Board index Photography Artistic Questions Constructive Criticism - On pBase?

Artistic Questions

Constructive Criticism - On pBase?

Discuss style and artistic aspects of photography
madlights
 
Posts: 914


Post Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:35 pm


At the risk of sounding like a smart *^& I think there's been a lot of generalization on both sides of this argument. Think that you've got to look at where anything anyone says in critique is coming from (get a thick skin)...and then go from there. People learn in differing ways too...some in groups..some from mentors...some by reading...some by being challenged and some by doing stuff themselves..eh? Myself...I'd rather comment on how something makes me 'feel' or think...especially after thinking about this (over the past while). Like Mikes ships going to the scrapyard seems sad...almost have a life of their own ships do..and think Mike has a sense of that in his photos of them...or of the tough life of working in the coastal industries...or some of Seans people shots sometimes speak to me of alienation in the technological world and how alone we all are. Or many of you others that I've seen photos from. I've gone to school...I know the rule of 3rds...the laws of perspective (well I made a fool of myself of that on lens properties when challenged - but I learned something from it) :? etc. etc. but I don't feel comfortable imposing my rules on others..especially if I don't understand what they are saying..or if they are saying something...On one hand if I poured my soul into 2000+ pics..it would be all poured out...and on the other hand if I do take an occasional shot that has real meaning to me and someone 'only' sees the clone or crop factor....I might find that very superficial... Yet if they helped me in any way to convey my intent I'd probably feel differently. I've only become really intrigued with photography as of late...and I'm not very good at it...not where I'd like to be... If I say the equivalent of WOW it's 'cause your photo is making me 'feel' something or think some way maybe I never thought before. Like I said before...you've gotta think and be very careful where someone is coming from in being critiqued or doing the critique. I think that's the important thing...and anything further I can say is redundant to what already I've said...and probably already is :?

sean_mcr
 
Posts: 493


Post Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:04 am


madlights wrote:At the risk of sounding like a smart *^& I think there's been a lot of generalization on both sides of this argument. Think that you've got to look at where anything anyone says in critique is coming from (get a thick skin)...and then go from there. People learn in differing ways too...some in groups..some from mentors...some by reading...some by being challenged and some by doing stuff themselves..eh? Myself...I'd rather comment on how something makes me 'feel' or think...especially after thinking about this (over the past while). Like Mikes ships going to the scrapyard seems sad...almost have a life of their own ships do..and think Mike has a sense of that in his photos of them...or of the tough life of working in the coastal industries...or some of Seans people shots sometimes speak to me of alienation in the technological world and how alone we all are. Or many of you others that I've seen photos from. I've gone to school...I know the rule of 3rds...the laws of perspective (well I made a fool of myself of that on lens properties when challenged - but I learned something from it) :? etc. etc. but I don't feel comfortable imposing my rules on others..especially if I don't understand what they are saying..or if they are saying something...On one hand if I poured my soul into 2000+ pics..it would be all poured out...and on the other hand if I do take an occasional shot that has real meaning to me and someone 'only' sees the clone or crop factor....I might find that very superficial... Yet if they helped me in any way to convey my intent I'd probably feel differently. I've only become really intrigued with photography as of late...and I'm not very good at it...not where I'd like to be... If I say the equivalent of WOW it's 'cause your photo is making me 'feel' something or think some way maybe I never thought before. Like I said before...you've gotta think and be very careful where someone is coming from in being critiqued or doing the critique. I think that's the important thing...and anything further I can say is redundant to what already I've said...and probably already is :?



As always Barri, you're the voice of reason :wink:
What uses having a great depth of field, if there is not an adequate depth of feeling? -

W. Eugene Smith

mnoble
 
Posts: 135

Constructive Criticism - defined again!

Post Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:41 pm


I am really enjoying this discussion. Everyone seems to have well thought out ideas and some strong opinions. That's great.

One thing I would like to re-emphasize since I started this thread. During this discussion, constructive criticism has devolved to "critique." I do not feel they are the same thing. Anyone can be a critic - and many are not so good. Not everyone can give constructive criticism. Constructive criticism is meant to build someone up, to help them achieve, to help them get better. That means that the person giving the CC should have skills and expertise as well as a genuine concern for the person on the receiving end. I think these attributes preclude petty comments or observations that criticize without benefit to the subject.

Thanks to all who are contributing!

Mike 8)

madlights
 
Posts: 914

Re: Constructive Criticism - defined again!

