[Rondec]

Criticism is only valid if people share the same values. When I look at criticism, I like to see the images of the person posting. My question is always, "does this person know something Want to learn." But criticism based on differences in style are meaningless.

As I used to say on the craft show circuit. One out of 10 passers by stop in my booth. 1 out of 10 of them buy something. So probably 1/100 like my work enough to buy it. Do I care wha the other 99 think? If one out of every 1000 people like my work, I will make a lot of money. And if I change, I might sell to 2 per hundred or I may sell to 0 per hundred. And I've been to shows where I saw average photographers sell nothing, didn't even cover the costs of their booths. You do what you believe in and you take your lumps. But at least on the craft circuit, if at the end of the day there's a couple of grand in my pocket, do I even care what all the haters think?

If you're looking for an approval rating better than 1 in 100, you aren't being very realistic. And anyone who would swear at you over a critique isn't worth wasting time on. They're taking themselves way too seriously. And it's quite possible they're just jealous of your process.

I've actually been quite shocked at some of the critique offered here. One thread of comparison images turned into a long combined diatribe about my processing style with a bunch of people piling on. IN the end I proved that I could do it their way if I chose to. I doubt that they ever got the point that I specifically chosen to do it my way, and that if I printed, it would be mine that I printed, not the one they thought was the best. I didn't see their way as anything other than un-informed nit picking. But, no need to get into that. it's all about personal preferences, and neither side was going to change.

My response would be to ask them to post an image that they took they thought was better. Let's get on an equal footing so if they unreasonably rip into my work, I can rip back. No point punching at shadows.

But I have to say, doing couple of craft shows and selling some work, and sort of get comfortable in the idea that some people like your work enough today money for it, what the ones who don't like your work think becomes irrelevant. "Go on to the next booth... you might find something you like over there." People who think everyone has to do it their way are just total bores.

You have to realize, on internet forums... some people are just pissing on everything to mark their turf.

I think the bigger thing is that unasked for critique or advice is usually not accepted particularly well. At the same time, if you are asking for it then you take the bad with the good.

I see all kinds of photos that I don't like on Facebook -- blurry landscapes, stuff with sharpening artifacts, or odd colors. Faces where the smoothing algorithms make the people look somewhat alien. And I scroll right past. They don't want my advice and they are happy with the images and aren't trying to make fine art anyway. Best just to let it go. If I see something I like, then I will make a comment.

But most people post for affirmation, not for critique and are actually insulted if you don't like their images, regardless of the quality (this is not a dig at Tonytee, but just an overall observation of human nature).

[normhead]

I think the bigger thing is that unasked for critique or advice is usually not accepted particularly well. At the same time, if you are asking for it then you take the bad with the good.

I see all kinds of photos that I don't like on Facebook -- blurry landscapes, stuff with sharpening artifacts, or odd colors. Faces where the smoothing algorithms make the people look somewhat alien. And I scroll right past. They don't want my advice and they are happy with the images and aren't trying to make fine art anyway. Best just to let it go. If I see something I like, then I will make a comment.

But most people post for affirmation, not for critique and are actually insulted if you don't like their images, regardless of the quality (this is not a dig at Tonytee, but just an overall observation of human nature).

There are people here on the forum on my ignore list... for the same kinds of reasons. Hint, If I mention an image is out of focus and you lay into me, I'm never talking to you again. Nothing personal, just if your baseline isn't at least part of the subject in focus, we have nothing to talk about.

There is such a thing as bad or undeserved critique. You just block it out and go on about your business. You're in public, it happens. It would be funny however to take away in the critique section and start critiquing the critiques. Funny, but I'm not doing it unless somebody pays me. I can watch comedians on Netflix any time I want a laugh.

I remember coming to the sideline after an interception and touchdown run playing football. A couple of guys were saying, "you should have cut back there, you shouldn't have done this , you shouldn't have done that." If I did everything they said, it still would have been only 6 points and all their theories were untestable. If they had a clue what they were talking about they would have been on the field instead of me, instead of occupying space on the bench. I have absolutely no idea what that kind of insanity that is, but it happens. Unless I see some evidence the critic knows something I don't, and that it's something I want to know, it's water off a duck's back."Whatever" is the best response.

