I was looking at some shots the other day and the first thing that came to my mind was, "that sucks".

I thought to myself, well why are some people telling this guy that the image is "beautiful", "wonderful", "really spectacular" and before anyone starts doing a search of the archives I made those compliments up. So..... no worries. And I will add that it might not even be in this forum.

So, my point is, what good does it do to tell someone that their image looks good if it sucks? Does is speak volumes about the person giving the statement or about the person that took the pic. Maybe it says something about me, but that is another conversation.

Why wouldn't it be better to say, "that sucks" because......... than fill the page up with false platitudes? I like to hear something that I do sucks. It is refreshing and brings a good chill to my blood. "That sucks" - well you are a GD idiot,what do you know, that is great" is my first thought. But then I rethink and re-examine and come to the conclusion a: he IS an idiot or b: it does suck. And I hope I am not offending anyone with the word "sucks". Just came to my mind.

So, my question, would you rather someone give you a compliment or someone rip you a new one? And if they rip you a new one is the first thing you do, go look at THEIR work and say, "my God that idiot. His work totally sucks, what the hell does he know?" with an emphasis on the "know" or do your regroup, re-examine and try to learn and improve?

I am all for political correctness in grade school and middle school. But as an adult, an adult trying to stretch myself, I like "that sucks". Unless of course, your work does suck. Then I just scoff and go read the sport section.

Your post sucks!
joking. But seriously, who would post images if they were getting You suck! comments?
Constructive criticism is good, though. People are just being polite.

Just trying to bring some levity to this place. But I agree with you.

I think in order to be fair to the poster and useful as feedback, criticisms should be a bit more specific and targeted than "that SUCKS!"... but as you said, "that sucks because..." is always good to hear, even if you end up disagreeing, it makes you think.

One should at least try to find something to comment about that is inside the photographer's power to address, and make certain allowances for how difficult the shot might have been to obtain in the first place... if someone has a technically rubbish shot of a night-time fight in the streets, that's quite a different thing from an out of focus underexposed studio shot of a limp tulip

So yeh, better to sat it sucks and to suggest things which might make for better shots next time. That's certainly what I appreciate when people comment on my shots- and sometimes I'll agree with them, and sometimes I'll disagree with them, but it is definitely best to know the truth of what others think! Obviously, artistic tastes will vary.

However, there do seem to be some people who sadly have no eye for a picture at all. What *does* one say to these guys? I occasionally run tutorials and I must admit there are some people I feel like telling - look, go find another hobby. You just don't see photos. (And have you noticed that they invariably roll up with top-dollar kit? A sure-fire pointer to cluelessness is a 1Ds and sack full of L series lenses, most of which are wildly inappropriate for the shoot at hand...)

Cheers, Hywel.

+100

Robb

Well, my back hurts, and **everything sucks**

Except Sinead O'Connor. I was listening to her do some Celtic songs this morning, plus some Irish ballads with the Chieftans. Absolutely incredible voice, poise, grace. I am sorry that I don't know my historical language and miss that connection to history.

So - almost everything sucks, unless you are that good. Now I need to go self medicate.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR0CjBtsG8I...e=youtube_gdata


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbMpt1gxXgE...e=youtube_gdata

Well, it is interesting to me because almost in any other hobby/profession it is obvious when someone just sucks. Any musical instrument, golf, tennis, ping pong, writing, almost everything else there is an obvious result to doing it - let's say - not very well. Hell, even fishing, is pretty obvious. But photography is totally in the eye of the shooter and it just is what it is. That is also what makes it great. We can do it, and not do it well, but still feel that it is good and get some satisfaction out of it. Maybe that is why so many people enjoy it!

As far as the equipment comment, that is a given. Go to any tennis club and you will always see the worst players with the best clothes and equipment. Human nature.

Well, one of the reasons I picked Sinead, is that:

1) Some people think she is fantastic across the board (like me),

2) Some people hate her based on one incident on SNL in 1992 (where she was trying to address the looming Catholic church sex abuse scandal), and

3) I think most that give a fair listen to the two links above, without bias, will be moved. Not sure they will all like the music, but ....


