Shawn rather obliquely posed the question of the purpose of critiques recently:

"...why does everything seem so bloody serious with these critiques? Most of the time, it's like nobody has anything good to say. There's constructive criticism, then there being just plain miserable (even if it's masked in a mockingly half-pleasant tone)..."

I come from a teaching background, so to me, the essence of learning is a self-concious critical approach. If I know what you were attempting to do, I can look at what you did and tell you why you were or weren't successful. The problem with most of the pictures posted here is that there is no context with which to judge them. Are they attempting to be portraits, fine art, fashion, photojournalism, or what?

The first response to that criticism by some is that they don't want to be judged based on some artificial category; they want their work to be judged "on its own merits." Anyone versed in cultural studies will tell you that's impossible. Anyone who's making a living selling their work will too. After all, art directors and editors pick works that meet explicit requirements - not what they just happen to like that day.

I never post my work for critique; not because I'm thin-skinned, but because I'm a much stronger critic of my work than anyone else. I know exactly what look I was attempting to create when I took the picture and I can quite easily tell whether or not I succeeded and to what extent. I then spend a lot of time analyzing why - was it lighting, makeup, the background, the model? - and determining what to do differently next time.

I won't consider myself a competent fashion photographer until I can replicate exactly any look I see in a contemporary fashion magazine. I won't consider myself a good fashion photographer until I can go beyond that stage and create my own identifiable style. Unfortunately, too many aspiring photographers think they can skip that first step.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), February 27, 2000

Answers

I won't consider myself a competent fashion photographer until I can replicate exactly any look I see in a contemporary fashion magazine. I won't consider myself a good fashion photographer until I can go beyond that stage and create my own identifiable style. Unfortunately, too many aspiring photographers think they can skip that first step.

Well said!

-- Edward Kang (ekang@cse.nd.edu), February 27, 2000.

I would like to see some of the finished product, for inspirational purposes at least. Photography for me,as perhaps for some others here, is for fun. I am a professional musician, and when I am playing with a full-time professional orchestra, it can be a deadly serious business. There is little tolerance for imperfection. I would think that many who post here are doing it with the idea of an informal workshop. In this case, there is plenty of room for work in progress. Naturally, if we ask for critiques, we should take what we get :)

-- Paul Harris (pharris@neosoft.com), February 27, 2000.

Upon further reflection, i think that John makes an very good point in the "context" section. It would usually be much more useful when the person posting the picture lets us know what the picture is trying to achieve, and perhaps asks how certain objectives can be met more effectively. For a very different approach to all this, have a look at the "Images of Photography" forum (no text allowed).

-- Paul Harris (pharris@neosoft.com), February 27, 2000.

Thank you, John and Paul. I truly appreciate the comments from both of you. As both of you have guessed, I photograph Kathryn as a casual friend because she is a friend, not a "fashion model". John's comment about context makes lots of sense and has forced me to take a even harder look at my Kathryn pics. To be honest, I have a hard time categorizing them myself.

As Paul has pointed out correctly, this type of photography is more of a semi-serious hobby to me. Professionally, I am a theatrical photographer. In those instances, I am dead serious and so are the clients. In my professional work, every detail counts. I will not claim that my theatrical images are perfection; I think they are far from perfection. I dream to be as good as Howard Schatz or Cylla von Tiedmann or Paul Goode one day; So, I work much harder and think a whole lot more when I do theatrical work. I am much more meticulous in my professional work.

Thanks again to all of your comments.

David Hou

-- David Hou (dna2367@hotmail.com), February 27, 2000.

I never post my work for critique; not because I'm thin-skinned, but because I'm a much stronger critic of my work than anyone else. I know exactly what look I was attempting to create when I took the picture and I can quite easily tell whether or not I succeeded and to what extent.

I find this comment amazing. It completely removes the viewer from the photograph, assumes that communication is internal to the photographer. It eliminates the possibility of the photograph transcending its origins.

Critique is essential to artistic growth. No one person, whether the photographer or a viewer, can fully assess the effect of a photograph, or a collection of photographs. Every viewpoint is different, and thus, valuable.

I have benefited immensely from seeking out critique from my peer group (photographers I hang out with), highly successful photographers, teachers, random viewers (like at shows), and even online strangers. I showed my portfolio to a published photographer whose work I respect highly and his comments were so different from what I had heard previously, and so different from how I viewed them, that it caused a significant shift in my work.

Unless one plans to only look at one's photos in the privacy of the home, I can't understand not constantly seeking out criticism. It's the way to grow...

-- Jeff Spirer (jeffs@hyperreal.org), February 27, 2000.

<>

Wow! Then I suppose to be consistent you probably don't show your work either. Because if you do then you are in fact submitting it for critique, you just may not hear it. But you have made me curious now. How about showing us a bit of your work - we promise not to critique it, in fact, it would be so enlightening for us if you would consent to critique it for us. I would like to see how far you have progressed in your effort to become "competent" on the way to "good".

-- steve vancosin (steve1chsn@aol.com), February 27, 2000.

just turning off italics.

-- Edward kang (ekang@cse.nd.edu), February 27, 2000.

