 |
Shteve [deleted] says:
I think it's very natural to like to hear good comments about your photos. I personally hate criticism, and often take it personally the minute I read it; defending my position. However I realise that hearing criticism is the only way that I will ever improve.
One of the reasons that I have drifted away from posting lots of images on Flickr is that I don't want pleasant comments; I want the gritty honesty, and I'm not sure that Flickr is the right forum for that. A lot of people will only comment when they have something good to say - by not having anonymous comments, people feel they have to say something good, or not comment at all.
Basically I don't like to hear when I suck, but I know that it's necessary.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I know I suck, so I don't have to hear it. :)
Well.... but seriously, I am my own worst critic. I personally think all my stuff sucks, and that people are stupid idiots for liking my images. Although I didn't used to be this way: I blame the hell of high school. :)
I've taken to posting my images mainly to groups that are specific to the subject I've photographed. Even said, I usually get "wow, that's so cool!" and like comments on my stuff. Nothing ever specific. Oh, once in a while someone will ask how I got a specific shot, but it's rare.
I rarely give comments, because I don't really want to be one of those "it's cool" or "great capture" people (and don't get me started on the whole "capture" thing). Most people on Flickr don't come out and ask for critiques on their work, but you will find some.
If someone asks for constructive criticism, and I can help, I will. Otherwise I keep my mouth shut.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
~ fernando [deleted] says:
Shteve wrote I want the gritty honesty, and I'm not sure that Flickr is the right forum for that. I am not sure where this is available online... but yes, certainly not in flickr.
The problem with criticism in such a forum, as I see it, is that you do not know the taste of the person that is giving it, and so it is difficult to digest for it to be useful to us. The other kind of criticism, along purely technical matters, is usually given in a condescending way, and photography is not all about technique and obeying rules -- unless that is the kind of photography desired. Frankly, I am not sure how many people that use flickr are actually good critics... I think those are few. Very few.
There are a few ways to improve that does not rely solely on criticism, but it may not go as fast. For me, I have learned a lot from flickr by catching on what not to do: catch on to clichés (which would need a fresh look, since they cannot be avoided anyway), all the current post-processing styles craze, etc. Then, there is other things that make sense after a long while... and learn to appreciate it.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
~ fernando edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
I agree with Shteve. The moment I hear criticism it doesn't feel very good but I still appreciate it very much. I'd love to get more honest and constructive criticism on my photos and I am thinking I should perhaps edit my profile to include a note that I don't mind being criticized by strangers.
What I don't think works very well on an online forum is a back-and-forth-discussion of the criticism. It's fine to ask questions if something is not clear but it almost never pays off to try to relentlessly defend your position. Best just to thank the people for their criticism and reflect about it for yourself.
Still, nothing beats real-life discussions. We have a Flickr meeting group here in Berlin and we meet once a month to criticize each other's shots. Everybody brings a few prints and passes them along and then we discuss them in the group. That's not only fun but also very instructive.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I am not sure where this is available online... but yes, certainly not in flickr.
Almost 4 years ago to the day, the DeleteMe! group was started up in order that people could submit photos and get away from the bland "great shot" and wow! comments. It's not for everybody's taste, but, with over 4000 members, somebody must find it useful.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It's always one of three options for me:
1) I'm feeling insecure and all I want is for someone to tell me I'm great;
2) I know exactly how good I am and unless I think you're as good or better, nothing you say will even register;
3) I'm genuinely unsure as to whether an image works and want to know what people think.
There's a big difference between "honest criticism" and "you suck" though. The simple truth is that I don't suck, so if someone tells me I do, I know that it's not "honest criticism."
Besides, while it's really easy to blame it on people being "too sensitive" or what have you, but it takes skill to give good feedback, too. There are just as many shitty critics as there are shitty photographers on Flickr, so complaining about people not being able to receive "honest criticism" is really only half the problem.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
are you saying that talent is like common sense?
no matter how little you have.... you tend to think its enough.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Since I am the best no criticism is allowed... period!!!
Only joking.
No really, it hurts but is usually constructive if the person explains why, otherwise that's just being nasty!!!
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm all about DMU. You'll get a lot of snarky comments here, and sometimes people are downright rude, but they aren't afraid to be critical either. Check out
www.flickr.com/groups/dmu2/ and read the rules!
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Being fairly new to this field, I WANT criticism.
I only upload what I consider "5 star" photos. Probably one out of every 200 I take. Every photo I upload, I think it's "perfect" in the sense of what knowledge I have at the time.
That being said, the criticism that will improve me is the criticism that points out something I didn't know or weren't aware of. It doesn't make me feel bad or insecure or any of that. Matter of fact, it opens doors for me, and it improves me.
That being said, I gotta say I've been fairly chicken to openly criticize someone else's photo. I just don't comment on a photo where I don't have praise, or if the photo is just kinda "meh" for me.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm no expert photographer, but I will criticize a photo if I think it's bad.
Having experience with people's reactions on flickr, I think that the people who have responded in this thread are toning down their thoughts on this subject - I think it's one thing to say that you'll welcome criticism, but it's another thing to actually receive some and your reaction will be different then.