It seems what "sucks" is based as much on preconceived notions and emotions - and deep seated prejudices - that exist before we even encounter the work.

But in order **not** to suck, you have to **take chances**, and take a stand, and try, and thereby ensure that some people do think you suck. Catch 22?

Though I think most of us can recognize and acknoledge technical proficiency and "professionalism" of a sort. Even if the image content tends to make us want to barf ....


From "pop matters":

By now, not only does your face have to fit the fleeting contemporary moment, but so do your morals and your lifestyle.

Sinead O’Connor was never likely to fit into such a cultural climate. Throughout her career she displayed a willful perversity for going against the grain, situating herself as a one-woman public relations wrecking crew. Often it seemed she need only open her mouth for some foolish utterance to emerge and crash the next day’s papers, belying the old maxim that there’s no such thing as bad publicity. Doubtless she regrets the majority of her headlines more than anyone now, but bless her for her honesty—at least no one ever accused her of playing the game.

I think comments like "Good shot" or "I like it" suck just as hard as "That Sucks" or "Doesn't work for me"

Allthough the first are usually more appreciated than the latter neither are helpful.
The only real value is in the "why" behind the opinion.

Maybe referenced before, but I found this a good piece about writing a useful image critique.

That is usually what I use to to do until you get everyone hating you in here...:+}
Just look at the Recent "professional" works post... a lot of crap but most everyone says....oooooh.. beautiful lighting or whatever and it is either horrible or the same darn thing that person post every day, Although occassionaly there is some nice stuff posted... That is all,I have to say...
Good luck with your post...
Snook

I quite agree with you insofar as the truth is often painful; but then again, the older I get the more I understand the wisdom behind the old jazz number where the voice sings "If you can't say nuthin' nice, then don't say nuthin's my advice." I have a photographer friend who follows this rule implicitly and I respect him for it.

The basic problem is that as far as I can see, having been around the block more times than I care to admit, most photographers I'm aware of make perhaps thirty good shots in a lifetime of work. I don't give a toss who they are - the average ain't no higher than that. They may make hundreds if not thousands of competent images, all up to the expected standard befitting their exalted status, but if you look carefully enough, it's the same old shot, time after time; maybe thirty was too generous.

Rob C

1. It is good for your soul to be gentle I liek gentle everyoen likes gentle
2. TOTALLY AGREE with the notion ( at best) people MAY have 20-30 great shots in them - but I will take interesting or unusual over competent any day.
3. Something about make-up+over lighting+ridiculous premise(s) makes me squirm and feel all antsy when I see most of the so called fashion shots posted here- to my eye - they are just crapola hack works - repeating the same formulaic tedium over and over and over again - like some autistic oxymoron - criticising a bad genre which happens to be 'commercial' is a waste of time itself no?

"most photographers I'm aware of make perhaps thirty good shots in a lifetime of work. I don't give a toss who they are - the average ain't no higher than that."


RobC,
we finally agree on something!
Cheers,
Willem.

Some are famous on the basis of one shot, I think I'd take that.

I agree, PeterA, but like Rob C, I've been round the block a few times, perhaps a couple of times too many in my case, so refrain from commenting. Or maybe I'm just not brave enough. To me, most fashion shots are a combination of good clothes and make-up and usually competent but not too difficult lighting. Clearly there's a skill in getting the models to strike the pose you want but that's soon learnt by most people. I don't want to criticise the fashion shooters here because some of their stuff (only some) seems okay - to me, but most is formulaic.

As for 20 -30 great shots, that's difficult to argue with. Even the best French photographers like Doisneau, Cartier-Bresson, Ronis, et el, produce stuff that I love but as for great shots, well unless you want to dumb down the word great, then there aren't that many. Maybe we have to debate the meaning of "great" next?

You have critisized the fashion shooters here - and I believe unjustly so with your comment.

Correct me please if I am wrong... but isn't formulaic what the client wants 99% of the time? Its certainly what sells.

