Rude?

[RedRobin]

I'm sure that *most* people take photographs without intentionally building a body of work - those who do are surely the exception, rather than the rule, even on here.

.... I am certainly one of those people who never intentionally builds a body of work. However, one of the features of Flickr which I like very much is how it presents a page of your work like a portfolio and you can't help but then be aware of how your photography is rolling.

 

[TheBigYin]

Its easy enough, I just lock it and post ( I can post in locked threads )

ah, but so can I, and @dod, and @Marc and ....

 

[ancient_mariner]

Do they though? Increasingly over the last year or so I have been not shooting loads of stuff because I keep asking myself why? Why shoot it, if I am not going to hang it or put it in a book?

And I keep thinking that of 99% of the stuff I see online, on here and elsewhere. Most of it is simply not even décor, it’s “hey look, I managed to press the shutter button and tweak a few LR sliders”. I fully accept that I’m as guilty of that as anyone, I make the effort to go out and snap some random stuff and I want some kind of outcome for my efforts and that outcome is often to vomit whatever I have dredged out of LR all over the internet.

Anyway on that nihilistic cheery note

Is that the next stage in evolution - to become a not-photographer?

I enjoy going out & taking pictures. I especially enjoy it when I've taken a picture that I can look at and feel pleased with. I also like it when others like my images, which IS narcissic, but as long as I know it then rather than believe I'm a great togger, it just adds a little more pleasure to life.

And like Stephen, I do have some themes, but my personality isn't sufficiently focused to make them a life-work and the ultimate intention of my output.

 

[Nod]

ah, but so can I, and @dod, and @Marc and ....

… for a case of Jaffa Cakes (other chocolate/orange cake based snacks may or not be available and/or acceptable), a final post from an admin could be instantly followed by a thread ban for a (currant [sic]) mod...

 

[sirch]

Is that the next stage in evolution - to become a not-photographer?

Its a Zen thing, enlightenment is achieved when you no longer know what a camera is.

 

[West Camera]

I'm going to cut you a little slack because I think (hope) what you were getting at was that crit should be relevant to the skill level of the photographer. But for crit to be really helpful it needs to be in the context of a body of work, not just a single photo and I see that as the biggest issue, people so often just post single photo. Yes, advice and crit can be given for a single photo but it tends to be very formulaic and rules based because there is no wider context about the photographer’s motivations.

That is very good. Yes. It is something like that. But, there is much more to it.

I am very new here. Actually, I am trying to 'feel out' the place. By putting this out I am learning about the forum and the individuals here. I am learning who likes to pounce. Who follows. Who group thinks. Who thinks as an individual.

If we were having a face to face discussion sitting around in someone's living room the cadence would be different. To my remark others would have asked me what I meant, and given me a chance to explain. That did not happen here. It could have happened here. But, it did not. So to the question - what does such behavior mean, I am learning the answers.

As I go on here on TF I will accumulate more knowledge of the individuals I am associating with. I will learn which to honor and which to ignore. I will learn about who I am talking with.

At this point in time that is all that is going on here for me. I did not bring anything to this discussion. Thus I have nothing to win or loose. It is all about learning.

You are different from the crowd. You are someone I will listen to and give attention to. (This conversation is about what is Rude. Isn't it?) Good shooting.

 

[RedRobin]

Not at all, just more than one photo in a related set to see what the overall intent is. One photo, they might have just got lucky or have been having a bad day.

How do you know you admire their work? I bet it’s based on more than one photo, may be a book, exhibition or a look at their flckr.

.... Certainly I base any longstanding admiration or respect for another photographer based on more than one photo but being a 'retired-but-hardwired' professional Art Director (and Graphic Designer) I have developed a natural eye able to assess single images pretty instantly. I am not unique in this.

When someone Faves (Likes) comments on one of my photos or Follows me on Flickr I usually check out their page to see what their work is like and if I really like their photostream (portfolio) I'll Follow them.

I'm not interested in someone's photographic "intent" but only their results regarding whether something appeals to me or not emotionally. I apply this to my own work too.

Lady Luck always plays a part in wildlife and action photography for example but I don't think that good photographers 'have a bad day' - They simply delete and don't show anyone any of their photos which aren't up to their expected standard.