From observation - most people delete critical comments, a few ignore it and a tiny percentage will acknowledge it or 'laugh with it'.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have received constructive criticism on a few of my photos, mostly on lighting - definitly my Achilles' heel. I'm okay with it and welcome it if presented in a respectful manner.
I personally won't offer it unless it is asked for. Photography, as an art, is subjective, at best. I love close ups and a lot of subject detail, contrast and hard edges. I have no real like for landscape shots, but that doesn't mean that I should critique that style as bad. Lots of people like landscapes. You can't really instruct other artists on how to crop a photo because we all see things differently. I love going on shoots with friends and seeing how different our pictures are whne we are shoot the same subjects.
Dan
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
~ fernando [deleted] says:
Jim Skea wrote It's not for everybody's taste, but, with over 4000 members, somebody must find it useful. I found this useful ;) Really, a moment where comments showed a lot of things about flickr.
I sampled some comments from that group, so it may not be enough, but many were not really that great... it was just technical stuff that had no relation to the photo, etc. Still, I will say it was a refreshing attempt at commenting.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Depends...
I take part in one group where i post shots where I'd like honest critique on. Those are shots I usually made a real effort for to get. (as in technique, transforming idea into actual pic, postprocessing etc) And then honest critique is very useful. Never heard I sucked but sometimes people saw certain pics in a very different way I did, pretty refreshing
Sometimes I upload a shot just cause it's a cool shot IMHO, and I hope other people will enjoy seeing it. If some wise ass then starts rambling about my crappy composition, exposure and what not....well I still don't really care, but i'd rather have them take the piss at somebody else.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
Frank Spee edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
i don't mind negative comments - many times they have actually caused me to delete the photo and try again or change the exposure or cropping of it
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Adulation and critique are one of the same most of the time; worthless drivel.
Comments that tell me something about how the viewer relates to a picture or evokes a memory or emotion, they're the ones I like. Don't get many of those though. Maybe it's to do with the worthless drivel I post.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Is it actually possible to get good unbiased "critique" on Flickr?
I've stook my head into some of the "critique" groups (never posted in them) and some seem to be nothing more than vehicles to self-massage the commenters ego.
Are there actually groups out there where people join through a sense of altruism?
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
~ fernando [deleted] says:
monaxle wrote Comments that tell me something about how the viewer relates to a picture or evokes a memory or emotion, they're the ones I like. That is the magic to me. For someone to spend some time writing a few sentences, on how they see the photo, is where the magic comes from photography.
In my opinion, it would be a vast improvement to the experience here, if the comments were about the person's impact by looking at the photo, and not to worry about the photo making process. Given that I know how I feel about my photo, then making a connection is the last, and most difficult, hurdle in finishing a photo.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
~ fernando edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
|
Sighthound wrote Just because one thinks that oneself does not suck does not mean that in reality one does not, in fact, suck. And therein lies the trick of it all. Because at some point, in order to function as an artist and/or a photographer, one has to have at least some confidence in one's ability to produce a good picture. Otherwise, why would one bother?
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Your comments and critique is very welcome. The rest of the talentless sheep can fuck off.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thank you all for your response so far. (permalinked the thread, still interested in what may come).
I am overwhelmed by the toughtful comments and that you guys actually spent the time to answer a rather poorly expressed question.
But you get what I meant. And I am humbled and greatful. Honestly.
I caught myself posting 'great stuff' and could not stand myself doing so. This is the kind of nonsense nobody should ever post. Maybe flickr should have a thumbs up/down button for these kind of things.
But I would agree with two thoughts mentioned here the most.
I agree, that people, who actually take the time to post their thoughts about your work, expressing their ideas or feelings can be 'interesting to you' and are more valuable than 'badges' or whatever other nonsense.
But I would also (cautiously) point out - as a non-professional - that there are certain rules that apply in photography, even in this day and age of digital overload and complex post-processing nirvana.
It is hard to see those; either technical glitches, that have nothing to do with the (non-)intention of the photographer; but mostly, they have to do with composition, color, temperature, motive and mimicing techniques or certain styles that don't come together as it was meant to be.
"Professionals" can see those. Even I can see them, but that is not the point. They do exist, that's what I am saying. And I don't know how I can communicate these thoughts without hurting somebodies feelings or starting unintentionally a flamewar.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Dont know...but it itches when people say that i dont.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
When I see photos that suck I don't waste my time saying so, I would never end, flickr is full of sucky photos.
I don't reeally see much of it because I spend my time in groups where the photos don't suck so much.
I don't really like criticism, but I do thrive on worshipment.
So you are all welcome to my stream to worship my beautiful masterpieces!
Come on don't be shy even if your photos suck I will appreciate your comments saying why I am so talented, handsome, creative, intelligent and kindharted without being full of myself or even egocentric.
Some people ask you to stand.. I only ask that you kneel!
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think that ive someone doesnt comment on your picture, then they dont like it.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If it is my amateur "this is what I did or where I went" then no. Those pictures are for family and friends to comment on the what's going on in my life and theirs.
