How to provide a constructive and effective critique

[MrB]

Tread carefully, Bill (post #33) - in using "silly" and "inane" there is a danger of you too being accused of impoliteness and intolerance here!

It's good to see your positive reaction to the word "infantilisation". It is a relevant word which, in other parts of the world, might be spelt with a "z" in place of the "s". As the word itself suggests, and in this context, it refers to adults treating other adults as though they were more like vulnerable children, rather than respecting their potential to act as autonomous, self-reliant, mature individuals.

In my opinion, it is important that CiC members should feel free to write their C&C in any structural form they choose. It is of no consequence whether it is a single word, or a multi-paragraph explanation, whether it is positive, positive + criticism, criticism + positive, positive + criticism + positive, etc., members should expect and know that it will be welcomed by the OP and others in the forum. Moreover, while it is a pleasure to receive a positive remark, as members are not infants they should have the maturity to be able cope with replies that might contain only constructive criticisms. Whatever the structure and content of a message, members should assume that it was written and posted with the ethos of CiC in mind - "A learning community for photographers."

Philip

[AB26]

Christina, some people are sensitive about comment and critique.

I always try to look at an image from a positive point of view. If I cannot give positive comment I pass.

I don’t care what others say about my images, I can take any comment and/or critique, anything said is better than nothing at all. This forum is for learning and not boosting my frail ego. I love it when comment/critique is to the point. You want to tell me an image is crap, you are most welcome, just give me a reason for saying it is crap, as long as I can learn something it is fine.

I never take any comment/critique seriously if it does not contribute to my learning experience.

[William W]

Philip,

There are many avenues to pursue:

• infantilization/infantilisation is only one.
• I do ponder why you remain ‘Philip’, with only one ‘L” . . . is that an heritage?
• “inane” is a very good and also an appropriate word, I think: but “silly” is way and beyond and far LESS abrasive than “daft” . . . so I am very safe ground. I feel secure. But thanks for the warning.
• I was very careful to address you as neither ‘inane’ nor ‘silly’. Though probably you have been more than ‘quite silly’ on occasions – who hasn’t?

(Here I would put on one of those smiley things – but I don’t like them – so for the sake of explicit meaning:
the above is harmless, but hopefully mildly humorous, banter; because I liked your banter)

***

On a more serious note and also on the topic of the thread:

I agree with Mike Buckley apropos his interpretation of the “sandwich model”

I think that you ‘went overboard’ with your rebuff – such should/would have been clear by my response.

I agree with you, that the ‘sandwich model’ will NOT fit all C&C.

Whilst I don’t disagree with your right to express that opinion in the manner you did – I think that the expression of an opinion in such a manner as you did, should be nuanced to the audience, if one wishes to get maximum effect – and - I think you (just) missed that nuance.

In any case - and more importantly - as we forward this conversation:
Your post #41 – I agree with - 100%

. . . it is important that CiC members should feel free to write their C&C in any structural form they choose. It is of no consequence whether it is a single word, or a multi-paragraph explanation, whether it is positive, positive + criticism, criticism + positive, positive + criticism + positive, etc., members should expect and know that it will be welcomed by the OP and others in the forum. Moreover, while it is a pleasure to receive a positive remark, as members are not infants they should have the maturity to be able cope with replies that might contain only constructive criticisms. Whatever the structure and content of a message, members should assume that it was written and posted with the ethos of CiC in mind - "A learning community for photographers."

***

This is an exceptionally good thread.
Brava! - again Christina.

WW

[dabhand]

One thing which I believe would really hep in C&C is if the originator were to document what they were aiming to achieve with their image then contributors could deliver any C&C in context.

[Loose Canon]

Hi Terry,

Please accept my sincere apologies if I embarrassed you in any way but you kind of asked for it

Yeah! I usually do!

What really embarrasses me most is that I couldn't talk Mike (Scrooge) into spending even more money that he did!

And I had him a nice lens picked out and everything!

[Brownbear]

It appears that there are two sides to this story...

Yeah! I usually do!

What really embarrasses me most is that I couldn't talk Mike (Scrooge) into spending even more money that he did!

And I had him a nice lens picked out and everything!

[Mike Buckley]

It appears that there are two sides to this story...

Note though that his side corroborates my side.

[Brownbear]

Duly Noted!

Note though that his side corroborates my side.

And just to place this thread back on track. Thank you to everyone who replied.

I think it would be nice to have a "thank you", perhaps a "Big thank you for over and above responses" and a "LOL" button would come in handy, too.

[nimitzbenedicto]

Wow! Tremendous info from all sides.

I guess I can only add, an effective way to give critique is by providing example images/with appropriate explanations about the points the poster wants to give. Just like Bill who posts photos so the viewers/readers can easily understand his critique.

HTH

[William W]

One thing which I believe would really hep in C&C is if the originator were to document what they were aiming to achieve with their image then contributors could deliver any C&C in context.

As a general rule: I disagree. Similarly as I disagree with employing the "Sandwich Model", carte blanche.

Doing so can limit the response.

Consider a novel; a film; a poem; any work which is open to Critique: If one is to provide a critique, that critique of itself often will form a framework defining, or at least providing a scaffold for (one) interpretation of the Artist's Aim – should that aim not be obvious.

***

On the other hand, often, in Competition, Works for Academic Accreditation and Gallery Displays: each Photograph will be accompanied by the 'Artist Statement'.

Any critique thereon, will be within the framework of that Artists Statement or Competition , Accreditation Rules.

This means that the Critique takes on an entirely DIFFERENT FLAVOUR and also DIFFERENT PURPOSE. A major part of the Critique becomes whether or not the Artist achieved the set goals.

I think it is very important to realize this fact.

***

I think supply a context is a good idea - only IF a specific narrow C&C is required.

For example:
a) I ask for C&C.
Please provide C&C on this image:



b) I ask for C&C, stating a purpose:
Please provide C&C on the image above - my aim is to find the best small frame to include in the bottom right of this Picture Story:



In other cases, I think the Photographer will generally benefit more, if no context is supplied, when asking for C&C.


WW

[Mike Buckley]

an effective way to give critique is by providing example images/with appropriate explanations

That works for me so long as access to the example images are provided by links rather than by posting the photos directly in the thread. I think we need to respect that it is the OP's thread and that only that person's photos are to be displayed in it. Exceptions could of course take place once the OP has granted approval for other people's photos to be added to the thread.