| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/05/2012 10:52:22 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...and of course, after reading this I fully realize why I quite making any comments whatsoever. I had been to;d by many that my opinions really did not matter one iota...so why bother.
Ray |
Sorry to hear that... your opinions would be more than welcomed on my pieces.
Don't let other people discourage you or sway your opinions to that degree. There is nothing wrong with offering a different perspective, I surely don't want to limit myself to what I think is good but rather want to improve my skills by stepping outside of myself and enjoying my pieces from a different point of view; that is only possible if someone is willing to offer me their honest opinions. |
|
|
|
02/05/2012 11:54:36 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by alohadave:
...it's always curious to hear judges say "Maybe you could have moved to the left a few feet"...Like that kind of critique helps now that I'm not where I was taking the picture. |
Actually, that particular little snippet references one of the areas where I think critique of the "how to" variety is very helpful, and here's why:
In photography we have a tendency to only "see" our subject as we are composing our images, and are often surprised, usually unpleasantly, by unfortunate subject/ground juxtapositions when we view the image later. One thing that CAN be taught, and NEEDS to be taught, is that photographers have to be constantly aware of the spatial relationships of things within their frame when they are shooting.
I can't tell you how many times I've realized, after the fact, I'd have been a lot better off moving s few feet to the left :-) I'm happy enough when people point that out to me, it keeps me on my toes.
Of course, this is all a bit of a digression...
R. |
Many years ago, I was showing this snapshot to my friend Lonny Shavelson -- a truly talented photojournalist -- and he pointed out that it would have been a lot nicer without the stuipid tree growing out of her head (I could have moved a few feet left or right) or even with her on the other side of the fountain.
A mere 20 or 30 or 40 hours of tedious editing (in Photoshop 4.0) and about eighteen layers later I had to agree ...  
I think much attention is given to how criticism is phrased, but maybe it's time for photographers to start cutting the commenters some slack as well -- when they say "the subject should be in focus" what they are really saying is "I have a personal preference for pictures where what seems to be the main subject is in sharp focus" ... everything people say is just their opinion, and if you disagree, then why not just ignore it and move on.... |
|
|
|
02/05/2012 12:05:18 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by littlemav:
I feel in the rank of newer shooters the words I don't like your photo could hit harsher than the reason why I don't like your photo is.... |
This, to me, is the biggest problem here. I have gotten similar critiques like the dodge critique I used as an example here, well meant of course, but still as wrong. I have also received comments from voters on how to "fix" a technique I used to create a specific effect.
There's really no way to know who the image belongs to......so you have to do your best to leave a comment which is real and will communicate to the photog your take on the image.
I constantly hear in the comment threads that people want to know what's wrong with their image. Without some degree of background, it's virtually impossible in a lot of cases to make an intelligent recommendation.
My $0.02 US.......YMMV.....
|
|
|
|
02/05/2012 12:12:49 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...and of course, after reading this I fully realize why I quit making any comments whatsoever. I had been told by many that my opinions really did not matter one iota...so why bother.
|
Really? Your opinions were singled out as not mattering? Well, that's quite a feat! And it means someone was listening. What more could you ask for from leaving a comment?
|
|
|
|
02/05/2012 12:33:24 PM · #30 |
I admit to enjoying starting forum threads on contentious subjects, just as I admit to being fanatical about trying to stamp out follow-the-leader photography.
The writer quoted in the OP is making the point that anybody is qualified to give his work a thumbs up/down, but only he is qualified to know how to fix it or do it better next time.
But writing doesn't require the same element of equipment-related technical competence & knowledge that photography does, so my comparison isn't entirely legitimate, or at least not in the same way.
HOWEVER, the principle is still valid. If you follow someone else's well-meant advice too easily (even if it happens to be Ernest Hemingway), you will end up producing a phoney replica of their stuff. If you follow everyone else's advice, you won't produce anything at all worth a second glance.
Yes, you will progress faster as a photographer if you take the advice of your betters on board, but it's a poisoned chalice: so sip it if you must, but gulp it down only if you are prepared to die. |
|
|
|
02/05/2012 02:30:45 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...and of course, after reading this I fully realize why I quit making any comments whatsoever. I had been told by many that my opinions really did not matter one iota...so why bother.
|
Really? Your opinions were singled out as not mattering? Well, that's quite a feat! And it means someone was listening. What more could you ask for from leaving a comment? |
... as things stand at present, I ask for nothing.