But if it is my attempts to improve on photography technique, then, of course! But I would really like specific suggestions for improvement along with why the photograph doesn't work. I post those group discussions. I have learned alot from the strobist groups and sony alpha groups where the goal of discussion is better photography and camera use.
I ignore anyone who feels they have to be mean although I have been known to call them out on their meanness. (Usually young hotshots who I remind that I am a middle age mother trying to learn something new and that they should apologize and call their mother.)
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Criticism from a knowledgeable individual should always be welcome. But, more often than not, comments reflect ignorance on part of the commentators. That's when the "Delete Comment" facilitation comes in handy.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Sometimes you feel like a nut.
Sometimes you don't.
There are plenty of groups you can join that invite people to tell you when you suck. If the photo isn't in one of those groups, better not to leave messages on the photos of people you don't know.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Constructive Criticism.
You know, when this big bad beast known as the internet first went live as far as chat rooms and message boards and such, people were utterly brutal. No need to be afraid of somebody 3,000 miles away so you hit them with the utter truth. That was nice.
Now though, I find it very hard to find real advice and criticism in an attempt to improve in some way.
He has a good point, that's a big problem too.
I will, however, try some of the groups suggested here.
I've tried the "Score ME" groups but most people seem to do a copy / paste system where they just fill out whatever criteria needed then paste it for all photos they score. They never leave any information.
Critique groups are no better because unless a picture is utterly horrible to the point of complete suck, nobody says anything either.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"No need to be afraid of somebody 3,000 miles away so you hit them with the utter truth"
You must be using a different Internet to me.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Criminey, this is a tough one. My official statement has to be that I gotta suck it in and take criticism like a man... but it'll sting nonetheless.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Like all unboundaried galactic systems, Flickr is actually not one single entity, but a constellation of many. You might compare it to the planets that make up the universe. Most Flickr members are sadly confined to Uranus, a vast, ugly, barren and forbidding place where creative life does not exist. Others inhabit Pluto, where the only other life form is kittens. Many, fancying themselves as artists, have moved to Venus or Mars, where they practice curious blending techniques that eradicate light and shadow.
There remains a small outpost of cultural distinction in parallel but safely distant orbit. I cannot name it, for admission is by invitation only. If you don't know about it, I'm afraid you never will. But rest assured that not all of Flickr is "wow" and "great shot"; a brave and elegant critical elite is battling constantly for artistic truth.
One day, perhaps, we will be able to reveal ourselves, and bask in the gratitude of the masses. But for now, the battle is too cruel, the enemies of beauty too numerous, for the cream of Flickr to show their faces.
La lotta continua....
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
Tampen edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
I am DMU'r for the 3rd time, same group and I have been putting 3 star images up so far. How else can I judge if the participants therein Know anything about the craft? What I love are when I get a techky comment and when I look @ their profile/stream I find photos of the commenters with their First dslr, usually less then X months ago. At least 60% of the people have never used a film camera or ever stepped foot in a dark room, and comment like they know something about, something. I have more time in a dark room than they have on the planet and they really don't know jack shit, or his sister, Jill. Are all of my images 5 star? Hell no but if one does learn from their mistakes then best images comes more frequently and easier, because of the near misses.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
DMU is indeed fun. only 20% of what you get is real critique, the rest are fun jabs, but still...
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
years of experience blah blah blah. don't count for much if after all of that time the output is mostly mediocre.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Free Wisdom.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
~ fernando [deleted] says:
alexcovic wrote But I would also (cautiously) point out - as a non-professional - that there are certain rules that apply in photography, even in this day and age of digital overload and complex post-processing nirvana. Aside from the rule that says to press the shutter button, I am not sure that photography is well served by rules. Suggestions? sure. The "rule of thirds" is a nice guidance, but it does not do anything to make the photo any good.
My opinion is that rules is a way for people to create some objectivity in photography so that they can feel that they are "measurably" better than others, and so "technical" critiques are useless and just to create "a strata of knowledge," where there should not be any. Oh yes, and it helps with setting up contests to feed people's egos and pockets with money.
I am also puzzled by the idea that one learns photographic (self) expressionism through critique... it seems like an idea that quickly will get you to be something, but the idea of learning anything by critique sounds counter-intuitive to me. It takes time... a lot of observing, and then you can find how to express yourself in a way that pleases you (or not, and leave photography for something else), and it makes any other person's critique be meaningless. A civil conversation about someone's opinion of a photo, that is welcomed and fruitful.
(I know that you said "cautiously point out" ;)
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
You're right, but my mediocre periods were at least offset by larger periods where the content would rise like cream to the top. And make me $$$$. a year just in print sales and now books, etc. blah, blah, blah.
Some folks Never climb out of the hole, that they did not even know that they were in.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It's obvious I suck. I don't even ask for critiquing anymore.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Crick3 It was your sentiment I was responding to not your stream. I hear it all the time. Someone does something, anything for a period of time they consider significent and by virtue of that alone consider themselves an expert or a cut above the rest. Maybe they are. Most often they're not. Sure once or twice they might have hit the jackpot but it took a shit load of spare change to get lucky.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
~ fernando wrote
I am also puzzled by the idea that one learns photographic (self) expressionism through critique... it seems like an idea that quickly will get you to be something, but the idea of learning anything by critique sounds counter-intuitive to me. I think critique is an essential part of learning self-expression, especially once you're past the level of basic technical mastery. Self-expression implies that I have something I'm trying to say. When I get feedback from the viewer, I get to see whether my message was received or not and, if not, what I want to do about it. Without some kind of feedback, I might as well just be shouting at the ocean for all the good it will do me.
