Truly awful pictures

Roger Hicks · 08-10-2009

How bad must a picture be before you say so? I submitted quite a few absolutely rotten pictures to competitions when I was in my 20s, because I didn't realize how awful they were.

On RFF I try not to criticize bloody awful shots -- oversharpened portraits that look like skin diseases, appalling shadows, incredibly busy backgrounds, etc. -- because I don't want to discourage people. I reckon it's better to come to an appreciation of competence slowly, as I did, rather than frightening people off by even gentle criticism.

Even so, I wonder if I'm right. I might frighten some people off, but others, I might save years of fart-arsing about with abysmal images. I suspect that I go for the kind route (aesthetically, not technically) because I'd not have understood the 'cruel to be kind' route myself in my 20s.

Any others' thoughts on this?

Note: this is not aimed at anyone specific. This week I'm working on the web-site, with several new modules to be added over the next few months, and believe it or not, RFF is a form of relaxation from this. Next week, back to writing fiction...

Tashi delek,

R.

Brian Sweeney · 08-10-2009

Photographs that I regard as "truly Awful", others will call "Art".

I'm not saying that all Photographs that are called "Art" are awful. But a lot of awful ones, are.

As one example, one of the first "Pop Photo" grand prize winners was IMO truly awful. Many readers wrote in to state as much after the winning photograph was published. Many good photographs were passed over, in favor of this busy photograph of kids in a living room. Somebody must have liked it.

brachal · 08-10-2009

Everybody's entitled to an opinion. I don't have a problem with anybody critiquing other people's work as long as it's done in a civilized manner. It's OK to say, "I think the background is too busy." Unfortunately, most people, fortified with Internet Courage, simply say, "Your picture sucks!!!"

maddoc · 08-10-2009

... 99% of "HDR" labeled pictures.

vincentbenoit · 08-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by maddoc

... 99% of "HDR" labeled pictures.

Make that 99.99%...

Vincent

Roger Hicks · 08-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney

Photographs that I regard as "truly Awful", others will call "Art".

Dear Brian,

Oh, sure. No argument there.

But equally, maybe some of the really awful 'art photographers' de nos jours might have quit while they were ahead if they had been subject to harsher criticism, so only the ones who really believed in their own work (however misguidedly at first) would have carried in. Do we make it too easy to pursue incompetence for too long?

This is NOT the same as equating 'art' and 'incompetence': merely questioning the correlation. It's a classic omitted middle. "A great deal of good 'new art' breaks the rules" is not the same as "a great deal of 'new art' that 'breaks the rules' is good."

And then there are those who cannot even claim art: who post muddy, unsharp pictures under the impression that their photographs are neither muddy nor unsharp.

Edit: Bill, I love 'internet courage'. And Wiggy: Bless you, my son.

Cheers,

R.

Andy Kibber · 08-10-2009

There are plenty of bad pictures on the internet. I don't give my opinion on them unless I'm asked for it. Even then I often don't bother. It's less frustrating to say good things about good pictures.

Roger Hicks · 08-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Kibber

There are plenty of bad pictures on the internet. I don't give my opinion on them unless I'm asked for it. Even then I often don't bother. It's less frustrating to say good things about good pictures.

Dear Andy,

This is indeed an easier path, and better for the soul. Even so, you can't help wondering, some times, if people realize how utterly awful some of their pictures are. I certainly didn't (and no doubt, I sometimes don't now, but at least I have the consolation of being paid for some of them).

Cheers,

R.

peterm1 · 08-10-2009

I wonder also if we are talking about critiquing the technical aspects of the photo or the choice of subject. I have been subscribing to a photo mag in which they have a monthly competition. While the photos chosen for publication are technically fine many seem to have kitsch or boring subjects - probably that's what they think the readership wants. (Look at any stock photo site and see how popular the pictures of the "glorious sunset" or the "cute puppy" are - the answer is "very" by the way so the magazine is probably right.)

