Truly awful pictures

[thomasw_]

Peter -- that's true, there is a huge difference in intent between constructive critiques and rude, offensive and often personal criticisms. I think that constructive criticism is very helpful if it is polite in language usage and not directed at the appearance of the subject of the image or at the photographer. For example, I think that debating whether or not the woman/child/man in a photo is handsome or homely is useless; but keeping it to matters of techniques on composition, exposure, tonality, contrast, symbols and motifs etc., can be very useful. So, then, politeness is the key to delivering constructive criticism. But what about receiving it?

I think that if critiques are requested, the photographer should gladly welcome any opinions as long as they are delivered politely and thoughtfully. A photographer who requests for a critique needs to keep in mind that they take courage and time to write politely. So my view is that a thankful attitude is required, as the critiques are being offered so as to benefit the photographer.

my 2 pennies...

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Steveh

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?!

Dear Steve,

Alternate weeks. The weeks I'm not in print I'm on the web instead. thanks for the kind words!

Cheers,

R.

[Steveh]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Dear Steve,

Alternate weeks. The weeks I'm not in print I'm on the web instead. thanks for the kind words!

Cheers,

R.

Excellent - I'll have to pay more attention! I buy it once a month or so but I must be unlucky and choose your "off weeks". As long as they don't give Wiggy a column .

I'm also very jealous of all the cool stuff your wife gets to review for B&W Photography - do you ever get to keep any of it??

[tbarker13]

Originally Posted by NathanJD

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

Aren't we just getting into a semantics debate here? You could make the same argument for just about anything in life - books, movies, food, etc.. Someone could say a burned steak is awful to eat. Someone else might look at it and say it's cooked just right.
Still, there is a reason some restaurants are know for preparing great food while others go out of business.
If enough people agree that something is good, then it is. If they don't, then it's not.
Of course, opinions/impressions may change over time. But that doesn't have anything to do with the here and now.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by functus

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").

Good point, and one of the reasons I tend to shut up. Another is flame wars, and another is trolls. But perhaps the most important reason is that it's really time-consuming to try to be both constructive and walking-on-eggshells polite (some people have really thin skins, including me sometimes), so it's not worth saying to someone, "Compare your picture with post 123. It's not even sharp by the undemanding standards of the internet; the contrast is flat amd muddy; and the background is so dominant that you can't really even see the principal subject. Why don't you think hard about what you're shooting; focus on it; and include only that amount of background which is essential for context."

Tashi delek,

R.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by tbarker13

Aren't we just getting into a semantics debate here?

Dear Tim (and by implication Nathan),

Yes. This is part of the question. If only I think it's awful, that's irrelevant. If I and 1000 other think it's awful, that's another matter. And if 1001 others think it's great -- well, let 'em say so, and argue with me and my 1000 chums.

I allude to the kind of pictures I'm talking about in an earlier post (34). Specific criticisms and comparisons are seldom difficult. We can all look at our own pictures and say, 'A is better than B'. The question in the thread is about how far we can do that with the pictures of others, and how far (having made our choices) we should go in making those opinions public.

As I said, I tend to hold back because I'd have been put off (badly) when I was an even worse photographer than I am now. How many (a) think they could handle robust criticism and (b) actually could handle it? Most of us probably fall into category (a); very few of us, I suggest, into category (b).

Cheers,

R.

[chris00nj]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

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. ....

I think the Gallery photos should be open to critique. I certainly welcome it. If you post a picture and there are no comments, does it suck and people are just being polite?

I realize I have many crappy photos, but I try not to post them

I'll be the guinea pig. Here's some shots. Critique away!! (These are all my favourites for 2009)


Here's some I think are good, and at least someone else has a voiced positive comment:






Here's one that I thought was good, but I think other's silence may indicated otherwise:


Here's one I like, but I'm a wee unsure of:

[Oscar Levant]

In a previous incarnation I offered to accurately critique the images of posters who wished to know if their photographs were good or bad.

The protests and wounded egos of those thusly critiqued could wake the dead.

Nobody really wants to be told that their efforts are "el stinko".

[MatthewThompson]

Originally Posted by chris00nj

I think the Gallery photos should be open to critique. I certainly welcome it. If you post a picture and there are no comments, does it suck and people are just being polite?

