Does Answers generate too many poor critiques of photography?

Your question being - what would be the best critique - my answer is obviously going to be type 4. A balanced critique with helpful hints.

The problem on here is very very rarely do you get questions from people who actually want that, or even who are posting shots which you can actually give that sort of review.

That is evidenced by those who post the same thing (badly taken snapshots) 6 times in a day and then pick the "you are great" answer each time.

The very few questions where they ask "please give me some advice on x or y shot and how it can be improved" will normally get help from the more knowledgeable posters on here. Sometimes that will consist of just read about x or y, or it may be directing them to websites to look at specific techniques or just similar types of shots.

I am often in the type 2 with my remarks - simply because there is absolutely no point in attempting to give a critique and/or advice to someone who thinks a picture of their feet or a fuzzy shot of them pulling a face taken at arms length with a camera phone is a "good shot".

Where necessary I will be in type 4 but must admit that is very rare because it is rare where a question warrants it.

Here is an example of a question asked recently

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=At...

Now how do you answer that? There is nothing really that is massively wrong with the shots but there are 6 different genres of photography there (architecture, macro, wildlife, sport, landscape and portrait). How can you give honest critiques and advice? It has to be very generic and often that is just pointing them to web sites or advising them to learn about composition/exposure.

Yeah, Answers does provide a lot of useless "critiques." Of course, there are some people out there who provide helpful critiques - the Type 4's. Obviously, if I'm asking for a critique, I want answers that fit into Type 4 (and maybe a few Type 3's - at least they're honest, and they do point out where problems lie, if not how to fix the problems).

I like to think I give Type 3's and 4's - I usually give balanced critiques, but since I am an amateur & relatively inexperienced photographer, many times I can't tell a person exactly how to fix a problem in their photo. Also, sometimes I get the feeling that something is wrong, or missing, but I can't quite put my finger on it. ... So I guess the majority of the time, I give Type 3 critiques. I do aim for Type 4, though, and I try to give helpful suggestions when I can. =)

(Granted, if you can tell that the asker just wants praise, and their shots are horrible, I usually just ignore the question. My answer above applies to those that I think are serious about their photography.)

Type 3 or better 4. Types 1 and 2, as you already pointed out, are not any help to grow skill, in photography or any other application. In Y!A, I critique as a type 4 most of the time. Occasionally I am harsh, but I try to save that for the new "professionals" who are asking what settings to use on this week's wedding because it's dark and they can't use a flash.

Much of the photography section here, at least those asking for critique, is composed of young beginners. Many of them think they want to be a photographer. Some just want to be told how amazing their photos are and give you thumbs down if you offer an opinion other than "OMG, ur awesome!! I wish I could take pichures like that! There amazing!!!"

Others realize their photos are not amazing, but want "hints and tips" for doing better, or help choosing the perfect professional camera that will magically improve their photography. They either don't realize or believe that skill takes a while to build, that it takes some work and effort on their part, and that reading a paragraph of hints or buying a new camera won't do the job. They want someone else to do the heavy lifting for them.

There are actually some who want to learn and use Y!A hoping for real critique. This is not a very good place to get critique, and I usually suggest getting feedback on their local level. Here there are far too many "gushers" who are teens themselves and know little or nothing about the craft, and think that merely having an opinion is validation enough for offereing "critique". Photo.net, although they have a higher caliber of photographers in general over there, is not so great at critique either. I have a large PN portfolio, and many hundreds of comments, but rarely do I get a real critique. In over 5 years, I can still count the real critiques without having to use all my toes. PN is a great place for learning and viewing great galleries, I suggest to the older kids to pay a visit there to see good work, but the truth is PN is slowly being infiltrated by the OMG!! crowd.

I have blabbed so ling I have forgotten the original intent of this tirade! (This happens when you get old, LOL) At any rate, I enjoy seeing other's shots, and hope I have helped a few people along the way, or at least given them something to consider. Judging from the thumbs down I get, I guess a few don't think so. Y!A critique fulfills a teaching urge for me, keeps my grammar and typing in tune and lets me feel I am giving back in a small way. So in a way, I get as much or more from it than the questioners themselves.

I'll put my two cents worth in by saying 'WOW, that's an amazing question'.

Sorry, it really is a very good question.

I thought about all my critiques and I think I fall into the #3 area.

My typing skills are slow and I don't have a lot of links to hook people up to but I also try to give a well balanced critique in the short run to make the asker 'think' about what I've said.

There is so much trite BS flowing thru the channels here that at times it can be rather depressing, still I forge on to possibly enlighten that poor wandering soul that needs a direction or two.

Then again I really do have a sassy tongue and not afraid to use it, sometimes on the curt side.

Like Mr Fish, I too feel that people aren't really looking at the 'real picture'.

We have been bombarded with photos from the media all our lives and with the new dawn of using digital we are being bombarded at a rate that 30 years ago would have seemed like a dream come true but now that dream has turned into a nightmare.

Let's just say we try, in different ways of course, still we try!

It's interesting how many new photographers responded so far...

I will answer this in two ways. First, as you have posed the question.

I always appreciate helpful criticism and suggestions only enhance the critique. I also recognize that different people like different things. If someone lives and breathes by the rule of thirds, I will let them voice their comment saying that I violated that rule, but I will simply ignore it. Usually, I know who is being "critical" in a helpful way and who is just trying to irritate me. Those people can easily be ignored, as I have no respect for their opinion.

So... I guess I favor Type 4. If something is good - which means pleasing to the viewer - I don't need a list of why it is good. A simple attaboy for my ego is good enough. If they especially like some aspect of a certain image, then it is nice to have that mentioned. If something is bad or unpleasing, I would rather have a whole list of things that I did "wrong" or different from what the viewer might expect.