Pro fashion photographers (For the record I don't shoot fashion) are not making 'art' per se to please other photographers - they are producing a photograph as directed by the client (or the client's art director) to meet the client's needs. That doesn't mean the photograph 'sucks' or just seems 'ok'; it just means its serving a different purpose than pleasing the often high brow artful eye of other photographers. We need to look at a photograph in the context of its intended audience and in the context of it meetings its client driven objectives.

A photograph can be formulaic and brilliantly executed, meet the clients needs and furnish the photographers wallet. That is a successful photograph and is a lot more than 'okay' in my opinion.

If I put this in the context of my own kids portrait business instead of fashion - what my clients want is about as formulaic as it gets. Formulaic makes money - end of story. It doesn't equal bad or just 'ok' photographs.

I believe there is some truly wonderful photography posted to this forum - and some that falls at the other end of the spectrum. And thats ok. The point is - if you don't have anything constructive to say about a photograph then don't comment. Constructive criticism is educational and may better help the photographer with future work. Saying a photograph 'sucks' contributes nothing meaningful or of substance.

I'm not sure what you guys are talking about here in reference to your 20-30 good pics unless you just don't appreciate or understand the skills necessary to create commercial images. The lighting and technical skill to make even a bowl of fruit look appealing is pretty impressive. Maybe in the world of landscape photography you can make that argument but even then it is specious at best. Commercial, architectural and fashion photography can require the use of dozens of lights and modifiers. Nothing simple about that!

I think this falls into the category of say watching a great tennis player make playing tennis look easy or a dancer making dancing look easy. Commercial shots of cars, products, clothing, etc can be very elaborate and certainly there are many great photographers in those styles that have taken 100's of great photo's. To claim only 20-30 expresses to me a total lack of understanding and appreciation of those skills.

I think this statement is besides the point of the original poster I think.

The point is do you help photographers who are not up to their allowance of 30 great pictures (assuming that's a true statement) by saying great shot, when in actual fact there's things wrong with the picture and the photographer could be better helped by some critiques that point this out. Doesn't have to be rude, but just honest and helpful critique to become better. If you don't want to do that it's indeed better to say nothing.

Sinead O'Connor is good, better after 1 glass of wine 2x better after 2 glasses etc.

Yes, Josh I suppose I have criticised them, although I did say some of their stuff seems okay to me (I know, they’ll be thrilled at that [joke]). And I didn’t introduce the word “suck” (although I don’t see much wrong with it). I did say that fashion photography is very often formulaic and you seem to agree with me on that bit.

The reason I offered my views is that when people exhibit work here they are seeking our approval and sometimes even our acknowledgement that it’s art. And then I think it’s acceptable for me and others to say we think it’s only okay or even formulaic – gently if possible and as constructively as possible.

One area I agree with you is the need to please clients. We all have to do that, one way or another and I’m not knocking it. My way to tolerate that is to take the stuff they want as faithfully as I can but also throw in some images that I like and that are decidedly different from the brief. I’m not trying to say I’m a creative genius, it’s painfully clear that’s not the case, but I am trying to avoid producing what loads of others are doing. And so far it has paid off surprisingly often. An example, I took some shots for an architect of some support structures for a roof. How exciting is that? But, to keep myself sane, I did some more abstract versions of the same structures and he and his partners loved them. I get more work and a lot of job satisfaction.

Whether formulaic is okay is, of course, down to personal opinion. If you’re saying as long as something sells, it’s okay, I can only agree up to a point. Yes, if the clients really want that, then fine, there will always be people happy to provide it. FWIW my view is there’s already enough unthinking homogeneity in our world. If I could only photograph the formula then I’d have to work out whether I’d rather get a mind-numbing job that would almost certainly pay better and take photos just for a hobby. That’s in no way elitist: it’s just plain honest.

A final point of agreement: there is some brilliant photography posted here and I enjoy seeing it. (I hope I don’t copy it though.)

Not so long ago a major photography prize was won by a photo that many thought was crap. An amateur magazine editor and his staff had the courage to say so publicly. And I agreed, but clearly many people didn't. Sometimes I think that winning images in nature photo competitions are mediocre at best. Photography is exceptionally subjective.

