I say 95% give emotional critique

01/08/2006 08:07:27 AM · #1

Have you think of what kind of critique you give " emotional reason or professional reason " did you know ugly picture can be the best one ?

Ice

ShutterPug

Canon EOS-6D

Sony FE 3.5-5.6/28-70 mm OSS

01/08/2006 08:08:38 AM · #2

JunieMoon

Sony Alpha a7 II

01/08/2006 08:34:50 AM · #3

When I crtique I ordinarliy go based on technical presentation. As a matter of fact, emotion plays no role in my voting at all. If it is emotional, but the image has technical or phtoo problems, I score low. The truth is that even when I take photos, emotion has noting to do with it. Apparently that is my problem. I've been told that the interest factor is not there and that generally nobody gets anything from what I take pictures of. They also say that technically I don't seem to have a lot of issues, so it seems that people vote on what they loke above all, meaning emotional.

cloudsme

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM

01/08/2006 08:44:10 AM · #4

Why have art if it doesn't elicit any feelings?

bcoble

Olympus E-300 EVOLT

Olympus 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 Zuiko Digital ED

01/08/2006 08:57:33 AM · #5

June, I think content is the first thing that most people look at. A well taken image of a weed may not get as much attention as a fair image of a flower. What is and is not appealing to the observer usually is what draws positive results. Besides, what really counts is what you like! This site helps you improve on taking pictures of what you like and that is all that counts.

01/08/2006 09:37:01 AM · #6

Critique is really challenging and good to discuss how we do it, I think there is no perfect description how to do it !
still I say 80-95% give only emotional critique

Message edited by author 2006-01-08 09:46:14.

paddles

Pentax K10D

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

01/08/2006 10:09:44 AM · #7

Originally posted by ladymonarda:

When I crtique I ordinarliy go based on technical presentation ... The truth is that even when I take photos, emotion has noting to do with it. Apparently that is my problem. I've been told that the interest factor is not there and that generally nobody gets anything from what I take pictures of ... it seems that people vote on what they loke above all, meaning emotional.

I remember a time when this was true of me, too. If you are enjoying your quest for technical perfection and others' enjoyment (or lack thereof) of your images doesn't really matter much to you, then that's ok - and those here and elsewhere whose technical skills are less well developed will benefit from your guidance.

If, on the other hand, you want to bring more emotion into your photos, there are ways that you might be able to explore it - although it will take time because you are unlearning deeply-grained habits and styles. A couple of ideas that might help:

One approach is to go out one day with the goal of shooting a large number of images that will NOT be technically up to scratch. Aim to take as many photos as you can in a reasonably short space of time. Try not to think too much about your photos. See something, take it. Allow yourself no more than three seconds to compose and shoot a shot (this includes framing, zooming, focusing, aperture/shutter selection) - and when you've reached that three second mark, TAKE THE PHOTO, even if/though you don't feel ready, even if you are convinced it will be a dud photo. (This might mean ensuring your camera is set up to allow the photo to be taken even if focus lock hasn't been achieved, if you are using auto-focus.) Shoot lots. Don't review your results or delete anything, don't make a second attempt of the photo, just walk on and shoot something else. If you're a wine drinker, then having a glass of red before you go out can help.

When you come back, look through your photos - all of them, even the horrible duds (and there will be some, that's ok). See if there are any that reach out and grab you, even though they might seem technically flawed. Show them to one of your technically-weak but emotionally-strong friends and see if they pick out any that they like. You may be surprised!

Another approach could be to think about your current style, and any rules that you normally follow - and then go out and take photos that deliberately break them. If you're big on the rule of thirds, take a roll / memory card of photos where the centre of interest is in the centre of the frame, in a corner or on an edge. If you normally go for razor-sharp focus, try shooting some things that are deliberately out of focus or in circumstances where sharp focus is impossible (e.g. through a rainy window). If you normally shoot for maximum depth-of-field, try shooting narrow depth-of-field, or vice versa. The point is to shake yourself up out of your normal routines.

Another thing I did was to enrol myself at a sketching/drawing course at my local adult evening college, simply with the aim of having fun, practicing my visualisation and so on. At times it can be frustrating, especially for strong left-brainers, but once I accepted that there was no way I'd be able to achieve anything resembling technical perfection using charcoal or pastels, I got into it and surprised myself with what I did manage to do. It might never be frame-worthy, but it was something different.