It's an interesting discussion even if it has meandered slightly off original topic as conversations invariably do.

 

[Ed Sutton]

...I don't think that good photographers 'have a bad day' - They simply delete and don't show anyone any of their photos which aren't up to their expected standard.

It might help, as a learning exercise for others, if people sometimes posted their 'failures' along with an explanation why they are failures. In the way that looking at contact sheets which include famous pictures is educational. Great pictures are a rarely one-offs.

 

[RedRobin]

I enjoy going out & taking pictures. I especially enjoy it when I've taken a picture that I can look at and feel pleased with. I also like it when others like my images, which IS narcissic, but as long as I know it then rather than believe I'm a great togger, it just adds a little more pleasure to life.

.... Not necessarily "narcissistic" which means or strongly implies having an excessive, even erotic, interest in oneself. I think that as photographers we are encouraged in our efforts when we see our photo receives Likes (and certainly positive comments).

In order to improve we should be self-critical and be aware of the praise of others, especially if we admire their work. But we should never be so self-critical that we beat ourselves up because then we won't make progress. Negativity breeds negativity and Positivity breeds positivity.

Realising you are a good photographer or indeed good at anything builds confidence and confidence encourages improvement. I'm going to stick my neck out and say that I am a good photographer (judge me by my Flickr page) but I don't class myself as great. I class my good friends Guy Edwardes and the late Patrick Lichfield as 'great' photographers (amongst others) and I quote their names because they are famous and therefore a meaningful reference. Btw, Patrick has shown me some of his failures but Guy never has so far.

 

[RedRobin]

It might help, as a learning exercise for others, if people sometimes posted their 'failures' along with an explanation why they are failures. In the way that looking at contact sheets which include famous pictures is educational. Great pictures are a rarely one-offs.

.... Somehow I do not see that happening unless there is also the 'great' picture alongside. It also depends on the field of photography whether indeed one captures a set of the same subject at all.

Besides, whether a photo is a failure or not should surely be glaringly obvious?

Doesn't it also depend on the criteria decided to make a judgement on? Setting criteria usually encourages too much rigidity and there is a real danger of becoming formulaic and stifling creativity.

The best way to learn is to shoot shoot shoot and shoot. Digital cameras make this easy and inexpensive. You can learn to take a good photo technically (what settings result in) but becoming at one with the camera tool you use is the way forward and that can only be done through physical practice not learning theory. All in my opinion.

 

[Gremlin]

Don't you think we are getting a bit ahead of ourselves here ?
Not every aspires to taking loads of pictures for a portfolio
I've seen some members post some really rubbish pictures on here when the first
arrive and with a little encouragement move on in leaps and bounds and they always seem grateful
for the help they have received
Whilst others just carry on posting the same rubbish enmasse to flood the forum despite any good advise given
and as per the original topic will only responds to anyone giving favourable critique
any mention of a picture not being perfect is ignored

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

A quote from a guy I knew years ago who made a very good living from his photography...

"If someone tells me they're a photographer I assume they're a windbag. If they tell me they take pictures I feel comfortable that they at least know their limitations."

 

[Nostromo]

I've seen some members post some really rubbish pictures on here when the first
arrive and with a little encouragement move on in leaps and bounds and they always seem grateful
for the help they have received

Very true and I like to think that I'm one of those. I have definitely improved and found my favourite genre, I'm not saying I'm a great photographer, but I'm happy with the direction in going in.
The feedback I've read on other people's photos (not just mine) really helps.

 

[RedRobin]

That is very good. Yes. It is something like that. But, there is much more to it.

I am very new here. Actually, I am trying to 'feel out' the place. By putting this out I am learning about the forum and the individuals here. I am learning who likes to pounce. Who follows. Who group thinks. Who thinks as an individual.

If we were having a face to face discussion sitting around in someone's living room the cadence would be different. To my remark others would have asked me what I meant, and given me a chance to explain. That did not happen here. It could have happened here. But, it did not. So to the question - what does such behavior mean, I am learning the answers.

As I go on here on TF I will accumulate more knowledge of the individuals I am associating with. I will learn which to honor and which to ignore. I will learn about who I am talking with.