But, I know what you mean. Photo forums are full of people posting dull pictures that surely are of little interest to most of us, and people say "Wow" and "Love it". Most are snapshots of cats, children, etc. I think a lot of the time these are groups of people who either like to encourage each other, or form a mutual back patting society. I can think of one poster whose pictures are in my opinion mundane, he posts often and everywhere, and people seem to love his pictures and comments. Beats me why!

I think if an image has obvious flaws, there is nothing wrong with a polite comment along the lines of "Well I think you could have got closer for more impact". This makes it a suggestion, rather than a put down. The problem is that when someone says "It needs more contrast", and the aim was to get even lighting and avoid high contrast, subjective tastes clash, and conflict can ensue. I do not like unnatural colours, but most pictures I see online have the saturation slider set to 11. And some people like dark photos, as if making a mundane scene dark adds artistry. It doesn't. But I am a lone voice in this belief.

The line between great and crap is blurred!

[quote name='Josh-H' date='Nov 4 2009, 11:33 AM' post='322416']
"You have critisized the fashion shooters here - and I believe unjustly so with your comment."

And do you really belive that a single one thinks it applies to him or gives a damn?"

"Correct me please if I am wrong... but isn't formulaic what the client wants 99% of the time? Its certainly what sells."

I imagine any fashion clients I had would not recognize either of your sentiments.

"Pro fashion photographers (For the record I don't shoot fashion) are not making 'art' per se to please other photographers - they are producing a photograph as directed by the client (or the client's art director) to meet the client's needs."

Well let me introduce myself: the client was the vehicle for my own desires and they certainly did encompass impressing the competition.

"A photograph can be formulaic and brilliantly executed, meet the clients needs and furnish the photographers wallet. That is a successful photograph and is a lot more than 'okay' in my opinion.

Agreed, but that does not spell great. It spells professional, what the photographer is expected to be able to do, time after time after time; it is his job.

"I put this in the context of my own kids portrait business instead of fashion - what my clients want is about as formulaic as it gets. Formulaic makes money - end of story. It doesn't equal bad or just 'ok' photographs."

Two more disparate genres you could hardly have picked!

" believe there is some truly wonderful photography posted to this forum - and some that falls at the other end of the spectrum. And thats ok. The point is - if you don't have anything constructive to say about a photograph then don't comment. Constructive criticism is educational and may better help the photographer with future work. Saying a photograph 'sucks' contributes nothing meaningful or of substance."

That's why, in my own post, I quoted the song line: if you can't say nuthin' nice... we agree on that.

Rob C

[quote name='gdwhalen' date='Nov 4 2009, 01:25 PM' post='322425']
"I'm not sure what you guys are talking about here in reference to your 20-30 good pics unless you just don't appreciate or understand the skills necessary to create commercial images. The lighting and technical skill to make even a bowl of fruit look appealing is pretty impressive. Maybe in the world of landscape photography you can make that argument but even then it is specious at best. Commercial, architectural and fashion photography can require the use of dozens of lights and modifiers. Nothing simple about that!"

Simple or complicated isn't the issue, I don't think; the issue is greatness. In fact, in your reference to fashion here, you remind me of Sante d'Orazio saying that when he goes somewhere and comes across too many lights set up, his reaction is oh-oh! not a good sign! I endorse that opinion.

"I think this falls into the category of say watching a great tennis player make playing tennis look easy or a dancer making dancing look easy. Commercial shots of cars, products, clothing, etc can be very elaborate and certainly there are many great photographers in those styles that have taken 100's of great photo's. To claim only 20-30 expresses to me a total lack of understanding and appreciation of those skills."

As with another poster, I think there is a conflict here between what is professional and the norm, and what is great. I think you might be surprised at how those snappers you admire might view their own output.

There is no intention here that I see as derogatory; there is simply a belief that the expected expertise for which the photographer is being paid does not equate with greatness. Its execution merely demonstrates professional expertise. Not the same things at all.

Rob C

I understand your distinction and it does make sense from the point of observation. But from the point of knowledge that is a different thing. A great pic may not mean great aesthetically, it may be great from a technical standpoint. Both ways can still be great. But the combination of the two are relevant in your perspective. People can show their work and be referencing their technical skills or the "unbelievable" (to them) look of their lens. Lots of reasons for posting pics.

