A story I always remember is back in the days when the government was interested in helping farmers and sent all kinds of literature to them, one old farmer wrote: "Please don't send me anymore of them "How To Farm Better" things. I already don't farm as good as I know how."
On a list like this there are all kinds of skill levels. From beginners to people who have been into photography since Noah built the Arc. How do you critique the photos here. Some people need basic technical help, some only need to know if their photo has the emotional kick they think it does. You are pretty much wasting your time giving the second to the first. And you are just annoyingly condescending giving the first to the second.
So many of the so called critiques here take the form of I would have moved ten feet to the right when that would have been impossible because there was a wall there, or the photographer would have been standing on air with a 200 foot fall under him, or in water up to his neck. Unless you have been there you do not know what the situation at the site was. Now telling someone that if they had caught the light coming from the west instead of the east would have improved the image might be valid, if the photographer is serious enough to want to spend a day, or a week, getting that shot right.
In the days when I was pursuing photography seriously I found that the most useful criticism was very experienced photographers flipping through my portfolio. A nod at a photo told me I had done it right, a frown that I had done it wrong, mostly I got just interested but neutral expressions (OK, but nothing special). When I first started showing my portfolio I did not understand this, I expected long winded critiques but the only photographers who did that were teachers, and I soon learned that most folks teaching photography were doing so because they weren't capable of making a living doing photography. The serious working photographers didn't do that probably because they had long since gotten tired of the bullshit criticism they had put up with themselves.
Anyway I have occassionally posted long technical critiques when someone has made it clear they were looking for that. But mostly all I do is indicate that I particularly like something. You can take that as a smile and a nod at your photograph. Otherwise you can figure I either missed it, or it is in the neutral catagory for me. I personally feel that is about the only valid comment that can be made on the list.
graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" -----------------------------------
William Robb wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "frank theriault" Subject: Re: 21 Ways to Improve Your Photographs
So, I would much prefer that someone critiqueing a work say, "Next time you're in that situation, try this approach, compare it to what you've done, and see which you prefer." I think that's much more effective than, "I would have done it this way".
So, IMHO, it's not a matter of "how the critiquer would present the subject differently". Quite frankly, I don't give a rat's ass how someone else would take my photos. It's a matter of "would ~I~ want to do it differently?" I'm always more than open to suggestions. Not so much open to someone telling me how they'd do it, or what I ~should~ have done.
Maybe I'm just splitting hairs, but I don't think so.
You want your work to be critiqued in a semantically correct fashion. This is why I rarely critique pictures from this list. I don't give a flying fuck about politically correct semantics.
William Robb
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.10 - Release Date: 5/13/2005
