I think objective crit can be important. There is a reason in college situataions crit works. First its usually in person. Second it is with other artists that are usually in the same level you are in. So about the same level of understanding visual language. Then and probably most important is a professor that usually has an MFA keeps things in line and on point.
I don't think OP would mind valid critism though I don't see where they were soliciting it.
Again subjective crit is rarely ever helpful. We can all like and dislike whatever and thats great. But that shouldn't be the measure of what is and should be considered valid.
airfrogusmc wrote:
Again subjective crit is rarely ever helpful.
Who decides what is subjective? The posh art critic? The photographer? The college professor? You can turn any critical opinion into an invalid view by simply declaring that it is subjective.
There are objective ways that you should use to crit an image. Things like line, form, repeating shapes, texture, color theory, etc and how those things are or are not working together to help or hurt the image. Subjective things are like and dislike. Again it is perfectly fine to like or dislike anything but that is not a way to objectively judge a piece.
Understanding visual language frees you from rules.
I did post this a few weeks ago in another thread that you probably didn't read thus the repeat of almost the same dialog.
A few fun things to check out. I don't agree with all of his writings and like him or not there is some very good things in there. https://erickimphotography.com/blog/2013/10/03/street-photography-composition-lesson-1-triangles/
From the same thread summer fashion pg 9 #18 and we seem to be going in a circle but there is a lot to learn about all of this and it has never been easier to get the knowledge.
Here's my post pg9 #18
"No Phil, there are objective elements that can go into a critique. Example could be how is or maybe isn't the color palette working with the overall image. Are the lines also helping or not helping? Things like jagged lines in some instances can cause tension and complimentary colors can further help create that. Tilting horizons can help convey a sense of movement. I had a great photographer that was also one of my professors when I was in college tell me either everything in the frame is helping your visual statement. If it is not helping that statement then it is hurting that statement. There should be nothing that is just there.
Personal taste is subjective. We are all free to like and dislike whatever. But learning about visual language can take that element out of a critique. One can come to a point where he can see why something might be important even if he doesn't like the work. I personally don't really like Joel Peter Witkins work but understand why it is considered important.
Understanding and leaning how read things like form, line, color theory, implied line, implied motion can all work to help a visual statement is also key in giving an objective critique.
Lots of info out there on the world wide web and classes are taught in college on the subject which can also include color theory, 2 dimensional and three dimensional design etc."
No, I do not want "groupies", as has been suggested. I just do not find comments such as "Ohhh, Finally a lovely portrait which is not hit by a pesky silver reflector with a reverb on all your foreheads" or "This image could have been shot by most anyone with such natural lighting when it is diffused by ambient conditions" to be helpful, nor would I consider it critique, rather I think comments like these are backhanded low-blows. I have received respectful critique in this forum just fine, but when someone is brash enough to make comments such as those, then I will respond with my opinion just as they have.
DanielScott wrote:
...but when someone is brash enough to make comments such as that then I will respond with my opinion just as they have.
Fair enough, although I didn't perceive those comments as brash or disrespectful to be honest.
airfrogusmc wrote:
Understanding and leaning how read things like form, line, color theory, implied line, implied motion can all work to help a visual statement is also key in giving an objective critique.
...we seem to be going in a circle
It only seems that we are going in circles because you keep evading my point.
You can come up with all the rules, conventions, accepted theories or whatever you want to call it in the world, it doesn't change the fact that there is no objective critique as soon as an artists claims that he broke those rules, conventions, accepted theories or whatever you want to call it on purpose. Objective critique of his/ her art is dead that very moment. Or in other words: who are you as a critic to tell an artist that his art breaks all the rules, conventions and accepted theories (I'm repeating this deliberately), and is therefore "objectively" crap?
Subjectively liking or disliking someone's work (a.k.a. taste) is much more honest, and it has a direct impact on sales once you manipulate that taste. Hyping an artist makes the paying masses and rich collectors like someone's work, no matter how good or bad it is according to established theories and conventions. Thus my Picasso/ Dali/ Nirvana example in the other thread.
Learning visual language frees you form all the rules as I clearly stated and it has never been easier to educate one self in these things. That couldn't be clearer.