At this point in time that is all that is going on here for me. I did not bring anything to this discussion. Thus I have nothing to win or loose. It is all about learning.

You are different from the crowd. You are someone I will listen to and give attention to. (This conversation is about what is Rude. Isn't it?) Good shooting.

.... Well you are certainly being very polite .

I don't know how much experience you have of internet forums but beware of 'keyboard warriors' and perhaps you might not yet be ready to face the rudeness of some blinkered members in the Hot Topics arena here on TalkPhotography when politics are discussed!

Have you posted any photos here yet?

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I don't know how much experience you have of internet forums but beware of 'keyboard warriors'

...but one man’s keyboard warrior is another woman’s knight of the keyboard!

 

[Major Eazy]

I dunno, maybe its a generation thing, people of a certain age, that finds all this rude.
I've been noticing, increasingly, across the "Board" there are a lot of people that never return to their threads, reply to comments, or thanks for the advice or even kiss my arse.
( I have a fiver on the fact that I know who will make the latter post in here )
Who knows. maybe they ( think they) are above advice, but a thanks for the comments, never hurt anyone ... did it?

They post an image or two, and then "They" move on to their next thread, waiting for the next lot of adoration / likes / approval etc from their peers,
without saying a word.
Surely the last person to post in a thread, should be the OP?

It also baffles me how many people have clocked up a decent post count and never ever posted a single image of theirs.

Its a sign of the times I guess

There could be a dozen reasons for why it happens, apart from not bothered to sign off the topic. Examples...

• Some may have passed away, died in an accident, whatever
• Some may have ended up in hospital, in a coma, or gone missing, whatever
• Some may have lost their computer (ie: repossessed) or ended up homeless
• Some may have family problems that put pressure on them to a point they haven't been able to sign off the topic
• Some may try to be the last to post and say "Thank You" but can't get the last word in because others keeps posting more postings
• The topic goes off topic so the OP gave up the topic they started
• Some may have forgotten about it, or forgotten their username and password, or other memory reasons
• A few of them may have gone to prison
• A few may have been kidnapped by aliens in UFO (just kidding)
• A few may have changed hobbies, gave up photography and got interested in something else
• Lack of time due to a stressful job, travelling to and from work, sorting out problems (ie: car problems), family and friends needing help, etc.,

And finally, as far as I know, there's no rules saying the OP have to be the last person to sign off a topic. So not everyone who did not sign off their topics are doing what you think they're doing. Just some of them do, but the rest don't as the rest have their own reasons.

 

[Cobra]

There could be a dozen reasons for why it happens, apart from not bothered to sign off the topic. Examples...

Most of those examples are totally blown out the water by one of my opening comments..

They post an image or two, and then "They" move on to their next thread, waiting for the next lot of adoration / likes / approval etc from their peers, without saying a word.

A few may have been kidnapped by aliens in UFO

That excuse is not acceptable (until September of course)

And finally, as far as I know, there's no rules saying the OP have to be the last person to sign off a topic.

In case you missed it, I've said many times I'm talking about the photo sharing forums.
Agreed there are no rules to say anyone has to say thanks, or acknowledge feedback whatsoever.
But a little politeness or common courtesy never hurt anyone or did it?

edit. OK so I'll throw another question out there, if you do something for someone and they don't at least say thanks will you do it again?
aka Do you keep commenting on images if there is no response from the OP?

 

[TheBigYin]

• Some may have passed away, died in an accident, whatever
• Some may have ended up in hospital, in a coma, or gone missing, whatever
• Some may have lost their computer (ie: repossessed) or ended up homeless
• Some may have family problems that put pressure on them to a point they haven't been able to sign off the topic
• Some may try to be the last to post and say "Thank You" but can't get the last word in because others keeps posting more postings
• The topic goes off topic so the OP gave up the topic they started
• Some may have forgotten about it, or forgotten their username and password, or other memory reasons
• A few of them may have gone to prison
• A few may have been kidnapped by aliens in UFO (just kidding)
• A few may have changed hobbies, gave up photography and got interested in something else
• Lack of time due to a stressful job, travelling to and from work, sorting out problems (ie: car problems), family and friends needing help, etc.,

you missed "the mod team may have banned the OP in the intervening period between posting the initial image, and the final post" - but then again, the fact that their user name has a line through it probably covers that eventuality... and, no, that's not quite as flippant a comment as it may seem - it happens reasonably often, as the people who are too ignorant to say thanks are often a bit of an arse in other more contentious forum areas and get the occasional holiday for their trouble.