At the most basic, though, I don't think a person has any right to a decent critique until they can explain what it was that made them take the picture in the first place. If you don't know why you took a photo, why am I supposed to care how it came out?
Just my bitter art school grad 2¢, though.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
maybe worrying so much about whether the nature of how someone communicates "sucks" or "doesn't suck" gets in the way of appreciating what they are trying to say.
and perhaps the reason why flickr is full of lavish, unreserved praise has as much to do with the fact that flickr's structure makes it fairly easy to only follow the kind of stuff you like as it has to do with ego stroking.
not that there aren't many mutual congratulation societies on flickr - just that they come by it naturally. it could simply be that other people have better things to do than listened to unqualified critique from random strangers on the internet.
the top post says "Is there room for real discussion?"
since when is criticism about whether something is good or bad the only kind of "real" discussion?
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
~ fernando [deleted] says:
The Other Pete wrote Self-expression implies that I have something I'm trying to say. When I get feedback from the viewer, I get to see whether my message was received or not and, if not, what I want to do about it. Without some kind of feedback, I might as well just be shouting at the ocean for all the good it will do me. What confounds me is that for a critique to work, we either have to understand what the critic is seeing, or that the critic understands what are we trying to do... otherwise, it falls more into what I called "a civil conversation" -- which means that we do get something out of the exchange, but we have to digest it and make it our own, and it is not about direct feedback like "you should do this" and improve.
Mind you, something like so-called "product photography" may be well served by feedback, because the goal seems to have been standardized at least through the learning process.
Just my bitter art school grad 2¢, though.
this can apply to many other fields, so it is well understood :) Critique is part of the formal learning approach to photography, and now that I think of it, also creative writing. However, I question its pedagogical value or effectiveness, but at an institutional level, that may be the best that can be done... but why extend it to flickr is puzzling.
The critique method seems to demand that we place people in authority on subjective matters, and that is weird. Kinda like some put Explore as the determinant method of good photos.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think this is vital. Eventhough sometimes when I don't like a photo I just don't look at it (or I abstain from commenting anything) it does seem to me quite useless to just browse thousands of photos commenting "great work!" or "nice shot!".
I only say it when I really mean it, and eventhough I might not feel like any kind of authority as to say when other people's work sucks, I would like to hear somebody say something like that on my photostream. I could see if they think the photos that suck are the same ones I think suck.. but it also tells me they browsed and spent some thime on my gallery. Which is always nice, right?
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
~ fernando wrote The critique method seems to demand that we place people in authority on subjective matters, and that is weird. Kinda like some put Explore as the determinant method of good photos. I think that's where most criticism goes wrong, especially on Flickr. It's not as if there's some magical Photography Wizard who has only to say the magic words and you will suddenly be a great photographer. If that were the case, there would be only a single book in the Photography Instruction section at the bookstore and everyone would have read it.
The way I see it, there's a natural progression in every photographer:
1) Toddler – just got into photography, doesn't know anything and wants someone to show him the ropes. They're usually the ones trying to run before they can walk by looking for reassurance too soon and usually get their feelings hurt by a harsh comment. They usually benefit most from the "Rule of Thirds" kind of feedback to help them start to see things photographically.
2) Teenager – has a pretty good command of technique and wants to go exploring on his own. They usually have a thicker skin and can accept tough criticism because they're more able to solve the problems that people point out to them. They're also usually the ones trying to help out the Toddlers because they remember better when they were new and would like to spare someone else the same trouble, if they can.
3) Grown-up – knows what he knows and doesn't worry too much about what he doesn't. These folks have usually identified what they like to shoot and how they like to shoot it. There aren't a lot of these guys around, mostly because they've got their own circle of friends and don't really need to bother with a bunch of anonymous people on the web. The few that are around usually leave soon enough because they get tired of Toddlers throwing tantrums when they don't think the Grown-ups love them enough.
The first two categories account for probably about 98% of the known Flickrverse (if not the Internet as a whole), so they disproportionately affect how we all perceive things. The more mature a photographer gets, the quieter they get, so it only makes sense that things seem so out of whack most of the time.
At least that's how I see it. YMMV of course.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think that's where most criticism goes wrong, especially on Flickr. It's not as if there's some magical Photography Wizard who has only to say the magic words and you will suddenly be a great photographer. If that were the case, there would be only a single book in the Photography Instruction section at the bookstore and everyone would have read it.
I think this truely is the biggest issue. People look at things differently and people have their own style. Some guys are devoted to shooting "properly" on the same level as those who worship whatever religion.
Properly for them is: Perfect balance. Perfectly centered. Clear point of focus. Not too many colors. Whatever. They may stumble across somebody who's "proper" method is over-the-top color, multiple subjects, HDR'd to death..