On a site like ours I think its OK to be critical if someone asks for criticism. But not otherwise. I see many photos here and on other forums that I do not like (I may think the subject is just plain bland) or think are poorly executed sometimes obviously so (not in focus, poor exposure etc.) I would not dream of offering criticism to the the subject unless asked to do so - its damn rude. And if I do offer it, then it must be constructive and offered in polite terms. These are the kind of rules by which any society live.

brachal · 08-10-2009

Internet Courage is closely related to "Guinness Muscles", but much less likely to result in a trip to the emergency room at 3 am.

antiquark · 08-10-2009

If someone begs for a critique, then let 'em have it!

However, I get the impression that many people post pictures for reasons other than artistic development, and are likely to take criticism the wrong way.

Brian Sweeney · 08-10-2009

There are many degrees of "bad". The image of the cow riding the exercise bike winning a Pop Photo contest just came to mind.

I'm making the assumption that the person knows how to use the camera and get the intended image. It's easy to assist and help people to use equipment, such as correctly holding the camera, getting the correct exposure, selectively focus a subject, or to "freeze" action with shutter-speed selection. Those are more mechanical. It's much more difficult to offer advice regarding composing the image. Once you get beyond, "don't always put the subjects head in the center of the photo", "try to fill the frame", or "rule of thirds", someone is likely to get feelings hurt.

mackigator · 08-10-2009

I think a lot has to do with the outlook of the photographer. Since there is no way to judge that over the Internet usually, I would refrain.

As far as outlook, I'd divide people into two categories: life-long learners and the rest. A life long learner can take it, and in fact needs the feedback. In this way all criticism is sort of life's way of finding those who can be great. So even though I refrain, I guess this is the logic of offering the critique, damn-the-torpedoes: it discourages people who need to be discouraged and equips those who need it.

Which reminds me of a favorite expression: "Those who can be discouraged, should be."

Dave Wilkinson · 08-10-2009

I don't foist many of my own dubious efforts on to RFF - It's usually just to illustrate a point, but one thing I'm pleased about the lack of here is - those awful 'cotton wool' waves, surrounding black beach rocks - under a strange purple sky!. Over here you can't pick up a photo mag. without getting 'em

-apart from that, it's just the majority of pinhole 'artworks' that make me cry "bloody awful".....ooops! should'nt have said that!

Cheers, Dave.

Roger Hicks · 08-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiggy

All hail the messiah!
I really need your help. I couldn't stand to be "fart-arsing" about with "abysmal" images.

If you really mean it, post some pictures (on this thread) and I (and I hope others) will try to help. But don't do it unless you mean it. We'll all try to be polite (or at least, I will) but if you've never fart-arsed about with abysmal images I'm surprised we don't already know you as one of the greatest photographers of all time.

That's one reason I don't ask for criticism. I know there are plenty of people who would be only too willing. I also know that some would be better photographers than I, and some worse. So I'll go my own way, and earn a modest living, and bite my tongue (or keyboard finger) when I see pictures by people who are as bad as I was at (say) 25.

I'm not saying I'm great at 59: merely that I'm not as bad as I was at 25. And (by definition) I don't know if I'd have got better, faster, with harsher criticism than I in fact received. EDIT after Post 15: If you think this is patronizing, it's your problem, not mine. Some photographers are better than others. Do you deny this? And maybe those who are better can help those who are worse. Do you deny this? I don't claim to be great, but I do claim some experience and publishability. I'm wondering about the limits of criticism. What are you wondering about?

Cheers,

R.

tbarker13 · 08-10-2009

I'd say it depends on the context.
In the critique/photo display areas, that's what people should expect.

But when someone tosses out a photo in the midst of a discussion about bokeh, there's really no point in critiquing the overall photo. Likewise, when someone says something like "My 35 summicron sure is sharp" and posts an image to support it, I don't think they're asking to have the photo critiqued.

Personally, I do think there is something worse than offering discouraging words. And that's when someone offers strong praise for a weak image. That does no one any good.