01/08/2006 10:45:36 AM · #8

Tim Anderson wisely written :) I like to see comment like this more often her in this forum

ice

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

01/08/2006 12:36:56 PM · #9

Originally posted by IceRock:

Have you think of what kind of critique you give " emotional reason or professional reason " did you know ugly picture can be the best one ?

Ice

From previous threads:

This is how I try (very hard) to vote:

1 > a technically (focus, exposure, balance, effects, lighting, sharpening, saturation, colour, cast, evidence of artifacts etc.) incompetent photo or an entirely unintelligible one (sometimes due to the size of an image), an 'offensive' one to civilized nature or (even) a technically apt photo which 'clearly' demonstrates a 'failure of feeling'

2 > a technically lacking photo with little or no perceptible artistic (choice of subject, composition, perspective, manner, emotional energy and range, etc.) merit or interest, even when generously considered; a somewhat 'offensive' photo or a gross and inappropriate sentimentalization of feeling in the context of the challenge; the pursuit of clichÃ© without room for even a latent interpretation (irony, allegory, metaphor etc.)

3 > a photo of mixed or questionable merit, both artistically and technically; a technically 'acceptable' one without marked artistic or journalistic interest; a sentimental or symptomatically 'commercialized' image designed to 'sell' a product or (worse! -of a person) of reasonable or considerable technical merit; a potentially 'interesting' or 'promising' photo (subject matter/perspective) with 'severe' technical flaws and/or without 'clear' intent or direction; a technically flawless image void of emotion and lacking sensory stimuli

4 > a 'pretty' photo reminiscent of many; an otherwise captivating image with one or more clearly distracting elements, either within the capture itself or via border and/or title; a technically accomplished photo relying predominantly on an idea and/or title for impact; an artistically 'promising' capture with clearly noticeable technical defects, compositional issues or incongruous aesthetics; a technically 'stunning' capture bare of 'feeling' or aesthetic 'sense'

5 > a 'good' photo by most standards; one that communicates capably without teaching or exhilarating us; an artistically interesting photo pointing an unusual view, perspective or matter, even if it suffers from distinct technical 'flaws'; a technically 'stunning' capture with limiting human or artistic 'range'

6 > a remarkable image, well executed by most standards while allowing for some technical shortcomings not easily prevented or corrected; an ordinary or simple shot, perfectly timed or 'found' that tells an old story in a new way; a very personal take, a 'fresh' controversy with commotive qualities, but aesthetically 'exciting'; an image imitative within a 'classic' fashion, but well executed (i.e. landscape/portrait etc.)

7 > an outstanding photograph fit for both study and pleasure, while allowing for minor technical shortcomings, an accomplished imitation of a mode of seeing or rendering drawn or alluding to another medium including enduring snapshots or candids of remarkable human interest

8 > same as 7, but one that stimulates awareness and taxes the senses, technically accomplished, with near-imperceptible flaws, if not entirely flawless; clearly 'inventive' photographs pointing a little known interest, direction or delight

9 > same as 8, technically without a fault, but a photo which commotes 'perceived' reality to the point of restlessness and action

10 > an enduring photo that challenges the order of gods and the world, one holding its own alongside any other.

On (Challenge) Topicality

Limiting potentially immeasurable choices to a defined subject or a chosen category of photography, really, should stimulate creativity, not hamper it. Topics, IMO, are or should be there for the benefit of the photographer, not for the untaxed glee of some voters swinging a bat.

I do not penalize entries for failing to meet the challenge. I may award a higher score to a unique interpretation or to a finesse I recognize, but I cannot, in good conscience, penalize something or someone for a fault that may lie within me and not with a picture.