They may both win awards at the same show, but they will battle each other on their views and how they think it should be done. They'll pick apart each other's work while both wearing medals around their necks.
Even in the "delete me" groups suggested in this thread there is chaos when it comes to votes. "soft" voting as I've read. Some people like it, some hate it, some are okay with it. Nothing's definite.
I, for instance, love to offset a lot of my stuff. I have countless photos with notes and matching posts suggesting a cut-down, (and perfectly centered,) image. Normally resulting in the destruction of the story I was trying to tell. I say thanks but no thanks and explain why I left a crop the way I did. I do retain their suggestions though because when I do want to run out and center something to an exact zen-like balance, I have the information needed.
In the end, you have to take the good with the bad and apply it all.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
RyshardAntonio edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
|
But who tells somebody that they suck? What if the next person tells them they're great? It's all relative.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
~ fernando [deleted] says:
Sighthound wrote One can totally have tonnes of confidence in oneself's ability and still, in reality, suck. What is the problem with this?
I mean, if you are trying to make a living, you will find out that you potentially suck by not getting work. One is not delivering the goods to clients, and it is a problem that one either corrects (biz savvy) or quits (arrogance).
Otherwise, if you are doing it for yourself, then who is to tell you that you suck? Who has this infallible authority? Yes, it can universally suck -- but so what? (I mean, that attitude would come from the self-confidence.) This is the dreamland scenario... but who is getting hurt?
I suppose it is possible to have tonnes of confidence, and still know that there is much to learn... and then the trick is how to learn, but that does not mean learning by criticism. How does this approach generate the visionaries?
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
~ fernando [deleted] says:
The Other Pete wrote I think that's where most criticism goes wrong, especially on Flickr. I fully agree... the problem, as I see it, is that there is not going to be enough "good" critics in the world to meet the demand, and so it is wasteful to wait for such a person.
The Other Pete wrote The first two categories account for probably about 98% of the known Flickrverse (if not the Internet as a whole), so they disproportionately affect how we all perceive things. The more mature a photographer gets, the quieter they get, so it only makes sense that things seem so out of whack most of the time. Agreed as well. The confusing part in these stages is that the criticism is deemed as valid... it can be useful, there is no denying that, because when one knows little, most alternate point of views are rich with something to explore (no ™). If there is an innate talent to be brought to the surface, then I contend that observing is equal or better to the seeking of criticism.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"Join flickr for flaccid fawning!"
As Jim Skea said, DM was invented as a protest against ffff, and it was fun for a while. It and its ilk are still fine if you like rough love, including a substantial fraction of vacuous (and therefore irrelevant) and unfunny comments. I quit when the statistically inevitable happened, and a couple of my submissions in succession received a hammering that consisted of nothing but drivel.
But I can't view DM and spinoffs as serious critique, and never could.
Tampen said it far better than I could have; people have established groups in flickr for serious critique, and at least one of them has worked pretty well for several years now.
What does this criticism consist of? It depends on the photo and on the person offering their opinion. Sometimes it's about the emotional response to the photo, sometimes about how some perceived flaw or triumph in the composition, depth of field, or exposure disturbs or elates the viewer, sometimes on some more arcane issue. The point in criticism, in my view, is to explain how you react to a photo. That helps the photographer, whether a child, teen or adult in the sense above, to understand how their work affects someone else.
And that's what photography (as opposed to snapshots) is all about, isn't it?
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
Kalense Kid edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
I'm very often dissapointed too with the little amount of true criticism. I try to give good critics myself too. But sometimes I even get hate-mail cause people are offended if I have suggestions to improve a shot... pff...
That's too bad, but there are a few groups and Flickr-members who do give good decent critics, so that's where I get my energy from!
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I can accept criticism (and welcome it) when it's constructive, when it explains what I've done wrong or how to improve it.
What I don't like is when I say, for example, that I like the composition but that something isn't working, and then get nothing but people saying "Well, I *don't* like the composition." (Or "This is not a photograph, just a snapshot," which I received once. No offense to previous poster.)
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i appreciate honest criticism, positive and negative...
that is why i created my own group... www.flickr.com/groups/photography_comment_openly/
there are too many groups on here that say "post 1 and comment/award 2".. they are just throw away comments/awards and not very useful to the photographer who might want to improve their "art"...
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I love it when people tell me I suck, it means they actually took the time to look at my photos.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
constructive criticism is not a bad thing people that say that shot is sucks can toss off.
but still everyone his own taste there is no wrong or right.
i like to know what people like tho.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I actually prefer it. Everybody takes bad shots. Half of being a good photographer is weeding out all your bad ones and only showing people your best stuff. If people don't tell you when your stuff is bad, how can you trust them when they tell you it's any good?
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I do not seek critique.
I am interested in sharing and that is all.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
More interesting than who answers here is, who doesn't answer. But I don't want to explain that. :-)
I personally appreciate criticism if it's constructive. And I can stand it as I have to - in consideration of my shot's low quality and their also low interestingness.