Steveh · 08-10-2009

This is an interesting debate Roger. I have over 1,000 photos in my Pbase galleries, which have received (as at now) 8,223 comments. And as far as I can remember not one of those comments is even slightly negative. And a lot of the pics certainly weren't that great!

I think Peter sums up most people's instinctive position - that unless people ask to be criticised you don't do it. Personally, I'd always welcome it, but it seems to be taboo.

BTW Roger I always used to really enjoy your AP column - do you still write for them or did you get swept away in one of their revamps?!

peterm1 · 08-10-2009

I forgot to mention. A couple of years ago I stopped contributing to the Leica forum over at PhotoNet. It had a big problem - unwanted criticism that often turned into flame wars. (I acknowledeg that it has since returned to better times.)

A few trolls nearly ruined the site either because they thought it funny to provoke other posters with intemperate criticism or perhaps some thought they were being constructive (not that there is anything constructive in saying that someones wife looks like a dog or that someones photo skill are on par with a chimp.) This is the sort of level it degenerated to predictably perhaps when the moderators failed to pull up the culprits. There is a slippery slope when unwanted or intemperate criticism is offered. I would truly hate to see it start here.

functus · 08-10-2009

I have to admit to some curiousity about what makes a photo truly awful ... What elements are so bad -- lighting? exposure? focus? If so, these suggest that maybe with practice and awareness, the person can learn, and perhaps what is needed (if the person is genuinely asking) is guidance/advice ("this would work better if you used a spot meter to get the proper exposure for the face rather than the sky").

If you're talking composition and subject-matter ... people will (even if they say they welcome criticism) be a lot less inclined to accept negative comment. People can live with the idea that they may be technically not able to make their images look like what they envision. People don't typically want to be told that although they have the technical skills to realize their vision, that vision is mundane and boring.

kermaier · 08-10-2009

I'm no longer in my 20s, and I'm under no illusions about my meager abilities. Unless I'm posting an image for its technical qualities alone, please feel free to be honestly, civilly critical of any picture of mine.

::Ari

mfogiel · 08-10-2009

I have often thought, looking at single photograph of acclaimed masters, that if I copied this or that shot and put it on flickr, it would most likely end up with this sort of comments:

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspo...-internet.html

In fact, it is seldom that a single photograph can tell it all -one great photograph does not make a master. It usually takes a body of CONSISTENT work, to be able to appreciate the single most iconic images as pieces of art.
For example, I am far too busy exploring various subjects and visual aspects of shooting, to be able to produce anything decent - it does not bother me much, because I take the photography as enjoyment, but for people who take themselves seriously it would be beneficial if someone pointed them in the right direction.

On the other extreme, a lot of members here want to enjoy the shot of their cat or kids, and I do not see anything wrong with that, even if at times the heated discussions about the superiority of some very expensive piece of gear, backed by this type of photographs make me shrug my shoulders... But, do these people really want to proggress photographically?

P.S. @ Wiggy

Would you mind wigging off from this forum please ?

Keith · 08-10-2009

I hate to have to point it out Roger ... but you're feeding a troll.

Just ignore mate!

NathanJD · 08-10-2009

A picture can't be awful it can only be a picture that you like or that you don’t. It can be naive, not to ones taste, but never awful. Just like art and music. In fact the only thing I know for a fact can be awful is a human being's actions.

Who was that photographer who used a big large format camera about 100 years ago in America to photograph crime scenes where murders had occurred only for those images to take on a merit, I believe he is now revered although I can't remember his name (not my strong point).

So I think a photo can be a technical failure but never awful.

Someone show me one and prove me wrong

Roger Hicks · 08-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiggy

I'm wondering about the limits of your arrogance.

Illimitable. I get poison pen letters about it. Of course, I don't see it as arrogance, merely as evidence of an inquiring mind. But if it alarms you, there's an easy solution. Put me on ignore.

Cheers,

R.

Dave Wilkinson · 08-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith

I hate to have to point it out Roger ... but you're feeding a troll.

Just ignore mate!

ssshhhh!.....I quite enjoy it when the sabres start to rattle!