[jpzk]

I had no idea where to ask this question, so I thought that here would be a good place to start because the "Photo Critique" thread requires photos to be submitted and one would expect some sort of explanation of the technique to be used (properly).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I realize the question is a bit confusing and I will try to explain what I mean:

Once you post a picture in the "critique" section, you would expect blunt, unadulterated, "to the point" comments pointing out all of the good and bad of the said image, right?
The critique should also include details of the technique used for the posted photo and offer alternative/proper techniques to make the image better, I think.
In my opinion, I also think that whoever critisizes the image should have at least some experience with the type of image presented ... whether a pro or an amateur offers comments, he/she should "know what he/she is talking about", right?
I mean: if I am going to post a portrait photo for critique, what does it really mean to me when the person reviewing it only takes landscape shots?

I "almost" posted some pics to the critique section a while back but then decided to peek in there and see the comments offered to the OP's .... I was rather surprised that a lot of times it would show comments much the same as those seen in the "post your photos" section.

So, how much "weight" would you give to critiques of your technique in the "Photo Critique" section?

Now ... waiting for comments!

JP

[Winder]

how much "weight" would you give to critiques of your technique in the "Photo Critique" section?

Not much. This is probably the most "gear/collector" oriented of all the forums that I read.

Of all the "brand" oriented forums that I read I always thought Dyxum has some of the most creative photography. Dyxum photo contest (DPC) hall of fame The old Minolta glass does not get enough love.

[stormtech]

I had the same feeling the couple times I "peeked" in the critique forum also. I saw quite a few threads of images posted by the same person - just pics posted with no explanation and also no questions for the viewers to critique..

There were a couple threads where real critique was going on, but very few.

From what I saw, it was no different that the "post your photos" section. I suppose that if you specifically asked for some honest critique you might get it though.

[LaurenOE]

My take is that the "post" and "critique" are very different, even if someone posts to both.

If you want a "pat-on-the-back" you post in the "post". I go there and a little "Great shot, congrats" is enough or say nothing.

As for the critique, that's a tough one. I have had a thread or two closed over my harsh critique and opinion as it erupts into a flame war. I feel that if you don't want a critique don't post there. Most of the time it takes effort to offer suggestions and sometimes people *really* don't want to hear what they did wrong.

Once in a while I go in there, but tend to stay away as I've gotten into trouble there.

Now, who I am as a photographer clearly defines how I see images, and how I interpret another photograph will encompass the full spectrum of my opinion, not just technical factors.

[LaurenOE]

So, if *I* critique an image, I will obviously look at the technical.
However, my demographics as a married woman, non-religious, pro-LGBT, liberal, 40+ age, rough childhood, no family, ex-military, world-traveler and a host of other bits and pieces will cloud how I see the image aesthetically and artistically, and my opinion will represent that as part of the *total* critique.

[Ole]

The intention is to give polite, but gloves-off critique.

When the critique section was launched we had a lot of honest critique going on. But after a while those providing the constructive feedback got tired of subjects smack in the center, tilted horizons and water running out of the images and stopped visiting the forum. It is actually very time consuming to provide serious feed back and if those posting images repeat the same mistakes as the previous posters did, it's no fun.

Perhaps we should solicit a team of volunteers who do critique just like we have a team of volunteer moderators?

[SpecialK]

So, how much "weight" would you give to critiques of your technique in the "Photo Critique" section?

Now ... waiting for comments!

JP

About the same as Amazon reviews, sorry.

[LaurenOE]

The intention is to give polite, but gloves-off critique.

When the critique section was launched we had a lot of honest critique going on. But after a while those providing the constructive feedback got tired of subjects smack in the center, tilted horizons and water running out of the images and stopped visiting the forum. It is actually very time consuming to provide serious feed back and if those posting images repeat the same mistakes as the previous posters did, it's no fun.

Perhaps we should solicit a team of volunteers who do critique just like we have a team of volunteer moderators?

Yep. I agree 100%.
"polite, but gloves-off critique".

[joe.penn]

I "almost" posted some pics to the critique section a while back but then decided to peek in there and see the comments offered to the OP's .... I was rather surprised that a lot of times it would show comments much the same as those seen in the "post your photos" section.

Hmmmm, I am thinking of how I can put this without putting this out there in the wrong way, and sorry if this offends anyone, but this honestly really isn't a place to look for critiques. If you look around the forum here enough you will realize that there is a lot of "do this" and "do that" or "this is better than that" by users who never post anything themselves, and when I say a lot I mean a lot. With that being said, would anyone want to be critiqued by someone who has shown none of their workset in return? There is however a small handful of users on here that are extremely talented that could provide valuable tips, techniques and critiques, the only problem is really none of them seem to troll the critique section.

So, how much "weight" would you give to critiques of your technique in the "Photo Critique" section?