[photoptimist]

The site said "We do offer constructive criticism here" and those two ladies did exactly that. At such a site, I would not expect an extra round of communications in which critics ask permission before offering constructive criticism.

Positive feedback may stroke the ego, but it really doesn't provide much useful instruction. Specific recommendations for how to change a shot, reprocess an image, or do it differently next time are actually much better for learning.

That's not to say that every bit of constructive criticism must be obeyed. As Normhead and Rondec implied, different photographers (and different viewers of photographs) have different stylistic preferences. Some people love starbursts around light sources and others dislike them. Some love highly saturated colors and other love muted pastels. Some want a single strong focal subject and others love complex, multi-subject images. Every bit of constructive commentary can be filtered through a personal lens of preference. The only subgroup of photographers that might benefit from listening to every bit of criticism are working pro photographers who want to make images to suit the client's preferences more so that their own preferences.

[normhead]

The site said "We do offer constructive criticism here" and those two ladies did exactly that.

And how do you know it was constructive?
As I said... does the sight allow constuctive criticism of the constructive criticism, where does it stop?

For example the one criticism about the exposure values. For people like myself who bracket and select what is in our interpretation the image that lets me to create the look I want, is the fact that others might select a different image to work with, is that a constructive criticism. or is that an attempt to impose your own preferences and values on someone else?

The inference seems to be that any internet poster is qualified to offer criticism. There's productive criticism, and there is destructive criticism. Any criticism that isn't building on the images strengths is destructive. The ability of the critic to see where the person is trying to go with his photos is a very important part of critique. Not everyone that thinks they are qualified to offer a critique has it.

I'd avoid a "constructive criticism" site like the plague personally. Unless offered by an established pro who'e work I admire. I don't need some unwashed neanderthal sitting on a computer in their mom's basement giving me photography tips. Free criticism is usually worth what you pay for it.

You need to be just as careful deciding who you listen to as you do selecting your gear. It's really frustrating on this site in that often, I can't even find images from the critics that would help me understand where they are heading with their criticism. What you need to learn depends on where you're trying to go.If you accept criticism form someone who takes crap pictures, guess where your photography path is headed?

Very few things are all good or all bad, but without an understanding that there's bad criticism, you're better off just doing your own thing. Criticism needs to be evaluated. There needs to be a chance that the time spent in evaluation will be worth the effort, First question.. "What pro photographers have benefitted from your criticism and the way you present it? " There's a lot more people who think their criticism is constructive than actually can give constructive criticism.

Or as we used to say in basketball coaching. "Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect." Picking up bad technique from unqualified critics is really hard to reverse. It makes the work of someone who actually knows what they are talking about have to work a lot harder to get you on the right path.

---

Last edited by normhead; 09-16-2019 at 08:00 AM.

[Rondec]

And how do you know it was constructive?
As I said... does the sight allow constuctive criticism of the constructive criticism, where does it stop?

For example the one criticism about the exposure values. For people like myself who bracket and select what is in our interpretation the image that lets me to create the look I want, is the fact that others might select a different image to work with, is that a constructive criticism. or is that an attempt to impose your own preferences and values on someone else?

The inference seems to be that any internet poster is qualified to offer criticism. There's productive criticism, and there is destructive criticism. Any criticism that isn't building on the images strengths is destructive. The ability of the critic to see where the person is trying to go with his photos is a very important part of critique. Not everyone that thinks they are qualified to offer a critique has it.

Constructive criticism has to do with the manner in which the criticism is made, not the quality that it contains.

If I say, "That's a horrible image, I can't believe you would post it!!" That is not constructive. If on the other hand, I say, "You know, I like parts of the image, but I think it would be stronger if you cropped out the bottom part of the flower and maybe cloned out the weeds on the left," that is constructive criticism. It may be way off base and useless, but I'm saying what I think is helpful.

Unfortunately, people mix up the two and say some really negative things along with comments they think are helpful and the constructive part is lost in the overall tone of the message.

[slartibartfast01]

Does anyone know which site is being discussed ?

[normhead]

Does anyone know which site is being discussed ?

I've been to a number of sites it could be, but, I don't bookmark them.

