On-line group critique thread ideas?

[bmikiten]

When I taught photography, we had a weekly critique set up in a hallway. The image was not signed and the student/staff member was not identified. The print was simply titled with a date. Everyone was asked to critique the print for quality, technique, imagery and overall impression. The person selecting the print was a third party in another department who simply chose one from the pile. Is this something that could be done here on-line?

Thoughts?

My input
- image size would be specified as no larger than xx X xx.
- Negatives would be from a large format camera
- B/W or color is acceptable
- All commentary should be respectful and constructive. Simply saying "I like it" or "I wouldn't have shot this" aren't in those categories. Typical commentaries are things like "I enjoy the image. The lighting was especially interesting. I would have cropped a bit from the right hand side to balance the overall image. Did you consider using a filter to increase image contrast? The image looks a bit underdeveloped. I would have tilted the front a bit to correct for DOF in order to get a more powerful image"
- The photographer does not respond
- A user or group of users/admins would be the ones posting the images.

[Tin Can]

1st Concise Title…

[Peter Lewin]

A few thoughts. First, to some extent, we already have this if the poster specifies "comments & critique welcome" when they post, although a separate thread might encourage more commentary. Second, while critique of lighting, composition, cropping, etc. could be useful, image quality and contrast are a function of the poster's skill with photoshop or whatever software they use to process the image for posting, rather than their darkroom abilities. I'm very much aware of this, since my actual darkroom prints are almost always superior to the images I am able to post. Lastly, I don't see why the photographer should not be allowed to respond, critiques should be a dialog. Overall, it is an interesting idea, because it is exactly what I and other members of the NJ Photographer's Forum do at our monthly meetings. Pre-Covid we would critique each other's prints in person monthly, although post-Covid the group has become very digital-oriented and most meetings consist of critiques of screened images via Zoom. (I often have to remind people that in my case they are viewing silver gelatin prints from negatives, their Photoshop tricks and filters simply are not relevant to my images.) Each person showing images is encouraged to submit a few which related to each other, either by theme or visually.

[Vaughn]

Critiquing multiple images at one time would be confusing, as would bringing forward older discussions. If we kept it to one image critique at a time, how much time to give to an image? 48 hours before posting the next image for critique? Longer? Perhaps last comment on an image plus 12 hours? Do we ask for no late comments on past images to keep the discussion fresh?

The logistics will be interesting -- depends on how one imagines the discussions to run.

[koraks]

Would this benefit:
* the photographer?
* the people offering the critique?
* an onlooking audience?

Once this is clear, optimize for it.

[Tin Can]

Most people do not understand critique

I was trained and struggle still

The goal is to help an artist improve

but what does that mean

and how much baggage do the 'helpers' carry

how does art evolve, change, sell

NOT ART

[bmikiten]

I understand the idea of letting the photographer respond. In my example, the post of the print was done in a way that the photographer was not present and could not ever respond. That prevented a negative feedback/argument or "I do it because I want to do it that way" type response. There are times when very non-traditional techniques by artists (less in photography) and the critique turns to a justification by the artist. A recent example of this is in a group where the artist scratches the front of the print in order to either age it or because they like the look. The responses in general were very negative and the whole idea of basic criteria being viewed was lost. Everyone just got stuck on asking why they would intentionally scratch the photograph. I had a student that used to tear their photo corners off then display the work. The general response was that it was distracting but they decided it was their "style". In student shows, they were almost always referred to as "those photos with the torn edges" and no one could tell you about a single image's content. It was an interesting experience. Yes, I'm much more of a traditionalist.

[bmikiten]

Would this benefit:
* the photographer?
* the people offering the critique?
* an onlooking audience?

Once this is clear, optimize for it.

Current and future artists who want to compare their own journey and offer notes to those who may be less advanced. Exploring other people's work allows us to refine our own or internally verify our own paths. This can range from standard or alternative processes, film and chemistry then to the actual printing process and visualization. Sometimes it lets us just look at the world through another person's eyes and use that for inspiration. Sometimes it helps others look at their own work through other's eyes.

[John Layton]

Having folks critique my work on existing threads works fine for me...but I guess I've grown a bit lax about inviting critique when I post images. Of course I always invite critique and I'll try to be better about letting others know this as I post. Of course there are caveats with respect to the qualities of posted images vs. actual "in the flesh" ones...and I will often review my own posting and go back in with an edit which spells this out.

As for an actual "critique" thread - I'd have my doubts (speaking from years of teaching experience) that anything other than an actual discussion in real time would be effective. Then again...to have a thread with this premise, in itself, could be valuable, as it might serve to invite more participation, and a bit more "honesty" in discussing each others work, so long as there would also be an understanding that we'd need to work around those "real vs posted" caveats. Therefore I would forsee any such critiques being based more on elements such as content, composition, and technical elements such as focussing adjustments, etc. - and less upon the finer points of print qualities such as relative tonalities, absolute sharpness, etc.

And a question: would we leave the existing (photo posting) threads alone - or take any critiquing in those threads off the table? (I'd vote to leave them as they are).

Hmmm...maybe give this a try?

[Alan Klein]

Critiquing multiple images at one time would be confusing, as would bringing forward older discussions. If we kept it to one image critique at a time, how much time to give to an image? 48 hours before posting the next image for critique? Longer? Perhaps last comment on an image plus 12 hours? Do we ask for no late comments on past images to keep the discussion fresh?

The logistics will be interesting -- depends on how one imagines the discussions to run.

Once a week is my recommendation. Start a new thread for each critique to avoid overlapping comments. Include the current date in the thread's Title. Start all on the same day of the week. State whether it's a scan of the print or a scan of the original film.