Re. Shawns remark "most of the time it's like nobody has anything good to say." I think this has to do with the mindset of the "critic". It is one thing to be thinking " How can I make this photographer feel good?", and a different thing to be thinking "How could this photo have been done better?" Certainly both questions CAN be kept in mind when commenting... but sometimes are NOT, when a "serious photographer" is applying hemself to "judging" a shot. If my (non-existent) Rolls-Royce is polished to a fare-thee-well, am I thinking how "great!" most of it looks? No..human nature being what it is, I'm thinking "DAMN THAT BIRD!" (who just left a deposit in the middle of the hood). My focus is on what is detracting from the ideal(subjective "ideal" of course)...what needs to be "changed", to make the "shot" more nearly "perfect". If the approach taken is "What's wrong here?", things that need changing will probably be found. And if the answer is "nothing", or "very little", the tension drops some, and the critic is "freed from responsibility" a little. He/she may even actually find himself thinking " this is really nice!".(..and, hopefuly, will remember to SAY SO!) If on the other hand the approach is "What's good here?", It is easier to get distracted, "lost" in the "warm-fuzzies".(What a PRETTY girl!...What a beautiful "soft" atmospheric effect...She looks really sweet!...Look at that gown..etc.) I think some subconsciously "guard against" loosing their "objectivity" to the extent that remembering the "feelings" of the exhibitor becomes a lesser (sometimes forgotten) issue. Shawn, there is an example (to MY eye,of course) of a "bird deposit" in your picture of the model w/pigtails. A generally high-key shot of a pretty (to be sure!) girl with very dark eyes.. The contrast between the light tone of the shot and those striking eyes really "grabs" me...my eyes are instantly drawn to hers (romantic, huh?) BUT WAIT!! Whats this equally-dark, but a little greater-in-size OTHER CONTRASTING "DARK" "thing" , down in the lower right-hand corner?.. probably nothing, I guess..back to the eyes...back to the "thing"..."Damn it! What IS that?..and "WHY is that?" I don't know. But I know it's sure as hell distracting me! Why didn't the photographer notice it? This "could have been" a really NICE shot. He's left a "deposit" on this nice hood! Grrrr! Now I'm almost "hostile". "Someone" is being careless about our common "goal" of the "ideal" photograph. NOT ACCEPTABLE! --- I hope there's enough humor in this scenario to make it a little funny...but I think there's an element of truth to the idea that these "reactions" are at work, in any "critic". Naturally the "better" ones are able to find a constructive balance between technical and "personal" considerations. Shawn, I'm confident that your intense desire and willingness to learn will take you where you want to go. But the journey will not be as short as your intensity-impatience would prefer (Hey!..It never is!). That's O.K. though...just remember to ENJOY the trip. I'd like to agree w/ several answers above..Loo at published pix in the publications you admire, Think about WHY these shots are good (someone at a professional level obviously thought so). And think about how your shots are similar, or different, then KEEP TRYIN'!

-- Larry H. Smith (LarryHS@webtv.net), February 27, 2000.

Well put, Larry, but if I may make a request by way of this critical discourse... how about a few paragraph breaks, to help with continuity?

And Steve, still riding that tired old horse?. She's ready for the pasture, dude... yer pal... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), February 27, 2000.

I'm a much stronger critic of my work than _anyone I've met so far_. I am not lucky enough to have been able to associate with any topnotch professional photographers yet, so for now, I'm having to teach myself. However, since I'm still working on basic techniques, it's pretty obvious whether I succeed or fail - either the end result looks like the effect I envisioned or it doesn't.

As for the engagement of the viewer - of course - for fine art work and for creating that personal style. But I'm still working on just getting down the basic techniques that commercial photograhers need to know.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), February 27, 2000.

Tom,

Very good point! I confess to have "given-up" on some of my writing form considerations, after having all such efforts "scrunched" by some kind of space-saver thing on Photo.net Top Level.

I should have noticed that the same thing does not seem to be happening on this list. I'll try to do better.(I do know that "hemself" isn't quite right, either :-)

Thanks for the reminder, Larry

-- Larry H. Smith (LarryHS@webtv.net.), February 27, 2000.

Larry:

line1 line2

vs.

line1

line2

remember to press the enter key TWICE after every paragraph. otherwise you will end up with a very unintelligible run-on, even though we know that you are capable of much more :)

-- Edward Kang (ekang@cse.nd.edu), February 27, 2000.

I think the only point I was trying to make was that sometimes it's hard to tell whether someone is being personal or professional in writing, i.e., without the aid of a tone. With my own workk, as hard as it may feel sometimes to be critiqued negatively, I know it's necessary, and after I get over the initial 'hurt', such remarks are very helpful. But that's MY issue, and as everyone here knows, I really want to do photography professionally, whereas a lot of people who post critiques are not so..."serious"?