There was guy here a while ago who's incessant comment was "the image isn't level". No amount of explaining the difference between true level and the appearance of level could slow him down. The bottom line, there is no requirement in photography that an image be absolutely level to be good. Same with white balance. You can tell how good they are by what they want to discuss. And there are very few good ones.

Most really good photographers have good instincts, but the ability to explain so others can understand what they are doing isn't always present. Most people on the internet thinking they are critics is nothing more than a conceit.

What are the examples of their successes? I'm not sure why people think this is something people should get a free pass on.

I once had a student who played on a tennis team that had her own professional coach. She played on my team on the condition, she didn't practice with the rest of the high school team, and I didn't try to coach her. I went for it. Knowing where you should stick your nose and where you shouldn't is available thing. ( Unfortunately she won a tournament and her ranking went to over #25 in the Ontario rankings, and players ranked lower than 30 can't play in high school tennis tournaments, so I lost her anyway. She ended up with full ride scholarship to an American university. I know, I can play tennis at a3.5-4 level, but I also know I can't coach tennis and get my students to a 3.5 or 4 level, they aren' the same skill set.)

---

Last edited by normhead; 09-16-2019 at 08:18 AM.

[ffking]

Cultures differ a lot, evem within the English speaking world, but an offer is simply that, like somebody offers you a stick of gum - you don't have to take it but neither do you expect the person to say "do you mind if I offer you a stick of gum?" before making the offer.

I do find ignorant criticism annoying, as well as critcism that totally misses the point of what I was trying to do, but I'd hate to discourage any criticism as it's always a good idea to keep open the possiblity that we may be mistaken, however right we believe ourselves to be, and value people with the courage to point it out. The choice of whether or not you accept the criticism remains with you, however.

[photoptimist]

And how do you know it was constructive?
As I said... does the sight allow constuctive criticism of the constructive criticism, where does it stop?

For example the one criticism about the exposure values. For people like myself who bracket and select what is in our interpretation the image that lets me to create the look I want, is the fact that others might select a different image to work with, is that a constructive criticism. or is that an attempt to impose your own preferences and values on someone else?

The inference seems to be that any internet poster is qualified to offer criticism. There's productive criticism, and there is destructive criticism. Any criticism that isn't building on the images strengths is destructive. The ability of the critic to see where the person is trying to go with his photos is a very important part of critique. Not everyone that thinks they are qualified to offer a critique has it.

I'd avoid a "constructive criticism" site like the plague personally. Unless offered by an established pro who'e work I admire. I don't need some unwashed neanderthal sitting on a computer in their mom's basement giving me photography tips. Free criticism is usually worth what you pay for it.

You need to be just as careful deciding who you listen to as you do selecting your gear. It's really frustrating on this site in that often, I can't even find images from the critics that would help me understand where they are heading with their criticism. What you need to learn depends on where you're trying to go.If you accept criticism form someone who takes crap pictures, guess where your photography path is headed?

Very few things are all good or all bad, but without an understanding that there's bad criticism, you're better off just doing your own thing. Criticism needs to be evaluated. There needs to be a chance that the time spent in evaluation will be worth the effort, First question.. "What pro photographers have benefitted from your criticism and the way you present it? " There's a lot more people who think their criticism is constructive than actually can give constructive criticism.

Or as we used to say in basketball coaching. "Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect." Picking up bad technique from unqualified critics is really hard to reverse. It makes the work of someone who actually knows what they are talking about have to work a lot harder to get you on the right path.

As Rondec said, criticism becomes "constructive" once it goes beyond simple like/dislike and adds some implementable suggestion of HOW to correct the perceived difference between the posted image and a "better" image. And, yes, that definition of "better" is defined by the critic's personal values and the quality of the criticism also depends on the skills of the critic to provide correct advice.

What's different between basketball and photography is that basketball has objectively and universally measured binary outcomes -- the ball either goes into the basket or it does not. Photography only has subjectively individually measured qualitative outcomes -- each beholder finds each image to be beautiful in various ways and to varying degrees (or not).
If a photographer wants to have any other beholders (besides themselves) who find their image beautiful, then they have to ask for feedback and constructive criticism. And if a photographer seeks to maximize the total number of beholders who find their images beautiful (and not all do!), then listening to every beholder's constructive criticism has some merit. For the most part, the constructive criticism that I have seen seems to be easy to implement -- the photographer can try it themselves are decide if it's good.

