On-line group critique thread ideas?

[Alan Klein]

As a college teacher I critiqued 1000's of prints. I wouldn't want to attempt to do so from the image on my, or any other, computer screen. There is to much in a print which is not evident projected onto a flat screen

Jim, I agree to a degree. But how can that be done on a website forum? When I belonged to a photo club years ago, that's what we did at our meetings - compare prints. However, I now live in a 55+ community and have intra-community photo contests yearly among many communities. We have an "expert" judge all the photos submitted electronically on Zoom. It's not perfect. But he's able to comment on the pictures for technical issues and for artistic content. It works even if it's not the best way of doing it.

But like I said, this is a website, We have no other choices.

[Tin Can]

Set it up on ZOON "intended"

Open only to participants

No connection to this Forum we love so much

Likes do work and are not banned

YET

[Alan Klein]

OK I started it just to see what happens.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...92#post1670292

[h2oman]

I want to thank everyone who posted with the thought that the idea of "critique" was different from Photographic 101 instruction. I was a bit depressed after I posted above, feeling that this was going to be, to use Jnantz’s line, just “another thread with an image and people suggesting crops or camera movements or a different developer or developing /printing technique to use.”
I refused to accept that an OP would knowingly post an image for a “critique” that they knew was so faulty that they wouldn’t make a print of it. And yet here we are. This underlines the apparent difference between an on line critique and a one on one Critique. One wouldn’t get very far with an in person Critique if there was no print, much less the very best print of the very best picture you could make.
I would encourage posters to try to keep a distinction between Photo/composition 101 instruction threads and a Critique. This is an evolving concept here, but if there is no difference in practice, what is the need for different titles.
I would suggest Op’s should post their best. Here is a very simple site for posters who wouldn’t read the book.

https://floresphotoclass.edublogs.or...5-10ng3qs.pptx
Please keep in mind that, yes, I may be taking this way too seriously, eh!

William (should we call you Bill?),

I've probably learned as much from this thread as Alan, and I've found all the input valuable, from the "Photo/composition 101" comments to your more in-depth ones. I would ask you, and perhaps others, two questions:

1. What is a "proper" critique? Where did Ms. Flores (I find the link you provided valuable, thank you!) get her idea of what a proper critique consists of? Probably from someone else, who got it from someone else, who... Sometimes things get codified, and no one questions them from that point on. As I used to tell my students, when I was a productive member of society, "Moses didn't bring that down off the mountain!"

2. A major assumption of Ms. Flores' steps is that the photographer is trying to "say something." If you go to 7:40 of the following video, you will hear a successful photographer who doesn't necessarily seem to subscribe to that idea: Interview with William Clift

Finally, regarding in-person critiques with prints: I once took a dozen plus prints to a 45 minute critique session with a photographer who has several books published and is represented by a number of galleries, including the AA Gallery, Weston Gallery, Howard Greenburg Gallery in NYC, among others. (No that doesn't necessarily make him especially qualified to critique, but he has rubbed shoulders with a number of far more famous photographers, and I believe has done some teaching.) He looked through all the prints carefully several times. For one he commented that my choice of framing was interesting, and that I had left out something that he wanted to see. He concluded with something like "You should consider using more interesting toning." (His own work is very warm-toned.) After a long pause he said something like "I guess if you want something more specific, I would try to bring out more detail here, in this one." That was it.

Did I feel robbed? Not really - it only cost me $75, I got to meet him, and we did some general visiting that I enjoyed. I met with him at a conference that I was going to attend anyway. But I got a lot more out of the preceding comments on Alan's photo, and comments on a photo I submitted in a different thread, than from my in-person review. I imagine other people might be able to do a better job than him, but I don't know who they are, and they are not readily available.