I realize I have many crappy photos, but I try not to post them

Here's some I think are good, and at least someone else has a voiced positive comment:

Here's one that I thought was good, but I think other's silence may indicated otherwise:

Here's one I like, but I'm a wee unsure of:

What the mob thinks of random shots from random people is largely irrelevant. If you're a dedicated shooter, you should be able to evaluate your body of work every 6 months, identify what you like and what you don't (according to *your* standards, you shot the damned things) and work in the direction you see fit to meet you newly revised goals.

I see photos of a cruise and a girl in a shop. How are these shots compared to other travel photos and your favorite pics of girls in shops? Can we really opine on your body of work from these images? Should we? Do you really need the approval of the web at large to know if you're making images that please you?

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Chris,

I'll divide 'em into A, B, C, D.

A: Stuff I'd be proud to have taken, great shots,

B: Good, stuff I'd be happy with. Publishable.

C: Ordinary but OK. Just about usable to make a point in an article.

D: I'd never use it.

Of course this is intensely personal but what else is there? And of course I have to allow for the difficulty of judging a pic on an LCD screen at low resolution.

#1 (deck chairs): B, possibly A. Maybe a person in shot would have improved it; maybe not. Love the tonality, nice composition,

#2 (bow?): B shading to C. Good illustration; a bit static (and uncrowded) for a pic in its own right.

#3 (mountains/reflection): B/C, but much more B if cropped a little more panoramic

#4 (Life): Sorry, don't see it. C at best (for illustration). I find the contrast a little flat, and the compositional 'echo' of the faces in the background distract attention from the young woman reading the magazine.

#5 (Mountains): An easy C, maybe B, especially if you crop some of the sky. I'd also boost the contrast and burn the sky.

THESE ARE ONLY ONE PERSON'S OPINIONS, and none of the shots is what I'd call 'bloody awful', not by a long chalk. EDIT -- and I agree completely with Matthew

Hope you're not too offended,

Second edit: quite a few awful pics come from those who say, MY LENS IS REALLY SHARP AND CONTRASTY and then post a pic which proves that it isn't, even at 600x900 pixels. Oh: and I agree with Dave: what's an 'accurate critique'? See http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photo...0critique.html for the view of someone who has been on the other side (as it were) of the critique desk.




R.

[Dave Wilkinson]

Originally Posted by Oscar Levant

In a previous incarnation I offered to accurately critique the images of posters who wished to know if their photographs were good or bad.

The protests and wounded egos of those thusly critiqued could wake the dead.

Nobody really wants to be told that their efforts are "el stinko".

Here we go again!...you offered to "accurately critique" their images? most of us could only give an opinion

[ferider]

A couple of years ago we used to have weekly critique threads that worked very well, IMO.

I welcome any critique of my pictures, on flickr in particular. On flickr it's nice to look at the commenter's own photo stream, to see where (s)he is coming from.

On RFF, I would welcome critique given by the older, more experienced members, anywhere a photo shows up. But then again, I would expect them to photographically "expose" themselves, too. And, BTW, for me, teaching and doing are two very different things.

Cheers,

Roland.

[Steveh]

Originally Posted by chris00nj

I think the Gallery photos should be open to critique. I certainly welcome it. If you post a picture and there are no comments, does it suck and people are just being polite?

I realize I have many crappy photos, but I try not to post them

I'll be the guinea pig. Here's some shots. Critique away!! (These are all my favourites for 2009)

Is nobody else going to bite? Ok Chris (places head in Lion's mouth, waits nervously ), I'll play too. I seem to disagree with Roger quite a bit (not sure what that proves...)

#1 - quite dull - doesn't so much for me, where is the picture's centre of interest?

#2 - my favourite of the 5 - nice repeating curves (prow of ship, shoreline, mountains), some narrative interest (where is the boat going? are the people waiting to disembark or just watching the view?)

#3 - like this one as well - the symmetry is almost perfect, reflections are great, a pretty landscape shot

#4 - technically very good, but doesn't do much for me otherwise. Probably means more if you know the lady in question (which I hope you do ). What's the picture saying?

