Would you like to improve your photography?

[Forbiddenbiker]

I find there are two main ways.

1. Practice.

2. Criticizing other peoples shots.

If you want to become a good photographer you need to work hard on both of those key points.

Remember, being wrong with your critic is as useful to you as being right, so who cares if your wrong to start with, because it means YOU just learnt something you wouldn't have learnt otherwise.
So do it mainly for yourself, its really not all about helping the image poster improve.

What do you think?
Discuss...

 

[Deleted member 67219]

The problem I always find with critique on most internet sites, is that you have no idea of the concept that the original artist/photographer had because they don't tell you. Or even worse, they don't have one.

If you don't have an idea of what someone was trying to achieve, all you're doing it giving an opinion not a critique.

 

[Yv]

Charlotte, one of the tings we spent a long time trying to get people to do, especially as their photography became more advanced and beyond the 'just wanting to get a nice picture of anything' [which btw, isn't 'worse' imo, it is where most people start from], is get them to explain when posting an image what they were trying to do or achieve. It still seems it falls mainly on deaf ears, but even an 'opinion' is a way to learn, after all, where exactly is the line in the sand between critique and opinion?

Adam, I am pretty much in full agreement with you. You don't have to have an artistic bone in your body, or 10 years experience with a camera in your hand, to start looking at photos and deciding whether you like or dislike it and starting to think about what it is within the picture that makes you feel that way. By doing this and by reading what others have said, you can learn a lot about photography and your advance your own ability to take a good photo.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

The problem I always find with critique on most internet sites, is that you have no idea of the concept that the original artist/photographer had because they don't tell you. Or even worse, they don't have one.

If you don't have an idea of what someone was trying to achieve, all you're doing it giving an opinion not a critique.

It would be good to know more, people are worried about being seen as pretentious by the Luddite's maybe. ..... But that's ok, you're doing it for yourself, It doesn't matter if you miss-guessed the intent and applied your own artistic views , you still constructed a creative opinion in which you learnt some more. ...win win.

Adam, I am pretty much in full agreement with you. You don't have to have an artistic bone in your body, or 10 years experience with a camera in your hand, to start looking at photos and deciding whether you like or dislike it and starting to think about what it is within the picture that makes you feel that way. By doing this and by reading what others have said, you can learn a lot about photography and your advance your own ability to take a good photo.

In spades Yvonne, its the analysis that makes for the learning, like how a shot makes you feel is as valid coming from a novice as it is the experienced.

 

[-Paul-]

In spades Yvonne, its the analysis that makes for the learning, like how a shot makes you feel is as valid coming from a novice as it is the experienced.[/quote]

 

[MWHCVT]

I'd always much rather receive detailed considered critique than a thousand "nice shots" in fact I almost hate "nice shot" if you think it's good, them please say why you think it's good I've recently made it a personal goal to only ever give proper critique....

 

[mr bizzare]

I think all of us only can only offer our own opinion as to why we like or dislike other photographers work as long as it's not posted as "in the style of" or my "attempt at" all other personal type of photographs are subjective and I feel if a person thinks this shot it good enough to post or show publicly then he\she has achieved what he set out to do.

 

[Pinkbikerbabe]

I am always looking to improve my skills, but I have to admit I have reached a bit off a flat spot at the moment and haven't used my cameras for a while. I need to find my mojo again and get out shooting again.

When it comes to commenting on other peoples images I do my best to offer something constructive but I still have lots of room for improvement there. I have learnt many things from my short time on this forum, and I hope that I can continue to learn more things and improve the quality of my images.

 

[MWHCVT]

I am always looking to improve my skills, but I have to admit I have reached a bit off a flat spot at the moment and haven't used my cameras for a while. I need to find my mojo again and get out shooting again.

When it comes to commenting on other peoples images I do my best to offer something constructive but I still have lots of room for improvement there. I have learnt many things from my short time on this forum, and I hope that I can continue to learn more things and improve the quality of my images.

I think that is a good way to be, so long as you can say why you like something I think that is great.