[cowanw]

You had probably surpassed him and he couldn't acknowledge that!
Today everything is monetized and dumbed down. Google "photo critique" and there is a line up of people to tell you the golden rule is best.
If I were looking for a one on lone critique I would look to a professional organization. Doing your own reading would likely give you a lot of insight and self assessment. Otherwise I would look to organizations for advice such as https://www.icp.org/ Consider the Guardian newspaper http://www.theguardian.com/artanddes...-folio-reviews or the old pictorial organization https://www.ppa-photoclub.org/about-us/
Some camera clubs may be of help like the https://www.victoriacameraclub.ca/Default.aspx
I think we here could do quite nicely if several of us boned up with a couple of the books. Your point may be that the position may be obsolete. Digital has made many more experts and at the same time trivialized educational sources.
I am not a trained Critiquer but I am well read (which is my preferred learning method, combined, of course, with doing. My doing is mainly portraiture.) Anything I have read emphasizes that whether or not the reviewer likes the image is irrelevant, as is whether the image is any good. The main relevant point is what was the photographer trying to say, or refer to (historically or conceptually) or achieve. What was the photographers intention. As an example, if you were to say your rock was just interesting and that was all, I would ask what of your previous photographic or art or life experience led you to perceive that that was interesting.
Or take "boring portraits" as a recent example. One person's life experience and perception of interesting tells them a set of portraits is boring and uninteresting and therefor not a success. others find the photographer speaks to or for them in some way; maybe they like Mike Disfarmer, (talk about boring) or deadpan looks and they have significance.
People choose to take a photograph for a reason; if they learn what their reason's are then they can express themselves better.
If one looks for "likes" on Flickr, one learns quickly what users there like.
If one's purpose is to mobilize the masses for a better Soviet, then one needs to sharpen their constructivist skills.
Yes the discussions in these two critiques have been very good, some quite amazing. I am especially pleased to hear from people other than the usual "priesthood" (Damn, spoke too soon)
But if you want advice on focusing and movements there are already a vast number of threads on that. Even if looking for them is not to your taste or they are not exactly on your topic it would be far better to start a new thread asking for advice on focusing.
Can we not have one thread that looks beyond that? That doesn't tell us "I would do... or the best way to do that is..."
Or an thread where the poster says I intended to do an image in the style of Claude Cahun and we could talk about what makes it successful.
It may be a subtle difference, as all means of learning is a continuum, but could one thread be less technical?

[Alan Klein]

You had probably surpassed him and he couldn't acknowledge that!
Today everything is monetized and dumbed down. Google "photo critique" and there is a line up of people to tell you the golden rule is best.
If I were looking for a one on lone critique I would look to a professional organization. Doing your own reading would likely give you a lot of insight and self assessment. Otherwise I would look to organizations for advice such as https://www.icp.org/ Consider the Guardian newspaper http://www.theguardian.com/artanddes...-folio-reviews or the old pictorial organization https://www.ppa-photoclub.org/about-us/
Some camera clubs may be of help like the https://www.victoriacameraclub.ca/Default.aspx
I think we here could do quite nicely if several of us boned up with a couple of the books. Your point may be that the position may be obsolete. Digital has made many more experts and at the same time trivialized educational sources.
I am not a trained Critiquer but I am well read (which is my preferred learning method, combined, of course, with doing. My doing is mainly portraiture.) Anything I have read emphasizes that whether or not the reviewer likes the image is irrelevant, as is whether the image is any good. The main relevant point is what was the photographer trying to say, or refer to (historically or conceptually) or achieve. What was the photographers intention. As an example, if you were to say your rock was just interesting and that was all, I would ask what of your previous photographic or art or life experience led you to perceive that that was interesting.
Or take "boring portraits" as a recent example. One person's life experience and perception of interesting tells them a set of portraits is boring and uninteresting and therefor not a success. others find the photographer speaks to or for them in some way; maybe they like Mike Disfarmer, (talk about boring) or deadpan looks and they have significance.
People choose to take a photograph for a reason; if they learn what their reason's are then they can express themselves better.
If one looks for "likes" on Flickr, one learns quickly what users there like.
If one's purpose is to mobilize the masses for a better Soviet, then one needs to sharpen their constructivist skills.
Yes the discussions in these two critiques have been very good, some quite amazing. I am especially pleased to hear from people other than the usual "priesthood" (Damn, spoke too soon)
But if you want advice on focusing and movements there are already a vast number of threads on that. Even if looking for them is not to your taste or they are not exactly on your topic it would be far better to start a new thread asking for advice on focusing.
Can we not have one thread that looks beyond that? That doesn't tell us "I would do... or the best way to do that is..."
Or an thread where the poster says I intended to do an image in the style of Claude Cahun and we could talk about what makes it successful.
It may be a subtle difference, as all means of learning is a continuum, but could one thread be less technical?