#5 - meh - dull. Pseudo Ansel Adams, and I don't like real Ansel Adams much (oops, personal bias intruding).

And none of these are anywhere close to "bloody awful", in my (irrelevant) opinion.

[Jamie123]

I must admit that I hardly ever see good work on internet photography forums and most of what I see is either boring or right out horrible. It's just my taste and I usually keep it to myself.
I do have a hard time holding back sometimes when I see people discussing the technical details (focus, busy background, etc) of a bad photo. Sometimes it's just crap and no amount of sharpness will change that. And a photo can still be good even if (or because) it's out of focus.
Just yesterday, for example, I skimmed through Terry Richardson's "Terryworld". If you can get past the male genitalia and bodily fluids the guy is actually quite good and most of the shots have technical "shortcomings".

Anyways, I think the best way to go about it is to not comment at all when you see an awful photo. Don't tell someone that his "background is too busy" when really the problem is that neither the fore- nor the background are very interesting at all.

By the way, I'm not just that harsh with other people's work. Even my best work seems to turn into crap within a week after my first impression.

[Oscar Levant]

Let's see. I'm building a man-flying kite, I'm writing a novel, I'm writing a history of the late Byzantine Empire, I'm rebuilding a set of Purdy shotguns, I'm riding my sidecar motorcyle 93 miles where I will pick up the parts to repair the brake shoes of my Submarine Spitfire MK VB. Then I'm cooking a huge meal with my 18 year old teenage female muse, and downing several Jeroboams of vintage plonk. I'm doing all this before 7:30am in the morning, and I'll post a few hours on RFF, strictly to relax, because simply posting because I'm bored is beneath me. After that, I'll read a few chapters of Chaucer before attending an auto de fé where a few suspected heretics will be well-roasted.

[Oscar Levant]

Yes, VERY ACCURATELY critique.

Originally Posted by Dave Wilkinson

Here we go again!...you offered to "accurately critique" their images? most of us could only give an opinion

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Oscar Levant

Let's see. I'm building a man-flying kite, I'm writing a novel, I'm writing a history of the late Byzantine Empire, I'm rebuilding a set of Purdy shotguns, I'm riding my sidecar motorcyle 93 miles where I will pick up the parts to repair the brake shoes of my Submarine Spitfire MK VB. Then I'm cooking a huge meal with my 18 year old teenage female muse, and downing several Jeroboams of vintage plonk. I'm doing all this before 7:30am in the morning, and I'll post a few hours on RFF, strictly to relax, because simply posting because I'm bored is beneath me. After that, I'll read a few chapters of Chaucer before attending an auto de fé where a few suspected heretics will be well-roasted.

Dear Oscar,

Gosh! You lead an even busier life than I do! And a Submarine Spitfire sounds really interesting; I'd only encountered the Supermarine before.

Incidentally, what is relaxation if not staving off boredom, or doing something easy because your brain or muscles or both have seized up from the other things you've been doing all day?

Edit: Actually, I generally get up between 9 and 10 because I go to bed so late after staying on RFF too long.

Cheers,

R.

[functus]

Interesting ... and Chris, thanks for being the guinea pig for an exercise in criticism (and the subjectivity inherent in it). I think the deck chair photograph (#1) is dramatic, well-composed and tonally very interesting. I think the bow of the ship (#2) misses just slightly compositionally; I wonder what it might have looked like had the perspective been lower, making the bow appear as if it is stretching further toward the mountains in the background -- I think it would have brought all the lines to a more central point and emphasize the sense of immensity.

But that's just me ...

[Oscar Levant]

I don't do ANYTHING all day, and posting on RFF helps me continue to do so.

[MatthewThompson]

Originally Posted by Oscar Levant

Let's see. I'm building a man-flying kite, I'm writing a novel, I'm writing a history of the late Byzantine Empire, I'm rebuilding a set of Purdy shotguns, I'm riding my sidecar motorcyle 93 miles where I will pick up the parts to repair the brake shoes of my Submarine Spitfire MK VB. Then I'm cooking a huge meal with my 18 year old teenage female muse, and downing several Jeroboams of vintage plonk. I'm doing all this before 7:30am in the morning, and I'll post a few hours on RFF, strictly to relax, because simply posting because I'm bored is beneath me. After that, I'll read a few chapters of Chaucer before attending an auto de fé where a few suspected heretics will be well-roasted.