No weight whatsoever UNLESS:

- The critiquing user has shown a more advanced skill level than the user/photo the user is critiquing
- The critiquing user is known throughout the forums as producing stellar (or extremely good) work

------------------------------------------------------

One thing that comes in handy on the forums here is the "mention" syntax to call a user to a thread (if they elect to get involved in a thread), I have used it on a number of different occasions (as a matter of fact I am the one who originally asked adam to implement it); post something in the critique forum and call in a user ( @UserName ) who you know has produced great works similar to the work you are trying to produce.

[Giklab]

Once you post a picture in the "critique" section, you would expect blunt, unadulterated, "to the point" comments pointing out all of the good and bad of the said image, right?

/p/.
Just make sure you don't ragequit instantly.

[LaurenOE]

If you look around the forum here enough you will realize that there is a lot of "do this" and "do that" or "this is better than that" by users who never post anything themselves, and when I say a lot I mean a lot. [U]

Very true. There are some folks on here where I don't think I have EVER seen one of their images in ANY thread, yet they comment on things!!!

[halfspin]

To get great feedback on your technique I suggest posting a photo to the Pentax Exclusive Gallery. I posted the one below and got 14 comments several of which picked it apart nicely and gave me direction to do it right the next time. Very humbling and very helpful.

[Kozlok]

I posted some in the critiques forum, and got what I felt was honest, helpful suggestions to make my images better. Things that didn't occur to me because I knew what I wanted my image to be, so I didn't see it as clearly as I could have.

I will also just completely disagree with the notion that someone who is a good photographer is a good critiquer, and that a poor photographer is bad at it. I think they are only somewhat related skills. Case in point, I am a brilliant applied mathematician, but I am a terrible math teacher. One of my friends is a great math teacher, but she really is a terrible mathematician. I edit research papers all the time, and I can catch every mistake. My own papers have similar mistakes which I am unable to see. This is why I have a colleague edit them for me. The skills of reviewing and doing are only tangentially related.

It is usually quite a bit easier to see flaws in someone else's work than it is to see them in your own due the underlying psychology.

[tackyat.2]

No weight whatsoever UNLESS:

- The critiquing user has shown a more advanced skill level than the user/photo the user is critiquing
- The critiquing user is known throughout the forums as producing stellar (or extremely good) work

------------------------------------------------------

One thing that comes in handy on the forums here is the "mention" syntax to call a user to a thread (if they elect to get involved in a thread), I have used it on a number of different occasions (as a matter of fact I am the one who originally asked adam to implement it); post something in the critique forum and call in a user ( @UserName ) who you know has produced great works similar to the work you are trying to produce.

Perhaps "no weight" is too harsh. I think so long as someone can come up with a convincing reason as to how their photo could be improved, then it is a valid critique. Now, does it carry the same weight as someone who is a professional in his or her field? No. But why would you turn down any critique so long as it is reasonable and constructive?

On a different note, I feel as if that I can't leave any critique on images in the critique forum recently as it seems to range between snapshots and pretty flowers. Not all, but certainly more than usual.

[normhead]

I have on occasion wandered through the critique forum.... all I can say is people have opinions. Whether or not they can help you at all is another question. Going over some of the comments from the PEG, I can offer that a lot of people who think they know something, don't. A lot of people offer opinions, that are incorrect. Despite that if all you're looking at is "do people like or dislike the image." then the critique forum or the PEG can be informative. However, you find a lot of the opinions expressed take a very pedestrian view of how photography should be. Take the critique for what it's worth and you won't be disappointed. As for developing your own set of values, it's probably not so valuable. Watching a person working with abstracts get repeatedly shot down by people who don't like abstracts, has really emphasized that point. People here feel no compulsion to limit their comments to things they know about. SO to continue with my reference example, a person who can't understand what abstracts are about saying "this image doesn't make any sense to me." is not a worthwhile comment. This is great place for snapshot shooters to improve basic technique. Looking for more than that. You need to hook up with people interested in what you're interested in. There are books on abstract photography, and I'm guessing not one of those published images would make it in to the PEG. There are many other categories where that would be true. And some of the comments are truly disturbing in their ignorance.

As I said, take it for what it's worth, and you won't be disappointed. The good thing is, every now and then someone posts a gem of a critique that is everything a critique should be and genrates meaningful discussion. You just have to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, and realize what's wheat and what's chaff depends on your world view. Something that means something to you may seem like garbage to some one else and vice versa. What seems like ignorance to me could be the key to somone elses conceptual problem.

Back when I was coaching basketball, one of the most interesting things I learned was that the guy who is the best coach is not the best basketball player, or even the guy with the best understanding of the game, it's the guy who can look at a shooter, understand what he's doing wrong, and understand what to say to him to help him improve. For example, a guy shooting short you don't say "shoot longer", you say, "aim for the back of the rim". The first doesn't correct the problem, the second does...technically "shoot for the back of the rim" doesn't make any sense. (You don't really want to hit the back of the rim.) it just works. So it is with criticism. It might even be correct, but if it isn't explained in the right terms, it's still pretty useless.