 

[StephenM]

The reason one needs to begin with the EXIF is so that an understanding of the photographer can first be gained.

You've now explained that by this you meant it as the way to assess the skill level of the photographer. Could you explain how knowing the settings used provides this information? It isn't at all clear to me.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

It isn't at all clear to me.

Me neither. Without some explanation of the reasoning it seems like a non sequitur.

 

[Mr Badger]

I am very new here. Actually, I am trying to 'feel out' the place. By putting this out I am learning about the forum and the individuals here. I am learning who likes to pounce. Who follows. Who group thinks. Who thinks as an individual.

I wouldn't bother trying to overanalyse things on here, after being on here for a couple of years I've come to realise that someone who's opinion or attitude I've disliked in one thread can then become someone I thoroughly agree with later in another thread! Consequently, I find it's best not to try and put people in boxes, but treat them as you find them at the time.

As you say, a conversation or discussion would often be very different in real life, mainly because it's more obvious as to the manner in which something has been said. For instance "Are you going to work today?" can have a totally different meaning to "Are you going to work today?" One is a simple question, the other is more an implied accusation.

In spoken word it's fairly obvious as to how the question has been asked, but in written form on a forum it's often not as clear, so more open to misunderstandings, particularly if a previous opinion about someone has been formed; and that may have been formed on a previous misunderstanding/misjudgement.

Anyway, as for looking at the EXIF data as a first step in the crit process, you'll probably have job with a lot of my photos, as I mainly shoot film!

It might help, as a learning exercise for others, if people sometimes posted their 'failures' along with an explanation why they are failures. In the way that looking at contact sheets which include famous pictures is educational. Great pictures are a rarely one-offs.

I can see what you mean but think it will depend on the type of photography. A photo showing the slightly blurry back end of a bunny bombing off should be self explanatory. Conversely, looking at someone like Martin Parr's outtakes might be very confusing to most people, as a lot of these will rely on 'the decisive moment' to work, and what's been 'seen' by the photographer as a photo opportunity may well be completely 'unseeable' to the observer, even with some explanation.

 

[ancient_mariner]

That is very good. Yes. It is something like that. But, there is much more to it.

I am very new here. Actually, I am trying to 'feel out' the place. By putting this out I am learning about the forum and the individuals here. I am learning who likes to pounce. Who follows. Who group thinks. Who thinks as an individual.

If we were having a face to face discussion sitting around in someone's living room the cadence would be different. To my remark others would have asked me what I meant, and given me a chance to explain. That did not happen here. It could have happened here. But, it did not. So to the question - what does such behavior mean, I am learning the answers.

As I go on here on TF I will accumulate more knowledge of the individuals I am associating with. I will learn which to honor and which to ignore. I will learn about who I am talking with.

At this point in time that is all that is going on here for me. I did not bring anything to this discussion. Thus I have nothing to win or loose. It is all about learning.

You are different from the crowd. You are someone I will listen to and give attention to. (This conversation is about what is Rude. Isn't it?) Good shooting.

Background knowledge is useful, isn't it? I see you've been around since April and are of quite mature years.

If we were in a pub talking then you would be quite correct, however in the written medium one expects a degree of precision and the presentation of meaning in a way that doesn't work in conversation. So you appeared to post plainly and unambiguously in a manner that was controversial to the point of almost trolling, and those who naturally respond with heat over such things did so in the fashion you expected.

I'm not really sure what you want from TP Frank. We'll all happily talk to you and would be pleased to see your pictures, but it may not be what you expected.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Besides, whether a photo is a failure or not should surely be glaringly obvious?

I would suggest the difference between a successful picture and a near miss can be quite slender. Although I guess that depends on the viewer's critical sensibilities.

Doesn't it also depend on the criteria decided to make a judgement on? Setting criteria usually encourages too much rigidity and there is a real danger of becoming formulaic and stifling creativity.