I have seen and continue to see perfectly good photographs here penalized for exceeding the appreciative capacity of voters to recognize an entry for the poignant topicality it may demonstrate. If I consider the photo remarkable (artistically very interesting), I may just decide to award the highest mark possible in the faint hope to compensate for a predictably overall devaluation.

mandyturner

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Olympus 17mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko

01/08/2006 12:50:47 PM · #10

Lets see....below a portfolio picture it reads..."Add your comment!" Below a challenge entry it reads..."Comment on this photograph:" Doesn't say anything about how this needs to be a critique. That is how I see it. I leave my comments. Most of the time it is the first thought that came to my mind as I viewed the image. And, most of the time it is how the picture touched me emotionally. I do choose to critique some pictures, but I would rather just "critique" those that ask upfront for suggestions.

ubique

Olympus PEN-F

01/10/2006 08:11:29 AM · #11

I'm bumping this thread because it died too soon and many people will have missed this remarkable post:

Originally posted by zeuszen:

......This is how I try (very hard) to vote: ...

strangeghost

Canon EOS-7D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/10/2006 08:32:37 AM · #12

Zeuszen, this message is surely one of the most insightful voting guides I have ever seen. I am particularly taken with your approach (and articulate presentation) of the "does it meet the challenge" question, quoted below.

I am saving your post. Thank you.

Originally posted by zeuszen:

I do not penalize entries for failing to meet the challenge. I may award a higher score to a unique interpretation or to a finesse I recognize, but I cannot, in good conscience, penalize something or someone for a fault that may lie within me and not with a picture.

eyeronik

01/10/2006 06:37:52 PM · #13

Originally posted by IceRock:

Have you think of what kind of critique you give " emotional reason or professional reason " did you know ugly picture can be the best one ?

Ice

Take a look at the worlds best photos, most are of people, giving emotion. Most have a good lighting and look to, nothing amazing. I agree with the emotion part.

Its quite easy to show the results when you look at the highest rated photographs it is never anything abstract because no one here likes that. Yet the usual crap is loved, trees with sun coming through, some old buildings, a lake and pier. Same old bloody stuff. Nothing very interesting

HikerDude

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

01/11/2006 05:23:16 PM · #14

Most of the pictures I take are done on an emotional level. I take pictues because I want to remember the feelings I had and I want to try to share those emotins with others.

If people just took pictures as technically correct as possible with out any feeling put into it I beleive those pictures would be boring and stale.

In my opinion the very best pictures have a balanced combination of emotive and technical. Those are the "wow" pictures. The next best are those that have great emotive properties with good technique, and next comes the great technical pictures with little emotion.

LaMerry

Kodak DX7590

01/11/2006 05:26:58 PM · #15

I think both sides should be important... When I critique I try to do it to the technical part, but sometimes there are such emotive photos I can't help say something about that part... So, in my case, I vote thinking about the technical and the emotional part...

01/11/2006 05:38:50 PM · #16

Photography is for me, first and foremost, a hobby. I enjoy every minute I get to spend on taking photos. I also believe that I can always do better and increase my knowledge. I do, however, take my time in observing new fields within the photography without becoming stagnant. A friend once told me this and said that if I wanted to be a good photographer, I should heed to this. This is the one thing that has helped me a great deal, as important to me as the bible's word, and it is:

1. Shoot less, think more. The emphasis being on thinking a lot before shooting.

2. I seek to produce images that evoke emotion, that are more than just clever or technically perfect.

3. Ask yourself some quick critical questions.

What does the scene express?

What elements of the subject make the photo arresting?

Is it good light?

What shall I include and exclude?

What will I expose for?

Eliminate distractions in the image.

4. And after if the picture was as you think of it when you took it, " thats fine "
and if was worse or better, that is bad because you didn't think right when you shot it

Message edited by author 2006-01-11 17:39:11.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/11/2006 06:04:18 PM · #17

Hey IceRock, you confuse me. Here you have a very eloquent post, but both comments I've had from you are in halting English at best. I know you are from Iceland and I'm assuming English is a second, third or fourth language, but what gives?

Your critiques have left a little to be desired. They are more than "nice pic", but don't always make sense to me. Your voting style, by your average vote given, is also, shall we say, extreme. I think it's as valid as any other system, but now that I see you are capable of great english, I want more.

Message edited by author 2006-01-11 18:05:10.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

01/11/2006 06:11:22 PM · #18

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I had the same reaction. My best guess is that ice thought the post was important enough to warrant having a friend of his who is more fluent in English "translate" it for him.

Hats off to ZZ and Ice for two very thoughtful posts.

R.