Critique. Giving / receiving

[PaulButler]

This has been on my mind for a while so please indulge me for a while ...

For the last three months or so I have decided to concentrate on portraiture, initially studio based but that will change when the weather improves! I think all of the images I have put up for critique has received some, in some cases not a huge amount, others a reasonable amount and in one case quite a lot.

I haven't agreed with some of it, some of it I could see the point they were trying to make and in some cases the critique was on the money. And it should go without saying, but this is of course MY opinion. One or two bits of critique have in my view been totally off the mark and just plain wrong again as far as I am concerned. I have no doubt that the critiques given were meant in the best way too so I don't mean this as in anyway a whinge. I hope that my responses were always appreciative too.

I was quite apprehensive at first and still am to some degree, and the daft thing is I don't really know why either. I guess because this is something that natters to me. What I have realised through receiving critique is to think about what I do more critically, to consider and where I feel it is valid to take on board the critique. It has helped massively in me being able to identify areas where I am weak as well as strongish. It has also helped me to realise the type of things that appeal to me, not yet a style, I have a long way to go before I could even think of something like that.

It is nice, reassuring and if I'm being honest with myself, gives the ego a little massage when people like what I do. But without wanting to sound arrogant I make images for me (I'll accept selfish though). I believe that I have and am making progress, and quickly. That in large part is down to the critique I have received here, even those bits I didn't kike and didn't agree with. It all helps me to think critically about the work I do, why I do it and what I'm trying to achieve with it.

Those giving the critique have varied in their abilities and genres they mainly shoot in. But that has in many ways improved the quality or value of the critique to me. In other words it all valid. And the reality is everyone can offer critique. It doesn't have to be detailed or use any special language either. Just saying why you hate it or like it or what you like/dislike about it is useful and therefore valuable. Saying how the image makes you feel is also useful. Whilst its nice people like the image, it is nicer if they say why

I also think that those wanting critique can help people that will give critique by saying a little about the image. What their intentions were and for example if using some form of lighting (studio flash / speedlight / continuous / natural etc) what the setup was. This would all help in getting critique hopefully more targeted and focussed on helping you achieve what you were after and therefore improve.

Also, and surprisingly to me, I have learned a lot from giving critique. Thinking logically about it, it shouldn't have surprised me either. By giving critique it is making you think about image in front of you. Hopefully critically, and also hopefully sometimes with emotion.

To repeat, EVERYONE can give critique. Sadly I have seen some instances of people not taking critique too well, and some of these people set themselves up as experts in some cases. Making excuses and in some cases being possibly a little rude about it, definitely arrogant about too in some cases. My message to them is to take the critique as it is intended which in the vast amount of cases is well intentioned. And yes some folk obsess far too much about the technical and formulaic aspects of the given genre. So what? It should still be valid, even if it only makes you think about it and ultimately dismiss it in your own mind. It isn't, or shouldn't be, personal.

I have also seen some critique given in what can only be described as an extremely harsh way, again bordering on rude/unpleasant. Sometimes the valuable message in the critique is lost in the way it is delivered, and that is criminal. Basic courtesy costs nothing nor does a little humility.

To those that already offer critique please, please keep doing it, I cannot stress enough how much it can help people grow and improve. It has me. To those that perhaps feel they aren't qualified or good enough or experienced enough to give critique I simply say hogwash, of course you are! Please offer critique, you never now you may enjoy it and in the process develop in yourself too. I know I did.

To repeat, EVERYONE can and in my opinion, should give critique. It really can help people grow. My plea to all is please, please, offer critique.

I know this is a long post, and if you got this far thank you.

 

[sk66]

One of the most important things one can learn is to evaluate an image impartially... which is another way of saying "critiquing an image." And that is learned by both giving and receiving critiques.

And as you said, all opinions are valid. Some may be better informed than others, but that doesn't invalidate any of them.

 

[Fuji Dave]

That is some post, but also very good too. I can agree with some critiques and it is good to take on board too, on others I say thanks but do not agree and I am always willing to listen and learn. Thanks for posting this too

 

[Fordsabroad]

Paul
A very well articulated post and spot on. Not all critique is sound but it is for the recipient to take what they want from each response. Personally I am very happy to accept critique but find it much more useful if the author offers a way of rectifying the faults and some are better than others at that. I note that SK66 was quick to reply and I find that his posts are always helpful, he offered very good advice to me when I shot some motor sports pictures that I was unhappy with. Posting pictures for critique is probably one of the quickest ways to learn, it can cut years off the learning process - and at my age that is essential!

