| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/20/2005 11:06:23 AM · #1 |
Writing a critique is simple, especially when you exclude the following words:
aperture
shutter
depth of field
camera
lens
focus
sharp/sharpness
photoshop
filter
post processing
rule
too bad
Avoid all words that are associated with cameras and post processing. Maybe a simpler method would be to assume that you are writing a critique on a painting rather than a photograph.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 11:16:43 AM · #2 |
really jim? I don't know if this is sarcastic or not.
drake |
|
|
|
09/20/2005 11:18:32 AM · #3 |
I'll agree with jmsetzler that it is not necessary to bring up the technical terms he lists in order to make a useful critique...and it probably is easier. (However, if you do know what you're talking about and those terms fit perfectly in the statement you want to make don't go out of your way to leave them out.
About.com (a site with way too much Flash animation) has an article on "How to Critique a Painting"
Be sure to check the second page, "Painting Critique Checklist" for relevant items that can apply to photos....though things like "artists statements" may not be available when critique challenge entries, many of the other things do apply. |
|
|
|
09/20/2005 11:20:38 AM · #4 |
Hey, no offense JM, but I can't say I agree with you.
I can agree that those words are not appropriate for critiquing something that is an established work of beauty or excellence.
On the other hand, DPchallenge is only partly about that. Another major part of this website is the VAST number of people who are learning how to use their (our) cameras who do not churn out spectacular pictures such as yours on a regular basis. I don't mean this as a patronizing comment, I have admired your pictures quite a bit in the past.
Most of these people could definitely use a little suggestion now and again on how to control depth of field with aperture and shutter choices as well as focal issues.
If you get comments of this nature on your pictures, please just file them under the "thanks but no thanks" category and carry on taking awesome pictures.
The bottom line is that if a person was critiquing a painting, there would be numerous comments about the quality of colours, the choice of canvas, the overall theme of colours, the details brought in and left out, contrast and technique in the medium of watercolour or oil.
There is little difference between that and commenting on technical issues of pictures.
If you exclude those words, all the comments you will get will be on people's feelings and reactions to the pictures. This is nice to hear, particularly when you have little left to work on, but is NOT specifically helpful. Comments such as these do little to encourage beginners and generally give a bunch of soft comments to guys who know what they are doing.
Do you feel this is a good thing?
I will be posting a new thread on a harsh criticism box for pictures, please keep an eye open for it.
Do you think it might be helpful to have a specific type of comment requested for a picture? |
|
|
|
09/20/2005 11:46:10 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Most of these people could definitely use a little suggestion now and again on how to control depth of field with aperture and shutter choices as well as focal issues. |
Herein lies the problem. You would have to 'assume' that what you see that you consider to be 'wrong' is a mistake on the photographer's part rather than assuming it was done intentionally. Since you don't know who produced the image, or their particular skill level. Granted, you may not like the 'choice', but you should give it credit for being a conscious choise until you know otherwise.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 11:47:47 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
If you exclude those words, all the comments you will get will be on people's feelings and reactions to the pictures. This is nice to hear, particularly when you have little left to work on, but is NOT specifically helpful. Comments such as these do little to encourage beginners and generally give a bunch of soft comments to guys who know what they are doing.
Do you feel this is a good thing? |
Feelings and related reactions are what I prefer, but rarely get.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 11:49:46 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by eschelar:
Most of these people could definitely use a little suggestion now and again on how to control depth of field with aperture and shutter choices as well as focal issues. |
Herein lies the problem. You would have to 'assume' that what you see that you consider to be 'wrong' is a mistake on the photographer's part rather than assuming it was done intentionally. Since you don't know who produced the image, or their particular skill level. Granted, you may not like the 'choice', but you should give it credit for being a conscious choise until you know otherwise. |
Exactly, this is the problem with photography. It takes an incredible amount of skill to 'make' an image...to really want and plan for every detail in your photo. When we see something 'not quite right' in a photograph, we assume (rightly so, most often) that it was unintentional or an oversight.
I have yet to really "make" a photo (mind you, I don't do studio stuff where all variables are controlled) where I wish for and capture every element that I intend to without overlooking something. It's something I'm learning. |
|
|
|
09/20/2005 11:52:01 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Exactly, this is the problem with photography. It takes an incredible amount of skill to 'make' an image...to really want and plan for every detail in your photo. When we see something 'not quite right' in a photograph, we assume (rightly so, most often) that it was unintentional or an oversight.
|
All photos don't fit this mould. Learning 'when' a technical critique is required is important. Learning when technicals don't matter so much is also important.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 11:54:33 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Exactly, this is the problem with photography. It takes an incredible amount of skill to 'make' an image...to really want and plan for every detail in your photo. When we see something 'not quite right' in a photograph, we assume (rightly so, most often) that it was unintentional or an oversight.