My original post was referencing people posting pics that they think are interesting or beautiful etc. From the aesthetic angle. I wasn't referring to posts where someone is showing the capabilities of their new camera or lens.

Rob C: I 100% agree with your above posts.

I rarely comment on anything unless I really, really like it. I honestly think that any valid criticism would have to go too deep for a web forum, and address issues of taste, which touches values, which leads to acrimony. Meaningful criticism really comes from within. You need other's feedback as a reality check, to either check hubris or to cut short being over critical.

I think, in general and not specific to this forum, the glut of over retouched dramatic lighting "fashion" shots is overwhelming. In fact, I think the heavy use of strobes is awful, at least is now in 2009. It was cool in 2000-2006, or at least trendy. Now its a crutch. I guess technique is always the fall back when you have no ideas, and I direct this to myself as well as teh great heaving purile mass of budding fashion shooters on Model Mayhem. They teach that in art school, actually, that when you are stuck, fall back on technique and just paint. The problem I'm seeing is that is all many people aspire to be: technicians. This feeds into the subject of Great Photographs.

I will say that for my generation, I'm 36, and the immediatly following generation, those in their late 20's, that being great was never a priority, really. Everyone was trying to sell out as fast as they could, which meant mediocrity. Things have changed, at least with people I know.

Criticism has to have a 'context' and if the context of any pic posted is "this is a professional work that I am proud of" - then what is the point of challenging a person's personal opinion about their own work? Of course it will lead to acrimony.

The notion of 'great' itself is full of trouble and strife..

Craft and technique? one person's art is another peron's bad technique.

Commerically sound and solid - does the job / pays the bills? who cares apart from the photographer and his client? thats not a test of anything it is a transanction.

My test of a good shot is would I buy it and hang it in my gallery ?- space on a wall chaps - thats one test. Complemeting other really good shots - thats another test. People willing to buy somethigng and hang it on their wall -because they love it? thats another test...

Great shots? thats another world...

Then there is the question of fine art. That goes far beyond the concept of "technique." The photo world is so conservative and quaint sometimes! .

Can you say "Marcel Duchamp"? I spent 12 years in the 1980's and 1990's studying his work. I do - quite honestly - think he was the most important artist ever to live.

Look at "The Large Glass", "The Green Box", and "Etant Donne" - all in Philadelphia. Spend a day there pondering (I actually met Beatrice Wood while there, at about 85 years old, one of Duchamp's lovers from what, the 1920's? Wow ...)

FWIW - 51 here.

M.

Tmark, do you have pics in here somewhere? I would be curious to see them.

And that question begins with the title itelf: fine art?

It starts with an intrinsic pretension. Drop the adjective and the whole thing becomes much more acceptable and less controversial and challenging of the powers of belief of a normal, sane viewer. (By which I mean myself.)

As for the photo world being conservative, well, I did note the lol at the end of your sentence. If you speak of the photographic art world, then perhaps what you could have written is that it is not so much conservative as attempting to be all things to all men in the vain hope of opening all purses. And that's why I believe there is so much risible nonsense on view wherever you care to turn; also, that's why, in a strange sort of way, the art photo world justifies the professional commercial stuff: the latter can be whatever it happens to be becaue it fulfills the needs of a brief, obviously or subliminally. Art can't do that quite so easily: a piece has to be exciting of itself and not by virtue of its connection with something outwith itself - a product, for example.

And that distinction is quite important because it creates a situation where good commercial stuff might be absolutely useless as anyone's idea of marketable art. I found this all too clearly in my own work when I first got into desktop printing and began to trawl through old commercial shoots in the high expectation of finding material to convert to 'fine art' black/white prints. What looked okay as calendar art in colour turned out much, much less so in the isolation of a sheet of Hahnemuehle! One great big missing link was continuity of theme, obvious within the commercial whole of the original production but unknowable in the single image. A case of the holistic being better than the parts alone...

But commercial shouldn't be seen as a pejorative term in its relationship with art either. Most of the great art we still have started life to commission by church, duke or banker. So what's new?

Rob C