How does like/dislike that help someone? There needs to be a way to evaluate work that goes beyond like /dislike and there clearly are ways. But that takes more than just saying one likes something or not. Knowledge.
All three Picasso/Dali and Nirvana are all important whether one likes them or not. There have been books written on some of those artists. History shows how important all of those artists were, They all changed their individual art forms. They influenced so many others. Like/dislike doesn't change these artists importance because there are real tangible, objective, reasons their work is considered such.
So one says that they dislike a photograph with no objective reasons only subjective reasons. How does that help the person posting the photograph? It only teaches him to make photographs that one person likes which is usually not a good thing. The next question becomes then how does one critique a piece using more of an objective approach?
airfrogusmc wrote:
Learning visual language frees you form all the rules as I clearly stated...
I knew you would try this, which is why I added conventions and established, accepted theories to the mix. Sorry, but you won't convince me that your objective critique is really objective. You only claim it is objective. I claim that taste is much more objective than any of your theoretical knowledge. Prove me wrong, especially when commercial success comes into play.
airfrogusmc wrote:
There have been books written on some of those artists.
So what? I could call myself an expert and write a book about how Grunge was just a lousy copy of the music that had dominated the market 10 to 15 years earlier. Give me enough money to promote that idea and it might take off the same way the music industry convinced the consumers that Kurt Cobaine was some sort of genius. Your objective critique is simply based on personal taste of the critics.
airfrogusmc wrote:
it has never been easier to educate one self in these things.
For my subjective taste, that sounds far too arrogant.
I've got a few responses to this discussion. One, someone asked why professional photographers would post their work on here. I'm a pro and I focus mainly on dancers. I used to post a lot but have just gotten too busy the last couple years. When I do post here, I'm really posting my best work, and I like to see what the responses are. Do ppl here like it as much as I do? Do they find things wrong with it that I missed? I've always appreciated the critical responses I got here. I didn't agree with some of it, maybe even a lot of it, and if so, I just blew it off. Those were critiques that didn't really take my brand/style into consideration, or something like that. But I got lots of nuggets, too, and that's what really matters.
Part two is this whole idea of getting feedback and critiques, whether you asked for them or not. I mean, honestly, what do you expect when you post a pic to a photographer forum? And photographers are a helpful lot, they like to give feedback that they think would improve the shot. It would seem weird to not get feedback.
Where did I say anything was 100% objective?Trying to be objective is just a start Phil. And these things are real whether you want to believe them or not. Like Platos cave. Theres an entire world outside that cave but one has to want to step out and see it.
Yeah The Stooges and the MC5 were doing it. Then the Ramones, Television and many other but Nirvana was like Elvis or the Beatles. They were there at the perfect time. And like it or not they are what they are in the history of it all. So A doesn't like it. Tough, because there were many reason all 3 of those artists are part of history. Picasso and Dali changed art.
Think of it as trying to describe what an apple tastes like to someone that has never tasted one. The only way to know is to bite into one. Think of knowledge as that apple. Lots of easy ways to learn now.
friscoron wrote:
I've got a few responses to this discussion. One, someone asked why professional photographers would post their work on here. I'm a pro and I focus mainly on dancers. I used to post a lot but have just gotten too busy the last couple years. When I do post here, I'm really posting my best work, and I like to see what the responses are. Do ppl here like it as much as I do? Do they find things wrong with it that I missed? I've always appreciated the critical responses I got here. I didn't agree with some of it, maybe even a lot of it, and if so, I just blew it off. Those were critiques that didn't really take my brand/style into consideration, or something like that. But I got lots of nuggets, too, and that's what really matters.
Part two is this whole idea of getting feedback and critiques, whether you asked for them or not. I mean, honestly, what do you expect when you post a pic to a photographer forum? And photographers are a helpful lot, they like to give feedback that they think would improve the shot. It would seem weird to not get feedback.
So.... probably not helpful, but my two cents. ...Show more →
As I said, I am open to critique, but I will absolutely respond to low-blows with my own opinions about that sort of "critique".
airfrogusmc wrote:
Like Platos cave. Theres an entire world outside that cave but one has to want to step out and see it.
You either enjoy a piece of art or you don't -- no "objective critique" necessary. That's the real world outside your intellectual cave.
airfrogusmc wrote:
Nirvana was like Elvis or the Beatles. They were there at the perfect time.