You may be complicating things. Maybe the guy went out to take a picture just to get away from his wife for a few hours. Even if that's not the case, most people don't overthink their shots. They look and say that would be pretty neat and just shoot. Of course, the critiquer or viewer can make up all sorts of reasons of why he took it and what it means. Maybe he got dropped on his head when he was a baby. Who knows? Does all that really matter to the viewer? Either it works for him or it doesn't.

[Alan Klein]

Hi Alan
Nothing has stopped people who don't post images they themselves make in the past from commenting / praising or trivializing other people's hard work, one would hope in a more perfect world (web community) one would have to "pay to play" but people always duck the turnstiles and have sharp elbows. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ such is life, right ?

I agree. In the end it's hard to laugh at other's work when you have to expose yourself to laughter as well. I just think that if we all took a chance, and posted some of our photos, it would make photo forums more interesting and productive and would cut down on a lot of nyah nyahing.

[bdkphoto]

William (should we call you Bill?),

I've probably learned as much from this thread as Alan, and I've found all the input valuable, from the "Photo/composition 101" comments to your more in-depth ones. I would ask you, and perhaps others, two questions:

1. What is a "proper" critique? Where did Ms. Flores (I find the link you provided valuable, thank you!) get her idea of what a proper critique consists of? Probably from someone else, who got it from someone else, who... Sometimes things get codified, and no one questions them from that point on. As I used to tell my students, when I was a productive member of society, "Moses didn't bring that down off the mountain!"

2. A major assumption of Ms. Flores' steps is that the photographer is trying to "say something." If you go to 7:40 of the following video, you will hear a successful photographer who doesn't necessarily seem to subscribe to that idea: Interview with William Clift

Finally, regarding in-person critiques with prints: I once took a dozen plus prints to a 45 minute critique session with a photographer who has several books published and is represented by a number of galleries, including the AA Gallery, Weston Gallery, Howard Greenburg Gallery in NYC, among others. (No that doesn't necessarily make him especially qualified to critique, but he has rubbed shoulders with a number of far more famous photographers, and I believe has done some teaching.) He looked through all the prints carefully several times. For one he commented that my choice of framing was interesting, and that I had left out something that he wanted to see. He concluded with something like "You should consider using more interesting toning." (His own work is very warm-toned.) After a long pause he said something like "I guess if you want something more specific, I would try to bring out more detail here, in this one." That was it.

Did I feel robbed? Not really - it only cost me $75, I got to meet him, and we did some general visiting that I enjoyed. I met with him at a conference that I was going to attend anyway. But I got a lot more out of the preceding comments on Alan's photo, and comments on a photo I submitted in a different thread, than from my in-person review. I imagine other people might be able to do a better job than him, but I don't know who they are, and they are not readily available.

The best way to get something out of a critique is to be clear about your goals and ask those specific questions of the reviewer. I taught for many years at ICP in NYC, and have been a working photographer for 40+ years (Bio and background on my site linked below if you are interested) - I have attended and worked hundreds of portfolio reviews on both sides of the reviewing table, in the art and commercial markets. I use the term portfolio deliberately, as you cannot evaluate a single image in anything more that a technical fashion. Portfolios are how you can gain insight into someones approach to their work - how they see the world - is their work consistent, does it tell a story, does it go beyond the obvious, is it cliche? When I'm teaching all the critiques are centered on specific things we cover in class assignments and since many of my students are emerging professionals we do talk extensively about producing a portfolio and how to present the work. This is an academic environment and I get to lead and shape the discussion.

