The Photographer's Intentions

[Shadowman]

I understand. I have read negative comments like that too, all too often: I’d encourage the recipients to read those not as ‘critique’ but, but rather as opinion, and opinion usually not well founded.

I think ‘critique’ requires both reasonable premise (I mean a premise within and related to the Image (artwork) and also reasonable explanation pertaining to the image (artwork).

For example (I don’t like using the word “negative” to describe ‘critique’ – but in this situation I think it is relevant):


“After the Concert” Subway Carriage - Vienna, Austria, 2014 (Fuji X100s, Available Light)

1. (Negative) Opinion: “You were too close to the Subjects either get back further, or zoom wider”

2. (Negative) Critique: "The triangle captured between the three girls works really well, it is disappointing that the exclusion of the boy is not enhanced by the image having a bit more negative space into which he can gaze."

Personally, I'd dismiss the first comment but note and also appreciate the second.

WW

Opinions/critiques can also be taken negatively by the artist, I wonder if it matters to the artist where in the critique/opinion (beginning, middle, or end) the negative comments appear, does it make the artist feel the commenter couldn't get past the element used or as in your example the negative space provided in the imagery to fully appreciate or complete their review/critique. If the negative opinion/critique goes beyond the aspect that lessens the impact for a particular viewer I'll gain more guidance to perfect my imagery.

[Manfred M]

Interesting exhibit format, I like that viewers/judges are limited in how close they are to the images but obviously close enough to spot glaring flaws that would not be there had the effect not been used.

These types of rules are fairly typical in "club competitions" and have evolved over time. It derives from the "Salon Exhibition" concept that was used for both for painting and later on evolved to photographs. he reason for doing so is quite simple, as it forces the judges to evaluate the image as a whole, by forcing the image to be viewed from what is considered to be the "normal viewing distance", rather than getting into more of a "pixel peeping" mode.

Most photo clubs in Canada belong to CAPA (Canadian Association for Photographic Art) and sometimes PSA (Photographic Society of America) as well and follow their judging criteria.

When I critically review an image the photographer's use of special editing is sometimes used to add points to an image, I would never grade the image solely on the effect.

I always start with the whole image and look at the technical aspects, how the photographer has organized the image, the emotional impact on the viewer and the level of imagination / originality in the work. Special effects are looked at in terms of how well they work with the image, rather than how well the effect is done.

I wonder how many of us choose to use special editing before we begin our workflow or after and why?

I make the decision at the time I press the shutter release as I shoot with PP in mind. I have a general view of what how I will handle it in post, subject to a more refined view when I download the image; i.e. I know I will do some burning and dodging, but the amount and intensity will depend on a more detailed examination of the image.

When I go on to print, there are additional steps taken that are related to the paper characteristics I intend to use for the print, but this step is almost an independent overlay on top of the PP work I plan to do and will depend on the size of the print as well.

[Manfred M]

Opinions/critiques can also be taken negatively by the artist, I wonder if it matters to the artist where in the critique/opinion (beginning, middle, or end) the negative comments appear, does it make the artist feel the commenter couldn't get past the element used or as in your example the negative space provided in the imagery to fully appreciate or complete their review/critique. If the negative opinion/critique goes beyond the aspect that lessens the impact for a particular viewer I'll gain more guidance to perfect my imagery.

I wish I had an easy answer to that question John, but in my experience it completely depends on the person whose work is being critiqued. Some people are truly looking at improving their skills and are more than happy to receive this type of feedback while others are very sure of their efforts and feel that any negative feedback is a personal slight.

The credibility of the person providing the feedback will also play a role here. Negative (and positive) feedback from a recognized "expert" has a lot more credibility than feedback from someone who is viewed as less skilled, regardless of how correct the information is.

The other issue in providing critique is that it has to be viewed as impersonal so as it is not viewed as a "personal attack", so choice of words and language can be even more important than the message itself. Look at the two comments Bill has used in #18. The first one is personal as he has used the word "you" in comment #1. Avoiding the word "I" is equally important. Comment #2 is written in the third person and is far less threatening and personal.

[ccphoto]

Age old dilemma: to berate or not to berate, that is the question. I never mind being taken down a notch or two for a silly mistake or if I get caught doing a post production "voodoo" edit short of name calling. Using "you" or "I" doesn't affect me unless the person making the critique is using it as a means to denigrate me as a human being and not directed to my work...ah, but therein lies the rub; "how does one differentiate between one and the other?"

Artists, whether dancers, painters, writers or photographers open themselves up to intense scrutiny the moment they post a work. They may not ask for "approval," but that's exactly what they are doing. It doesn't matter the title, it doesn't matter the genre, it doesn't matter any specific intent by the artist as to the response from others. Some may think your title defines the outcome of the image, others are upset you didn't give it a title to define the work. There aren't any intentions on the artists' part that ever become a part of the critique as that is far more an opinion than anything else. Yes, the one making their opinion known may be far more erudite than the poster, but his eye was not the eye in the viewfinder, nor the one who chose the framing, exposure and setting.

I always try to clarify that this is my opinion and not to be construes as the one and only fix for someone else's eye decision, though as a human being with a wide range of experience in the plastic arts, I know there is a tendency to tell rather than show, thus the edits I make with explanation of what I did, how I did it and why, ending of course with,"this is just one opinion, not to be construed as better, only different."

There are no "right" answers in this dilemma, only more questions. Cheers!

[Shadowman]

Even if I don't get the answers I like that there is discussion, another response I get to my images from two friends is:

the female will view my landscapes and cityscapes and will always accompany her response with: which lens did you use, where was this taken and when she views my street photography or portraits she'll accompany her response with "what made you photograph her?". My male friend will view my cityscapes and say: that doesn't impress me, I've seen it hundreds of times before and when he views my street photography or portraits he'll say okay you've got something there.

[Manfred M]

My male friend will view my cityscapes and say: that doesn't impress me, I've seen it hundreds of times before

It really bothers me when I hear photographers say that.

I personally don't care if you have seen the scene hundreds of times or for the first time. If someone is asking you to evaluate his or her image, chances are this will be the first time you have seen that particular image. Comments should be made about it, not the other hundreds of pictures that he or she has seen of that scene.

[Shadowman]

It really bothers me when I hear photographers say that.

I personally don't care if you have seen the scene hundreds of times or for the first time. If someone is asking you to evaluate his or her image, chances are this will be the first time you have seen that particular image. Comments should be made about it, not the other hundreds of pictures that he or she has seen of that scene.

He can be a bit abrasive, on the other hand being asked your intentions or sometimes assuming your intentions can be equally intrusive and sometimes insulting. But as someone else said, when you allow people to view your artwork you open yourself to various levels of opinion and critique. I suppose its similar to the response you get when you say your going to Vegas, everyone assumes you are going to gamble.