Constructive Criticism

[custodian]

As a comaperitively new member on here, it seems to me that we are not doing a great service for members who post their pictures by being too nice. I certainly think criticism should be constructive, not destructive, but too often we seem to praise pics which are obvious snapshots rather than pics of merit.

Am I just being old and Victor Meldrewish?

Its just that I don't think we are actually helping new picturetakers improve if we don't apply reasonable critique.

 

[swag72]

Couldn't agree more - There's a couple of threads that are along a similar line.

Why there's not much C&C
How to give crit

These will give you a little bedtime reading as well as some of the issues that TP seems to be up against when this subject is raised.

 

[lexie]

i agree david, i have no problem in accepting someone else's views on work that i have posted. i'm new to photography compared to a lot of people and a lot of the time i cock things up, sometimes i get what i consider to be a decent shot and very occaisionally i get one i really like.

if i post some of the ones on here which i personally am happy with i'm looking to see if others agree (i know photography as an artform is very subjective, but it's nice if others agree with MY definition of nice) but also for ideas on how it can be better composed or any editing which might benefit the end result.

so long as it's not just "that's ******, i don't like it!" i'm happy to accept any criticism. if you don't like it say why, the original poster will at least then have something to work with.

some people can't take criticism well, others can't give it without coming across as condiscending or agressive. but that's what you have to deal with in real life as well, it's just on the internet because it's faceless to an extent some people take it too far at times.

(after reading that back you better call me victor meldrew too lol)

 

[coldpenguin]

Perhaps one of the reasons for so many 'pictures' looking like snapshots, is some of the photography programs on at the moment, which all seem to praise a 'reportage' or 'candid' style of photography?
Perhaps it is just me, but I accidentaly caught three different programs last week, and they all seemed to be saying that 'reportage' (snapping away at anything that was moving) was the best thing since sliced bread.

 

[billyboynikon]

this has been said a number of times now, but i think there is some truth in the saying "i not experienced enough to give c+c", now a lot of people have shot this down in flames, saying its no excuse etc, etc, i beg to differ. I have 30 odd posts, i have had my camera for 2 weeks, i have fired shots off of nothing, i have no idea yet of using software to enhance, change or whatever my pics, i for one would feel inferior to someone who has 5,000 posts, umpteen pics on a flickr account, won TP comps, been published, etc, etc.
Why would someone like that listen to "nooby" like me, How many of these folks would think " WHAT does he know?, he has no idea how to take pics, i've been doing this 10 years and taken more pics than he's had hot dinners", its a shallow view but i bet i am right. Although i doubt many would own up to thinking like this.
I have tried to give crit on a couple of shots, only though i may add how i interpret the shot, how i see it, what i may have tried, but by no means telling the OP or suggesting what to change, and you know why, I HAVE NOT ENOUGH EXPERIENCE TO DO THIS, whether it may be down to my nature, in the way i have respect for these people, because they have been "at it" a lot longer than me.
All i have to do is keep at this fascinating hobby with all the spare time i have, then one day when i have 5,000 posts, i have been published, i can warrant spending £3,000 on a lens, i can turn round and say, "very nice shot but could you have shot it this way, done this and done that", anyway keep shooting people and just enjoy!!!!.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

I totally get where you coming from BBN, I can't argue with you about how you feel.

But just to take the edge of it If I can try...

I promise most of the experienced photographers on here still welcome any opinion from any person ... photography as all about pleasing the viewer and out in the real world most viewers have little idea about the process to get their, so most experienced photographers rate there opinion as valid as any other, possibly more so sometimes.

There are cool side effects of giving basic critique too ..... it gets you known as helpful, makes you friends here on TP and most importantly, just the application of thought on how to critique will aid your own photography immensely.

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

As a comaperitively new member on here, it seems to me that we are not doing a great service for members who post their pictures by being too nice. I certainly think criticism should be constructive, not destructive, but too often we seem to praise pics which are obvious snapshots rather than pics of merit.

Am I just being old and Victor Meldrewish?

Its just that I don't think we are actually helping new picturetakers improve if we don't apply reasonable critique.

Completely agree and its one of the reasons i tend not to bother commenting on threads, you look at images that are poorly framed, out of focus , cluttered and noisy then precede to read 10 comments like excellent shot , good shot sharper than a sharp thing etc , etc unfortunately theres a lot of crap posted on TP now and those type of comments just don't help anyone.

 

[SarahLee]

Adam,

I agree with all of your post - but just to pick up on one particular point.

. . . and most importantly, just the application of thought on how to critique will aid your own photography immensely.

That is so true and often completely overlooked.

I've found that by studying other people's shots and asking myself what do I like or not like, I've become far more critical of my own work. It's been a HUGE help in improving my photography - almost as much as getting critique from others on here.

 

[CaptainPenguin]

As a comaperitively new member on here, it seems to me that we are not doing a great service for members who post their pictures by being too nice. I certainly think criticism should be constructive, not destructive, but too often we seem to praise pics which are obvious snapshots rather than pics of merit.

Am I just being old and Victor Meldrewish?

Its just that I don't think we are actually helping new picturetakers improve if we don't apply reasonable critique.

Totally with you and its not just on here I have seen shots that have obvious major and minor faults that are called fantastic brilliant etc,the only way we can improve is when we recognise out faults and I for one want constructive criticism of my shots

 

[custodian]

I don't have a problem with candid or reportage type shots. Some of the shots that I'm most proud of fall into that category; but at least were achieving either a story; a mood; or maybe a social comment. However I really struggle with threads such as: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=246823 where we have snaps of an exotic car. No problem with that kind of shot going into the fun category where no comment is expected but posting in a critique section??

I know I'm raising a problem and not providing a solution but unless we tackle the problem, serious photographers who have something to offer others in helping improve their technique, will just stop bothering.