But I don't read it very often as Flickr seems to be a place where soft-soaping is highly popular.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
Silanov edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
As everyone, I like to hear that my work is good. I do, however, like to know when other people do not like a shot as much as I do. Usually, I do not like my photos that much. once in a while, however, I take one and for some weird reason I really like it. I would like people to say that they don't like it that much (and why) so that I know for next time.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I need to respect the person first. Start and end of.....
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
~ fernando [deleted] says:
Erik van Rosmalen wrote But sometimes I even get hate-mail cause people are offended if I have suggestions to improve a shot... pff... The existential question is... how do you know which direction the improvement must go, given the intent of the photographer, if this is not clearly expressed by the photographer?
Perhaps, before a critique can be offered, the critic should offer a question of what is the intent of the photo... and perhaps, then, there can be something useful offered. Otherwise, yes, you run the risk of ruffling some egos, or providing something that is not sought here by the person.
Silanov wrote More interesting than who answers here is, who doesn't answer. But I don't want to explain that. :-) You must really love how abstruse you are ;)))
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
~ fernando [deleted] says:
Jayel Aheram wrote I do not seek critique.
I am interested in sharing and that is all. Flickr is a sharing site, for sure. :)
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I would honestly have to say that I enjoy the criticism, if it is done in a constructive manner. I recently joined a photo club, and was hooked up with a mentor. I email her my images and she reviews them. At first it was very tough to deal with the responses, but if I tell myself that she is trying to help me improve, I can handle it. It has helped me to look at my own images, and really evaluate them honestly.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'd definitely welcome constructive criticism on my photos... anyone? :)
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Well if the TH contact list DMU gets advertised then I don't see why the real DMU shouldn't.
www.flickr.com/groups/d_m_u/
Oh, and nice with the Andre photo mention...just shows how stupid some people on Flickr can be (and I'm NOT talking about the DM people, I'm on their side on this).
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I enjoy critique if it's intelligent and sincere and sympathetic. I'm often very confident in my finished picture, and criticism that I disagree with prompts me to think about what my intentions were, and helps me identify what I like about it - something that is usually unconscious when I'm actually making the picture.
I don't much like criticisms based on rules, eg. thirds, exposure, etc. They usually miss the point and aren't in sympathy with my intentions at all.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I prefer to lick rather than suck ;op
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
WAW@48 [deleted] says:
Dont mind critizism, Im not a pro and really dont care what people think. I like to hear suggestions on how I could have taken the shot differently.But I might add critiques hold more wiehgt based on the quality of the persons stream giving the critique.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Well, I'm very critical of my own work, so if it gets past me, it can get past most people.
As for mundane comments, well, I like mundanely positive comments, and I don't need to hear criticism because I just find it undermines my self-esteem (which is pretty fragile).
Anyway, I use the number of views and the enthusiasm shown in the comments I get to judge what works in an image and what doesn't.
See, if it has lots of views and lots of happy comments, then it was good.
If it doesn't have so many views and the comments are mundane, then I think it's not so good.
Yeah, I don't feel I need or want criticism, because of this alternative judging method! :oP
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i don't take criticism very well.
even worse are backhanded compliments
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i get criticism from my photo teacher, i guess im used to it but considering he is a professional and instructor i take it a certain way
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Yes, I do. So I like to keep my ears protected from the thighs - which can bE a hindrance, particularly when flabby - by wearing headphones connected to an amplifier into which have beEn plugged a stereo pair of microphones.
Hope this helps.
T@
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If it's not rude, and if it's honest and constructive, I don't care, but if it's rude, I just get pissed.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
do I like to hear that I suck? not really, no... unless the person makes a good case for it, that is.
but I also don't like comments along the lines of "cool!" and "great shot!", "I like how the light falls on her breaface"; the fave system was meant for that, why waste words and have flickr send me a mail just for that?
l.e.: also, there are some people that will find something to object to in whatever you show them, regardless of its overall value. There was a funny thread about some of Ansel Adams and HCB's works analysed by such professional critics, with devastating results for the authors ;) (not that I particularly like HCB, but the photo that was under scrutiny was quite ok for hanging large on a wall, maybe not so OK for displaying on flickr :)) )
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
m0n5t3r edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
_mpd_ [deleted] says:
Nope. I'm taking pictures I like, not pictures you are supposed to like. If you happen to like what I like, that's awesome.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It's generally not appropriate and probably rather rude to criticize photos unasked, especially in public comments. It is perhaps always inappropriate to criticize a photographer rather than his photo.
There are many people who welcome constructive critique on at least some of their photos, however, as can be seen from the responses above; but generally others have no way of knowing who they are or which of their photos they may be interested in getting critiqued at any particular time.
To serve those members, flickr has a number of groups that specifically cater to them. Some of the major and currently actively moderated* ones are:
 .....  ....... Score My
LV
*Groups of this nature that are not actively moderated immediately fall into disarray due to a continual stream of people who join and submit but don't comply with the intent and spirit of the group, so the "actively moderated" part is key to enjoying a good experience in these type of groups.
monaxle wrote Comments that tell me something about how the viewer relates to a picture or evokes a memory or emotion, they're the ones I like. Don't get many of those though. What you are describing is "Impact" and two groups from the above that specifically address that are DSM and RMP2
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
TomBrooklyn edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
I prefer the term feedback over criticism; criticism implies the negatives are more important ,even with positive or constructive criticism. Feedback is more a neutral term. I think it is important to mention things you like in the photo as well as the aspects that aren't so good. If you mention a way to improve it that helps too.