As for the bird shit, that image has a number of contrasting abstract areas which really bother me as well. But with the print itself it seems easier to fool myself that those areas are irrelavent since the girl and the cat look very pleasing (and enough with that girl, already! she is really starting to bore the crap out of me...time to find a new girl...cutesy cheeks or not). Definitely not a 'real' portfolio shot, and it won't be on my new site when it finally gets up...already nixed it from the folder.

and ps, tom et al, you guys really nailed the website thing. I've put over 150 hours into the new one and I'm prob'ly barely half done. It is EXTREMELY AMAZING to me, to realize how much energy it takes a simply human being FOCUS on something long enough to make it a 'focused' reality...but that's another story. As the song goes (Yep, Mt. Peart), "Where would you rather be?--Anywhere, anywhere but here. / When will the time be right?--Anytime but now..."...

See y'all. shawn

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), February 28, 2000.

<<<"As for the bird shit, that image has a number of contrasting abstract areas which really bother me as well. But with the print itself it seems easier to fool myself that those areas are irrelavent since the girl and the cat look very pleasing (and enough with that girl, already! she is really starting to bore the crap out of me...time to find a new girl...cutesy cheeks or not).">>>

Shawn, Perhaps this isn't worthy of pursuit, but in the interest of accuracy...my reference was not to the picture w/ the cat. The one I meant to discuss was titled "Kathbaby". I went back to look at it again. The dark "thing" is probably the back of the chair.

Intellectually, it seems unreasonable to me that a seemingly innocuous thing like this would so affect my enjoyment of this photo, and of course, others might not be so "sensitive" to it. But I believe, as the saying goes, that "Heaven is (often) in the details", and there is much more going on, when looking at an image, than intellectualizing.

I blocked the right-hand edge enough to cover the dark area...and instantly felt "freed" to enjoy the "nice photo of a pretty girl". When I took away the cover, The strong graphic element of the "dark zone" immediately began to "tug"at my attention. I would prefer a lighter-colored chair, or a lowered arm ( to close the dark gap). I think I'd choose the former...I like the "angled" arm, rather than one "hanging" straight down. So, resonable or not, I guess this is how my "perception/emotion"-system works! I'm kind of curious as to whether this typical or "a-".

<<<< As the song goes (Yep, Mt. Peart), "Where would you rather be?--Anywhere, anywhere but here. / When will the time be right?--Anytime but now..."...>>>>

I'm not sure of the relevance here, but I'm moved to comment that when I'm doing something I really love [at my drawing board..working on small-(water)craft design], I have no doubt that I'm exactly where I want to be...and the only thing wrong about the time is that there is not enough of it!

-- Larry H. Smith (LarryHS@webtv.net), February 28, 2000.

Something strange is going on here!

The 2 pairs of arrows/reversed arrows "<<<>>>" that appear in the above post enclosed Shawn's comments about (1)..the girl w/cat, cheeks[? :-)], boredom., and (2) ..the song, anywhere else, any other time. I had cut and pasted them in place (they showed properly when I was typing in the "answer" box, but disappeared during transmission! What th'?

Oh, yeah! I meant to add.... I'm not bored yet. Can I have her?

-- Larry H. Smith (LarryHS@webtv.net), February 28, 2000.

Larry: angle-brackets have a special meaning in HTML, the language of the web. Unless you are deliberately writing an HTML command, don't use them.

Re critiques: they can provide some useful feedback. Too many people think critiques are simply to answer the question 'is this any good, and how could it have been better?' In fact, they can also answer the question 'what does this picture say to you?' Personally, I find it very hard to predict what emotions my pictures might raise in a viewer's mind.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan@snibgo.com), February 29, 2000.

Re critiques: they can provide some useful feedback. Too many people think critiques are simply to answer the question 'is this any good, and how could it have been better?' In fact, they can also answer the question 'what does this picture say to you?' Personally, I find it very hard to predict what emotions my pictures might raise in a viewer's mind.

Alan, I _really_ enjoy how you approach critiques from a different angle. It's an aspect of photography that even photographers don't even think about half the time.

but honestly, folks, let's be serious about what a critique is NOT:

Poster: Please critique my picture. Critiquer: THIS SUCKS.

No, that is NOT a critique. That is a flame. If I wanted this kind of response, I'd get into a gangwar. So if you're going to simply respond to tell a person the image SUCKS without giving a positive, redemptive way of turning a disaster into a miracle, then don't post!

Thank you.

-- Edward Kang (ekang@cse.nd.edu), February 29, 2000.

I agree with John completely: the purpose of critique is to learn something that will help you improve your skills. What works, what doesn't work. And importantly: why?

The point about the context is a valid one, and it will be helpful if people who post images would include as much background information as possible.

That being said, I think many of the posts here have been quite good in that respect. Maybe the initial post was a bit thin, but in most cases the poster got on to the idea and posted more details after a few comment.

I think this forum is very valuable.

Obligatory portrait included (if I get the HTML right!). Spot the camcorder!

-- Allan Engelhardt (allane@cybaea.com), March 01, 2000.

The forum puts the newest posts at the top, so I wrote my reply above before I read this previous thread. Obviously things have been a bit heated while I have been away. Sorry if the above posting seems out of context: it is.

-- Allan Engelhardt (allane@cybaea.com), March 01, 2000.