Post Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:24 pm


mnoble wrote:I am really enjoying this discussion. Everyone seems to have well thought out ideas and some strong opinions. That's great.

One thing I would like to re-emphasize since I started this thread. During this discussion, constructive criticism has devolved to "critique." I do not feel they are the same thing. Anyone can be a critic - and many are not so good. Not everyone can give constructive criticism. Constructive criticism is meant to build someone up, to help them achieve, to help them get better. That means that the person giving the CC should have skills and expertise as well as a genuine concern for the person on the receiving end. I think these attributes preclude petty comments or observations that criticize without benefit to the subject.

Thanks to all who are contributing!

Mike 8)
I think in this case "how could it hurt"...but I still do think that the person accepting the constructive criticism maybe should
first:look where it's coming from
second:get other opinions
third:If they feel uncomfortable with the advice...like it doesn't fit their style or intent...don't take it.
Some people do really well at learning from others...myself. I like to experiment...and I'm certainly not above learning from others...for sure...I've missed things and had people point them out which I was glad for...horizons that were obviously meant to be straight that weren't...that I just plain missed...stuff like that. The things I don't like is when people tell you matters of 'taste' like "saturate your colors more"..."use more contrast...use less contrast" Using more contrast for example is dramatic, but using less contrast brings out details...things like that are a matter of taste. So we've all got to be careful in what we advise...or accept. Little things can change style and intent. That's all I've been trying to say...is be careful in advising or being advised....Just to show how tastes vary..I think we've all been complimented on pics we've been ready to delete, because we ourselves dislike them... :)

sean_mcr
 
Posts: 493


Post Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:13 pm


Ok, for a second lets talk about cropping


The difference between photography and painting is that photography is about subtraction while painting is about addition. We haven't got the luxury that painters have of being able to draw from many different wells bringing them together on the canvas. We have to deal with what's in front of us and to make sense of it, to make it clear we have to filter out all the noise, we're already filtering out most of the world and it takes skill and not just sight, it takes insight. That's the difference between a good and bad photographer and no amout of cropping will fix a lack of insight

I could be accused of being slightly romantic here, but a photograph is often described as a capture. Lets liken that capture to a butterfly. just think really hard before you pull it's wings off and if you can't capture it without pulling its wings off, sometimes it's best to get out there another day and maybe, just maybe you'll capture something far more beautiful.

The possibilities out there are endless, when you're at home your world doesn't just get much smaller, it gets much flatter. You can't crop over, under , and all around when you're sat at your pc.

I'm not saying cropping is always a bad thing, i'm not being black & white. It's just that often its a crutch more often it's a bandage. If you're going to let somebody give your butterfly some first aid, make sure they know what they're doing and that it actually needs doing (that's a whole topic by itself )
What uses having a great depth of field, if there is not an adequate depth of feeling? -

W. Eugene Smith

posiej
 
Posts: 109


Post Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:22 am


First allow me to introduce myself. My name is Posie, I am a 62 year old women, without formal education in the art of photography. My current tool of the trade is an Olympus SP 550 UZ which I have owned since spring. I joined Pbase to host my work to share with family and friends and quickly realized what a wonder resource I had found. I am self taught and have a deep desire to learn and improve on my passion. I desperately want CC on my work. I believe most of you whom are actively involved with the forum's are professionals. I hope not to be a nuisance and some of you might find a moment or two to visit my gallery's and send me the cc. If so I would like you to know about my gallery from Gettysburg, that I had 2 days of heavy overcast and drizzle to do my shooting. Those shots where for a package I put together to further my note card business and I did as much tweaking as possible in photoshop.
Lastly I want you to know what wonderful inspiring work I find from you all. And I wish you well in your careers!

madlights
 
Posts: 914


Post Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:24 pm


sean mcr said:
The difference between photography and painting is that photography is about subtraction while painting is about addition.

Well don't know if I totally agree with this...it may be more so this way...but a good painter subtracts with their head before touching a brush...while a photographer subtracts with feet (or a zoom lens) and really in the end with their head too. Really I think photography and painting are much more related than the "purists" on either side would have us thinking. I also believe the "purists" on either side of this issue are somewhat inadvertently holding back the development of each form...cause they're just gonna go where they're gonna go in the end.

