Who has the authority to critique your street photography?

kbg32 said:
I was almost in tears Allen!

The good thing, I was able to get two pages. One was a photogravure of Steiglitz's "Icy Night", which was an ad for Goertz lenses. The other was a reproduction of a Picasso etching, "Nude Woman" or something to that effect.
Click to expand...

That's very cool....
 
airfrogusmc said:
L1028142_zpsc461e890.jpg
1024) {this.width=1024;this.alt='Click here to see a large version';}" onmouseover="if(this.alt) this.style.cursor='pointer';" onclick="if(this.alt) window.open('http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/airfrogusmc024/L1028142_zpsc461e890.jpg');" border="0">
Click to expand...

It left me wanting to crop most of the image away. A tight crop, portrait orientation with the girls face to the left edge and the middle aged ogling men to the top right filling the area.

The blank space is not working for me in this image. It feels like a vacuum sucking away my interest. I understand though that it's hard to get close to people in particular cities or parts of town. I struggle with that all the time and I could not see how you could have been closer to the girl without seeming like a creepy space invader with a camera. Perhaps a longer focal length would have worked in your favor here.

Ps: I admire you for putting it out there to be critiqued.

Note in response to the topic: Two people spring to mind when I think of whom I trust to receive critique from. One is a mentor of sorts, a teacher at a photography school who taught me wet printing but who is an accomplished photographer in his own right. The critique revolves around the image in a print. That is my ultimate goal anyway so having critique and deciding on whether it should be printed and how the best image can be realized in print is IMO a great way to critique your images. The other is a friend who is an art director in his own ad agency. He's an accomplished graphic and industrial designer and sees my work from a unique perspective. Being close friends there are no reservations. He generally hates it when rubbish is passed off as art so I can be sure I'm getting an honest critique.
 
Last edited:
noisycheese said:
being a long time member of Magnum and having made a few billion street photography images himself makes it so.
Click to expand...

a quick calculus tells me that, to make a billion photographs he would need to make one photo per second, 8hrs per day non stop, every day of the year, - for 99 years.

:D

i figure you were not literally speaking
 
The trouble with internet 'critiques' it seems is that they usually all appear to come laden with caveats. Often from the image-maker trying to explain the picture, its meaning and the reasoning behind everything from timing to composition but also from the critic who feels that telling you what they would have done in the same situation (despite not having been there or even knowing the situation, unless that was part of what the photographer felt they needed to type out to explain even further the motivation behind the image,) is the best way for you to learn.

I've always found critiques as part of a face to face conversation to be the best way to learn as this allows an ebb and flow of discussion and listening to develop that doesn't appear possible via the net.

Of course we take what we can get but perhaps a little more thought into how the message is read may help when making a criticism via the internet. Well done those willing to put their images up for discussion, especially after how some recent threads descended into childishness over opinions on imagery. Though isn't that the crux of creativity, to produce and let go - you can't control the perception nor enjoyment of others... let it go.

So, if it isn't obvious from all of that, my answer to the original question is; any and all of course.:)
 
FrankS said:
IMO, its not just street photography that has no rules. Any art is subjective, and the best anyone can do is to explain why they like something or not.

It is up to history and academia to determine what art works are significant.

It is up to dealers and galleries to determine what art can be profitable to them.
Click to expand...

The voice of reason.
 
I thing a good guide to seeing what may or may not be good critique is bad critique is usually someone trying to push the way they see the world or they way they would do it instead of taking the piece for what it is. 5 great photographers shooting the same thing should have 5 different interpretations. Not the same.

Also vague critique like it is boring or I just don't like it also is something to not take to seriously.

Anyone can like and dislike whatever but to see something that you may not like and still see it as important or good and vise versa something you like but know is not good. I am not a huge fan of Witkins work but I see why it is important and can judge it putting aside that.
 
Paolo Bonello said:
I had written something here about this image but I deleted it. I do enough self critique anyway so lets hear it.


U42986I1424765583.SEQ.0.jpg
Click to expand...

Paulo, I find some humor here and I like the balance of the two men but the background is so busy and with the exception of the look after yourself better wording it doesn't seem to relate much to the foreground and those bright rectangles of light upper right just seem to grab my attention.

I do find the question raised about is the guy looking at the car the owner interesting? Or maybe a stare down LoL....

I would love to read your words on it.
 
Exposing intentionally something to everyone means something like expecting criticizing by everyone. Else, if this is not desired, one should aim for a specific audience of perhaps certain taste, skills, and whatever else.
 
agree with Nikos. Also, if you have doubt on who has "authority" to criticize your work, well request it only from those then, and not from random folks over the Net.
ps: this is not necessarily intended to the OP of course
 
I think it is good to get feedback from as many as you can. Then it becomes crucial who you listen to as I said in # 107.

Frank is here and a great source. I would surely take his words to heart.
 
Somehow i find a strange double standard or, at least contradiction, in the 'art' world regarding entitlement to giving criticism (and about teaching the same).

On one side, it is kinda well-accepted that if you are a well-known, well-established, well-respected, good photographer your criticism is welcome and worthy, you do know what you are talking about, and if you are a nobody or somebody who obviously has no special photography talent nor reputation, your criticism to others' work is of a lesser value. I could even accept this reasoning.

Now on the other hand, we all seem to be up to criticising a movie or music, and acccepting written reviews of these, while how many of us (or even of the famous critics whos writing we acknowledge as valid) ever made (even a crappy) movie or produced anything musical that doesn't hurt the ears? Raaaarely..

How do you explain this discrepancy?
 
airfrogusmc said:
I think it is good to get feedback from as many as you can. Then it becomes crucial who you listen to as I said in # 107.
Click to expand...

I might be biased by the review process I usually follow(ed) in science instead of art. There it's not important (well, at least not for reviewing single publications - for a body of work reputation is of course still important ) who it is who says something, it's more important WHAT the person says and whether it is scientifically sound and well founded, or it is rubbish in which case it (the review) will be mocked disregarded and wiped off the Earth :D
that's helped a lot by keeping peer reviewers anonymous to the author; because scientists are also humans, with pride and prejudice.
 
none of the photos in this thread interests me.
that's my criticism, and i'm sticking with it: interest, or lack of it, on a personal level.
anyone can offer such a view, and be equally valid ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top