 

[stryvya]

But at the end of the day, it`s your Photo, presented your way and if you like it then so be it.

 

[PaulButler]

But at the end of the day, it`s your Photo, presented your way and if you like it then so be it.

Well ... in that case don't present it for critique.

 

[juggler]

I've learned just as much by giving critique as receiving it - but it's rare to get really good critique beyond the technical stuff. I think it helps to being with a discussion of what I like & dislike about one of my own images.

 

[Alastair]

You will generally get better critique if you start out by introducing your image(s) with a commentary in your own words about what you wanted to achieve and how you feel the images work against that intention. It's dispiriting when you give a critique and the response is along the lines of, "Well you're wrong as that wasn't my intention", when the intention was unclear/ambiguous. This is particularly true when venturing beyond just technical observations.

 

[Phil V]

Photography is dominated by 'technique', even when photos touch us deeply, we tend to analyse the technical aspects in order to learn from them.

Technical points are easy for us to write about, vocalise, learn and recreate.

But the 'art' even has true exponents struggling to vocalise, and often people who appreciate it, find it easier to dismiss it than explore it.

Consequently, people trying to critique photos often concentrate on technical issues, whether that's sharpness or composition.

I think the most important thing for critique and the part that's often missed, is the photographer telling us something of what they were trying to achieve. That adds an element of objectivity to the aesthetic discussion.

Took me so long to write, cross posted with @Alastair

 

[PaulButler]

You will generally get better critique if you start out by introducing your image(s) with a commentary in your own words about what you wanted to achieve and how you feel the images work against that intention. It's dispiriting when you give a critique and the response is along the lines of, "Well you're wrong as that wasn't my intention", when the intention was unclear/ambiguous. This is particularly true when venturing beyond just technical observations.

Indeed, which is why I said

I also think that those wanting critique can help people that will give critique by saying a little about the image. What their intentions were and for example if using some form of lighting (studio flash / speedlight / continuous / natural etc) what the setup was. This would all help in getting critique hopefully more targeted and focussed on helping you achieve what you were after and therefore improve.

 

[juggler]

Photography is dominated by 'technique', even when photos touch us deeply, we tend to analyse the technical aspects in order to learn from them.

Technical points are easy for us to write about, vocalise, learn and recreate.

But the 'art' even has true exponents struggling to vocalise, and often people who appreciate it, find it easier to dismiss it than explore it.

Consequently, people trying to critique photos often concentrate on technical issues, whether that's sharpness or composition.

I think the most important thing for critique and the part that's often missed, is the photographer telling us something of what they were trying to achieve. That adds an element of objectivity to the aesthetic discussion.

Took me so long to write, cross posted with @Alastair

And you've both put it better than I could. I get my best - and most damning - critique from my wife, who knows a bit about photography but doesn't really care 2 hoots beyond what is in the frame.

 

[PaulButler]

Photography is dominated by 'technique', even when photos touch us deeply, we tend to analyse the technical aspects in order to learn from them.

Technical points are easy for us to write about, vocalise, learn and recreate.

But the 'art' even has true exponents struggling to vocalise, and often people who appreciate it, find it easier to dismiss it than explore it.

Consequently, people trying to critique photos often concentrate on technical issues, whether that's sharpness or composition.

I think the most important thing for critique and the part that's often missed, is the photographer telling us something of what they were trying to achieve. That adds an element of objectivity to the aesthetic discussion.

Took me so long to write, cross posted with @Alastair

I think the 'art' aspect is extremely hard to vocalise. There is a whole vocabulary that I am unfamiliar with.

 

[Alastair]

Something I think I've said before on the subject, a general interest photography forum with an audience of 57,000+ members is probably not the best place to look if you've set yourself the goal of either improving your photography through constructive critique or of improving your critiquing skills. I've participated in groups where this was the aim in the past, and in general it works when the active audience is no more than about 50 people and those not interested are excluded (important because nothing derails critique faster than a cynic).