On another point: I've been doing a lot of thinking about this thread since it started. I met one of my best friends on PBase..when they asked me if I thought the crop on one of my shots would be better if I tightened it up a bit....and it was a lot better. I've had others point out privately a few things it was obvious that I'd missed. Sometimes a person doesn't see a dangling whatever in the viewfinder etc. when they trip the shutter. So I welcome constructive criticism on second thought...if it's well thought out...and nobody says we've got to do what they're saying to do, right? We can just ignore what someone says if we don't agree. On the other hand I do believe intent is the most important thing...whether photography, painting, music...any of the languages. I also believe that we learn more from our own mistakes and curiosity...but some people especially newer people...like some simpler rules to learn before they break them...and some of us like stuff we miss pointed out...and some of us really can be challenged by others in our own complacency. So I guess in the end I'd vote for constructive critique...remembering that we can ignore it if it doesn't fit our style or intent I understand what sean means...that some seem just "blow off" the whole meaning of the photo...in nitpicking...but lots of critique I've had..has aimed to make my intent more apparent or powerful. We ain't gotta listen? But on the other hand anything that's done that is human can be improved? :)

sean_mcr
 
Posts: 493


Post Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:58 pm


I'd have to disagree about paintings Barri. Anything is possible on a canvas you can go back in time and bring many different elements togather on the canvas in order to tell the story. Photographers have not got that luxury; we have to deal with what's in front of us

Turner wasn't there to witness what happened on that dreadful night that inspired him to recreate the murder of 132 slaves at sea in 'The Slave ship' He went back 60 years to do it. He had the power to include anything he wanted to in order for him to tell that bloody tale. We are tied to the reality of things and that’s where photography’s power lies and what makes it different from painting
What uses having a great depth of field, if there is not an adequate depth of feeling? -

W. Eugene Smith

madlights
 
Posts: 914


Post Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:03 pm


sean_mcr wrote:I'd have to disagree about paintings Barri. Anything is possible on a canvas you can go back in time and bring many different elements togather on the canvas in order to tell the story. Photographers have not got that luxury; we have to deal with what's in front of us

Turner wasn't there to witness what happened on that dreadful night that inspired him to recreate the murder of 132 slaves at sea in 'The Slave ship' He went back 60 years to do it. He had the power to include anything he wanted to in order for him to tell that bloody tale. We are tied to the reality of things and that’s where photography’s power lies and what makes it different from painting

Hi Sean
I think that in the "act" of photography as compared to the "act" of painting you are very correct...but the painter...a good one subtracts the extraneous before the very act of laying the brush down on the canvas or especially watercolors...it is difficult to add to a watercolor that is not planned. Turner still had to subtract the extraneous from everything he probably wanted to include. I imagine some add...some subtract...It depends how much is in your head :) I do understand what you mean. I think though that all good art...from say the blues, which is a very simple but concise form of music...there's a lot of subtraction going on...a good drawing never has more lines in it than need be. As I said I do agree that photography is about subtraction in most cases just a different kind. Good art to me is always about subtraction in that sense of never putting in a bunch of extraneous stuff. I do understand that in the act of painting that it is about addition...what else could it be? But it's the head thing where most art of any kind occurs. What keeps a painter from trying to put the whole world in a painting ? Subtraction of the unnecessary? That's the sense of it that I mean. I do understand that the photographer of course in most cases has to deal with what they find...I've always though photography was more like hunting and painting more like construction on the level you are speaking of...and in that regard I do agree...and in that way it makes photography very interesting...it really does teach a person to see things that never would have before been apparent.

sean_mcr
 
Posts: 493


Post Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:21 pm


I think we'll both have to give some ground here on this one. It's not often we disagree and i think we've both made our points well.

Of course paintning and photography have had a huge impact on each other. It did from the start

Look at these two images of Princess Pauline de Metternich

André Adolphe-Eugène Disdéri 1862
http://www.luminous-lint.com/__sw.php?a ... 3298196648


Degas: 1865
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-b ... ber=ng3337

Degas was never acquainted with Princess Metternich
Last edited by sean_mcr on Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What uses having a great depth of field, if there is not an adequate depth of feeling? -