As a new member (of only a few months) I do still like the "nice shot" comments. If someone who has a lot of flowers in his/hr photostream puts this comment on a flower of mine than it is worth more than someone without any. The same goes for more detailed feedback.
Personally I don't think my photography is good enough yet for me to give detailed feedback; preferring to ask an (im)pertinant question on a picture as this (hopefully) gets the photogropher to think and I may learn something.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
brokensongs [deleted] says:
Honestly? Yes, absolutely. I prefer to think of it as constructive criticism ... it helps one grow. Everyone should understand it's nothing personal.
Speaking for myself, I seem to have no filter as to what's good or bad among my own work. Sometimes I go through and delete a bunch of photos I "don't like" any more ... so an objective opinion would be very useful!
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I tend to think of my photos as sketches,templates for other later photos.I don't regard them as the finished article.I welcome all critique that has substance.I only ever comment on photos that i find interesting and when I do so,I tend to explain what i like about it rather than a stock meaningless comment like "nice capture".I don't comment on photos that are poorly composed,badly exposed,snapshots because life is short and I have better ways to spend my time.IF a person doesn't know what is wrong in their own photo ,then someone telling them is not going to to make much difference.I like to encourage the talented rather than discourage the bad.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I know mine suck, no Explore since 24 October and I have uploaded 691 images since then...... LOL, Have a great day and keep smiling
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
archer10 (Dennis) edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
Like KK said, it depends who is doing the critiquing. If you check out this and this, all these critiques are constructive in the writers' minds, and I'm sure these people all know their DSLRs and gear, yet they are all completely non-sensical since the writers are completely ignorant about the aesthetics of photography, and presumably art in general.
Most people have problems recognizing beauty and are mesmerized by "distracting" bits, something not looking razor sharp or general quirky elements they feel should be made more easily understandable. Pointers like that are not necessarily helpful if you have an artistic bend that doesn't go that way.
Also, for everyone who loves a photo there's someone else who doesn't which is why it's important to know where your critiquer is coming from, otherwise it can be hard to make these things meaningful for you.
Unless you are talking technical issues you are just asking for a random stranger's personal opinion, which can be anything from helpful to moronic, but it shouldn't be more important than your own opinion and instincts.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
_barb_ edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
Being new to photography It dont bother me as long as they point out where i went wrong or offer ideas how to improve a shot and so on which some great people on here have done so otherwise i ignore it
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
We already did this thread a couple of weeks ago and to answer the question of the OP.....no, most people only want positive, nothing constructive or helpful, just boring copy and paste comments. Sad really. Wow, I see explore is mentioned.....again. It kills me.
On a serious note....I understand completely that Flickr is different things to different people and that's cool, no problems there. I do fit into the group that thrives on learning and I feel my pictures have improved over the time I have been on Flickr. I learn from watching others' work, but I also learn from others being honest and suggesting ways I may have improved a picture. There is no qualification required to tell when a horizon is crooked or the like.
As photographers, most of us have a desire to show our work, why is that? Do we want to have our ego stroked with silly little remarks like "great shot" over and over? My wife, for instance has a different eye than me. She looks at things differently and when she remarks about an image of mine, I often look at it differently because of it. I will also look at potential images differently in future because of critique. The other person may or may not be any better than you, but they do have a different eye and that, in my opinion is worth listening to. I don't always take the advice, but I do consider it at least.
PS: I have never had someone say I suck, nor have I seen it happen on Flickr.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
Ron Pettitt edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
There's no better way to improve.
Do you want to get better, or do you want to feel good?
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
im my own worst critic and think every photo i've ever taken sucks ...the only way to get better is to try harder next time using the lessons learnt from before....
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Jerome_ML [deleted] says:
Another aspect about criticism is that flickr is an international site. The way people give or take criticism varies a lot between cultures, so never assume that a negative comment will be understood as you meant it.
This being said, I think that silence is the most powerful way to realize that your pictures suck. Interesting pictures get hundreds of comments. Boring pictures get none. I think that the number of comments is a more accurate measure of one's proficiency, don't you?
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Not when I'm having bad mood
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
No, popularity isn't necessarily an indicator of quality.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Jerome_ML [deleted] says:
You say that popularity isn't an indicator of quality. What is, then? And isn't ignorance an indicator of lack of impact?
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
J M-L The number of comments on a photo on flickr is a poor indicator of how good a photo is.They just show how aware people are of its existence.If you put a good photo into a post one,comment ten,favorite five group that has 50,000 members,you will most likely get a lot of comments.While putting the same photo into a group that has 150 members will most likely result in few comments.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
But if one always put photos in the same group then getting much less or much more comments than normal is an indicator for how well liked a picture is (or at least its thumbnail), and that can be connected to quality (doesn't have to so).
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
To answer the original question...