Agreed that setting rigid formulae discourages creativity, but the criteria for judging pictures aren't necessarily rigid in the 'camera club' way.

The best way to learn is to shoot shoot shoot and shoot. Digital cameras make this easy and inexpensive. You can learn to take a good photo technically (what settings result in) but becoming at one with the camera tool you use is the way forward and that can only be done through physical practice not learning theory. All in my opinion.

Yes, the only way to improve is to take lots of pictures - once you know how to evaluate them. Unless you develop a standard to aim at you'll just repeat yourself, or copy other people who you think have attained perfection.

I've been taking photographs for over 40 years and getting them technically good still eludes me. Digital sure helps me rescue my photos from technical failure!

 

[ancient_mariner]

FWIW I'm in the group that says the exif data is only useful for troubleshooting if the image has failed technically - catalogue me as a follower if that's helpful. Take the 2 images I posted here: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...-else-welcome-mega-thread.511885/post-8491879

One shot at f1.8, the other at f4. Did I choose f1.8 to isolate the folly, or because I forgot to reset the camera from shooting indoors, or because I was shakey & trying to prevent unintentional blurring? Is the camera on 100 ISO because that's what program mode chose, because I wanted max dynamic range or because my shutter wouldn't go fast enough with a higher sensitivity? Did I even chose any of my settings or was I just working in P (for professional ) mode? Why was I shooting landscapes with an old 50mm f1.4 prime when I had a top-notch 24-105 zoom in the bag? Does exif even include information about whether the camera was in aperture priority, shutter priority, auto-ISO or manual mode?

Etc etc.

Exif might help decipher why an image failed, but in my opinion it's probably the last place to look when assessing an image. I'm not as mature as the age given in your profile, but I shot my first film in the 1960s, and in many ways still treat photography as though I were going to work in the darkroom to print my own images, and as though others have produced their pictures like that too.

As I go on here on TF I will accumulate more knowledge of the individuals I am associating with. I will learn which to honor and which to ignore. I will learn about who I am talking with.

Some specialise in being as blunt as possible online (they assure us they're lovely in the pub and never get into fights) but generally TP is a less combative ship than a couple of years back when we had 'art wars'.

 

[Harlequin565]

Exif might help decipher why an image failed

This. When teaching, and trying to answer "why...?" questions from students, knowing the exif data helps enormously. Why is it blurred? why is it noisy? Why is it distorted?

 

[TheBigYin]

This. When teaching, and trying to answer "why...?" questions from students, knowing the exif data helps enormously. Why is it blurred? why is it noisy? Why is it distorted?

Though, as Toni said in his original comment earlier in his post... "the exif data is only useful for troubleshooting if the image has failed technically " - and for me, the key word is Technically - there's just as many ways that a image can fail aesthetically or artistically (oh no now i've said the A word - cue the philistines stage right) that knowing the EXIF won't tell you a bloody thing about. The EXIF wouldn't tell the student that the image would work better if the whole shot had been staged in a mirror image layout with the main protagonist looking (say) to the right across the image, rather than to the left - or that the groups of 4 or 6 items in an abstract arrangement would be more "comfortable" to the viewer if they'd have been 3 or 5 (it's a strange one, but odd numbers are somehow less "disquieting" than even somehow...) It wouldn't even tell the student that the picture of a car would look better if there was more road space showing at the front of the car than at the rear, giving the car "room to move into".

I'll happily concede that when we're dealing with people who are new to photography, who are attempting to shoot "technical" subjects like BIF or Sports under floodlights then being able to see at a glance that they had settings that were never going to work is useful - but we're dealing there with technical fails not with the aesthetic. Take a more diametrically opposed subject, tabletop still life arrangements. What on earth would knowing the camera settings for this image tell you...

Still Life with Wine and Walnuts by The Big Yin, on Flickr

the EXIF's all there BTW, over on flickr...

well - with an exposure time of 8 seconds, it tells you that it's a composite image (try stopping the smoke and sand in the hourglass on a 8 second exposure...), and that there's more to it than meets the eye initially, and that the exif's basically not to be relied on anyway, so forget it, and look at the picture instead.

It certainly doesn't inform the viewer of the "hidden meanings" behind some of the pieces in the image...