 

[coldpenguin]

this has been said a number of times now, but i think there is some truth in the saying "i not experienced enough to give c+c", now a lot of people have shot this down in flames, saying its no excuse etc, etc, i beg to differ. I have 30 odd posts, i have had my camera for 2 weeks, i have fired shots off of nothing,
....
Why would someone like that listen to "nooby" like me, How many of these folks would think " WHAT does he know?, he has no idea how to take pics, i've been doing this 10 years and taken more pics than he's had hot dinners",
....
I have tried to give crit on a couple of shots, only though i may add how i interpret the shot, how i see it,
....

But you have been alive for what, 20 years? That gives you the experience to state what you like, and possibly more importantly what areas of a picture you do not like. Assuming that you are not blind, you have been looking at things for quite some time. That is an invaluable experience, being able to say whether an image looks 'right' to you. Don't know who said it, but there is a famous quote, "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like".

If you state what you like/dislike about a finished image, without prejudice about how the image was created, because after-all, the image is the reproduction of the pixels/molecules to produce light, not the method of how it was done, then anyone who claims that you do not have experience, and thus your view is unentitled, is being short-sighted.

what i may have tried, but by no means telling the OP or suggesting what to change, and you know why, I HAVE NOT ENOUGH EXPERIENCE TO DO THIS, whether it may be down to my nature, in the way i have respect for these people, because they have been "at it" a lot longer than me.

This is the only semi-valid point I think. If you do not feel that you have taken enough pictures, to be able to say technically how you think a shot should be re-taken to be improved, then that is your choice. Technique on processing and taking a shot is something that comes down to having done it more than once (otherwise it is a lucky first-time guess).

I think that everyone on here who is capable of seeing an image, is allowed to have their view on whether they like an image.
No matter how many shots someone might have taken in the past, or how 'respected' they may be in their field, you have the right not to like their image.
How you express that right is down to the individual, it needs to be polite. Personally, I say that an image does nothing for me. I tend to not leave critique on images which I find a mediocre to me, and that others have already commented on, /when I cannot clarify why it does nothing for me/. If I like part of an image, but do not like another part, then I try to say why. It doesn't matter how many times that person has done it before, if you can say why you don't like something, so long as it is in the 95% percentile of views, then by taking it on board the original poster can perhaps remove that from their next shot, and have more people like it overall.

 

[coldpenguin]

I don't have a problem with candid or reportage type shots
....
However I really struggle with threads such as: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=246823 where we have snaps of an exotic car. No problem with that kind of shot going into the fun category where no comment is expected but posting in a critique section??

I think, reading through that thread, that the original poster should have perhaps posted in the post processing section, with a title of, "What can I do with these shots"
To quote:

my main problem is seeing the potential in the shot. Feedback like this is useful for me.

However, in the post-processing lounge, I think there is less traffic/people visiting.

 

[DemiLion]

There are basically two aspects of a photographic critique. You may not have the skills for one, but you certainly have them for the other.

The first is a technical crit, whereby you are assessing the clarity, focus, DoF, exposure, PP etc etc of a shot. That can take experience to know what you are looking at, and as to what can be achieved.

The second, that everyone can provide, is an artistic critique. Here you are looking at the overall impression of an image; the composition, use of light and colour, subject matter, and overall affect that the photograph has on you as a viewer.

To take things away from photography, I'm not a great artist (an understatement) either technically or artistically, but I can tell you exactly why I prefer a Caravaggio painting to a Rembrandt, or a Bernini sculpture to a Michelangelo. I can even find something good to say about a Jackson Pollock!

Being able to critique something well is as much of a skill as producing the image in the first place, and as Adam and Sarah have rightly pointed out, if you learn how to look at a work and 'see' you can apply the same skills to your own photography.

 

[billyboynikon]

But you have been alive for what, 20 years? That gives you the experience to state what you like, and possibly more importantly what areas of a picture you do not like. Assuming that you are not blind, you have been looking at things for quite some time. That is an invaluable experience, being able to say whether an image looks 'right' to you. Don't know who said it, but there is a famous quote, "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like".

If you state what you like/dislike about a finished image, without prejudice about how the image was created, because after-all, the image is the reproduction of the pixels/molecules to produce light, not the method of how it was done, then anyone who claims that you do not have experience, and thus your view is unentitled, is being short-sighted.



This is the only semi-valid point I think. If you do not feel that you have taken enough pictures, to be able to say technically how you think a shot should be re-taken to be improved, then that is your choice. Technique on processing and taking a shot is something that comes down to having done it more than once (otherwise it is a lucky first-time guess).

I think that everyone on here who is capable of seeing an image, is allowed to have their view on whether they like an image.
No matter how many shots someone might have taken in the past, or how 'respected' they may be in their field, you have the right not to like their image.
How you express that right is down to the individual, it needs to be polite. Personally, I say that an image does nothing for me. I tend to not leave critique on images which I find a mediocre to me, and that others have already commented on, /when I cannot clarify why it does nothing for me/. If I like part of an image, but do not like another part, then I try to say why. It doesn't matter how many times that person has done it before, if you can say why you don't like something, so long as it is in the 95% percentile of views, then by taking it on board the original poster can perhaps remove that from their next shot, and have more people like it overall.

penguin, you are absolutley right, the only way i can explain it, is by saying if the pic is pleasing to the eye, then great in the end thats what we are all out to capture. If i can give comments on a pic i will but at the same time i will be very conservative in what i say. I have commented once or twice by saying things like, nice colours, sharp etc, but i dont comment on the technical side because i dont know myself what i am doing on that side of things, and i think that is where a lot of folk like me refrain from doing so because i myself do not have the technical ability yet.