Ray
|
|
|
|
02/05/2012 04:37:17 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
anyway, here is a phenomenal shot, scored poorly on the perception of bad focus, read the comments.
 |
Honestly, this shot does nothing for me. I don't care to explain why. I don't care to tell the photographer how to fix it. I just don't like it.
As a photographer, you need to figure out who you are, what moves you, what satisfies you and go from there. It's not about pleasing other people. It's about pleasing yourself. Sounds so selfish but I don't take pictures for anyone else but myself. I need to be creative. If some of the images I capture do nothing for you, so what. It's not about you anyway. It's about me satisfying a deep need inside of me.
Everyone has personal preferences, tastes, desires. That's why I don't particularly care for that shot. It's not my cup of tea. And it doesn't have to be. Just like you don't have to like what I do.
That's not to say that technicals are not important because they are. But equally important is breaking the rules.
I don't want to copy someone. I don't want to take pictures that someone else has taken. I want to express myself and what I see and what moves me. You don't have to get it.
Message edited by author 2012-02-05 16:41:04. |
|
|
|
02/05/2012 05:02:30 PM · #33 |
By the very nature of his specific criticism of other people's "incorrect" specific criticisms... wouldn't he also then be wrong?
Originally posted by ubique:
A quote from writer Neil Gaiman:
Remember: when people tell you something’s wrong or doesn’t work for them, they are almost always right. When they tell you exactly what they think is wrong and how to fix it, they are almost always wrong.
He was referring to literary criticism, but I think the same is true of photographic criticism. Ultimately, a comment of "This doesn't work for me" is of more practical use to you than another comment detailing all of the many ways the commenter would have made the photograph better.
Unless, of course, you wish to learn how to take someone else's photographs. |
|
|
|
|
02/06/2012 06:29:20 AM · #34 |
I think the assertion was meant to art, so the internal contradiction would emerge only if he considers criticism an art form.
Originally posted by ShutterRev:
By the very nature of his specific criticism of other people's "incorrect" specific criticisms... wouldn't he also then be wrong?
Originally posted by ubique:
A quote from writer Neil Gaiman:
Remember: when people tell you something’s wrong or doesn’t work for them, they are almost always right. When they tell you exactly what they think is wrong and how to fix it, they are almost always wrong.
He was referring to literary criticism, but I think the same is true of photographic criticism. Ultimately, a comment of "This doesn't work for me" is of more practical use to you than another comment detailing all of the many ways the commenter would have made the photograph better.
Unless, of course, you wish to learn how to take someone else's photographs. |
|
|
|
|
|
02/06/2012 06:42:24 AM · #35 |
i was the first comment on that picture of the girl in teh garden and i stand by it, bvy and blindjustie criticising other commentors is even more unhelpful than the comments right or wrong
but you should note the photographer checked them all that he found them helpfull, shall i run all my comments past the now self elected comment police of bvv and blindjustice from now on to check they fit with your own opinion.
Message edited by author 2012-02-06 06:43:46. |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 06:50:39 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by slickchik:
It's not about pleasing other people. It's about pleasing yourself. Sounds so selfish but I don't take pictures for anyone else but myself. |
Probably not the whole story, because if that were all, then there would be reason whatsoever to show your shots on DPC. Looking at them on your monitor yourself would be enough to achieve the above.
The viewpoint of the potential viewer is some aspect that is important too. |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 08:27:03 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by alohadave:
...it's always curious to hear judges say "Maybe you could have moved to the left a few feet"...Like that kind of critique helps now that I'm not where I was taking the picture. |
Actually, that particular little snippet references one of the areas where I think critique of the "how to" variety is very helpful, and here's why:
In photography we have a tendency to only "see" our subject as we are composing our images, and are often surprised, usually unpleasantly, by unfortunate subject/ground juxtapositions when we view the image later. One thing that CAN be taught, and NEEDS to be taught, is that photographers have to be constantly aware of the spatial relationships of things within their frame when they are shooting.
I can't tell you how many times I've realized, after the fact, I'd have been a lot better off moving s few feet to the left :-) I'm happy enough when people point that out to me, it keeps me on my toes.
Of course, this is all a bit of a digression...
R. |
Many years ago, I was showing this snapshot to my friend Lonny Shavelson -- a truly talented photojournalist -- and he pointed out that it would have been a lot nicer without the stuipid tree growing out of her head (I could have moved a few feet left or right) or even with her on the other side of the fountain.