Walnuts, the Slightly Over-Ripe and aging Fruits, The Candle Burned Low, The Eyeglasses, The Passage of the Bible that the Eyeglasses were resting on (Job: 14.1), Even the Smoke and Bert the Bluebottle...

Can't see a single reference to those in the EXIF i'm afraid, but without them, the image is meaningless.


ETA: apologies to the forum regulars who are thoroughly sick of seeing this image or similar from me - I use it as a demo piece at times because it's something I'm obviously familiar with, having taken about a week to set it up, and a month or so to source the props, after more years than I care to remember of research and reading into the original art sources... Plus, I often take the image to bits and highlight all it's faults, and it really wouldn't be nice to repeatedly do that to anyone elses images...

 

[West Camera]

You've now explained that by this you meant it as the way to assess the skill level of the photographer. Could you explain how knowing the settings used provides this information? It isn't at all clear to me.

If the shooter presents a narrow, close up shot which implies the photo was made at close range, but the EXIF indicates that he used a 300mm lens then likely his claim is false. Why would this be important, you may ask. To many it is not. Those who both do this sort of thing and those who critique it (as are here) will claim that all that counts is the photo itself. But, to those of us in the 'fraternity' of this genre of photography how the shot was done is often more important than the photo itself. This is because this particular genre of photography is often rife with fraud and misrepresentation. Strange it is that most professionals and near professionals in this genre of photography are more likely to be the ones who produce fraudulent photography. This is because they must produce. They must produce in both quantity and quality. But, even the novice soon learns that finding subject matter alone is difficult, inconsistent, and rare. However, little do the consumers of such photography understand.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

If the shooter presents a narrow, close up shot which implies the photo was made at close range, but the EXIF indicates that he used a 300mm lens then likely his claim is false.

You're confusing me even more now. There are plenty of tight close ups for which I use a long focus lens. Your example as stated doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Mr Badger]

If the shooter presents a narrow, close up shot which implies the photo was made at close range, but the EXIF indicates that he used a 300mm lens then likely his claim is false. Why would this be important, you may ask. To many it is not. Those who both do this sort of thing and those who critique it (as are here) will claim that all that counts is the photo itself. But, to those of us in the 'fraternity' of this genre of photography how the shot was done is often more important than the photo itself. This is because this particular genre of photography is often rife with fraud and misrepresentation. Strange it is that most professionals and near professionals in this genre of photography are more likely to be the ones who produce fraudulent photography. This is because them must produce. The must produce in both quantity and quality. But, even the novice soon learns that finding subject matter alone is difficult, inconsistent, and rare. However, little do the consumers of such photography understand.

So if you haven't accurately described how you took a particular photograph then it immediately ceases to become a good photograph? Not that I've ever knowing done that, I hasten to add; but there again, I wouldn't really see any point in pretending I'd used a lens of a different focal length!

 

[West Camera]

You're confusing me even more now. There are plenty of tight close ups for which I use a long focus lens. Your example as stated doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, but do you represent yourself as having shot within 10 to 15 feet of the subject? Aren't you failing to ask the right questions? Critiquing is asking the right, relevant questions and seeking their answers. Not mixing up apples and oranges.

 

[StephenM]

Sorry, but why on earth does the subject distance matter when evaluating a photograph? Are you saying that if a photographer presents any information as to how the photograph was taken, it's necessary to be able to validate their claims in order to assess their skill level - which must come before any consideration of the image? Is a liar more or less skilled than an honest man? Just asking.

 

[RedRobin]

Agreed that setting rigid formulae discourages creativity, but the criteria for judging pictures aren't necessarily rigid in the 'camera club' way.

.... I avoid camera clubs like the plague!

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Critiquing is asking the right, relevant questions and seeking their answers.

I still can't see what you're getting at so I'll leave it there.

 

[droj]

.... I avoid camera clubs like the plague!

I hope they're not spreading (like a plague) ....

Yes, but do you represent yourself as having shot within 10 to 15 feet of the subject?

How is this important as to whether an image works or not?

 

[simon ess]

This is getting very weird. Min. focus distance on my 300mm lens is about 4 1/2 ft.

Not that I remotely care about exif data, as might be guessed from my signature.

