where things go difficult. I've given harder critiques, which were taken with grace, understanding and mutual respect for differing opinions. I've given more mellow critiques which weren't taken well. Apart from being thoughtful and empathic, there is only so much you can do. Should you be less honest about your opinion to avoid offending people? I really don't know the answer, but this is part of the problem of the relative anonimity of the internet. My only advice would be: search discussion, offer your impressions as open questions, leave an opening for the photographer to reply beyond "thanks for your words". That way, both of you get something out of it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is there something here that I don’t see?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There always is. Too often I looked at world famous paintings thinking "meh.... but wait, it's world famous, it must be good". I no longer think that second bit. Liking something is not mandatory. Understanding everything is not mandatory. Nor possible.<br>

Trying to understand, that's important. And what you wrote, to me, shows you really tried. Is it your fault in the end if you do not understand, or is it the photographer that could not make it sufficiently clear to you?</p>

<p>Get out there, critique. You'll be fine. Deconstruct an image to try understand why you like or dislike something, and share. And it'll flow back to you - in critiques on your work, and in your photography.</p>

[anne_kerr]

<p>Alright. So I entered information in the "biography" portion of my account. I responded to some comments left on my photos. I critiqued about 4-5 photos from other people (some that I liked, some that I thought could improve). I was going to try to enter some info on the photos themselves since most of that is blank, but I couldn't figure out how to do it. There's no "edit" button that I could find. So I just commented on my own stuff. In regards to <em>how</em> I took the photos themselves, I think I commented mainly on Rhyolite because it's the best one. </p>

<p>By the way, how do I quote people on this thing? "Block Quote" button? I'm afraid to click it and find out lol</p>

[sgust]

<p>To edit the info on the photo go to the photo admin tab and click on edit image info.<br>

To do a block quote, highlight the text you want to quote and copy it to the clipboard with ctrl+c. Start the block quote by clicking on the quotation mark above the response text box. Paste the text from the clipboard with ctrl+v. Hit enter and the quotation mark again to end the block quote.<br>

BTW, thanks for the comment.</p>