A mere 20 or 30 or 40 hours of tedious editing (in Photoshop 4.0) and about eighteen layers later I had to agree ...
I think much attention is given to how criticism is phrased, but maybe it's time for photographers to start cutting the commenters some slack as well -- when they say "the subject should be in focus" what they are really saying is "I have a personal preference for pictures where what seems to be the main subject is in sharp focus" ... everything people say is just their opinion, and if you disagree, then why not just ignore it and move on.... |
Agreed with Bear, and GeneralE. Constructive criticism should...you know...be constructive. It would be wonderful to go through life and get patted on the back with "well this is just my opinion" comments, but if you want to be a paid/successful photographer, or a photojournalist that keeps his job, you are going to rely more heavily on the people that said "What in the world were you thinking here," than those that say "Well, I can see that you are trying very hard on making your art with all of these slightly out of focus self-portraits in the dark."
Not to say those in the businesses of photography don't also rely on: "This is an amazing image." But, I prefer to know that my images are already pretty decent before someone else honors me with a comment like that. People need to be more honest with themselves.
Message edited by author 2012-02-06 08:27:25. |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 08:41:11 AM · #38 |
| It seems a lot of the complaints in this thread about comments/ critiques fit many of the more critical comments I give (trying to provide input from where I see it). Comments are peoples opinions and for people to take them as anything other than that seems silly. But I am sorry folks for annoying you guys and forcing my viewpoint on your work. I guess I keep my mouth shut and tell you guys 'nice picture' instead. Cheers. |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 08:46:55 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by bassbone:
It seems a lot of the complaints in this thread about comments/ critiques fit many of the more critical comments I give (trying to provide input from where I see it). Comments are peoples opinions and for people to take them as anything other than that seems silly. But I am sorry folks for annoying you guys and forcing my viewpoint on your work. I guess I keep my mouth shut and tell you guys 'nice picture' instead. Cheers. |
This thread has messed with my head as well. It's disappointing. I feel let down. I have hardly commented at all lately. Thanks so much. |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 09:16:35 AM · #40 |
There is no such thing as nonconstructive/uninformed criticism. Depending on your ability to deal with what was said or not said and extrapolate from it something of value for you, then even 'dnmc' or 'nice' can have meaning.
By giving my opinion on another individual's work at least means I took some time, a precious commodity, to look at the image. Tell you what, everything I learned about photography, originated from this site. Everything.
Kudus to those who give their time to say a few words. You are actually the driving force behind the success of this photographic-family. |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 09:19:11 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by alohadave:
...it's always curious to hear judges say "Maybe you could have moved to the left a few feet"...Like that kind of critique helps now that I'm not where I was taking the picture. |
Actually, that particular little snippet references one of the areas where I think critique of the "how to" variety is very helpful, and here's why:
In photography we have a tendency to only "see" our subject as we are composing our images, and are often surprised, usually unpleasantly, by unfortunate subject/ground juxtapositions when we view the image later. One thing that CAN be taught, and NEEDS to be taught, is that photographers have to be constantly aware of the spatial relationships of things within their frame when they are shooting.
I can't tell you how many times I've realized, after the fact, I'd have been a lot better off moving s few feet to the left :-) I'm happy enough when people point that out to me, it keeps me on my toes. R. |
Hear hear. Like the pole growing out of your subjects head, or Einstein's neck...It's something I learnt early on and teach at the first opportunity. Think of powerlines and landscapes too. |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 09:25:23 AM · #42 |
*yawns* I will still tell you all how I really feel about your shots. I hope you do the same.
Nick |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 09:57:55 AM · #43 |
I don't think the spirit of this thread is to stifle all critical comments and replace them with "great shot" comments.
All that needs to be said is that Art, even a machine driven technical art like photography is not like an objective sporting contest. perhaps some of the technical aspects could be equated to objective measurements- such as "who can get the most detail into a skyline" or the like- but in general there are two ways to look at a challenges:
1:come up with the most strikingly technically proficient example of the challenge topic;
2:create art in the parameters of the challenge topic.