When I show work to gallerists, curators and the art world I only show complete projects - I know why I shot the work, and provide complete context for all the choices I made in the body of work. I try to see as many people as possible, including folks that I know aren't interested in my style of work. (I've met Howard Greenberg, and his gallery director among many others) Most of the time there is only a passing interest and small comments, but every now and then you make a connection with someone who can help bring the work into the world with a show, acquisition or an introduction to others. The folks I deal with are art professionals and I treat them as such.

The forum here is a different kettle of fish - the nature of the online community does not really allow for a good academic discussion, there are too many "teachers" and not enough experience and accomplishment to provide context in reviewing work with any real meaning beyond the technical . As a example - and with apologies to cowanw - accessing Alan's work in the critique thread along with Paul Strand misses the mark- one was a pioneer of modern photographic art over 100 years ago, and the other is trying to figure out how to focus his camera, burn and dodge properly on an image of an abandoned farmhouse that is a cliche subject in the photographic world in 2023.

[Alan Klein]

The best way to get something out of a critique is to be clear about your goals and ask those specific questions of the reviewer. I taught for many years at ICP in NYC, and have been a working photographer for 40+ years (Bio and background on my site linked below if you are interested) - I have attended and worked hundreds of portfolio reviews on both sides of the reviewing table, in the art and commercial markets. I use the term portfolio deliberately, as you cannot evaluate a single image in anything more that a technical fashion. Portfolios are how you can gain insight into someones approach to their work - how they see the world - is their work consistent, does it tell a story, does it go beyond the obvious, is it cliche? When I'm teaching all the critiques are centered on specific things we cover in class assignments and since many of my students are emerging professionals we do talk extensively about producing a portfolio and how to present the work. This is an academic environment and I get to lead and shape the discussion.

When I show work to gallerists, curators and the art world I only show complete projects - I know why I shot the work, and provide complete context for all the choices I made in the body of work. I try to see as many people as possible, including folks that I know aren't interested in my style of work. (I've met Howard Greenberg, and his gallery director among many others) Most of the time there is only a passing interest and small comments, but every now and then you make a connection with someone who can help bring the work into the world with a show, acquisition or an introduction to others. The folks I deal with are art professionals and I treat them as such.

The forum here is a different kettle of fish - the nature of the online community does not really allow for a good academic discussion, there are too many "teachers" and not enough experience and accomplishment to provide context in reviewing work with any real meaning beyond the technical . As a example - and with apologies to cowanw - accessing Alan's work in the critique thread along with Paul Strand misses the mark- one was a pioneer of modern photographic art over 100 years ago, and the other is trying to figure out how to focus his camera, burn and dodge properly on an image of an abandoned farmhouse that is a cliche subject in the photographic world in 2023.

Bruce, Very good points. So, how do we critique a forum posting? After all, this is not a class for future professionals nor a class in ICP. We're not presenting to Greenburg Galleries even if we have dreams of doing just that. We're just hobbyists for the most part trying to become a little bit better and sharing our work with each other and with regular outsiders. Getting technical details on how to focus better is valuable. I'm not attending a class and I depend on "instructors" here in the forums. Early on when I first started, another large format photographer met with me personally for a day on a photo shoot to show me the ropes. That was wonderful of him. But I still have a awful lot to learn. Also from an artistic expression standpoint, getting views from other amateurs is not worthless since for most of us that's the only people who will be looking at our work. What may be banal to the expert may be just fine to the average viewer.

So, what would you expect to get out of critiquing here for the average photographer? What would be your standards for the critique? What would you recommend we should be assessing? Thanks.

[Michael R]

Generally speaking, aside from some technical matters, critiques, portfolio reviews, masterclasses etc. make little if any difference. There are exceptions here and there though. For example someone good but unsure, or working in a vacuum might benefit from either the social interaction or perhaps the encouragement of an artist he/she admires.