As to being in a lull or flat point lacking inspiration why not check out some of the challenges or push yourself to try shooting something you've never shot before

I think something I'm growing a little tired of is say if a set of 6 images are posted, people saying "x is the pick of the bunch" it adds nothing tells the OP nothing, does it mean all are great but that one is particularly good, does it mean all are rubbish but that's the least rubbish?

 

[Deleted member 67219]

I think all of us only can only offer our own opinion as to why we like or dislike other photographers work as long as it's not posted as "in the style of" or my "attempt at" all other personal type of photographs are subjective and I feel if a person thinks this shot it good enough to post or show publicly then he\she has achieved what he set out to do.

I don't agree with any of that at all.

Photography, like all art, does not have to be subjective. It can fulfil an achievement without question on occasion.

You can put whatever you like up publicly for whatever reason. It doesn't mean it has achieved what it set out to do. For instance if I say 'In this photograph of a stinging nettle I tried to portray the way that Jesus' faith inspired the deciples' you are likely to tell me that it has not achieved it's goal even though I posted it publicly.

But then again, I'm studying history of art which is all about forming informed opinion rather than just saying 'well if the artist put it on display then it must be good'.

 

[Pinkbikerbabe]

I think that is a good way to be, so long as you can say why you like something I think that is great.

As to being in a lull or flat point lacking inspiration why not check out some of the challenges or push yourself to try shooting something you've never shot before

I think something I'm growing a little tired of is say if a set of 6 images are posted, people saying "x is the pick of the bunch" it adds nothing tells the OP nothing, does it mean all are great but that one is particularly good, does it mean all are rubbish but that's the least rubbish?

Yes I can see what you mean, I have had a look at some of the challenges on here and now that I have transport I plan to take part in the 52's next year not sure I could manage 365.

I do have a new motorbike I want to take some nice photos off but lack in inspiration of somewhere local to me to give me a nice background.

 

[MWHCVT]

Yes I can see what you mean, I have had a look at some of the challenges on here and now that I have transport I plan to take part in the 52's next year not sure I could manage 365.

I do have a new motorbike I want to take some nice photos off but lack in inspiration of somewhere local to me to give me a nice background.

Glad you've got transport now gives you a bit more range

 

[Sparkles33]

Sometimes I feel like I'm rambling but I usually pin point something and learn along the way.

Also, I kinda want to know if my images are pants, not just a "oi, ye...divvy....that looks naff!" but a "that might work better with xxx because xxxxx" style.

 

[feek]

An invaluable thing to do, is to go out with other TP'ers and then see what they capture. I went out with Marc, several years ago, and learnt some street tips that have stuck in my mind, and I was there when Forbiddenbiker (Adam) shot his avatar picture. Being out there with other like-minded individuals is worth every second

 

[Pinkbikerbabe]

An invaluable thing to do, is to go out with other TP'ers and then see what they capture. I went out with Marc, several years ago, and learnt some street tips that have stuck in my mind, and I was there when Forbiddenbiker (Adam) shot his avatar picture. Being out there with other like-minded individuals is worth every second

Yes to go out with other TP members can prove fruitful I have not been able to do this with the exception of pingu666 as he only lives 20 minutes up the road from me , but I am hoping to arrange to meet up with a few fellow members

 

[MWHCVT]

An invaluable thing to do, is to go out with other TP'ers and then see what they capture. I went out with Marc, several years ago, and learnt some street tips that have stuck in my mind, and I was there when Forbiddenbiker (Adam) shot his avatar picture. Being out there with other like-minded individuals is worth every second

TP meets are brilliant, if for no other reason than your with like minded people, I bore the hell out of most of my family if I start talking about taking photos plus you can learn so much from others

 

[the ghost]

would be great if they were a little closer

 

[big soft moose]

I find there are two main ways.

1. Practice.

2. Criticizing other peoples shots.

3: getting other people to crtique your shots and listening with an open mind to what they say

 

[simonkit]

I think critique is useful, to a degree, as it does make you think that little bit more about the images you've produced. I don't think knowing what the photographer intended really has any bearing, wander around most galleries and you don't have this information but you know when something "grabs" you and why so it's certainly possible to comment without context.