 

[StephenM]

I think I'll bow out of trying to understand Frank's point as well - at least, by asking for elucidation. Every subsequent explanation just seems to muddy the waters even more, so I'll just observe.

 

[mrtoad]

Generally, I have found that few who offer critique truly are skilled in such endeavors. Most who attempt it have little understanding of what they are doing. For example, most critiques begin with the photograph. Actually, skilled critiques begin with the EXIF. The reason one needs to begin with the EXIF is so that an understanding of the photographer can first be gained. Too often a critique operates from the perspective of the experience and capability of the person doing the critiquing. For example, in the extreme, the critique takes the position that if the photographer used a Nikon D850 and was a master of GIMP or PS he should have done this or that. And, to some degree the person critiquing may be just that. But, if the photographer uses a point and shoot, and edits with a simple online editor then the critique becomes more a criticism of him/her rather than a critique of the photograph. Thus in most cases I have found that critiques are often more unintended criticism than critique.

i dont agree
my critiques are usually based on CC
crop and clone...first steps to improve the most important aspect...composition
then some comments relative to balance of exposure...usually i look for areas which would benefit from some dodging or burning...the black and white master printers used these to enhance and promote messages in the shot
all my shots here were taken on p.o.s....which means you may have taken a shot by pointing and shooting and letting your equipment decide certain factors for you...
simple editing is just that....the best shot...no editing...nest pas?
critique will only stick if comparisons are made...ie... put ones actual edited version for scrutiny so the receiver of the critique can assess then if the critique is mere criticism
but i may have misinterpreted your balance of equipment/processing/critique(ism) etc as not being related to equipment and processing only but the basics which apply to any image however taken...
cheers
geof

 

[mrtoad]

What utter utter utter nonsense.
A photograph stands and falls on its own merit, not on the gear used or ‘settings’.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s taken by a teenager on an iPhone, a student on an entry level dslr and kit lens or a Hasselblad.

said it very well...bravo!!

 

[myotis]

But, to those of us in the 'fraternity' of this genre of photography how the shot was done is often more important than the photo itself. This is because this particular genre of photography is often rife with fraud and misrepresentation. Strange it is that most professionals and near professionals in this genre of photography are more likely to be the ones who produce fraudulent photography. This is because they must produce.

Is their something fundamental being missed here. I may have just missed a post, but what "particular genre" are you talking about? What fraud and misrepresentation do you mean.

The only thing I can think of, that seems to match some of the points you are making, might be documentary photography, where, if it wasn't that the exif is easily edited, the exif "might" help you decide the authenticity of an image.

But still not sure how this helps you critique its content.

I suspect you might need to take a step back and better explain where you are coming from. If I have just missed an earlier post, then I apologise, but like others, I am struggling to follow the point you are making.

 

[TheBigYin]

If the shooter presents a narrow, close up shot which implies the photo was made at close range, but the EXIF indicates that he used a 300mm lens then likely his claim is false. Why would this be important, you may ask. To many it is not. Those who both do this sort of thing and those who critique it (as are here) will claim that all that counts is the photo itself. But, to those of us in the 'fraternity' of this genre of photography how the shot was done is often more important than the photo itself. This is because this particular genre of photography is often rife with fraud and misrepresentation.

Perhaps you could explain what Genre of Photography you're fraternising with - off the top of my head I can think of a couple of examples - say a wildlife photographer mis-representing a close shot as a brilliant example of his fieldcraft, when it's actually been shot from 100 yards away rather than 20 yards - or, say, someone doing "street" shooting but rather than being "in the thick of things" just "sniping" from a distance - I'm aware some people get bent out of shape about that perceived "breach of the rules" but equally others don't.

I just can't quite see that "how the shot was done" can possibly be "more important than the photo itself" unless we're in the realms of obscure photo forensics.


As you've probably worked out, I'm firmly in the "only thing that matters is that the image says what I want it to say" camp. And, to be honest, over a few decades of shooting film, and another one and a bit on digital I've honestly never been asked what kit I used to take a photo by a single client - the only time I was asked anything technical of that nature was by a graphics designer who was using a commissioned shot by me as a background, and he wanted to take the shots of the people to be pasted into it using a similar focal length to try and ensure that things "matched" perspective wise...