Without the marketing machine of the music industry, Nirvana, Pearl Jam and all the others would've stayed what they always were: average local bands with a limited following in the PNW. They began to sell records in larger numbers only because of clever marketing; not because they were so talented or unique. Elvis and the Beatles on the other hand were both talented and unique, and they started a cultural revolution.
It doesn't matter because who knows what would have happened. What happened, happened. Without the marketing machine of the music industry no Elvis, no Beatles. But for whatever reason the artists were all able to tap into something happening at the time in society. The marketers just made them more accessible.
Yep you enjoy it or not and thats fine but the key is to understand it whether you like it or not.
I'm sorry that you feel my comment was a "low blow" ... I've been a fan of your command of lighting and have commented favorably to you on many occasions, both publicly and privately, including multiple places in this thread. As one who has been a fan and advocate of you and your work for a bit, the notion that you would think I'd serve up a "low blow" to you ... well, that's rather disheartening that you would think of my contributions with such little regard.
I'm sorry if I challenged your sensibilities and sensitivities ... never was my intent to serve you a "low blow". I'll try and be more cautious to your sensitivities going forward.
I'm sorry that you feel my comment was a "low blow" ... I've been a fan of your command of lighting and have commented favorably to you on many occasions, both publicly and privately, including multiple places in this thread. As one who has been a fan and advocate of you and your work for a bit, the notion that you would think I'd serve up a "low blow" to you ... well, that's rather disheartening that you would think of my contributions with such little regard.
I'm sorry if I challenged your sensibilities and sensitivities ... never was my intent to serve you a "low blow". I'll try and be more cautious to your sensitivities going forward.
Of course, call me sensitive because I'm giving my opinion on what you said. I should have expected that. I'm simply pointing out that a comment such as "anyone could have taken this photo" was absolutely a low blow. Even you going on to claim that YOU could have taken this photo was along the same lines, with both of your claims being completely untrue. Do you actually consider that critique?
DanielScott wrote:
Of course, call me sensitive because I'm giving my opinion on what you said. I should have expected that. I'm simply pointing out that a comment such as "anyone could have taken this photo" was absolutely a low blow. Even you going on to claim that YOU could have taken this photo was along the same lines, with both of your claims being completely untrue. Do you actually consider that critique?
The point was about the uber-soft lighting, and that when uber-soft lighting is present, it essentially offers the same look whether it is shot by a skilled craftsmen, or a rookie. You're not a rookie by any means, and despite my repeated accolades to your talent, (including another thread defending your use of ambient lighting) you still find my well intended efforts (even if an awkward corollary) villainous ... likely, nothing more I can say to restore your regard for me, as you seem to have your mind fixed.
RustyBug wrote:
The point was about the uber-soft lighting, and that when uber-soft lighting is present, it essentially offers the same look whether it is shot by a skilled craftsmen, or a rookie.
I'm probably making a mistake dipping my toe in this, but what Rusty is saying is that when you have natural lighting like this, there is actually nothing that the photographer is adding or subtracting from the light. You're just using the ambient light that is there, just like someone taking an iphone photo. Now, naturally, you saw the very good ambient light and you utilized it well.
I think the point you're missing is that Rusty is simply saying he was surprised that you did a shot like this where you did not manipulate the light, as he considers you masterful at that. I know you're not taking it that way, but he's actually trying to give you a very nice compliment, and somehow it's rubbed you wrong. I re-read his OP and I'm not really sure where he's rubbed you wrong, but rubbed you wrong he has. And it's kind of a shame.
As for my comment above, it had nothing to do with your picture or post, but someone asking why a professional would post in here, whether it's for the fanboys to give them love, or if he'd actually like meaningful helpful feedback. And as a professional photographer, I thought I'd answer this question.
I was not meaning to say anything about how you responded to Rusty or anyone else. When I see someone respond like that, I just steer clear of their posts. But I will say Rusty has been on FM a long, long time, spends a lot of his time on the Critique forum, and he's got a heart of gold and is really here to try to be helpful and encouraging.
I hope in some small way this helps.
DanielScott wrote:
Again, this is completely false.