Ultimately however if the photograph is pleasing to the photographer who shot it then it's a good one

Simon

 

[Suvv]

I think critique is useful, to a degree, as it does make you think that little bit more about the images you've produced. I don't think knowing what the photographer intended really has any bearing, wander around most galleries and you don't have this information but you know when something "grabs" you and why so it's certainly possible to comment without context.

Ultimately however if the photograph is pleasing to the photographer who shot it then it's a good one

Simon

That is the main point as far as I am concerned. I do find that critique, whether from forums or camera clubs, can lead to standardised shots and the dreaded mutual admiration.

 

[mr bizzare]

I don't agree with any of that at all.

Photography, like all art, does not have to be subjective. It can fulfil an achievement without question on occasion.

You can put whatever you like up publicly for whatever reason. It doesn't mean it has achieved what it set out to do. For instance if I say 'In this photograph of a stinging nettle I tried to portray the way that Jesus' faith inspired the deciples' you are likely to tell me that it has not achieved it's goal even though I posted it publicly.

But then again, I'm studying history of art which is all about forming informed opinion rather than just saying 'well if the artist put it on display then it must be good'.

I would like to be so self assured that when I have learned to form and informed opinion that everything I say about an artwork is correct, if the photographer see in his shot the much hated nettle's strive to see the light while most people around them just want to kill them with poison then I can see how Jesus inspired his decibels while everyone around him wanted to kill him. I did not go to a university to learn to tell other people what they should think, I think people should make up there own minds, he who looks through the lens is the photographer. if you put up a photographs for criticism then I would argue it is only technique and not subject that is at question. I just have to state If an artist put it up on display then it must be good enough for him/her.

 

[Marc]

An invaluable thing to do, is to go out with other TP'ers and then see what they capture. I went out with Marc, several years ago, and learnt some street tips that have stuck in my mind, and I was there when Forbiddenbiker (Adam) shot his avatar picture. Being out there with other like-minded individuals is worth every second

You're to kind Rob but yes, shooting in company is a great way to learn. I can't tell you how much TP meets helped me.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

I did not go to a university to learn to tell other people what they should think, I think people should make up there own minds, he who looks through the lens is the photographer. if you put up a photographs for criticism then I would argue it is only technique and not subject that is at question. I just have to state If an artist put it up on display then it must be good enough for him/her.

I didn't say I wanted to tell others how they should think. I'm merely saying that you can look at works with more depth than 'is is technically good'. I mean aside from anything else, there's really no such thing as 'technically good' or 'good technique' because it's all subjective and depends on the message that you're trying to convey and the image you're trying to create.

I mean take motorsports for example. There are traditional conventions that photographers try to adhere to. Many people consider a motorsports photograph to be 'good' if it shows the car clearly, usually from the side or ¾ view, has movement in the wheels and demonstrates the use of panning and a narrow aperture to blur the background. However some time ago I saw an exhibition at Silverstone of sports car images, mostly Le Mans series, which were all out of focus, blurred, had shaky light trails. They were amazing photographs but they were far from what most people would regard as having good technique. In fact I seem to recall that the person was an artist rather than a photographer and didn't really know much about photography at all. You can't even start to comment on a picture like this within the usual 'technical rules' of photography because they just don't apply. Rather you have to look at the image and see if the message being conveyed matches up to what the artist was aiming for.

Personally when I place an image on a forum or into a group of my peers for critique I'm doing so because I don't know if the image works. So for someone to say 'well you put it on public display so you must think it's good' is defeating the object. I put images on display to canvass the opinions on others when I'm not sure, not because I think it's already perfect - otherwise there would be no point in soliciting critique.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Charlotte... I think we get what you're saying; I certainly do. I've worked in this industry a long time, and I've taught at degree and masters level for a long time.... but photography is a technical endeavour... there's no escape from that. I agree that work doesn't have to be technically perfect to be good at all: Richard Bilingham's work is technically awful, but the body of work "Ray's a Laugh" is extremely engaging. I'm sure we could both sit here all day giving examples of work that is technically flawed in some way, yet superb in so many others. However, as a teacher of this subject, I have to say that you NEED to be ABLE to work in a way that is technically correct. Whether you chose to relax those standards for your own personal work, or make an aesthetic choice is up to the individual artist, but at this stage... while learning to be a PHOTOGRAPHER (the reason the vast majority are here)... there is a real need to be in full control of your tools, and as such, technical critique is every bit as valid as any other form of critique. A balanced view is required. It's for this reason I keep coming back here despite my attitude to the medium being incongruous to most attitudes on here, because I feel it's important for those learning to develop both technically, and analytically.