When I post pictures to my photostream, I don't expect to read comments saying that I suck. If I post those pictures in a critique-based group, on the other hand, then I could expect to read some negative comments.
As someone else said, there's a difference between constructive criticism and being offensive and not helpful...and you have to choose your words carefully because the meaning you intend may not be the meaning that the other person perceives.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If you say I suck, you'd better have a pretty good stream. If I go there and see a bunch of crappy snapshots, I'm going to laugh at you.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Nobody likes to hear that they suck because that means they've been commented on by a bit of a wanker and wasted time reading a comment.
Some people seek out critique or appreciate critique if offered. That's not the same as saying someone sucks, though, that's offering encouragement, praise or points for improvement.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Jerome_ML [deleted] says:
Of course, if you don't display a picture, it will not be commented.
But if you put it in a few groups and it gets no comments and maybe 2 or 3 views, do you think that picture is any good or isn't the complete lack of interest an indication that it "sucks"?
I mean: there are pictures with 2-3 pages of comments, which have been "faved" more than 50 times, etc... How do you think this happens?
My personal rule is: if a picture gets no views and no comment, the picture sucks. If nobody is even interested to clic on it to display it, how could it be considered attractive? If this happens to most of the photograph's photostream, the photographer sucks. Anyone who does not routinely get a page of comments and dozens of faves is fooling themselves when they think that they are a good photographer.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
A lot of the most popular photography is easy to get, using commonly picked subject matter, conventional composition and basically works according to a formula, i.e. it repeats what has been done many times before. People like it because they don't have to think or ponder much and they "get it" straight away and because they've seen it countless times before. (pretty sunset, cute baby, colourful flower, etc etc)
That is not the same as a photo or a photographer's work that shows more of a unique vision. As such you may see more ambiguity in what the image means, unconventional methods of composing or subject matter that isn't cliched.
Someone who uses new ways of looking at things and showing them, brings more innovation and intelligence to the art than someone who just goes over old ground and produces crowd pleasers that are just more of the same.
Unusual works will get overlooked much more by the masses and get less views, faves and the like, but that doesn't mean that they are worse quality.
If popularity would equal quality, McDonalds would be fine dining and the music charts would always be full with amazing and beautiful songs. Often the most popular stuff is the least imaginative and boring fare.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
_barb_ edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
|
Or you didn't whore it in the right group and comment and fave 200 pics each time...
The inexplicable pics with 300+ comment code entries and loads of faves are often simply a matter of gaming the system rather than quality so using this criterion as a yardstick for measuring quality is less than reliable.
Sitting shaking your head and convincing yourself you suck because you don't game the system and get comments is not smart.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The Deletme Uncensored group can be found here: www.flickr.com/groups/D_M_U.
Stemming from DeleteMe, but less reverent and definitely more allowing of tomfoolery, it will definitely be more than most can handle, but a few will truly enjoy.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Jerome_ML [deleted] says:
There is indeed a bias towards a certain type of easy to understand pictures and it must be somewhat possible to increase one's number of comments by gaming the system, true. I never said it was 100% accurate.
But when I browse the photostream of a group and click on pictures that stand out, almost all of the time I find out that they have long lists of comments. When I browse the photostream of people whose work I find interesting, it is very rare that I am also alone to indicate my interest, even when their work shows a quite unusual vision. And if I go to the groups devoted to pictures having many faves or many comments, I may sometimes see the odd picture which probably just gamed the system, but the average quality is quite high.
Sitting shaking your head and convincing yourself all the ones who got comments gamed the system and you did not get any because your work is not understood because it is too progressive is not smart. either.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
We just got different ideas of what makes a quality image, but that's ok.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well for one, its all about personal opinion of course just what makes a good photo....2, the amount of comments just means you have it in more groups or friends that are happy to leave comments mainly...3 as for J M-L comments, personally i think you're totally wrong, but thats just my opinion of course and you're welcome to yours.....each to their own!
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
We Flickrites tend to value attention over artistic vision. This is the root of all evil on flickr.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I don't mind critical comments. In fact, I had a few that were valid and gave me an incentive to re process the photo.
In fact, I care more for critical comments than for social ones.
No-one so far has commented so badly on one of my photos to make me feel worthless as a photographer.
From my end, I try as much as possible to be thorough in my comments. I rarely leave one unless I really have something to say about the image, either on the effect it has on me or the result as a photo.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
You're still being simplistic. I'm not saying people who get loads of comments all gamed the system but that comment count on Flickr is not a reliable yardstick for picture quality or acclaim.
I'd love to know what gives you the idea I'm shaking my head and worrying about other people's comments on their photos either way.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I don't like to hear when I suck. That's why I wear earplugs when consuming a lollipop.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
FlickrCentral /
Discuss
Your comments and critique is very welcome. The rest of the talentless sheep can fuck off.
J M-L The number of comments on a photo on flickr is a poor indicator of how good a photo is.They just show how aware people are of its existence.If you put a good photo into a post one,comment ten,favorite five group that has 50,000 members,you will most likely get a lot of comments.While putting the same photo into a group that has 150 members will most likely result in few comments.
Feed – Subscribe to FlickrCentral discussion threads
