To Critique Or Not? That Is The Question.

RyanS

Hopefully this will be an easy question. When someone posts a picture without any request for critique, the person does not want it. Correct? In other words, keep comments only positive. Preferably around two words.

Nice shot.
Great job.
Awesome capture.
Nicely composed.
Wonderful.
Another winner.
Good stuff.

Reminds me of those little chalk flavored Valentine's Day heart candies with the messages printed on them, and just as satisfying. When someone posts a request for critique, is that the social signal indicating we can actually... you know... critique the image?

I've been following things here for a little while and I'm still confused on this point. I appreciate any clarification.

JC

If they are mine, fire away.
unfortunately, I don't really post enough to get really familiar with most of the posters, and most of time when i can read, I don't have time to post or post many of my own images, so I can't really claim to contribute much myself.

Nothing is more depressing though, to ask for C&C and have nobody say anything....

then I think, is it that boring? Am I that boring? Is the photo so hopeless? Did i forget the secret handshake? I'd rather have a good round of constructive criticism.

There used to be forum specifically for critique, they got rid of it and said that there should be enough critiquing going on in the other forums.

Richard

I moved this to TBP, as I think it is relevant to all the Shots forums.

There aren't any rules about this and people take different approaches. My feeling is that if you aren't looking for critique, there's usually not much reason to post here--you might as well just leave the shot in your personal Web gallery. So when I post something, I feel that I am implicitly requesting C&C. Likewise, when I have something to say I will offer critique even when it is not explicitly requested. Perhaps that's presumptuous, but that's just what I do. As for the "great shot" comments, well, to me the worst response is silence. I'd rather get more extensive feedback--positive and negative--but I know that many people have limited time. I do think that if you are giving negative feedback you ought to try to provide more than a couple of words, but I think most people do that--you don't see many "that sucks" comments even though in some cases it may be true.

RyanS

Thanks for the reply Richard. I originally posted this in the street/pj forum because I've recognized different social norms for the different forum areas. The "TBP" forum is still a great place to have this discussion, so no problem with the move.

Is there a different social expectation when posting an image in the street/pj forum than in some other forum? In other words, is there a built in expectation that an image would be critiqued if you placed it in street/pj rather than, say, you posted in landscape? My default assumption is the same as Richard. If you post in any forum, that means you want a real critique. Why? You put it on the Internet and it is a forum, not a rating system. However, and the reason I ask, that is not what often occurs.

kolibri wrote: »

Nothing is more depressing though, to ask for C&C and have nobody say anything....

then I think, is it that boring? Am I that boring? Is the photo so hopeless? Did i forget the secret handshake? I'd rather have a good round of constructive criticism.

There used to be forum specifically for critique, they got rid of it and said that there should be enough critiquing going on in the other forums.

Here are the main reasons I do not critique an image:
1) The photographer produced an image I am incapable of critiquing due to their superior artistic talent and skill. I have nothing of significance to add. The last thing the world of photography needs is another "nice shot" post.

2) The image does not appeal to my personal artistic tastes, and thus I feel someone else may be better suited to critique it.

3) The image needs a lot of work and I don't want to spend the time to explain how to make it better.

4) The image is so bad I am hoping no one replies so it falls off the first page of posts quickly.

I agree with each individual forum contributing its own critique. It makes sense in the salon school of photography the industry has pigeon-holed itself in to. There are specific subject matter experts patrolling their personally preferred forum. They are the inspired hosts.

I'd love a more open view, but I'm happy following the social norms and can play nice with others.

Moving Pictures

Couple points to toss in ...

There may be a photo I lack the experience to properly evaluate. My niche is sports. The slower stuff moves, the less competent I am, I tell folks - so landscapes are out of my league. I'm a lousy landscape photog.

In my biz (newspaper/writing) critiques are part and parcel of the whole working experience. You gotta be able to give, and take. Not everyone can handle that ... I think the good ones can, for one reason: they recognize that much of what we see is subjective.

I'm also noting another element: some styles around here are so ridiculously post-processed, it ain't funny. I kinda balk at that. So I have to determine what's simply not in keeping with my personal "touch little, touch lightly" processing mantra, and what's really overcooked.

RSL

Few people who post images on a forum are prepared to accept serious, informed criticism. Mostly what they want is back-pats, just the way mom used to do. And when two or more posters begin to argue about the evaluation of a particular image, other forum watchers who aren't used to controversy see the argument as the equivalent of a fight. Of course it is a fight, but that's how you learn new things. You don't become educated about a subject by sitting in a classroom and letting a lecturer pour knowledge into your brain. You become educated by questioning things and looking at alternatives. That's the real meaning of the frequently pirated and misused phrase: "question authority."

But the problem with a serious argument over the merits of an image or an approach to creating an image is that if one of the participants in an argument runs out of ideas he may resort to shouting and ad hominem attacks. At that point you begin to get people who want the forum to remain all sweetness and light piling on with comments like: "Why don't you guys shut up?"

Let's face it. There's no way around this dilemma. To turn thumbs down on a post is to invite attacks. So, as Ryan pointed out, critiques tend toward:

Nice shot.
Great job.
Awesome capture.
Nicely composed.
Wonderful.
Another winner.
Good stuff.

Unless a forum makes clear that photographs are posted for serious criticism, "Nice shot" is going to continue to be a standard "criticism." That's one of the good things about Luminous Landscape's "User Critiques" forum. The title makes clear what a poster can expect. Not only does that forum welcome serious criticism, it also welcomes re-posted modifications in a poster's original post, and even posts of similar photographs in order to make a point. It's a teaching forum. There aren't many like it.

DavidTO

I think you can always critique as long as you follow The Hamburger Method. Most often the critiques that aren't well-accepted are too brusque to be easily accepted. It's hard to swallow a bitter pill, but a spoonful of sugar... It's really all about how you couch it, I think.

EDIT: The key section of that link for me is: "1. Is the criticism truly constructive? Here are some synonyms for “constructive”: Positive, helpful, productive, useful, beneficial, and practical. Antonym: Destructive."

Also, [thread=216829]this thread[/thread] on the same topic could be of interest.