"You can't even start to comment on a picture like this within the usual 'technical rules' of photography because they just don't apply" Correct.. you can't... but the vast majority on here have no ambition to be an artist that just happened to use the photographic medium... they're here to learn how to be photographers.. whether professionally, or as hobbyists. They need to learn the craft skills of this medium in a way a more conceptually driven artist does not necessarily have to. What they chose to do with those skills when they find their feet as creatives is up to them... and the audience.

I agree with you however, that merely displaying a work does not mean that you as the artist assumes it is good. You display your work to engage with the audience, not to wallow in their praise. That IS a lesson most need to learn. Feedback is important to all creative people, whether working commercial photographers, or more conceptually driven artists.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

...not enough time to respond fully this morning.


On the Meets point, yes they are fabulous practice .....At least two to get yourself going because I remember my first and when we started and it was like the starting gun had gone off, everyone flew off and stared snapping immediately, tripods where out, graduated filers where going on, I just stood behind in the car park for a few seconds aghast thinking, OMG! help me, I have no idea what to do! lol

I'd always much rather receive detailed considered critique than a thousand "nice shots" in fact I almost hate "nice shot" if you think it's good, them please say why you think it's good I've recently made it a personal goal to only ever give proper critique....

I'd much rather too Mat. I've have my fair share of praising reply threads that's for sure, but im not against beginners briefly expressing themselves if it helps them gain confidence to widen their expression into useful critique in the future. I've never been a supporter against using 'nice shot' etcetera because I think its perfectly acceptable to expect both floods of 'ooh aah's' and just the occasional detailed crit, simply because the natural balance of available opinion givers is biased toward the crit beginner.

 

[Brian_of_Bozeat]

I find there are two main ways.

1. Practice.

2. Criticizing other peoples shots.

If you want to become a good photographer you need to work hard on both of those key points.

Remember, being wrong with your critic is as useful to you as being right, so who cares if your wrong to start with, because it means YOU just learnt something you wouldn't have learnt otherwise.
So do it mainly for yourself, its really not all about helping the image poster improve.

What do you think?
Discuss...

I would like to add

3. Study.

I'm in agreement with Davids post above, I believe that if you don't understand the technicalities then you are shooting in the random hope that something "turns out" instead of being in the driving seat. Critique can be helpful, but you need to review the reviewer and it is entirely up to you how much value you give to their opinion.

 

[mr bizzare]

I mean take motorsports for example. There are traditional conventions that photographers try to adhere to. Many people consider a motorsports photograph to be 'good' if it shows the car clearly, usually from the side or ¾ view, has movement in the wheels and demonstrates the use of panning and a narrow aperture to blur the background. However some time ago I saw an exhibition at Silverstone of sports car images, mostly Le Mans series, which were all out of focus, blurred, had shaky light trails. They were amazing photographs but they were far from what most people would regard as having good technique. In fact I seem to recall that the person was an artist rather than a photographer and didn't really know much about photography at all. You can't even start to comment on a picture like this within the usual 'technical rules' of photography because they just don't apply. Rather you have to look at the image and see if the message being conveyed matches up to what the artist was aiming for.

Charlotte I think this is just a drawn out way of saying you agree with my first post you disagreed with. My original statement was that if a person posts not for critique then the photographer thinks they have achieved what they set out to do even if all they set out to do was for example nail the exposure.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

Charlotte I think this is just a drawn out way of saying you agree with my first post you disagreed with. My original statement was that if a person posts not for critique then the photographer thinks they have achieved what they set out to do even if all they set out to do was for example nail the exposure.

It may have been what you thought you were saying, but it's not how your post reads!

