I hope this is not usurping the moderator's function, but I'd like to make some editorial-like comments about what is useful in a critique.

An honest critique is one of the most useful forms of input, especially for amateurs, but is also one of the hardest to come by. On a couple of occasions I have posted my disappointed response to a famous photographer's useless image critique that was part of his "workhop". The essence of his remarks was that whatever you liked was fine. Sharp enough, almost exposed right, well, if you like clutter - it was all OK. Or just "nice shot". The information content of his remarks was as close to absolute zero as possible (apparently to avoid angering potential repeat customers of the workshops). Since I went to that workshop for the specific purpose of getting his CRITICAL remarks, I was pretty pissed and he lost me as a potential future customer.

My I suggest that this forum NOT follow that photographer's lead and continue to offer uninformative comments. A critique means being critical and that is not a bad thing in a forum like this. I know being critical is considered a bad thing in many of our social interactions, even harmful. The opposite is true here where photographers are specifically asking for your critical remarks in order to improve their skills and judgement in composing images.

Specifically, I suggest that you should in all cases try to formulate in words what it is that you do or don't like about any image. A simple "beautiful photo", while somewhat uplifting in the short term, could be "it's beautiful the way you brought the texture and shape of that rock together in exactly the right light to make the image sing." That tells the photographer something he/she may not have even realized consciously about the image. That is what a forum such as this is all about. So please, try to be very specific in your remarks and you'll help this forum work and you might be surprised that such a detailed verbal critique will even help you with your own photography.

One caveat to this: it may be cool, but for me at least, I hate it when you see some recognizable form in an abstract shape in my images. "Wow, that cloud looks just like my neighbor's dog!" kills an image for me. I never try to photograph such resemblances and would prefer you kept such insights to yourself. Of course, some of us do this deliberately - to each his own.

Mr. Moderator, if this is out of place in the critique forum, I understand, but I don't think it will get to where it needs to be heard in the other forums.

Thank you for your attention.

Frank

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), December 23, 1998

Answers

While this isn't a discussion group, I think this post is pretty much right on target and isn't out of place here.

A critique should be more than "nice shot". If you can't formulate at least a sentence or two about why you like or hate an image, you probably shouldn't be posting a "critique".

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), December 23, 1998.

I agree with most of the above; but sometimes it's difficult to say anything else but "great picture". If the post is by a fine photographer, as many of you are, how many times can you say: yes it follows the rule of thirds, yes the exposure is good, yes the subject is interesting. When you reach a point where you do know these things, do you (not you Frank particular) continue to post so people will say nice things? If you know you are taking good pictures, and you know you are going to discount criticism you don't agree with,(some is sure to be unfounded, I mean who are these people anyway?) why post? Maybe to share something? Thinking out loud here folks.

-- Mike Green (mgprod@mindspring.com), December 23, 1998.

I agree with Frank on this. I can learn much more from constructive critique than from praise (but it does not mean I don't like getting the latter :). Being very technically-minded (22, grew up with computers and other gadgets, currently doing PhD in physics...), I do not have much trouble with technical side of photography. It's the compositional issues that I struggle with. The reason I come to this forum and look at other people's work (and even posting mine lately) is trying to figure out for myself what makes good photographs work - light, colors, shapes, textures... Reading thoughtfull comments really helps, especially from people whose work I admire.

So I say: let's critique! We will be better photographers in the end, even if we get a few bruises along the way :).

-- Andrei Frolov (andrei@phys.ualberta.ca), December 23, 1998.

Frank,

Frank you discussed critiques nicely, however,I am assuming (based on your previous inputs) that you would agree that there is room in a critique forum for discussions between the critiqued and critiquer? I personally enjoy reading the various differing opinions of the photos. Sometimes it is difficult if only two short critiques are offered and no response is given.. I assume most people are like me and read ALL of the posts for several days in hopes of picking up information. Granted this turns the critique forrm into a teaching forum but is it all that bad? It is, afterall, just a few more lines of text.

I also feel that common courtesy should require that the poster sould reply to the critique. Hopefully to start a critical discourse on the subject photo.

The comment about clouds and killing images is still being pretty stubborn. Images in clouds have for centuries lead the religious beliefs of civilizations. To me recording this effect is interesting (artistically hopefully) - again to each his own.