Part Two of My Answer, as if anyone who needs to read this will see it.

I RARELY offer critique of images anymore. Many people are only interested in the Type 1 comments - all praise and no critique. With some people who I have gotten to know, I am okay giving some criticism, but I will only do so if I have some constructive suggestion to make. I never leave criticism of an image that I plain do not like unless it is something from a very trusted friend who would do the same for me. To criticize a stranger for their bad photography does not help anyone. I might gradually get to see how someone reacts and consider offering a suggestion or two, but if it is plain old bad, I will stay out of it. There are plenty of people here who are happy to tell someone that they suck.

For the people who really want help:

PLEASE do not post a link to an entire Flickr site and ask for comments. I prefer seeing one or two images at most. If there are two, it is better if they are different versions of the same image (alternate crop, alternate process, etc.) or at least the same subject. We have people post links to Flickr, Deviant Art, or whatever, asking for critique - usually, "What can I do to improve my photography?" - and the link takes you to a gallery of 50 or 100 images! Pay tuition and get a professional to sit down with you if you want an entire portfolio reviewed.

It also bugs me when someone posts a snapshot and asks for critique and some well-meaning soul says, "I'm sorry, but this looks like any old snapshot that anyone with a camera could have made," only to receive the added comment, "Yeah, I know it's just a snapshot, but is it a good snapshot?" I mean, what's the point? It looks more like the asker is just trying to save face by backpedaling their "artistic merit."

You must appreciate that many people don't look too far into a picture. They just know if they like it, or don't like it. Type 1. So they will just say if they do or don't like the picture.

Others are just idiots who think they are being clever by simply slagging you off, type 2.

Then you move onto type 3. They will take the subject seriously and try to be as honest and helpful as possible. Obviously trying to be chosen as giving the best answer.

Then type 4 would be the fellow photographers. Those who know technically what they are talking about and will try to give more help and pointers on how you might alter camera settings, picture composition etc.

I'd class myself as a type 3 with an inclination towards type 4 as i too am interested in photography.

I haven't been impressed with Answers regarding their critiques. Nor have I been impressed with Photo.Net either; I quit it because of the criticism when I gave an average score for an average shot. Both here and there are dominated by those who think any photo uploaded to the site is worthy of extreme praise.

I haven't critiqued here because of the Type 1s and 2s. Maybe I will in the future, and if I do, I will be a Type 4.

If you want an honest assessment of your work, and are serious about learning, you should be seeking a critique on photo.net, not y/a. People who ask here don't want honesty, or critique, they want validation, two completely different things. Do people not know this? Because this is the second question I have personally ran across of the same sentiment.

Let me clear this up for you people. Yahoo answers is NOT a photography critique forum. You ask a question, you get an answer - most of which are opinion based. Opinions and honesty have nothing to do with a critique. Critiques are based on known factors that pertain to specific artistic elements within a photograph that try to break down what impact that photograph attempts to convey. And while opinion certainly plays a small role in subjectivity, critique is not designed to validate people that should have already attempted to derive the elements on their own beforehand. And frankly, the y/a photography community is not made up of enough people for the true process of critique to be useful - so I don't rightly understand why people are determined to use it in that manner if they didn't simply want validation. And personally, I'm not here to tell you that you're doing a "good job".

Join photo.net, participate in a community of real photographers, and get real assessments of your work. Use y/a if you want to know how to do a multiple exposure, or to understand what a CPL does. I'm not validating your myspace pic obsession.

I give quite a lot of critiques on this site and I like to believe that I give good advice. I will also admit to being quite harsh at times, but I again believe that this is necessary for the person to improve. It can be very hard for the few of us who give detailed and critcal answers with examples when you are outnumbered 15-1 by kids who are gushing that the image looks "Amazing" or "Looks professional". At the end of the day all you have to do is give your answer and you will soon discover just how serious the person is about their photography.

I would say every 1 in 20 will add an 'additional' and say thank you to critical advice and say they will act on it. The rest either never return to their question, rant at those who said their image is anything but perfect or pick a best answer which simply praises them. You do not have to be a genius to tell who will make the better photographer. It is true to say that many kids come on here just to get an "ego boost" and don't want criticism of their image even though they ask for a critique.

I believe that honest criticism is the way forward, by pointing out the persons mistakes and then telling them how to rectify it then they are learning, it is as simple as that. I have also seen quite a number (although to be honest not a great deal) of excellent images on this site which I could nothing else but praise!.

At the end of the day it is down to the asker to make the decision as to which is the best answer, whichever they choose will show their dedication to the art. You have to be thick-skinned, not crumble and moan and give up because somebody said that your shot of a dog was overexposed and the editing was poor. This is why I believe giving links to examples or tutorials is always a good idea so that the asker can see what a properly exposed photo should look like or how a straight horizon can improve their image (like in this question I answered yesterday)..

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aj0hc...

I have had probably 100 emails from people calling me every name under the sun for saying their images were not perfect, and I have had a few dozen emails from people who have thanked me and asked for more advice, some of which I have stayed in contact with and email periodically.

I would say that I am a type 4, I love critique on my images good or bad!, but after answering hundreds of these critique questions I would say the majority of askers on this site are type 1.

+++

Additional: This is one great example of somebody who simply wanted praise, look at the answers given and what she chose for a best answer.. I lost my temper with this one..

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AoOCp...

+++

When asked to critique someones photography I like to think that I fall into Type 4. A critique without suggestions as to what could have been/should have been done differently is nothing but a waste of time.

People who fall into Type 1 or Type 2 should be given a "Thumbs Down" and ignored.