I also disagree that if someone posts an image and doesn't seek critique the they believe they have achieved their goals. Personally I post lots of images I'm not happy with or that I don't believe achieved what I wanted them to do. It's a red herring - showing something publicly doesn't mean you're happy with it.

(Look at the numerous artists who have destroyed their own works!)

 

[mr bizzare]

It may have been what you thought you were saying, but it's not how your post reads!

I also disagree that if someone posts an image and doesn't seek critique the they believe they have achieved their goals. Personally I post lots of images I'm not happy with or that I don't believe achieved what I wanted them to do. It's a red herring - showing something publicly doesn't mean you're happy with it.

(Look at the numerous artists who have destroyed their own works!)

What can you learn by posting and image (not for critique) your not happy with? Who are you trying to mislead with your red herring? Once an artist destroys a piece of work there not happy with it they can no longer show it.

 

[riddell]

Critique is a funny thing.

As a professional, critique from other professionals either other photographers or others within the industry such as editors, stylists, repro guys etc. is very welcome and normally very inforamtive and contrustive.

Critique recieved from professional clients is also very constructive, welcome and normally means I'll need to change something about how I am shooting in order to satisfy their requirements, which of course I do.

Plain simple critique from a less professional client is normally much more basic, but again has a purpose and is generally warranted.

But then you get critique from a non-professional client who thinks they are a professional photographer or knows more about professional photography than you do, and its almost impossible to have any kind of intelligent conversation. They use all the buzzwords and phrases but have no idea why they are using them. Nightmare.

On a similar note I often see really awful photos posted on various websites by an amatuer photographer, and when I say awful, its awful. Yet often these photos will recieve loads and loads of praise from other amateur photographers. Once again they often use buzzwords, make total errors when trying to discuss or advise, yet are backed up by more amateur photographers repeating the same mistakes.

Paul.
www.photographybyriddell.co.uk

 

[The23rdman]

It's pointless. All it does is reinforce what we think we already know.

The way to become an amazing photographer is to dare to dream, to imagine the incredible, to reference the true masters and to shoot in ways we never have before.

If your photos are not telling a story and making people gasp then you have failed.

Oh, I appreciate that this seems lofty, but all that happens on forums is people learn whatever is the perceived reality of photography on forums. Everyone starts producing the work they've been instructed to produce by all the other average photographers. I do it, you do, we all do it. The best do not do it.

I guess it depends what you want from photography though.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

Critique is a funny thing.

As a professional, critique from other professionals either other photographers or others within the industry such as editors, stylists, repro guys etc. is very welcome and normally very inforamtive and contrustive.

Critique recieved from professional clients is also very constructive, welcome and normally means I'll need to change something about how I am shooting in order to satisfy their requirements, which of course I do.

Plain simple critique from a less professional client is normally much more basic, but again has a purpose and is generally warranted.

But then you get critique from a non-professional client who thinks they are a professional photographer or knows more about professional photography than you do, and its almost impossible to have any kind of intelligent conversation. They use all the buzzwords and phrases but have no idea why they are using them. Nightmare.

On a similar note I often see really awful photos posted on various websites by an amatuer photographer, and when I say awful, its awful. Yet often these photos will recieve loads and loads of praise from other amateur photographers. Once again they often use buzzwords, make total errors when trying to discuss or advise, yet are backed up by more amateur photographers repeating the same mistakes.

Paul.
www.photographybyriddell.co.uk

But this place is a mixed ability forum, inevitably that means you will get beginner and experienced replies.

Obviously critique is subjective and Its up to the image poster to decode the mixture of abilities within each reply into some sort of reality check, filtering the useful critique from the chaff depending on personal ability so to speak. It would certainly be a mistake, I feel, to dismiss the advice of someone simply because they didn't make a living from photography, In the same way that thousands of photographers can justify a claim to be professional, still doesn't mean they are any good at it.

It's pointless. All it does is reinforce what we think we already know.

The way to become an amazing photographer is to dare to dream, to imagine the incredible, to reference the true masters and to shoot in ways we never have before.

If your photos are not telling a story and making people gasp then you have failed.

Oh, I appreciate that this seems lofty, but all that happens on forums is people learn whatever is the perceived reality of photography on forums. Everyone starts producing the work they've been instructed to produce by all the other average photographers. I do it, you do, we all do it. The best do not do it.