The most successful group I was in invited monthly submissions of images for critique which were narrowed down to three images and everybody critiqued the same three images - those that submitted the images had the benefit of the critique, and everyone saw the approach of everyone else as to how they gave critique. What was interesting was that the third phase, discussion of the critique, generated as much (and frequently more) interest than discussion of the images - with a strong emphasis on approaches to the non-technical aspects.

Forums don't really have the mechanism for managing critique-pods (to use a fashionable term), it's better suited to Flickr/Facebook where small groups can be set-up on the fly. If anyone's interested, shout out. I'm sure such a group could report back to the forum.

 

[juggler]

Forums don't really have the mechanism for managing critique-pods (to use a fashionable term), it's better suited to Flickr/Facebook where small groups can be set-up on the fly. If anyone's interested, shout out. I'm sure such a group could report back to the forum.

Definitely interested. I was going to set up a facebook group myself but realised I don't have the time to run one.

 

[PaulButler]

If anyone's interested, shout out. I'm sure such a group could report back to the forum.

I'm Interested in this Alastair,

 

[Nick Owen]

As has been said many times, (but always worth repeating) everyone's entitled to an opinion, just not all opinions are valid. I endorse wholeheartedly Alastair's view that specialised groups are the only way for serious critique. Having taught at degree level photography, I know how hard it is to give a crit, and perhaps more importantly, how tough it is to receive it. For one thing, you cannot criticise the work of a beginner in the same way you do an experienced tog. And on the net, it's hard to identify the competence level of a submitter without due diligence and research. As is the reverse, of course. So establish a level playing field and only then let play begin.

 

[sk66]

I think "the art" aspect is much harder to critique because it is so much more just opinion/feeling, and the reasons for it can be subliminal. I'll often find myself saying something like "it's not quite working for me and I think it's probably because..." And what I think is causing my issue might not be the real issue at all.

 

[TheBigYin]

First of all, I think you're original post was a cracker and I agree with pretty much everything said... there's one bit though that made me sit and think a little...

One or two bits of critique have in my view been totally off the mark and just plain wrong again as far as I am concerned. I have no doubt that the critiques given were meant in the best way too so I don't mean this as in anyway a whinge. I hope that my responses were always appreciative too.

To be honest, providing those occasions weren't purely "technical crit" (like saying you've under-exposed when you were shooting for a more understated look) but instead were occasions when the person giving crit had just "seen something else entirely" in the shot from what you were attempting to portray - those kind of critiques CAN occasionally be the most valuable critique you'd get... Because, when you make an image, and put it out there for people to see - generally - it goes without explanation, without a "blurb", without "an introductory paragraph". SO, the general public see the image, and, while you can GUIDE them towards thinking in the manner you'd wished, Sometimes they'll just go off on their own reading of an image - and they'll write their own story of what the image portrays. IF you can get the person who's "gone off piste" in this manner to explain WHY they see the image like this, and take it onboard - then you can either "fine tune out" those aspects in future shots - or - perhaps it can even take you "further down the rabbit hole" and into another exploration altogether.

The best critique is a 2 way street - you learn from the persons reading of the shot - and you pass on why you produced the image how you did, and what your aims were...

 

[PaulButler]

First of all, I think you're original post was a cracker and I agree with pretty much everything said... there's one bit though that made me sit and think a little...



To be honest, providing those occasions weren't purely "technical crit" (like saying you've under-exposed when you were shooting for a more understated look) but instead were occasions when the person giving crit had just "seen something else entirely" in the shot from what you were attempting to portray - those kind of critiques CAN occasionally be the most valuable critique you'd get... Because, when you make an image, and put it out there for people to see - generally - it goes without explanation, without a "blurb", without "an introductory paragraph". SO, the general public see the image, and, while you can GUIDE them towards thinking in the manner you'd wished, Sometimes they'll just go off on their own reading of an image - and they'll write their own story of what the image portrays. IF you can get the person who's "gone off piste" in this manner to explain WHY they see the image like this, and take it onboard - then you can either "fine tune out" those aspects in future shots - or - perhaps it can even take you "further down the rabbit hole" and into another exploration altogether.

The best critique is a 2 way street - you learn from the persons reading of the shot - and you pass on why you produced the image how you did, and what your aims were...