I looked back at your submissions, however, and can understand why you feel that way. Your nice abstracts make recognization difficult to aviod. The less real and more abstract you lean the worse it gets. You have the basic problem that a face can be suggested by just two dots and a curve. It's the way the brain is wired.

Ben

-- Ben Lanterman (benl@anet-stl.com), December 23, 1998.

I agree with most of the above, but I do have a difficulty understanding Frank's comment about other people's visualizations within his images. I think it is a litle rough considering the subject. Why do you post your images on the "WORLD WIBE WEB", for all the world to see, if you don't want to hear what all those people really see? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the more constructive remarks, and agree that those remarks are the learning tool of such a forum as this one. But lets face it, not all of the people posting to this forum have the background or experience to offer technical/composition critiques in response.

I found this forum about a year ago, about six months after I started shooting. It wasn't until about three months ago that I had some images scanned at my lab and into my computer. I couldn't wait to join in. I am here because I look at images everyday; my file of about five thousand, magazines, books, the web, everywhere. Why? So I can get better and learn what marketable images look like. I post here to learn how to critique images from all of you. But if you look back over the past postings, it is generally a small percentage of the group that responds with good constructional critiques. I would say a tiny percentage of the total visitors actually offer responses. You Frank are one of those. The rest of us are still learning. I believe friendships are made in forums such as this one, so in the spirit of friendship, if 'great shot', or 'wonderful image' is not enough for you, then read on to the next one and enjoy.

Happy Holidays All! Rob

-- Rob Pailes (rpailes@peganet.com), December 24, 1998.

I find "Respectful Candor" to be the most important thing to keep in mind when providing feedback.

Sometimes it helps the recepient accept negative feedback if you give it in the form of a "compliment sandwich" which is... Start off with a compliment, then give the suggestions for improvement, finish up with a compliment.

-- Chris Hawkins (peace@clover.net), December 24, 1998.

Here are my responses to some of the comments that followed my original posting, addressed to the individuals so they are easier to keep clear.

Mike, I agree that pointing out such things as good exposure and following the "rules" may not be all that helpful to a good photographer. However, there is usually something you can say about the even best photographs that goes beyond "great!". I, for one, would always be interested to hear about which specific aspects of my "great" work you are responding to. Is it the light, the subject, the contrasting elements brought together or something you never thought to look at? Of course, there might even be something you don't care for about one of my images, though heaven forbid! Any thoughtful comment is worth hearing, regardless of the source. It doesn't take a pro to point out anything good or bad about an image, it just takes consideration and the ability to put the idea into words.

Ben, Absolutely, it is in our best interest to be able to "listen in" on a discussion between any critiquers (even if we don't get into the discussion) to get different takes on a photograph. Exchanging ideas is what this is all about, not decisions from on high.

I admit that being disturbed by hidden images is one of my own peculiarities, this was specifically about my own work. I hate finding imaginary images in my work that were not visualized when I did the shot. You, obviously, enjoy such revelations as your title of the "Great Bird" image attests. I was pointing out that it isn't always true and can be damaging to the photographer's concept of an image.

I agree that the brain does easily recognize certain things (that's why uncritical portraits are so easy to do, it doesn't take much to recognize Uncle George or whoever). It is equally easy to refrain from pointing them out in cases where the author didn't make it obvious that he is interested in such revelations.

Rob, Seeing something in the image (creatures in clouds, faces in rocks, etc., let's call them "mirages") is a reflection of your own psychology, a "reading into" what is not really there. You are not seeing what I did, you are seeing what is already in your mind. In some cases the mirage is hard to avoid, like Ben's "Great Bird", since it is iconic in Christianity which is extremely prevalent in western society. Please realize that a specific form is almost never universal, everyone doesn't necessarily "see" it as you do, it is a kind of cultural conditioning.

I happen to be sensitive to such mirages in my photos - I have removed a print from a gallery show and destroyed the work for this reason. It has to do with the philosophy of my photography, it is integral with the reason I do photography. I assume that there may be others of such radical attitudes and I'm asking you to be sensitive to the possibility.

Regards,

Frank

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), December 24, 1998.

Frank, I'm glad you posted your "Comments on comments" and got this discussion started. I agree with you that it can be very helpful to have a more detailed response to an image. And it is enlightening to know the specifics of why someone likes (or dislikes)a photograph. After all, like you said, that is what a critique is all about. But I also agree with Rob, that probably only a small percentage of the people viewing images here actually comment. Perhaps some of them are hesitant or shy about commenting. I know I felt that way at first. I wouldn't want to discourage those people from getting started, if the only thing they want to say at first is "nice shot."