|
All photos don't fit this mould. Learning 'when' a technical critique is required is important. Learning when technicals don't matter so much is also important. |
But if something is unpleasing or distracting, we assume it's because there was a technical oversight (too much dof, improper framing) rather than assuming the artist intended the element to be there. In a painting, I don't question what's there as the artist literally placed it there...with a photo, it's not the case with most slightly-above-average photographers. |
|
|
|
09/20/2005 11:59:20 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by eschelar:
Most of these people could definitely use a little suggestion now and again on how to control depth of field with aperture and shutter choices as well as focal issues. |
Herein lies the problem. You would have to 'assume' that what you see that you consider to be 'wrong' is a mistake on the photographer's part rather than assuming it was done intentionally. Since you don't know who produced the image, or their particular skill level. Granted, you may not like the 'choice', but you should give it credit for being a conscious choise until you know otherwise. |
I think eschelar has a very valid point, you can't learn from "good color" alone. BUT if you do mention their depth of field or shutter settings, etc it should be done as a suggestion to what you may have done and NOT as "you did it wrong, here is the right way".
You both make valid points that should be considered when commenting on someones images.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 11:59:58 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
But if something is unpleasing or distracting, we assume it's because there was a technical oversight (too much dof, improper framing) rather than assuming the artist intended the element to be there. In a painting, I don't question what's there as the artist literally placed it there...with a photo, it's not the case with most slightly-above-average photographers. |
Once again, you can't possibly know until you know who made the photo. You also still have to assume that what you see is intentional, just like in a painting.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 12:05:00 PM · #12 |
But as a rank amateur I am learning from the technical comments people make! If they just say they like/dislike the pic it tells me nothing except that someone finds it pleasing to lok at or not. What it doesn't tell me is how I can make it even better!
P
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 12:06:29 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
But as a rank amateur I am learning from the technical comments people make! If they just say they like/dislike the pic it tells me nothing except that someone finds it pleasing to lok at or not. What it doesn't tell me is how I can make it even better!
P |
Have you ever received a comment about how your photo makes someone feel? Have you stirred an emotion of any sort with one of your images?
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 12:10:50 PM · #14 |
I know what you mean...that's just the nature of this site.
But I do appreciate when people tell me technical things that could have helped me better convey or stir up emotion in them. |
|
|
|
09/20/2005 12:30:40 PM · #15 |
I agree, somewhat, with John, though not as rigidly. When one examines a photo, one should assume that all choices were deliberate; it's the viewer's job to take the clues of the photo and make some meaning out of it.
I haven't been around for a while (but hope to be more involved soon), but when I have critiqued in the past--full critiques for the Critique Club, for example, I often start simply by describing how the photo makes me feel and what I see happening. If my "objective" description is wrong, the photographer will know that she made an artistic choice that didn't work.
Starting with a simple description, "I see here a man carrying what appear to be old-style brooms. The tones appear at first to be dark, but there are lighter areas that balance the photo in terms of light and dark....." the photographer can know right off anything was miscommunicated. Some things to observe and comment on might be:
objects,
light and dark areas,
where your eyes tend to go and end up,
how the photo makes you feel,
the moods you perceive,
symbols or allusions you may perceive,
sharp and blurry areas,
etc.
So technical things just don't pop up very much, unless addressed generally.
Later, if you wanted to make recommendations, you could indicate things like, "It might be interesting to experiment with deepening your depth of field so the brooms are just a bit more sharp," or "If you wanted a happier mood to more evenly match your subject, you might try increasing your exposure a bit." Etc.
Perhaps Bear Music can enlighten us, but I understood that Ansel Adams became impatient with beginning photographers who would constantly ask him for exposure and/or aperture specifics. He strongly felt, as John seems to feel, that the important thing is for the photographer to react to the moment with the skills he has developed. Of course, the more skills, the more flexible and accurately one can capture a moment or subject.
Anway,that's my two bits. Spend them wisely.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 12:46:43 PM · #16 |
Another request for people to consider having a look at my thread in website suggestions on "Comment requests"
I posted a suggestion that would make everyone here happy. Please let me know what you all think.
JM. I totally respect you as a photographer and I understand your point, but it really is only useful for some of the people on this website. Perhaps even the minority. Most people here need to improve on their technical mastery so they can get the emotional response that a photo needs to have to bring it to the level of art.
Again, please view my related thread and voice your opinion. I think you might appreciate the idea.
Dsidwell. I am no expert on Ansel Adams, but I have heard that he is famous because he put a huge amount of effort into figuring out specifically HOW to balance things like exposure and aperture. For him to be impatient with others trying to do these things sounds like an ecentric artist being eccentric. It also smacks of someone who knows he is at the top of a heap and wants to stay there.