I guess it depends what you want from photography though.

BOLD. Can't disagree with you on that one, nor the reinforcement, but then you do go on to explain how it can mean we all become average, so for the beginner you just sold the idea that critique works, because becoming average is often the first hurdle on the road right?

reading between your lines if I may Dean, are you also saying the critique isn't a good enough for where you photography's is at. ..which Id loftily agree with feeling on some aspects of my own btw.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

3: getting other people to crtique your shots and listening with an open mind to what they say

3a. Study.

Sorry, catchin up. Added hypothetically guys. ...I couldn't see an edit on the poll when you posted so..

Both good points.

 

[The23rdman]

BOLD. Can't disagree with you on that one, nor the reinforcement, but then you do go on to explain how it can mean we all become average, so for the beginner you just sold the idea that critique works, because becoming average is often the first hurdle on the road right?

reading between your lines if I may Dean, are you also saying the critique isn't a good enough for where you photography's is at. ..which Id loftily agree with feeling on some aspects of my own btw.

I guess what I am saying is that when it comes to beginners I feel it is much more useful to help them with the technicalities of exposure and to understand that light is everything and then encourage them to find their voice with photography rather than to critique based on what everyone else on the internet thinks makes a good picture. The great masters conveyed huge emotion and complexity in their storytelling with their work. I guess if your goal is just to take nice pictures of your kids then this is a cool place. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but from my perspective that kind of settling for average made me give up photography for a while.

My own work is shockingly derivative and stale and it always has been because I was asking average photographers to critique it. That's my point. The blind cannot lead the blind. The blind cannot see true mastery. I include myself in that and I hope to do work from now that comes from my heart and tells a story. of course, I'll also take cute pictures of my kids.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

Hehe, my boys grown up now so I'm off the hook for now. he just wants man shots!! ..he wares glasses so for fun his passport shots lighting I did made him look like Elvis Costello, well thought it was funny but he was a little shocked. lol
But yes I agree with you there are limits here, set more by the mass consensus than by the few who could make a difference maybe.

I've always wanted TP to embrace art more, the intend, the meaning and story telling effectiveness, but its really not an easy subject for quick discussion I be you'd agree, impossible without serious input form the poster that's for sure.

 

[The23rdman]

I disagree actually. I posted a link to a photographer who, rather expectedly for this place, received mixed reviews. You can look at any of his fine art self portraits and create an entire story from them. Great photography does not need explaining.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

Well you like them, can't say they are doing much for me, Id like to think I could do better given the time and space, certainly the attention to technical and set n background details are superb and beautifully done.
Images and stories like any artistic intent is subjective and therefore easily missed by different viewers I think. Perhaps I'm missing the point and story of those shots entirely, perhaps a discussion would open my eyes and I'd see them as being special as you do, or oppositely, you suddenly realise they aren't as cool as you though they where. Great shots do work for themselves, but surely we'll never truly know the finer details of 'what and how' if we don' explain and discuss occasionally.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

Great photography does not need explaining.

That is of course, entirely subjective and depends on the school of thought you belong to.

Japanese photographers and those that follow the Japanese tradition, for example, think nothing of publishing essays alongside their work. In the Western tradition we generally expect images to stand on their own, but that is not the case for everyone. Or even every type of photography.

 

[The23rdman]

Oh, I didn't say it should not come with an explanation, simply that it is not necessary.

 

[riddell]

>
But this place is a mixed ability forum, inevitably that means you will get beginner and experienced replies.

But this place is a mixed ability forum, inevitably that means you will get beginner and experienced replies.

Sure, but what I so often see on the internet is that someone will post a really awful photo, I mean its bad in everyway, yet LOADs of other poor photographers will critique it saying its fantastic! great photo!

Its not. Its awful.

If a clearly skilled photographer was then to buck the trend and spend the time and give a real quality constructive critique saying its rubbish, he or she will often be shouted down and called a prima dona.

This situation doesn't help anyone.

And if the person commenting and critiquing a photo can't spot really fundamental photographic errors then their coice really isn't valid.