Mark, thanks for taking the time to read and reply, much appreciated. Without giving the examples here as at it may only lead to a bun fight, the crit I'm referring to was technical in one case and in the other case not about the message or artistic intent.

 

[sirch]

One thing I think really helps when considering comments made by others is a link to the commenter's work (flickr, 500px, etc.), that way you can compare styles and see where someone is coming from.

I think you are correct though, anyone can and ought to attempt to comment on work put up for crit. You also mention that some of your images have not received a huge amount of comment, I have posted images on here that have had well over a hundred views and not a single comment, I always assume that it is because the images do not generate any real feeling, good or bad, for the viewers. I know that I do this too, I regularly look at several of the photo topics on here but only comment on a fraction of the images I view because I really don't have anything to say about most of them, what does one say about another Bamburgh Castle photo?

 

[TheBigYin]

Mark, thanks for taking the time to read and reply, much appreciated. Without giving the examples here as at it may only lead to a bun fight, the crit I'm referring to was technical in one case and in the other case not about the message or artistic intent.

ah, that's fair enough - sometimes people just want to see things how they want to see them - sometimes "the correct exposure" isn't "the right exposure" - same with the directionality or quality of the light. Technically correct isn't always what we want, sometimes (to steal a musical phrasing) we just want a different vibe to express our intent.

 

[juggler]

One thing I think really helps when considering comments made by others is a link to the commenter's work (flickr, 500px, etc.), that way you can compare styles and see where someone is coming from.

I think this is an important point. (Nearly) all critique is welcome, but I do tend to weight it towards what I know of the critic's own work.

 

[TheBigYin]

what does one say about another Bamburgh Castle photo?

Sometimes, the best you CAN say is "you've showed plenty of patience waiting for that light..." - but yes - with some shots they've become cliche's... Bamburgh Castle, Durdle Door, "that tree" near Buttermere, that Boathouse in the Lakes and a whole host of other shots - after a while browsing Flickr etc. you can almost imagine that there's three holes in the grass / sand permanently there, with an endless queue of photographers waiting their turn.

I can understand wanting to have your own version of these shots - it marks when you were there, and the light you experienced, but you're not going to be "furthering the art" of photography by making your image... and you should probably expect any critique to reflect that - i.e. it pretty much has to be centred on technique, because someone else, years ago, made the aesthetic judgements and inspired the thousands of "me too's"

 

[PaulButler]

One thing I think really helps when considering comments made by others is a link to the commenter's work (flickr, 500px, etc.), that way you can compare styles and see where someone is coming from.

I think that can be a bit of a double edged sword, I have some right old tosh on my flickr for example but then when you do click through and see someone's work that makes you go wow it can lend a certain gravitas to their replies. Whether that is correct/right or not I'm not sure (decisive being my middle name).

I think you are correct though, anyone can and ought to attempt to comment on work put up for crit. You also mention that some of your images have not received a huge amount of comment, I have posted images on here that have had well over a hundred views and not a single comment, I always assume that it is because the images do not generate any real feeling, good or bad, for the viewers. I know that I do this too, I regularly look at several of the photo topics on here but only comment on a fraction of the images I view because I really don't have anything to say about most of them, what does one say about another Bamburgh Castle photo?

Yep, it would be nice to think that the image is so good that it is just impossible to improve it, but the reality for me at least is that just isn't so! Of course the converse could apply where it is so bad that no amount of crit will help - tbh I may be nearer the latter rather than the former!

I will often look at an image then go away and come back later to critique it. It gives me time to consider and digest what I want to try and communicate. In other cases, I see an image which isn't overly engaging and there are two or three replies covering all I would say, so rightly or wrongly I pass on those.

The viewer doesn't have the benefit of the emotional attachment that some place on their images. I have some which are poor in many ways but will always stay with me, simply due to the memory they invoke.

fwiw I've yet to get an image of Bamburgh Castle (and Durdle Door to name another) that I want to keep - never quite got the light I want when there.

 

[sirch]

I think that can be a bit of a double edged sword, I have some right old tosh on my flickr for example but then when you do click through and see someone's work that makes you go wow it can lend a certain gravitas to their replies. Whether that is correct/right or not I'm not sure (decisive being my middle name).

Me too so I use 500px for what laughingly might be called a portfolio and flickr as a dumping ground