What the world needs is more geniuses with humility, there are so few of us left.
-Oscar Levant

[chris00nj]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Dear Chris,

I'll divide 'em into A, B, C, D.

A: Stuff I'd be proud to have taken, great shots,

B: Good, stuff I'd be happy with. Publishable.

C: Ordinary but OK. Just about usable to make a point in an article.

D: I'd never use it.

Of course this is intensely personal but what else is there? And of course I have to allow for the difficulty of judging a pic on an LCD screen at low resolution.

#1 (deck chairs): B, possibly A. Maybe a person in shot would have improved it; maybe not. Love the tonality, nice composition,

#2 (bow?): B shading to C. Good illustration; a bit static (and uncrowded) for a pic in its own right.

#3 (mountains/reflection): B/C, but much more B if cropped a little more panoramic

#4 (Life): Sorry, don't see it. C at best (for illustration). I find the contrast a little flat, and the compositional 'echo' of the faces in the background distract attention from the young woman reading the magazine.

#5 (Mountains): An easy C, maybe B, especially if you crop some of the sky. I'd also boost the contrast and burn the sky.

THESE ARE ONLY ONE PERSON'S OPINIONS, and none of the shots is what I'd call 'bloody awful', not by a long chalk. EDIT -- and I agree completely with Matthew

Hope you're not too offended,

R.

I appreciate the feedback! I'd wondered about the placement of one person walking on the deck in the 1st photo. Of course, you'd need someone dressed well and in the right spot. It was a pain enough waiting for the deck to clear.

While Matt's comments have a degree of validity, which aspiring cook would turn down a critique from Emeril? Which improving golfer wouldn't want a tip on their swing from Tiger?

I think the problem comes from photos that people post proclaiming to be great when they may not be. Here's one more that I think is good. Critique away:

[dee]

Throughout my careering as an Inferior Designer , I have worked with many young designers .
It does them no favours if I keep quiet about unsuitable / b...y stupid designs , finishes etc - provided it is termed in a leadership manner . Again this is a minefield of artistic endeavour - so similar to photgraphy and painting - so I guess the same applies to photos ... snapshots of no artistc merit but recording a precious moment I would never comment upon - unless asked - then I say what I see .
Me ? I take considered snapshots ... pretentious moi ?

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by chris00nj

Here's one more that I think is good. Critique away:

Damn! Bedtime!

But much as I love the top half of the picture, I think the bottom half is too murky, at least on my screen. A brilliant trick I saw a while back was a grey grad filter used indoors for a pic like this (though of course you need a reflex or view camera to get it right).

Cheers,

R.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by dee

Throughout my careering as an Inferior Designer , I have worked with many young designers .
It does them no favours if I keep quiet about unsuitable / b...y stupid designs , finishes etc

Dear Dee,

Sure -- face to face, with people who know you. But 'Internet Courage' is a potent drug...

Besides, anyone with the self-deprecation to write, even jokingly, "Inferior Designer", has more of a sense of humour than many.

Cheers,

R.

[MatthewThompson]

Originally Posted by chris00nj

While Matt's comments have a degree of validity, which aspiring cook would turn down a critique from Emeril? Which improving golfer wouldn't want a tip on their swing from Tiger?

My point, as you seem to have missed it, is that Tiger and Emeril aren't involved on a personal level with your craft. I can tell you to keep your chin down and follow through, or to only work with sharp knives.

My point is that you need to be involved in every level of your craft and be able to hone your work by its own merit. It's clear you can take a level, well exposed photo. So you should be able to in order to have a body of work. Rule of thirds, composition, design and balance are integral parts of photography, and all important in their own right.

The images that don't meet those basic, defining standards are supposed to be left on the cutting room floor after making notes on how to avoid those technical problems in the next shooting session. At the point where you've separated the wheat from the chaff, your experience and direction can cull 80% of the remainder. Those remaining are the shots you can use to move forward with your craft. Moving forward from there is your responsibility, if you require help finding that 20%, you need to tighten up your style and think more about your goals when you shoot.

That's way I think it's pointless to post up a snapshot and poll the mob.