Obviously, some critics are more representative of the set of all possible beholders than others. And some photographers have a particular vision and might seek a subset of beholders who share that vision.

[normhead]

And some photographers have a particular vision and might seek a subset of beholders who share that vision.

No photographer is universally admired by everyone. All seek subsets, in which they are comfortable.
The goal is skill in your desired subsets.

And your view of a basketball might a bit myopic. For a good team you need two shooters and three defenders. If you've got two shooters, two defenders and one guy who can do both, you probably have championship team. But, there's different ways to be a good and valuable basketball player, it's not all shooting. A skilled defender is as valuable as skilled shooter. As in photography, you use the skills and interests you have to best effect, even if that doesn't make you LeBron James. A great defender who averages 6 points a game is going to play.

Just ask people who their favourite photographer is and you'll see. There's no universally admired guy who does everything well. They're all working in subsets. Some of the "greats" actually argued with each other about the value of what they were doing.It's not binary, right or wrong, and no one has ever done it all.

Considered by some the greatest photographer of the 20 century, you won't find any books on Richard Avedon landscapes, or Ansel Adams, portraits or product photography, or either's travel portraits, or wildlife photography. The guy who can help you excel is the guy who does what you want to do. You can take what you get from him/her and try and go further. But, you always want to be talking to someone who's been where you're going and can give you information relevant to your chosen subset. It's a world of endless possibilities.

Even on basic exposure, expose to the left, expose the right, expose to the centre, what you're trying to accomplish determines your take on the subject. The only person in error is the one who thinks there's just one way.

[stevebrot]

Well, that's the deal, you post pictures or a printed opinion on a public website, and you're going to get both 'bouquets and brickbats'.

What they said ^ ^ ^

PF users are pretty laid back and if advice is given, it is usually low-key, even in the critique section. Other places are not that charitable, sometimes to the point of simply being strange. I have a friend that does a fair amount of fine art "figure" photography and has a solid reputation in that space. He posts a fair amount of his work on Flickr and every once in awhile there will be a flurry of comments critical of the model's physical attributes and "deficiencies" on multiple points. Yes, people can be jerks. If you don't like the models, follow someone else's work.


Steve

[Just1MoreDave]

My first kneejerk reaction is to hate the critic. Boriscleto's comment and sig is funny but close to reality. Then probably feel bad about myself for a while.

That's not a useful place to stay, so I'd look at my image. Different processing techniques are not that hard. Try those and see if they improve the image. If the criticism doesn't work, it might be a starting point for discussion. I probably wouldn't start the discussion with "tried your stupid idea and it's ugly". Some critics are as sure they're right as I was when I posted the shot, so I can always delete the suggested version and move on.

If the criticism is "this image needs a gorilla" (in other words, I'd have to reshoot under completely different conditions), that's less immediate but I can keep it in mind for next time.

If you read about forum member Heie, famous for his videos testing weather seals in Afghanistan, he's red-green colorblind, and had to be careful processing images to make them look right to the rest of us. I think of that when someone uses the phrases "artistic vision" or "what I saw at the time". For him, it was something different.

Ultimately, good criticism or advice helps. I got some great portrait advice from Clackers in an unrelated thread that still resonates. I used to think I was a lot better at this before the internet.

[arnold]

I have always worked from the idea that everyone has an opinion. Generally I welcome "you shoulds", my knowing others opinions may be an asset to me, but if not, I put it back on the metaphorical shelf. I don't need approval from others, although it is always pleasurable to know some aspect of you is appreciated.
I remember once when someone told me he didn't like me, rather than be offended, I said that if I were him, I wouldn't like me either. This was my acceptance that we don't all share the same values and that his opinion meant nothing to me. The more confident you become in yourself, the less you will take offence from criticism.

[stevebrot]

I used to think I was a lot better at this before the internet.

Didn't we all!


Steve

[kevinWE]

To turn this query on its head: unless you completely understand why people are engaged in photography and posting their work, you have no idea what their personal goals and expectations are, and so should refrain from gratuitous critiques.

Sure, maybe in a perfect world were everyone farts rainbows and spits soda pop.

Have you been on the internet?