-- Barbara Kelly (kellys@alaska.net), December 25, 1998.

Hi All,

One of the real problems is the time it takes to look and respond. The internet is not a viable tool for viewing things or reading things at the speed we are accostomed to. For instance magazines and books, etc. are read with a tremendous information rate. My thing maxes out at 42000 baud, pretty slow. So for someone like Frank (who is professional), Phil (who must be really busy), Bob (I shudder at the time that moderation must take), or me (rank amateur in photography) to set down and view and write critiques that are hopefully good is going to take a lot of time.

In a busy life not a lot of photos can be looked at, and not always can a lot be written. At that time a comment like ....Good, except for the trees.....Bad, except for the trees.....Bad including the trees :-)  is better than none. Short and accurate is OK. Long and teaching is better. It is also a lonely feeling when you get just a couple of comments even when they are good.

I wish to express my thanks to the people that take the time to comment on my work.

Ben

-- Ben Lanterman (benl@anet-stl.com), December 25, 1998.

Critiquing is a skill, like judging the quality of light, and it develops as you practice it.

I've been doing critiques for the infrequent classes I have given over the last 10 years (I make it a point to do a detailed written critique of at least 20 images for each student), so I have enough skill developed that it doesn't take too long for me to figure out what I am or am not responding to. Even so, there are times when I just don't feel up to the effort it takes. This varies with my energy and with any particular image, as some seem to require a great deal more effort than others. Also, posted images have the drawback of masking the technical basics in the electronic conversion process - I always found it easier to start by checking focus, d.o.f., exposure, etc. and then going on to compositional matters, impact, and the achievement of a stated goal or response. Since scanned and posted images that appear on my monitor might look quite a bit different from the author's, I try to refrain from getting into stuff that might be due to electronic variables (color shifts, contrast, apparent focus, etc.). So, I don't get my kick-start, I have to get right into non-technical attributes and that is harder for me to do. With some images, I just can't find anything to say that I think is worth saying, perhaps because the image is overwhelmed by technical defects or because I don't have any positive or negative response.

As you can tell from these posts and my frequent responses to other photo.net posts, I have lots of time to think about photography and sit at my computer banging out words of, well, perhaps, wisdom, sort of. This effort of putting thoughts and ideas and feelings into words is rather like visualizing an image - it is an exercise that gets the brain working in comfortable paths that lead to more thoughts, ideas and feelings and brings them closer to the surface where they are easier to capture. I find this to be very good for my photography, when I actually go out and do some; maybe you will, too. Give it a try.

Frank

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), December 25, 1998.

"I happen to be sensitive to such mirages in my photos - I have removed a print from a gallery show and destroyed the work for this reason"

Frank, this is not being true to your own beliefs when you let the thoughts of others control what will, or will not be in your portfolio. I have several images that are construed to be very sexual visually, but the thought never entered my mind at the moment of creation because what I saw was the flow of line, detail and tonality. You said it yourself, these people bring what they see in the "abstract" with them controlled by their own beliefs and preferences. I see this as success. Would you really want everyone to react the same to one of your abstract images? It might as well be a traffic light.

I believe in what Edward Weston said,and I paraphrase, " in creating them my obligation to the viewer is complete.

Don't destroy your work, because there are no winners in that.

Mark Lindsey

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), December 25, 1998.

Mark,

This discussion is getting a bit off the original thread and think we should continue this discussion by e-mail, if you wish, or in the general purpose Q&A, if that's appropriate and anyone else is interested.

Frank

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), December 26, 1998.

Generally, a "nice post."

-- Justin Smith (jaykay1997@aol.com), December 27, 1998.

I'd like to see critiques only by "qualified" posters.

I.E. posters should EARN the RIGHT to critique. Critiques are more usefull when we know something about the work of those doing the critiquing.

Critiques should keep in mind the rules of good graphic design (all of them). Many critiues are meaningless because some posters only quote something out of a textbook like the "rule of thirds", when good graphic design has many possible "rules" and the compostion is otherwise very good.

Posters should also calibrate their monitors before posting comments.

-- Keith Clark (ClarkPhotography@spiritone.com), December 28, 1998.

frank i can't seem to reach you through e-mail, what is your website address?

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), December 29, 1998.