================
sometimes people do both, sometimes one or the other.
depending on how you see the challenges, dictates how you provide comments.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2012 10:27:37 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by HarveyG:
Think of powerlines and landscapes.... |
I do all the time. Frequently my favourite part of a landscape. |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 10:35:58 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by deeby:
Originally posted by bassbone:
It seems a lot of the complaints in this thread about comments/ critiques fit many of the more critical comments I give (trying to provide input from where I see it). Comments are peoples opinions and for people to take them as anything other than that seems silly. But I am sorry folks for annoying you guys and forcing my viewpoint on your work. I guess I keep my mouth shut and tell you guys 'nice picture' instead. Cheers. |
This thread has messed with my head as well. It's disappointing. I feel let down. I have hardly commented at all lately. Thanks so much. |
***
May I tell you a story? Maybe it'll cheer you up a bit.
I paint abstracts & hang them all over my house. One night I had some people over for dinner. One of my guests was quite taken with one of my abstracts & spent a good 10 min or so passionately telling me what I had done wrong, describing quite clearly what I had left out, what I should've done differently. I was delighted, not offended. All the mistakes I made served as entry-points for the imagination of my guest, & in criticizing it he became one with it. In his imagination, he created all the things he wanted to see in that abstract, & saw them quite clearly. In fact, he probably saw them more clearly than if I had painted it 'correctly.' If I had painted it the way he wanted to see it, he would've probably given it one quick glance & then forgot it.
Criticism in it's best aspect is interactive. The critic stops & concentrates on your work. Sometimes, it's true, his intention can be to annihilate the artist's ego, eliminate the competition. The artist has to be able to handle it, that's part of being an artist.
***
That goes for criticism, too. Critical comments are a little bit of self expression. Your ego goes into it, just like any other artwork. If someone criticizes your criticism, take it as a compliment, take it as encouragement, or just leave it where it lies.
Message edited by author 2012-02-06 10:40:01. |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 10:47:43 AM · #46 |
I make the photos I make for me.
If they resonate with you, that's great. If not, that's OK too.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2012 12:04:42 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by bjoern:
Originally posted by slickchik:
It's not about pleasing other people. It's about pleasing yourself. Sounds so selfish but I don't take pictures for anyone else but myself. |
Probably not the whole story, because if that were all, then there would be reason whatsoever to show your shots on DPC. Looking at them on your monitor yourself would be enough to achieve the above.
The viewpoint of the potential viewer is some aspect that is important too. |
I hear what you are saying. But I don't really upload very much stuff so, I don't need DPC to validate me. I do like it when like-minded photographers (similar styles as me) appreciate what I've shot. But overall, it really is about me. Sorry. It's a need for creativity... not someone's approval. |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 01:07:27 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
aesthetics is dependent on the same rules that most artists consciously or unconsciously apply in their work such as the principles of art, which are movement, unity, harmony, variety, balance, emphasis, contrast, proportion, and pattern. Being familiar with these and how to apply them correctly in photography will definitely benefit anyone. |
First of all, I commend you for defending intellectualism. It's easy to spout dismissive anti-intellectual arguments when someone dares to start a thread on aesthetics and criticism.
However, now that we are in the intellectual realm, I have to question your notion of "principles of art." Art criticism is not a science. Critics do not propose hypotheses about art which are then rigorously tested and peer-approved before becoming accepted theories (that stand until they are disproven). What we have instead is a branch of philosophy, which is a series of independent thinkers who are varyingly influenced by each other.
Therefore, I find it more useful to think historically about it. In other words, you can't have an *informed* art criticism without knowing art history. After all, any "principles of art" are *reactive*, in other words, somebody looked at something pretty and tried to explain why. The artist is not required to know these principles to create art, or else there would never have been art to begin with.
An artist learning "principles" will make some strides toward mediocrity, but will ultimately become lost. An artist learning history will have worlds of possibility open up to him/her. |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 02:48:28 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
An artist learning "principles" will make some strides toward mediocrity, but will ultimately become lost. An artist learning history will have worlds of possibility open up to him/her. |
This is wonderfully put. |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 03:13:01 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by bjoern:
Originally posted by slickchik:
It's not about pleasing other people. It's about pleasing yourself. Sounds so selfish but I don't take pictures for anyone else but myself. |
Probably not the whole story, because if that were all, then there would be reason whatsoever to show your shots on DPC. Looking at them on your monitor yourself would be enough to achieve the above.
The viewpoint of the potential viewer is some aspect that is important too. |
I like to share my work because I feel that someone may gain something from it and that can be good, but I certainly don't create with that in mind. I do it for me. |
|