Admittedly, exposure and aperture do appear to be the basics. If you don't know how to work these, you probably ought not to be asking people that are masters like Ansel. The fact that he devoted much time to it does speak of their importance though. Moreover, receiving comments on technical issues from local masters of our day in the Electronic medium seems to be a rather appropriate place to do it, be they in aperture and exposure and focus or in more complex issues as composition and how the eye travels through the story that is your artwork. |
|
|
|
09/20/2005 12:51:10 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by fstopopen:
really jim? I don't know if this is sarcastic or not.
drake |
Who's Jim? ;oP
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 12:54:02 PM · #18 |
My $.02... If I intentionally use shallow DOF and people think it would look better with a deep DOF, I want to know that. If I intentionally leave a soft focus and people think if would look better in focus and sharper, I want to know that. If I intentionally used a slower sutter to get motion blur and people think it would look better as a stop action, I want to know that too. I understand that maybe the way I made the photo isn't the best or most popular way. It doesn't mean I'll change it, but it gives me something to think about next time
Also, remember that a good percentage of the people here have never taken their camera out of auto mode and use PS only to re-size. If this were a site of profesional photographers I'd probably agree with you, but the community as is probably appreciates and can benefit from those words. I know I do.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 12:57:54 PM · #19 |
I agree with Daryl. There might be 10% accomplished photographers who receive a few comments thay are way off base.. but do we want to deprive the other 90% who can benefit from those technical comments?
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 12:59:01 PM · #20 |
Re: eschelar's comments on technical mastery
If a commenter says, "I really don't understand why you made the background fuzzy--I wish I could see all the details in your scene better."
And another commenter says, "Your DOF is too limited, the background is out of focus."
You can conclude from both comments that your viewers wish to have a different type of presentation. These commenters are saying the same thing....except, #1 talks about her perception, lack of understanding and mentions the interest she has in the details of the photo--#2 just blasts the technical points and walks away.
I think John has a valid point in suggesting a way to develop commenting technique is to put a personal moratorium on using technical terms as crutches to brace up undeveloped thoughts.
Message edited by author 2005-09-20 13:00:12. |
|
|
|
09/20/2005 01:01:00 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by vfwlkr:
I agree with Daryl. There might be 10% accomplished photographers who receive a few comments thay are way off base.. but do we want to deprive the other 90% who can benefit from those technical comments? |
I'm not asking anyone to deprive anyone else of anything :)
I'm just asking if someone would be willing to try this method :)
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 01:07:26 PM · #22 |
I think I'll try this method...it will give me a chance to pay more attention to what the photographer intended and to see the image as a result of conscious choices.
I wish the commenter who left this comment on one of my photos had considered that I intended the effect and know perfectly well how to operate my camera--there was more to the comment that made it useful, but it begins, "I think a little more DOF would have helped here. You could have switched your camera to Aperature Priority and increased your DOF by stopping down the aperature to a smaller size (larger number)." |
|
|
|
09/20/2005 01:09:49 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by dsidwell:
Perhaps Bear Music can enlighten us, but I understood that Ansel Adams became impatient with beginning photographers who would constantly ask him for exposure and/or aperture specifics. He strongly felt, as John seems to feel, that the important thing is for the photographer to react to the moment with the skills he has developed. Of course, the more skills, the more flexible and accurately one can capture a moment or subject. |
It's true that Ansel felt vision was more important than techique, which was only a means to an end, and it's true he had little patience with photographers who'd query him regarding f/stop and exposure time, technical details like that. The reason, though, was that these settings are not absolutes. Of what possible value could it be to you, he reasoned, to know that on this picture he'd taken in the past he used f/22 at 3 seconds, pan-x film, D-76 developer, development time of 13 minutes 39 seconds, etc etc? All these data are specific to a particular instant in time that will never be exactly reproduced.
He was somewhat more open to communicating the process by which he arrived at his exposures, i.e. the actual luminance values, the subject contrast range, how they determiend the choice of film and developer, stuff like that. Even so, he wasn't one to spend a lot of time with beginners talking about this stuff. He liked to take people shooting, he liked to deal with issues of vision. The technical stuff, people like me handled that, people who understood and could teach the Zone System.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 01:24:52 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by vfwlkr:
I agree with Daryl. There might be 10% accomplished photographers who receive a few comments thay are way off base.. but do we want to deprive the other 90% who can benefit from those technical comments? |
I'm not asking anyone to deprive anyone else of anything :)
I'm just asking if someone would be willing to try this method :) |
It's a method to get away from the excuse 'I'm too new to be able to comment'. Ignoring all the technical stuff, what do you see? What do you like? What don't you like? As someone already suggested, pretend it's a painting rather than a photograph.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 01:40:00 PM · #25 |
Kadi. I think it was mentioned before that commenting is a great help to newer users. If you get a comment that was someone trying to be helpful because your picture looked like something that needed this kind of comment, check it out, view that person's profile.
If the commenter does not show skill equal to yours, feel free to ignore it. If you think the commenter has a point, it is cause for you to reflect on your picture. If you reflect on aspects of your picture and you feel confident that you made the right choices, that is what this whole system of commenting is all about. Don't get upset because someone chose to word things that might be understandable even to a beginner. Many people here ARE beginners.
Like louddog said, if someone sees a picture and doesn't like it, but tells you specifically why, that is a helpful and valid comment. Disagreeing with it is the photographers option.
Comments made during voting are specifically blind. Is it better to assume that the person knows what they are doing and give less information to benefit the accomplished or better to assume the person knows less about what they are doing and give more information in hopes it will benefit someone who knows little? |
|