W. Eugene Smith

madlights
 
Posts: 914


Post Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:08 pm


Sean I think in a way we're talking about two different things. Of course a painter can use their imagination and add...whereas a photographer has to deal with what's in front of them...but the point I'm trying to make is that any good art subtracts the extraneous. The un-needed. and in that way painting and photography are much related. A painter sort of zooms in the mind on what's important to the intent...where a photographer either zooms in with the feet...or a zoom lens (but still really the mind first) A painter also in many cases...especially when working from a photograph will eliminate many unneeded details..they're hard to paint anyway :? So I don't know if anything can be generalized by either of us. Either has to subtract from a world of possiblities. I don't think we are very far apart except in a way we are talking about 2 different things. The painter does have the option a photographer doesn't of including what they'd like to include...whether you look at it as additive...It's still all about what is included in either to come to the intent. A painter also has the option to much more easily change compositional elements...which makes it much more interesting to have to compose with a camera with what's in front of you. But still as I said subtracting the extraneous is basic to good painting, music, literature or good photography..at least in my mind. (You can tell I ain't ever going to be a writer since I never subtract the extraneous when I'm using words) :D

sean_mcr
 
Posts: 493


Post Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:18 pm


"You can tell I ain't ever going to be a writer since I never subtract the extraneous when I'm using words"

I think we both know that words are not my strong point, at least the written word :x

I was thinking of taking some shots from the opening of 'The Photographers eye' By John Szarkowski but I’ve managed to find an intro online.

http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/ ... kowski.pdf


I can't believe that the reprint is so cheap;

Bringing it back to critique

'Beauty in photography' by Robert Adams is one of the most important books ever written on photography and it’s cheap. The essay 'Civilizing critique' in Adams book is almost profound
What uses having a great depth of field, if there is not an adequate depth of feeling? -

W. Eugene Smith

madlights
 
Posts: 914


Post Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:26 am


Hi Sean and thanks for the link. Think were getting away from the OP but there's nothing in that article I can disagree with at all. All I said is that good art is about subtraction of the extraneous. I think that to say painting is about addition in a strict sense would be like saying rock and roll is about addition. To put it more simply all I said was that it's what is left out of anything that gives it power. Look at Rembrandt (especially his drawings) or Bresson. There was nothing in eithers work that wasn't part of the intent...that's the sense I meant it in (subtraction). I do realize of course that photography deals moreso with the reality in front of us...and a painter has more leeway in interpretation. Either can make us see things that aren't really real (and it's gotten easier with Photoshop). I do think photography has greatly influenced painters...and probably painters have influenced photography. I think we're drifting away from the OP and maybe should start a different thread? Maybe like the similarities and differences between painting and photography...and how the lines have been somewhat blurred as of late..and what it means. It is a very interesting topic to me. I liked the bit in that article about "take" vs "construct" Funny I'd never read it and always thought photography was more like hunting, and painting more like construction...but whether anyone likes it or not...it does seem the lines are blurring though.

sean_mcr
 
Posts: 493


Post Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:17 am


Hi Barri

I believe as many do that when something is photographed it becomes something else. It's an interpretation; it's why we never recognise ourselves in passport photographs.

As Gary Winogrand said: “I take photographs to see how things look photographedâ€
What uses having a great depth of field, if there is not an adequate depth of feeling? -

W. Eugene Smith

madlights
 
Posts: 914


Post Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:18 pm


I don't know how to define what art is. Maybe that's the problem with photography and painting and all of it. Maybe it's easier to say what it isn't. :)
There are (and I do know what you mean..and where you are coming from..and I agree) but I'm not sure if you understand what I'm meaning. There are differences...and you've hit them on the head. It does seem some people are blurring the lines. Myself I think that creating something is fine..it's great. It's just not great to create something that isn't there and put it in and 'call' it a photograph. That's my view. I also understand what you mean by subtraction vs addition. A painter or 'creator' had more leeway to select elements from the conception. But all good art is about subtracting that which is not necessary..sometimes not even consciously...and think you'd agree? So I just thought it was a bit of generalization when you said that painting was about addition. It's all about "selection" really. But a painter does have much more of a base to "draw" :wink: from. The photographer that is true to the craft has to deal with what is in front of the lens. Painters and photographers both subtract from the available selections...as do classical composers...or blues artists or anyone. It's just to me that the selections available are much different. I know I sound real "picky" but I honestly think the terms and simplification of 'subtraction vs addition' could be better said maybe with "selection" what is available to select? I had an instructor that always said "when in doubt leave out" that is subtraction...and applies to all art. There certainly is a difference in painting and photography in what is available in selection...so in that we certainly agree...and we are way off the OP. :) But are pretty much talking about the same thing with different terms.

PreviousNext

Board index Photography Artistic Questions Constructive Criticism - On pBase?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron